Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We haven't had a good old-fashioned gun dust-up in OT in at least six hours, so here you go.

A committee of Florida lawmakers rejected a proposal to repeal the ''stand your ground'' self-defense law Thursday, following an hours-long hearing.

The Florida House of Representatives Criminal Justice Subcommittee held a five-hour hearing starting at 3 p.m. to vote on a bill repealing the law granting individuals [the right] to use deadly force when they believe their life is in jeopardy.

"Today, our state is a safer place and has the lowest crime rate in 42 years," Rep. Marti Coley, a Marianna Republican, said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. "Florida's 'stand your ground' law is solid. It's good and should not be changed."

The House committee also considered a separate measure at the hearing involving deadly force -- eliminating punishment for defensively displaying a weapon and firing warning shots.

The panel approved the expansion of the ''stand your ground'' immunity to people who fire a warning shot.

I wonder if this will retroactively apply to that wife who fired a warning shot rather than suffer another beating from her husband?

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I wonder if this will retroactively apply to that wife who fired a warning shot rather than suffer another beating from her husband?

That's why it was considered and adopted.

That lady's got a new trial coming up, so we'll see.

I agree, people should have the right to defend themselves from people with ill intent. If deadly force is necassary so be it..
But wait, I thought trials had to go by the law when the crime happened

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I wonder if this will retroactively apply to that wife who fired a warning shot rather than suffer another beating from her husband?

Her sentence got overturned.

In relation to Our Dakka Bingo cards, the prosecutor in this case was the same one that went after George Zimmerman. She's racking up a hell of a track record.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-overturns-20-year-sentence-woman-fired-warning/t/story?id=20387742&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Gotta be careful with the whole "warning shot" thing though. If you're on your property its no big deal, but if I was carrying in town I wouldn't do a warning shot. There's just too much risk that the bullet would go somewhere and I just wouldn't feel safe about it.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Gotta be careful with the whole "warning shot" thing though. If you're on your property its no big deal, but if I was carrying in town I wouldn't do a warning shot. There's just too much risk that the bullet would go somewhere and I just wouldn't feel safe about it.

That's going to be a fascinating test case on this expansion when it inevitably occurs.

I don't like the concept of a warning shot.
It just screams "dead innocent bystander" to me.
Don't pull a gun unless you're prepared to use it.
If you're going to use it, make sure you're aimed at your target and sure you're going to hit it.

 marv335 wrote:
I don't like the concept of a warning shot.
It just screams "dead innocent bystander" to me.
Don't pull a gun unless you're prepared to use it.
If you're going to use it, make sure you're aimed at your target and sure you're going to hit it.

Thats why I prefer all my "warning shots" to be center mass

I think they should introduce a "Stand someone else's ground" law, which allows a gun carrier to shoot people whom they think may be threatening other people who don't carry guns.

It would help reduce the number of guns that had to be carried.

Oh, goody. Everyone's favourite poorly-written law now includes indiscriminate fire. Priceless.

For some reason, thinking about Florida expanding gun laws, just put this image of a 95 year old woman brandishing a massive .44 to scare away some muggers.

It brightens my day.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Gotta be careful with the whole "warning shot" thing though. If you're on your property its no big deal, but if I was carrying in town I wouldn't do a warning shot. There's just too much risk that the bullet would go somewhere and I just wouldn't feel safe about it.

In the aforementioned case didn't the lady in question fire a warning shot in the direction of her children's bedroom?

Warning shots have always been a tricky area of the law - on the one hand I can understand not wanting to potentially kill someone unless given no option, but on the other if you can fire a warning shot then it could be argued that your life is not at risk to begin with.

But really, 'warning shot' is a dangerous course of action. Stupid move to expand the SYG to include it.

Some people just aren't ready to kill someone so that's why they do the warning shot. Sort of like why a rattle snake rattles. I agree that it's generally a bad idea but I can't put myself in other people's shoes.

Still, there needs to be an exception to SYG where you can't invoke it if you're stalking someone. You think that'd be common sense.

 Breotan wrote:

Still, there needs to be an exception to SYG where you can't invoke it if you're stalking someone. You think that'd be common sense.

I think that that's where good investigation into any incident comes into play... I mean, I wouldn't think for a minute that in Florida, if I pulled a gun out, shot someone, that during the Miranda proceedings I could say, "You can't take me, I was just Standing My Ground!"

 djones520 wrote:
For some reason, thinking about Florida expanding gun laws, just put this image of a 95 year old woman brandishing a massive .44 to scare away some muggers.

It brightens my day.

Blind people should be allowed to carry hand grenades.

Breotan wrote:Some people just aren't ready to kill someone so that's why they do the warning shot. Sort of like why a rattle snake rattles. I agree that it's generally a bad idea but I can't put myself in other people's shoes.

Still, there needs to be an exception to SYG where you can't invoke it if you're stalking someone. You think that'd be common sense.

Yeah, but if you're not able to stand the idea of using lethal force, why did you draw your weapon to begin with? Why haven't you attempted to talk the person down, called the cops, resorted to pepper spray, or any other nonlethal method? Why was your reaction to draw a gun if you didn't feel you needed to use lethal force?

Honestly, the only time I could see a warning shot being even remotely conceivable is if you live out on a wide plot of land, and shoot into the dirt so you know the bullet isn't going anywhere. And even in that case, all you've accomplished is making yourself look like an idiot who can't aim. Firing a couple of shotgun blasts into the woods with something like birdshot might be ok if you have a lot of trees between you and the next house, but who knows, you might hit the guy you're trying to scare off (and then the lawyers are going to have a field day)

On the other hand, while I would like drawing or showing your weapon as a mere deterrent to be law, there's just too much grey area in a situation like that for a law to work properly. Maybe a clause where you can say "back off, or I will use lethal force." but even that would be really tricky to make work in a legal sense.

Simply put, I like the idea behind what the laws would try and accomplish (nonlethal ways to deter someone with firearms) but they really wouldn't accomplish their intended purpose. If you're wanting a nonlethal solution to the problem, you either don't carry a gun, or you take proper training in how to deescalate a situation peacefully. Your first thought for a nonlethal resolution shouldn't be "draw your gun and scare the gak out of them."

Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
For some reason, thinking about Florida expanding gun laws, just put this image of a 95 year old woman brandishing a massive .44 to scare away some muggers.

It brightens my day.

Blind people should be allowed to carry hand grenades.

Come on Kilkrazy, you're better than that. Everyone knows the blind people would just confuse them with pineapples or something

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Honestly, the only time I could see a warning shot being even remotely conceivable is if you live out on a wide plot of land, and shoot into the dirt so you know the bullet isn't going anywhere. And even in that case, all you've accomplished is making yourself look like an idiot who can't aim. Firing a couple of shotgun blasts into the woods with something like birdshot might be ok if you have a lot of trees between you and the next house, but who knows, you might hit the guy you're trying to scare off (and then the lawyers are going to have a field day)

But Biden said it was ok

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Honestly, the only time I could see a warning shot being even remotely conceivable is if you live out on a wide plot of land, and shoot into the dirt so you know the bullet isn't going anywhere. And even in that case, all you've accomplished is making yourself look like an idiot who can't aim. Firing a couple of shotgun blasts into the woods with something like birdshot might be ok if you have a lot of trees between you and the next house, but who knows, you might hit the guy you're trying to scare off (and then the lawyers are going to have a field day)

But Biden said it was ok

Taking firearms advice from a Democrat is sort of like taking economic advice from a Republican.

Both are a bad idea

Breotan wrote:Some people just aren't ready to kill someone so that's why they do the warning shot. Sort of like why a rattle snake rattles. I agree that it's generally a bad idea but I can't put myself in other people's shoes.

Still, there needs to be an exception to SYG where you can't invoke it if you're stalking someone. You think that'd be common sense.

Nooooo-oooo-oo -it is not like when a rattlesnake rattles. A warning shot is more like when a rattlesnake indiscriminately bites something other than what is bothering it, in hopes of not needing to bite the thing that is bothering it.

Warning shots = indiscriminate fire.

 Breotan wrote:
Some people just aren't ready to kill someone so that's why they do the warning shot. Sort of like why a rattle snake rattles. I agree that it's generally a bad idea but I can't put myself in other people's shoes.

Still, there needs to be an exception to SYG where you can't invoke it if you're stalking someone. You think that'd be common sense.

I've never been in any situation as dire, but my guess is that, when facing someone stupid or dangerous enough not to be detered by having a gun pointed at his face, not taking the gun away from the target would be the right choice.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I've never been in any situation as dire, but my guess is that, when facing someone stupid or dangerous enough not to be detered by having a gun pointed at his face, not taking the gun away from the target would be the right choice.

Wait, you pulled the gun out and threatened an attacker without shooting? That there is brandishing, and it's illegal.

No wonder firearm deaths are so high in the USA, if it's illegal not to shoot people who are threatening you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No wonder firearm deaths are so high in the USA, if it's illegal not to shoot people who are threatening you.

No, the wording is you are not allowed to draw unless you are 100% certain that lethal force is necessary, aka you can't draw your weapon unless you feel there is no other option but lethal force to protect yourself. You are not allowed to draw your weapon and point it at the man's head to intimidate him into standing down, or fire a shot into the dirt to scare him, or shoot his knee to incapacitate him. If you draw your pistol, it better be because you tried everything in your power to resolve the situation in a peaceful way, or the guy was just crazy and running at you with a knife leaving you no other choice.

Its not a law that says "if someone pulls a knife, you must shoot them", its a law that says "if you drew your weapon, you better have a damn good reason." Its an attempt to prevent people from seeing their firearm as the first solution in a potential confrontation, and instead try other options, like trying to calm down the assailant before he attacks, just tossing a mugger your wallet instead of fighting over it, pepper spray, etc. The firearm (or any other type of lethal force) should be the last resort, when everything else you tried failed and the assailant is deadset on harming you or your loved ones.

Not every state has SYG, and many have different versions or have the law under a different name. Some don't even have it period. Others have what would be considered the exact opposite, the "duty to retreat". Its pretty much what it sounds like. I'm not as familiar with it though, maybe someone else more familiar with it could it explain it better.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Others have what would be considered the exact opposite, the "duty to retreat". Its pretty much what it sounds like. I'm not as familiar with it though, maybe someone else more familiar with it could it explain it better.

The way I'd explain it is, "If an eighteen year-old male linebacker who practices parkour in his free time has at least a 50% shot at getting away in your current situation, then you can't defend yourself from an attack."

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Not every state has SYG, and many have different versions or have the law under a different name. Some don't even have it period. Others have what would be considered the exact opposite, the "duty to retreat". Its pretty much what it sounds like. I'm not as familiar with it though, maybe someone else more familiar with it could it explain it better.

It means "if you can reasonably get away, you must try that instead of employing deadly force".

There are variations to that; such as a Castle Doctrine, which allow for places where you do not have to attempt to retreat, usually your house or car.*

Of course, in my opinion when in doubt as to whether or not you should employ lethal force if you or another's life is in imminent danger, the best rule to follow remains "better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6".

Also, the law does not require that if you draw a weapon, you must then employ lethal force. If you pull a weapon unlawfully there are already plenty of avenues for prosecution - brandishing, etc - if they need to prosecute.


*Note that I am trying to clarify this for KK and other non-Americans, not you, MrMoustaffa, who obviously already understand this.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Not every state has SYG, and many have different versions or have the law under a different name. Some don't even have it period. Others have what would be considered the exact opposite, the "duty to retreat". Its pretty much what it sounds like. I'm not as familiar with it though, maybe someone else more familiar with it could it explain it better.

It means "if you can reasonably get away, you must try that instead of employing deadly force".

There are variations to that; such as a Castle Doctrine, which allow for places where you do not have to attempt to retreat, usually your house or car.*

Of course, in my opinion when in doubt as to whether or not you should employ lethal force if you or another's life is in imminent danger, the best rule to follow remains "better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6".

Also, the law does not require that if you draw a weapon, you must then employ lethal force. If you pull a weapon unlawfully there are already plenty of avenues for prosecution - brandishing, etc - if they need to prosecute.


*Note that I am trying to clarify this for KK and other non-Americans, not you, MrMoustaffa, who obviously already understand this.

EDIT: I am an idiot and cannot read.

Thanks for the clarification on the "duty to retreat". I'd heard a lot of different things about it, not many of them were good.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Not every state has SYG, and many have different versions or have the law under a different name. Some don't even have it period. Others have what would be considered the exact opposite, the "duty to retreat". Its pretty much what it sounds like. I'm not as familiar with it though, maybe someone else more familiar with it could it explain it better.

It means "if you can reasonably get away, you must try that instead of employing deadly force".

There are variations to that; such as a Castle Doctrine, which allow for places where you do not have to attempt to retreat, usually your house or car.*

Of course, in my opinion when in doubt as to whether or not you should employ lethal force if you or another's life is in imminent danger, the best rule to follow remains "better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6".

Also, the law does not require that if you draw a weapon, you must then employ lethal force. If you pull a weapon unlawfully there are already plenty of avenues for prosecution - brandishing, etc - if they need to prosecute.


*Note that I am trying to clarify this for KK and other non-Americans, not you, MrMoustaffa, who obviously already understand this.

Amusingly, in Florida you would be judged by 6.

I personally do not hold with "duty to retreat", generally, but every situation is different.

I hope you guys are remembering that the US is a really big place with a lot of wide open, rural areas where local law enforcement is not always a given. In NYC, you can expect the police to arrive within 4 minutes, but in Iowa (as one example), in the semi-rural area in which I live with no local law enforcement, I've had to call 911 twice (in an emergency situation), and in both situations the county sheriff took approximately 30 minutes to arrive. I could not imagine living in someplace like Detroit, for example, without being armed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Amusingly, in Florida you would be judged by 6.

Or in some cases even one. I know this is offtopic but as a quick aside. Michael Skakel is up for a new trial and I was refreshing myself on the case. Did you know that when the case was totally cold, when the finally indicted him, it was done so with a one-person grand jury? I've never heard of such a thing.