No, Florida, bad! Legalizing warning shots is a stupid idea.

[Benanov]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_self-defense-law-senate-panel-fire-warning

So because one woman got caught up in 10/20/Life rule (and I'm not convinced that case was as cut-and-dried as the MSM likes to present) you have to amend the SYG laws to allow for negligent discharges?

BAD FLORIDA. BAD. Did I wake up in bizarro world today? THIS IS NOT HOLLYWOOD. THIS IS STUPID. (Not shown: me kicking something into a pit.)

*Missing* is acceptable. Deliberately missing is another word for negligent discharge and breaks rule #4.

If you're firing a warning shot, what are you aiming at? I forsee some stupidity that happens 6mo after this has passed - some bystander gets hit by an ND and the shooter goes "well I wasn't tryin' ta hit nobody" but failed miserably and now the legislature has to explain why it was legal that some 6-year-old girl was killed.

More political grandstanding and reactionary crap to follow...

 

[Benanov]

As an aside: I'm a little more comfortable with the allowal of brandishing, but I haven't thought that through enough to be sure.

 

[Brooklyn]

Acording to the article linked the bill does no such thing..

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Here's the bill: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0448/BillText/__/PDF

 

[alucard0822]

Because admitting zero tolerance and mandatory sentence laws are stupid, unconstitutional, and should be repealed would mean the terrorists win The bill says nothing about warning shots, basically replacing "use of force" with "use or threatening use of force" in the FL self defense statutes.

 

[Blaster229]

The bill says nothing about firing a warning shot. My take from it is that it is a defense to prosecution if you point, brandish, show, say you'll shoot, etc.....
It does not list what constitutes "threatening to use deadly force", but I guarantee firing a warning shot is not one of them.

 

[Biggfoot44]

It's a seperate conversation , but a "warning shot" is virtually always not a *Wise* thing to do, for multiple reasons.

But that has no relationship to the Bill in question.

 

[Benanov]

Meh. Schnookered by liberals again.

You are correct. The law on its face looks good. The way it's being reported is AWFUL

 

[Blaster229]

Meh. Schnookered by liberals again.

You are correct. The law on its face looks good. The way it's being reported is AWFUL

Explain please.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Meh. Schnookered by liberals again.

You are correct. The law on its face looks good. The way it's being reported is AWFUL

Too true.

Explain please.

Read the article called out in the OP. First 2 paragraphs are pure hogwash.

 

[Blaster229]

Too true.



Read the article called out in the OP. First 2 paragraphs are pure hogwash.

Oh yeah. Terrible terrible article.

 

[beretta_maven]

Oh yes...bad, BAD law.

 

[Blaster229]

Oh yes...bad, BAD law.

The law isn't bad. The article is because the bill says nothing about warning shots.
The law is fine because it is saying that just "brandishing" or threatening to use deadly force in a deadly force situation is a defense to prosecution.
Here in Maryland, doing that would probably land you in jail if you didn't actually shoot the threat.