Firing a warning shot now legal in FL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuk9WT4HN6c&list=UUpPGJXgbwBmkIp291W0PCMw

Also, it bars schools from punishing children who say bang bang or shape their snacks into guns.

Stupidest law ever ...... That weapon should never be fired except to make an incapacitating hit on another human being or for practice. That "warning " shot has to land somewhere.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Stupidest law ever ...... That weapon should never be fired except to make an incapacitating hit on another human being or for practice. That "warning " shot has to land somewhere.

So you think it's ok to imprision someone for firing a warning shot on Thier property but let someone go because they just shot em down?

Because that's what this is about

I have shot a warning shot with my shotgun when people have been wrongfully trespassing and hunting on my property. The trespassers left and complained to the police who called me and started bitching me out for discharging a weapon. I told the officer to pound on sand. I have a complete right to discharge a weapon on my property, and by doing so I made the hunters aware I was there for safety reasons, and then he challenged me to property ownership where these trespassers were. I faxed him deeds and he called me back and apologized. We are living in a police state where citizens have the tail wagging the dog. It is time to take our country back. It is also time for legislators to quit writing laws. The statue book thirty years ago was half the size of today......the problem requires reduction of the criminal justice system.

2seaoat wrote:I have shot a warning shot with my shotgun when people have been wrongfully trespassing and hunting on my property. The trespassers left and complained to the police who called me and started bitching me out for discharging a weapon. I told the officer to pound on sand. I have a complete right to discharge a weapon on my property, and by doing so I made the hunters aware I was there for safety reasons, and then he challenged me to property ownership where these trespassers were. I faxed him deeds and he called me back and apologized. We are living in a police state where citizens have the tail wagging the dog. It is time to take our country back. It is also time for legislators to quit writing laws. The statue book thirty years ago was half the size of today......the problem requires reduction of the criminal justice system.

Good post... except that it should apply to govt in every way. There are simple truths... like polluting or endangerment.

The govt should be a simple arbiter... it wouldn't be so easy to corrupt if it weren't so large and complex.

by Ti Today at 9:57 am
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
“
Stupidest law ever ...... That weapon should never be fired except to make an incapacitating hit on another human being or for practice. That "warning " shot has to land somewhere.
”
So you think it's ok to imprision someone for firing a warning shot on Thier property but let someone go because they just shot em down?

Because that's what this is about
-------
Sorry, but where is that warning shot going ? In the dirt to possibly ricochet or up in the air where it will obviously hit someone else? Where so you fire a warning shot in an apartment building ? Through the walls? In the ceiling ? Sorry, but warning shots are going to hurt more folks than they help scare off.

2seaoat wrote:I have shot a warning shot with my shotgun when people have been wrongfully trespassing and hunting on my property.  The trespassers left and complained to the police who called me and started bitching me out for discharging a weapon.  I told the officer to pound on sand.  I have a complete right to discharge a weapon on my property, and by doing so I made the hunters aware I was there for safety reasons, and then he challenged me to property ownership where these trespassers were.   I faxed him deeds and he called me back and apologized.   We are living in a police state where citizens have the tail wagging the dog.  It is time to take our country back.   It is also time for legislators to quit writing laws.   The statue book thirty years ago was half the size of today......the problem requires reduction of the criminal justice system.

Damn you do have a spine ..Kudos...now if you could just see past Obama being black and judge him by his "accomplishments"...

It has not been easy for a Republican to defend President Obama when he is right, but I have no use for racism and the chit which goes with it, and I sure do not take chit from government. It is so funny to hear PK arguing the abstract, when I have a track record of getting in governments face when they try to step on people, and him calling me comrade. I like to see government sweat when you challenge them, and the arrogance of public officials needs a constant prick in their inflated balloon world.....and I have the prick part down pat.

2seaoat wrote:It has not been easy for a Republican to defend President Obama when he is right, but I have no use for racism and the chit which goes with it, and I sure do not take chit from government.  It is so funny to hear PK arguing the abstract, when I have a track record of getting in governments face when they try to step on people, and him calling me comrade.  I like to see government sweat when you challenge them, and the arrogance of public officials needs a constant prick in their inflated balloon world.....and I have the prick part down pat.

There is nothing that you stand for that I have ever seen that is remotely republican.

I have to give you props for saying we live in a police state and we make too many laws. unfortunately I feel you are paying lip service because in the same day every day you advocate for more laws and its obvious as to who enforces laws.

PD. I understand your concern about a warming shot, but for the life of me I cant find it in my conscious to say a person firing a warning shot should be in jail over a person who just shot someone dead. You know sometimes you can fire at someone and miss. We are not all military trained sharp shooters. So its dangerous to shoot a gun be it a warning or at hopes of killing someone. That's just my opinion.

2seaoat wrote:It has not been easy for a Republican to defend President Obama when he is right, but I have no use for racism and the chit which goes with it, and I sure do not take chit from government.  It is so funny to hear PK arguing the abstract, when I have a track record of getting in governments face when they try to step on people, and him calling me comrade.  I like to see government sweat when you challenge them, and the arrogance of public officials needs a constant prick in their inflated balloon world.....and I have the prick part down pat.

Disagreeing with Obama because his policies SUCK isn't racism.

Ti wrote:

2seaoat wrote:It has not been easy for a Republican to defend President Obama when he is right, but I have no use for racism and the chit which goes with it, and I sure do not take chit from government.  It is so funny to hear PK arguing the abstract, when I have a track record of getting in governments face when they try to step on people, and him calling me comrade.  I like to see government sweat when you challenge them, and the arrogance of public officials needs a constant prick in their inflated balloon world.....and I have the prick part down pat.

There is nothing that you stand for that I have ever seen that is remotely republican.

I have to give you props for saying we live in a police state and we make too many laws. unfortunately I feel you are paying lip service because in the same day every day you advocate for more laws and its obvious as to who enforces laws.

PD. I understand your concern about a warming shot, but for the life of me I cant find it in my conscious to say a person firing a warning shot should be in jail over a person who just shot someone dead. You know sometimes you can fire at someone and miss. We are not all military trained sharp shooters. So its dangerous to shoot a gun be it a warning or at hopes of killing someone. That's just my opinion.

What are the rules to concealed carry? You can't just unholster anywhere you like with that law. It's a felony to do so.

Want innocent victims? Warning shots aren't going to hit the intended target, and that is the purpose, of pulling the trigger to begin with.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Ti wrote:

2seaoat wrote:It has not been easy for a Republican to defend President Obama when he is right, but I have no use for racism and the chit which goes with it, and I sure do not take chit from government.  It is so funny to hear PK arguing the abstract, when I have a track record of getting in governments face when they try to step on people, and him calling me comrade.  I like to see government sweat when you challenge them, and the arrogance of public officials needs a constant prick in their inflated balloon world.....and I have the prick part down pat.

There is nothing that you stand for that I have ever seen that is remotely republican.

I have to give you props for saying we live in a police state and we make too many laws. unfortunately I feel you are paying lip service because in the same day every day you advocate for more laws and its obvious as to who enforces laws.

PD. I understand your concern about a warming shot, but for the life of me I cant find it in my conscious to say a person firing a warning shot should be in jail over a person who just shot someone dead. You know sometimes you can fire at someone and miss. We are not all military trained sharp shooters. So its dangerous to shoot a gun be it a warning or at hopes of killing someone. That's just my opinion.

What are the rules to concealed carry? You can't just unholster anywhere you like with that law. It's a felony to do so.

Want innocent victims? Warning shots aren't going to hit the intended target, and that is the purpose, of pulling the trigger to begin with.

I don't know the rules of concealed carry. I keep a gun in my home and when I go for trips, camping etc I carry it in my trunk or glove box.

I understand what your saying, my daddy always told me to never fire a gun at someone unless you intend to kill him, or they will come back and kill you if they don't do it then. But my problem is I cant agree to let someone stay in jail for firing a warning shot instead of shooting the person. Some people do not have it in them to kill another person, even when faced with imminent danger. So maybe they take aimed at the floor and shoot in hopes the person will flee, which is what occurred in the case that has started this debate.

Marissa Alexander, 33, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a shot during a dispute with her allegedly abusive husband.

Alexander's lawyers attempted to claim self-defense and that it was a warning shot, but the jury found Alexander guilty and she was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Florida's current sentencing rules.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-extends-stand-ground-include-warning-shots/story?id=24244906

I don't think this woman should be in prison. I think this law is going to help her.

Nothing wrong with a warning shot. Shotgun pellets or bullets can do no lasting damage to a person when falling from straight up in the air and if a person shoots a warning shot with a horizontal trajectory and hits someone then they should go to jail for negligence. From what I have gathered, the warning shot bill had two solutions. One was to get justice for cases like chrissy cited and the other was to further stop cases where folks are arrested for brandishing.

by Gunz Today at 7:32 am
Nothing wrong with a warning shot. Shotgun pellets or bullets can do no lasting damage to a person when falling from straight up in the air and if a person shoots a warning shot with a horizontal trajectory and hits someone then they should go to jail for negligence.

------
How will it be deemed negligent when it is a behavior that the law says is legal? In urban areas there will be issues with this and given the current economic situation,
More people are piling back in to urban areas due to the cost of transportation etc. you can't tell me this won't be problematic in patio home subdivisions and apartment complexes.

Pace you need to actually read the law. They define a warning shot as a shot that doesnt hit someone. If you hit someone while firing a warning shot the law opens up to many other possibilities including negligent manslaughter.

Ive thought about this and I understand where PD is coming from. It seems he is worry now that every body is going to be firing warning shots. I think like gunz says that if that does happen and a unrelated injury happens then we will see action taken against that person. It'll probably take that occurring for people to get it clear in their heads that you just cant go around firing warning shots.

But the point being that it is not fair to put someone in prison for firing a warning shot instead of killing their perp. when if you kill them you get off scott free. having the law like that actually encourages just killing them instead of warning them. which personally I have no issue with. unless like the woman in this story I knew them and really didn't want to kill them but feared for my life.< this happens more often to women than men.

I highly doubt I'd fire a warning shot... it would take a strange set of circumstances. But I guess shooting someone would too.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/new-york-empire-state/index.html

Yeah it should be left to the PROs..LOL.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the bystanders were not hit directly by police, but rather the officers' struck "flowerpots and other objects around, so ... their bullets fragmented and, in essence, that's what caused the wounds."

Earlier Friday, Bloomberg told reporters that some of the wounded may have been inadvertently hit in the crossfire or by ricocheting bullets.

Senario

Guy breaks in my house and attacks me I manage to get my him and shoot at him and miss , he runs

Should I go up jail because I missed?

Ti wrote:Senario

Guy breaks in my house and attacks me I manage to get my him and shoot at him and miss , he runs

Should I go up jail because I missed?

 
You would not because Florida's stand your ground law and castle doctrine allow you to defend yourself against all threats.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Ti wrote:Senario

Guy breaks in my house and attacks me I manage to get my him and shoot at him and miss , he runs

Should I go up jail because I missed?

 
You would not because Florida's stand your ground law and castle doctrine allow you to defend yourself against all threats.

why is that lady in jail for firing a warning shot then?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-woman-who-fired-warning-shot-could-get-60-years/

Are you saying she would have been better off just killing the dude?

Ti wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Ti wrote:Senario

Guy breaks in my house and attacks me I manage to get my him and shoot at him and miss , he runs

Should I go up jail because I missed?

 
You would not because Florida's stand your ground law and castle doctrine allow you to defend yourself against all threats.

why is that lady in jail for firing a warning shot then?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-woman-who-fired-warning-shot-could-get-60-years/

Are you saying she would have been better off just killing the dude?

60 years is ridiculous .....so is 20 years. She was offered a plea deal and she refused it. She went into the garage, got her gun and went back into the home. The shot was fired into the wall where her ex husband and his children were standing. It was his home.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Ti wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Ti wrote:Senario

Guy breaks in my house and attacks me I manage to get my him and shoot at him and miss , he runs

Should I go up jail because I missed?

 
You would not because Florida's stand your ground law and castle doctrine allow you to defend yourself against all threats.

why is that lady in jail for firing a warning shot then?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-woman-who-fired-warning-shot-could-get-60-years/

Are you saying she would have been better off just killing the dude?

60 years is ridiculous .....so is 20 years. She was offered a plea deal and she refused it. She went into the garage, got her gun and went back into the home. The shot was fired into the wall where her ex husband and his children were standing. It was his home.

this is what I read.

Alexander said she fired the warning shot a few days after giving birth. Her estranged husband, Rico Gray, accused her of having an affair and questioned whether the baby was his. She says she locked herself in the bathroom until he broke through the door and shoved her to the floor. She ran into the garage, found a gun in a car and fired a "warning shot" after he said he would kill her.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-woman-who-fired-warning-shot-could-get-60-years/


Ill admit I have not followed this story very close. But I do understand they have pretty much amended the stand your ground law based on this incident as a example.

Ti wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Ti wrote:Senario

Guy breaks in my house and attacks me I manage to get my him and shoot at him and miss , he runs

Should I go up jail because I missed?

 
You would not because Florida's stand your ground law and castle doctrine allow you to defend yourself against all threats.

why is that lady in jail for firing a warning shot then?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-woman-who-fired-warning-shot-could-get-60-years/

Are you saying she would have been better off just killing the dude?

 
Obviously she was reckless with her use of the firearm. You left this part out:
 
A 33-year-old Florida woman facing a retrial for firing a gun in the direction of her estranged husband and two of his children during a domestic dispute could get up to 60 years in prison - which is three times the sentence that was thrown out by an appeals court.
 
Why would she need to fire a warning shot IN THE DIRECTION of the KIDS? Hmm. And a warning shot is NOT in the direction of the person intended to be hit. That chick ain't that good of a shot to make warning shots NEAR the intended person. Either cap the person or put your gun away. When I have done training and in the local area CC permit classes, you only draw your weapon to make a shot, not to brandish to scare and you pull the trigger aiming for center mass....not to scare, but to take down.

More on this story that I saw on FB.
 
A giddy media is reporting that Governor Rick Scott’s decision to sign Florida’s so-called “warning shot” law will result in Marissa Alexander going free.
 
 
Thirty-three-year-old Marissa Alexander of Florida is “grateful” that she will likely not have to serve 20 years in prison after reportedly firing a warning shot at her allegedly abusive husband, whom she thought was about to attack her.
 
Alexander stood trial for firing a warning shot against her husband on Aug. 1, 2010.
 
…
Florida Governor Rick Scott signed new guidelines into law Friday, inspired by Alexander’s case, ABC News reported. The law allows Floridia [sic] residents who threaten to use a gun or who fire a warning shot to protect themselves the chance to avoid criminal prosecution.
 
“We are of course grateful for the governor’s actions,” read a statement from Alexander’s legal team.
 
ABC News couldn’t be further from the truth, as we explained in April. The law does not justify warning shots, and instead denies justification to any “warning shot” that “poses a threat to public safety,” which essentially all of them except in very rare cases, and certainly doesn’t excuse the shot Alexander fired in the direction of two small children.
 
What the new law actually does is correct an oversight in existing self-defense law in Florida.
 
Under the pre-existing law, if you pulled a gun in self-defense and shot at someone attacking you, you were legally protected. Due to an oversight in the law, however, if you pulled a gun but held fire because the threat saw the weapon and then halted their attack, you could be charged with aggravated assault. This new law corrects that flaw, and allows citizens to use the threat of force as well as the actual use of force to stop an attack. This is a very good thing, as the mere display of a firearm typically ends most conflicted before shots need to be fired.
 
Now, let’s go back to the specific criminal act in question, Marissa Alexander’s attempt to shoot Rico Gray.

While Alexander’s case inspired the law, she doesn’t benefit from it in the slightest, as her case was not remotely one of legitimate self-defense.

After getting in a fight with Rico Gray, Alexander left his home, went into the garage where her car was parked, and retrieved her handgun. At this point, she chose to  reenter the home, and gave up her right to claim self-defense.

Once Alexander reentered the home, she pointed the gun at Gray and his children and fired a shot that entered the wall behind Gray’s head, head high.

The bullet Marissa Alexander fired wasn't a warning shot. It was a killing shot that missed.
The bullet Marissa Alexander fired (hole, centered above) wasn’t a warning. It was a head-high shot at Rico Gray that missed.

Nothing in this law can be misconstrued to justify Alexander’s attempted killing of Gray, which was clearly not self-defense under the castle doctrine nor stand your ground laws.

The media have long attempted to excuse and cover up Alexander’s actions—which includes her violation of a judge’s order to stay away from Gray and a second assault on him by Alexander—in order to dishonestly portray her as a sympathetic victim.

Marissa Alexander isn’t a victim and never has been. This new law does nothing to change that fact.

http://bearingarms.com/think-floridas-new-warning-shot-law-will-free-marissa-alexander-youre-dead-wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate