Warning Shots May Soon Be Allowed

[JayBird]

People who fire a warning shot instead of shooting someone would not be charged with aggravated assault and go to prison under legislation moving quickly though the state Legislature.

Supporters say the change is needed because some prosecutors don't understand the "stand your ground" legislation.

From WJXT4: http://www.news4jax.com/warning-shot-bill-moves-through-fla-legislature/-/475982/24585522/-/bsq85az/-/index.html

Two things:
1. If prosecutors do not understand Stand Your Ground, how is anyone else suppose to?
2. Is this really just an attempt to stifle SYG revocation talks while not actually addressing the issue?

As a non-carrying supporter of the 2nd amendment I can see the benefits to having such a law on the books for this type of situation ... I just feel it's more smoke and mirrors instead of actually dealing with the gun control issue.

[carpnter]

As a gun owner I am not a fan of this.  I have always believed that if you draw your gun, you'd best be prepared to shoot the person you are aiming it at and you'd better be sure that it is justified.  I can see this adding the risk of some bystander getting hit because someone was trying to "warn" someone who was a threat to them. 

[icarus]

I can see this adding the risk of some bystander getting hit because someone was trying to "warn" someone who was a threat to them.

+1,000  Plus, now, are we going to have an implied duty to fire a warning shot?  Awesome, lets just do away with concealed carry laws and we can all strap them on our hip.

[BridgeTroll]

I can see this adding the risk of some bystander getting hit because someone was trying to "warn" someone who was a threat to them.

+1,000  Plus, now, what are we going to have an implied duty to fire a warning shot?  Awesome, lets just do away with concealed carry laws and we can all strap them on our hip.

agree 100%

[NotNow]

I can see this adding the risk of some bystander getting hit because someone was trying to "warn" someone who was a threat to them.

Agreed, a bad idea for any number of reasons.

+1,000  Plus, now, what are we going to have an implied duty to fire a warning shot?  Awesome, lets just do away with concealed carry laws and we can all strap them on our hip.

agree 100%

Agreed.  A bad idea for a number of reasons.

[JayBird]

That's a good point, didn't think of it that way.

I wonder if Florida became an open-carry state if that would change things

[Overstreet]

Be polite. Most of these incidents include some rude behavior or words preceeding the shoot.

Warning shots are likely to be percieved wrongly by others.  I might not be in the incident at all untill a mis-aimed warning shot comes my way. But then I would be "attacked" and my spidey senses would then be arroused. The "warner" may recieve return fire from a not previously involved person.

[Ernest Street]

Warning shot aimed where?  Into the ground? Past their face?..in the air?
What lead goes up..must come down. Deal with a crazy Thug and get shot back seconds after your warning..This opens up a whole new can of worms...

[strider]

Somehow I have always perceived a gun pointed at me as a "warning".  You don't need to do a warning shot, I already have your intent figured out. 

A drawn gun is also a threat that must be addressed in some way, whether by compliance, removing one self from the threat or eliminating the threat comes down to the situation and the moment.

In any case, sad that prosecutors do not understand the concept behind stand your ground. It is pretty obvious that it is the last one standing wins or so it has been so far.

[NotNow]

I haven't noted any cases of prosecutors "misunderstanding" the law.  It seems to me that the media and many in the public don't seem to understand it based on what I have read.  Or (more likely IMHO) they simply misrepresent it because they are opposed to the concept of citizens having the right to defend themselves with firearms.

[JayBird]

I haven't noted any cases of prosecutors "misunderstanding" the law.  It seems to me that the media and many in the public don't seem to understand it based on what I have read.  Or (more likely IMHO) they simply misrepresent it because they are opposed to the concept of citizens having the right to defend themselves with firearms.

This is a good point that has been brought up before. The entire state would fair much better and use funds more wisely by actually having a public awareness campaign about what Stand Your Ground does and doesn't mean. Even reading multiple press reports of actual SYG cases is confusing. And most of the time in discussions about SYG I find myself arguing the facts the media presented, not the actual facts of the case.

[NotNow]

I haven't noted any cases of prosecutors "misunderstanding" the law.  It seems to me that the media and many in the public don't seem to understand it based on what I have read.  Or (more likely IMHO) they simply misrepresent it because they are opposed to the concept of citizens having the right to defend themselves with firearms.

Are you sure it isnt because of the flouride in the water?  What a nutty explanation.

Another reasoned, well thought out argument based on facts by the left.  Thanks StephenDare!.

[I-10east]

^^^Yall two should go on that CNN debating show 'Crossfire' LOL

[I-10east]

^^^I don't agree with Notnow all of the time (or anyone for that matter) but IMO he makes alot of objective unbiased opinions which I'm okay with; To me, his commentary doesn't sound like a facsimile of the Drudge Report, although yours sound verbatim from the Huffington Post.

[icarus]

Ive always found the resulting word sausages you  produce to be quite indigestible.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I totally plan on using the quote above. ;-)