QuotePeople 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 (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.
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.
Quote from: carpnter on February 21, 2014, 12:10:25 PM
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.
Quote from: icarus on February 21, 2014, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: carpnter on February 21, 2014, 12:10:25 PM
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%
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 21, 2014, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: icarus on February 21, 2014, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: carpnter on February 21, 2014, 12:10:25 PM
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
Quote from: NotNow on February 22, 2014, 02:21:45 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 22, 2014, 08:54:47 PM
Quote from: NotNow on February 22, 2014, 02:21:45 PM
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!.
^^^Yall two should go on that CNN debating show 'Crossfire' LOL
^^^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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2014, 12:02:30 AM
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. ;-)
Who would've thought that a cordial jokey post (on top) could have went wrong; Only one person, only one...
Quote from: stephendare on February 23, 2014, 12:02:30 AM
Quote from: I-10east on February 22, 2014, 11:55:52 PM
^^^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.
As you already know, what you think of things is really a matter of great indifference to me.
Whenever you post, I can't help hearing wheels squeakily grinding into motion, one precariously chosen syllable at a time.
Ive always found the resulting word sausages you produce to be quite indigestible.
But to each his own, I suppose.
I just spit coffee all over my ipad, that's priceless Stephen.
Quote from: stephendare on February 22, 2014, 11:13:08 PM
Quote from: NotNow on February 22, 2014, 09:22:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 22, 2014, 08:54:47 PM
Quote from: NotNow on February 22, 2014, 02:21:45 PM
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!.
you just keep getting further and further out there don't you? Im a secret black muslim/new black panther party member and the 'media' is 'opposed to people defending themselves with firearms' and willing to deliberately lie about the legal facts as explained by attorneys.
The hits just keep coming, don't they?
Actually, it is you who keeps getting "further and further out there". I simply asked if you would change your endorsement of Mr. Mohammed's public speech's to a condemnation now that you have been told of the vicious racism that he adheres to.
As to whether the main stream media is anti second amendment or not...I'll leave that to the readers.
I am slightly amused that
StephenDare! has managed to call
me nutty and stupid all in the same thread.
So, where does this "Warning Shot" land? Looking out my window is see lots of houses, cars, people outside – that warning shot has come down somewhere.
This kind of legislation is the typical, "shoot an arrow into a tree – then draw a target around it." The problem in these cases is more the mandatory sentencing guidelines that do not allow Judges discretion in dealing with the nuances of different cases and the subjects involved. So, not too sure about how this law makes Florida safer, or how it solves the problem of "one size fits all" sentencing guidelines. I am going to have to say this "Warning Shot" bill is asking for more trouble.