(Ammoland.com)- Florida state legislators are a step closer to expanding their Stand Your Ground law to include the ability to legally fire a warning shot.
The expansion being considered “would grant the same protections already in place under Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law to people who only threaten to use force.”
According to Fox News, a state Senate committee “voted in favor of the bill (SB 488) on [January 8] and a house committee has… voted in favor of similar legislation (HB 89),” as well.
If the expansion takes place, law-abiding citizens who fire a warning shot “would be immune from Florida’s ’10-20-Life’ law, which requires anyone who shows a gun while committing certain felonies…be sentenced to 10 years in prison.” If someone is wounded, the “10-20-Life” law requires a sentence of 25 years to life.
The push to expand the “Stand Your Ground” law is partially due to the plight of Marissa Alexander, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a warning shot during an argument with her estranged husband.
Her sentence was “thrown out by an appeals court,” and a new trial scheduled for this year.
In pressing for the expansion to include warning shots, state Senator Greg Evers (R-Baker) said the legislature is not going to put up with law-abiding Floridians being punished if they “brandish weapons, [and] even fire warning shots, to ward off would-be assailants.”
Mikeb, surely you can see how this is a reaction to the efforts of gun control advocates who push to deny gun rights and the right of self-defense. The more demands your side makes, the farther most states are going to go in the direction of gun rights.
ReplyDeleteNo, Greg, I don't see this as a reaction to gun control efforts. I see this as the incremental increasing of gun rights which, as in cases like this, often goes into the absurd realm. Even thinking gun-rights advocates oppose warning shots. You probably have done so in the past, but now you're in contentious phase and argue with me on anything I post.
DeleteTell us, if you will, about the merits of firing warning shots.
Mikeb, I didn't say that I support warning shots. I was stating a reality of human nature. Why must you twist my words into something else?
DeleteThere may be times when firing a warning shot makes sense and can be done safely. In general, they're a bad idea.
Just as it is a bad idea to listen to anything the ass hole lying criminal coward has to say.
DeleteThere may be times? Why don't you elaborate on that.
DeleteHypothetically speaking, a warning shot--when it's safe to fire one--could be used to drive off a pack of dogs or could be used to give a chance to back down to someone that you don't want to injure. But the general rule is that if you have to fire, you fire to stop an attack.
DeleteFunny how most police are instructed in something the criminal lying coward says is no use.
DeleteGreg, the general rule is the only rule. Why don't you just admit it? You never fire your gun, ever, unless you're defending yourself from death or serious harm.
DeleteMikeB: “You never fire your gun, ever, unless you're defending yourself from death or serious harm.”
DeleteAdding to what Greg said, and I’ve touched on this before, I can see some limited cases where a warning shot is tactically correct. Animals is a good example. Mike, you said defended yourself, but I what about defending others? I recall you posting a case of a girl who was being attacked by a mob in the street, and the parent ran out with a gun and fired a warning shot. You certainly wouldn’t want to fire into a crowd that contains your daughter, and yelling “Excuse me! Excuse me! I have a gun” from across the street may not get anyone’s attention to achieve the immediate halting of the attack as desired. Of course, you still have to be very careful where that shot goes, and take responsibility if it does damage. Protecting your home and family during a riot may be another example.
I needn’t remind you that I am speaking of very limited circumstances (I’m looking your way Kev-a-ma-jimmer-salleve). I can just see all the posts of “thanks for proving that you think its ok to fire off your gun whenever you want in public you lying criminal ass hole”…
"very limited circumstances," to say the least. So limited in fact that we can discount them entirely. In our discussions, warning shots are the thing of Hollywood and have no place in proper gun management.
DeleteNo, Mikeb, we can't discount them entirely. The world is not a simple place. In addition, I find that TS has a perceptive judgement of things and gives good analysis. If you won't listen to me, at least you should listen to him.
Delete"Very limited" means that when it was a good shoot, you don't throw the cuffs on them. You say to book them anyway, because most warning shots are a bad idea?
DeleteTS has a very good perspective? Sure, he agrees with you that revenge is justice, or it's OK to beat people up. Criminal thinking. And criminals stick together and back up each others lies and criminal behavior.
DeleteThis must be racism. Somehow.
ReplyDeleteHow stupid.
DeleteI happen to personally believe that warning shots are almost always a bad idea tactically. You have the potential to greatly muddy the waters because you equate shooting a firearm possibly before you would be legally authorized to use deadly force against a person.
ReplyDeleteThen, from a safety standpoint, that bullet has to go somewhere. For example, allowing a warning shot prior to there being legally allowed to use deadly force opens up the potential for someone to be shot, but the defendant claiming that the fatal bullet was a misdirected warning shot.
I just came across an article suggesting that the "warning shot" fired by Marissa Alexander might have just been a botched attempt at murder.
"The claim of the “warning shot” is, of course, part of the misinformation narrative intended to minimize the seriousness of Alexander’s conduct deadly-force aggression towards an estranged husband (who, at worst, had in the past threatened her with merely non-deadly force) as well as towards her own two step-children.
In fact, the evidence as recounted by the trial court and uncontested by the defense shows that the bullet “nearly [narrowly] missed [her husband's] head” while he stood with his hands in"
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/the-myth-of-marissa-alexanders-warning-shot/
This definitely shows, Ms. Alexander in a different light if true.
Generally, a warning shot is a waste of a bullet and a chance to hurt a bystander. There aren't many cases where covering fire is justified in day-to-day life.
Delete"Covering fire?" What the hell are you talking about now?
DeleteCriminals don't give warning shots.
DeleteMikeb, covering fire (or suppressive fire) is a military term for rounds sent down range to keep the enemy's head down, rather than aimed at a specific target.
DeleteThe idiot hillbilly is talking military, not civilian.
DeleteAgain the ass hole lying criminal coward defects from the issue, as all lying scum do.
Yes, Greg, we're discussing civilian situations. You knew that, right?
DeleteMikeb, did you notice how I said that "there aren't many cases where covering fire is justified"? That exactly says that civilians don't have much use for that technique.
DeleteWord twisting won't get you away from your lying cowardly statements. In fact it only proves what a lying criminal coward you are, and thanks for that.
Delete