Warning shot

mquinn55

mquinn55

New member
Hi All,
I'm new to these forums. Just curious if anyone else is a bit wary of the new Warning Shot change to Florida's SYG law? On one level I get it but I have to ask, Where is that bullet going? You need to know your target and with this I dread what might happen if an innocent gets hurt or killed by a warning shot. The anti gunners will have a field day with that. I'll shoot if I need to but it won't be a warning.
 
Actually, with the current proficiency of the average gun owner, it is just as likely that a "missed shot" has the same chance of injuring a bystander as a warning shot into ... The air?


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
 
mquinn55 said:
Hi All,
I'm new to these forums. Just curious if anyone else is a bit wary of the new Warning Shot change to Florida's SYG law? On one level I get it but I have to ask, Where is that bullet going? You need to know your target and with this I dread what might happen if an innocent gets hurt or killed by a warning shot. The anti gunners will have a field day with that. I'll shoot if I need to but it won't be a warning.
Click to expand...

It is not a "warning shot" bill. It was a reform of FL's idiotic 10/20/Life mandatory minimum sentencing standards that were written to be able to prosecute criminals who threatened force during commission of their crimes, and ended up catching people up who were legitimately defending themselves. It was the misuses of the statute(s) that were being addressed in the bill. "Warning shots" were nothing but an ancillary side-issue because a handful (or less) of people who defended themselves by firing warning shots got prosecuted and convicted under the mandatory minimum statutes when circumstances dictated that if they had actually shot the perps, they would've been covered under the SYG law. Makes sense to me.

Unless warning shots were a big problem before that bill passed, I seriously doubt there's going to be any big uptick in warning shots now that it has passed. Hope you haven't lost any sleep worrying about the blood in the streets that the media convinced you would flow.

Blues
 
Crazy for anyone to fire a warning shots... You are responsible for the bullet. No matter where it goes!
 
mquinn55 said:
Hi All,
I'm new to these forums. Just curious if anyone else is a bit wary of the new Warning Shot change to Florida's SYG law? On one level I get it but I have to ask, Where is that bullet going? You need to know your target and with this I dread what might happen if an innocent gets hurt or killed by a warning shot. The anti gunners will have a field day with that. I'll shoot if I need to but it won't be a warning.
Click to expand...

I think that you'd best dig a bit deeper than the crap the media is serving you, there is no warning shot changes in any law in FLA
Link Removed
 
This new law makes a lot of sense as it protects the victim. However, warning shots are stupid (and so is the main stream media coverage about this law).

 
Warning shot, what rioters will get at 100 ft from the house from the .30-06 aimed at the center of mass of the rioters. ( 50ft inside a posted fence. ) Followup shots will be 30 rounds of .30 Carbine, .45ACP, or 9mm or a combination there of delivered in less than one half second intervals. No warning shots for individual attackers. Ever!

But as Blues said, the law isn't about warning shots, it is about pulling the gun in self defense and being charged by anti-gun prosecutors.
 
Gee, HERE'S a topic we've never discussed before! CAN a warning shot stop an attack? Sure. They have before, just as the sight of a gun has stopped attacks before. But depending on a warning shot to stop an attack would be just as inadvisable as depending on the sight of a gun to stop one. It's an outside chance you should never count on. It's also a significant tactical disadvantage in that it wastes one round of ammunition that you could end up very well needing. You also have to be leery of the largest danger that many people don't realize when considering warning shots. The requirements for use of a gun in self defense apply no matter how you employ it. Firing a warning shot requires danger to your life or of grievous bodily harm, just as shooting at a perpetrator does. Many people get themselves in deep hot water by firing warning shots when there is no such danger. And of course you mentioned the problem with being responsible for where that round goes, but you have to be responsible for that in all cases when you fire your gun. The small chances that a warning shot might work really don't justify the risks you would take in using it. Just look at it another way. Most people in real life self defense scenarios have participated in little or no tactical self defense training with a firearm, so their chances of a center mass hit with the first shot aren't all that high. So in a sense, that first shot is going to be just a warning shot anyway. You just aren't waiting for a reply. Does that make you feel better?
 
Hi apvbguy,
I agree that media outlets spew all types of twisted crap. However even in the article you reference it says:
"The new law allows people to threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone, to claim the “stand your ground” defense, and not be subject to the mandatory “10-20-life” sentencing."

It is this point that I think is dangerous in the risk to potential bystanders and the fact that it offers the gun grabbers additional ammo. I also agree the 10/20/life rules are misused in many cases by the anti-gunners. Arizona and other states IMHO do it right with "Defensive Display" but when the trigger is squeezed the bullet ought to be aimed at the intended target.
 
mquinn55 said:
Hi apvbguy,
I agree that media outlets spew all types of twisted crap. However even in the article you reference it says:
"The new law allows people to threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone, to claim the “stand your ground” defense, and not be subject to the mandatory “10-20-life” sentencing."

It is this point that I think is dangerous in the risk to potential bystanders and the fact that it offers the gun grabbers additional ammo.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute - so you think that firing a weapon and missing your target in an otherwise justifiable use of force should land the shooter in prison for 10 years minimum? Because that's all the part of that article that you quoted is talking about. It isn't addressing intentional warning shots, it's addressing the misuse by government (cops, prosecutors and judges) who have imposed mandatory minimums on people for just that; missing their target when the circumstances dictated that use of deadly force was otherwise justifiable.

Here's the bottom line question: Do you need your state government telling you in every conceivable set of circumstances that you will be the felon if you make a split-second decision to fire either an accidental miss or a warning shot in a situation where actually shooting and killing the assaulter would be justified?

If the answer is "No, I don't need government to tell me how to conduct my own self defense tactics," then why on Earth would you want government to impose prior restraint on any aspect of everyone else's?

Blues
 
mquinn55 said:
Hi apvbguy,
I agree that media outlets spew all types of twisted crap. However even in the article you reference it says:
"The new law allows people to threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone, to claim the “stand your ground” defense, and not be subject to the mandatory “10-20-life” sentencing."

It is this point that I think is dangerous in the risk to potential bystanders and the fact that it offers the gun grabbers additional ammo. I also agree the 10/20/life rules are misused in many cases by the anti-gunners. Arizona and other states IMHO do it right with "Defensive Display" but when the trigger is squeezed the bullet ought to be aimed at the intended target.
Click to expand...
it is because of ill informed, poor thinking people that this bill had to be implemented to augment our already good laws that are in place but being twisted by liberal prosecutors, cops and judges
 
Hi Blues,
I understand your point. And I admit to have not read the actual text of the law. It's not that big a deal to me just a topic of discussion I am interested in. However the quote from the article I reference says... 'threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone...' I read that as a 'Warning Shot." Threatening the use of deadly force with a warning shot. A miss is a different matter altogether. If you miss your target and no one gets hurt you are lucky and, (in my opinion) still within your rights of self defense.

The only point I'm making is that we're in an uphill battle with the anti-gunners already. I hope most of us will shoot wisely but I'm just looking ahead to the day (god forbid) an innocent gets killed by a warning shot because some one shot into the air or off to the side without knowing where that bullet could end up. The media will have a field day.

We do need to fight stupid laws and the misaplication of laws by our government. Hell, I live in Calif. We have a plethora of inane laws and politicians. (I'm moving as soon as I can retire.)
 
BluesStringer said:
It is not a "warning shot" bill. It was a reform of FL's idiotic 10/20/Life mandatory minimum sentencing standards that were written to be able to prosecute criminals who threatened force during commission of their crimes, and ended up catching people up who were legitimately defending themselves. It was the misuses of the statute(s) that were being addressed in the bill. "Warning shots" were nothing but an ancillary side-issue because a handful (or less) of people who defended themselves by firing warning shots got prosecuted and convicted under the mandatory minimum statutes when circumstances dictated that if they had actually shot the perps, they would've been covered under the SYG law. Makes sense to me.

Unless warning shots were a big problem before that bill passed, I seriously doubt there's going to be any big uptick in warning shots now that it has passed. Hope you haven't lost any sleep worrying about the blood in the streets that the media convinced you would flow.

Blues
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly ( I often don't) what started this reform bill rolling was a woman that was in fear of imminent threat of life from a ex coming through front door, when her daughter came home and was shot through the door. She was facing serious prison time till this was made into law then released. I'm not sure of the exact chain of events & details, but maybe someone else does.
 
mquinn55 said:
Hi Blues,
I understand your point. And I admit to have not read the actual text of the law. It's not that big a deal to me just a topic of discussion I am interested in. However the quote from the article I reference says... 'threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone...' I read that as a 'Warning Shot." Threatening the use of deadly force with a warning shot. A miss is a different matter altogether. If you miss your target and no one gets hurt you are lucky and, (in my opinion) still within your rights of self defense.

The only point I'm making is that we're in an uphill battle with the anti-gunners already. I hope most of us will shoot wisely but I'm just looking ahead to the day (god forbid) an innocent gets killed by a warning shot because some one shot into the air or off to the side without knowing where that bullet could end up. The media will have a field day.

We do need to fight stupid laws and the misaplication of laws by our government. Hell, I live in Calif. We have a plethora of inane laws and politicians. (I'm moving as soon as I can retire.)
Click to expand...

Ahh....well, I don't think I was alone in taking for granted that you were from FL and that's why you opened a discussion about that state's laws. I happen to be from CA myself. Left 22 years ago long before the tyranny you're currently living under got as bad as it is, but it was bad enough for us even then.

Now I live in North Alabama, hopefully to be S. Bama within the next few(est as possible) months, probably right on the FL state line. It's kind of a "local" story for us (with all due deference to apbvguy, S&W645 and others), but regardless, the media has misrepresented the bill with wild abandon considering that the words "warning shot" don't appear anywhere within it. Did you read the article that a former N R A President wrote that I linked for you? She encapsulated the need for the bill by saying in the second paragraph:

Warning shots are not safe. Nonetheless, when people are in fear for their lives or the lives of loved ones, they might fire a warning shot rather than shoot someone. People make mistakes and do irrational things when in fear of death or injury. That doesn't mean they should go to prison for 20 years when there was no injury or harm done.
Click to expand...

Now, she mistakenly said "20 years" where, if no one was injured by the discharge, the mandatory minimum would've been "only" 10 years, but the point is the same. It was a prior restraint, one-size-fits-all statute that simply can't fit all sets of circumstances, yet, regardless of the actual circumstances of the discharge, people were being sentenced to 10 or 20 years, or Life if the discharge was prosecuted as a "threat of force" against a cop.

The fact is, every single bullet that leaves the muzzle of every single weapon (except, of course, on a dedicated shooting range) has its own individual set of circumstances that require legal scrutiny. I personally can't envision a scenario where I would fire a warning shot, but as creative and imaginative as I consider myself to be, I know also that I can't envision every possible scenario that might arise, and I damn sure don't want (or need) my state government trying to restrain me from deciding on the spot what the best tactic for me to end an advancing threat is. Add to a state's inability to foresee every possible scenario any better than I can, that it might put me in prison for 10 or 20 years for disagreeing with their prior restrained tactical decisions, and it equals government intrusion WAY beyond what is reasonable.

Blues
 
Cumberland said:
If I remember correctly ( I often don't) what started this reform bill rolling was a woman that was in fear of imminent threat of life from a ex coming through front door, when her daughter came home and was shot through the door. She was facing serious prison time till this was made into law then released. I'm not sure of the exact chain of events & details, but maybe someone else does.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're remembering it all quite right. You're probably referring to the Marissa Alexander case. No one was shot or injured in her case. She left the house in which her husband was said (by her) to be abusing her, went to a vehicle and retrieved a gun, returned to the house and fired three shots "towards" her husband. It's a lousy case all around for justifying the need to change FL's law, because from everything I've read, she wasn't even attempting to "warn" him, she was trying to murder him after she'd already escaped the abuse. It was her own asserted defense that they were indeed warning shots that ensured she'd receive a mandatory minimum of 10 years.

Ironically, as of the last time we discussed the so-called "warning shots bill," the same Attorney General, Angela Corey, who forced a reticent local Prosecutor to go after Zimmerman, was trying to get Alexander retried (or re-sentenced) to 60 years, 20 for each shot fired. That makes her much more sympathetic to me, even though I found her asserted defense to be wholly without merit from the beginning.

Blues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 82 (members: 0, guests: 82)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top