TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/florida ... z2nq0qDHMp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much of the rest of this seems a necessary improvement in Florida law similar to PC 9.04 and new & improved PC 46.035 in Texas law. But I'm concerned about blanket immunity for firing warning shots.

The bill appears to be modeled on the Arizona law. It is commonsense legislation designed to promote safety.

For some reason commonsense legislation usually scares me.

WildBill wrote:

The bill appears to be modeled on the Arizona law. It is commonsense legislation designed to promote safety.

For some reason commonsense legislation usually scares me.

I like the idea. If you obviously did not fire in the direction of the target, why should it be interpreted as deadly force?

The devil is in the details though.

MechAg94 wrote:I like the idea. If you obviously did not fire in the direction of the target, why should it be interpreted as deadly force?

The devil is in the details though.

In my humble opinion:
Discharging a round as a "threat for a suspect to back off" should be considered use of a force and use not of deadly force, and would justified where the use of force is lawful.
Note the above is not a recommend course for "escalation of force".

MechAg94 wrote:I like the idea. If you obviously did not fire in the direction of the target, why should it be interpreted as deadly force?

The devil is in the details though.

I see your point. It's not necessarily deadly force. But wouldn't you agree - depending on trajectory, location (rural vs. urban vs. suburban), etc. - that it still fits under Texas statute on Class B Disorderly Conduct ...

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

... and it's getting close to (again depending on trajectory) but DOES NOT yet amount to ...

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

And let's say that warning shot ends up hitting someone and possibly killing them (what goes up must come down and all that).

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

note: Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

OR

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

note: Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

There is just A LOT that can go wrong with a "warning shot" and I don't think a state should be granting immunity for such things that need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Even if you're justified in producing a weapon as threat to defend against another's unlawful use of force, that doesn't necessarily mean you're justified (nor that it is PRUDENT) to fire a warning shot.

Certainly, Florida needs to amend its mandatory gun sentencing requirements (like the case of the woman who got 20 years for firing a warning shot to scare off her ex on whom she had a restraining order), but this may go too far in the other direction.

MechAg94 wrote:I like the idea. If you obviously did not fire in the direction of the target, why should it be interpreted as deadly force?

The devil is in the details though.

How is one to know it's only a warning shot vs somebody missing the target? I can see that defense being used.

texanjoker wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:I like the idea. If you obviously did not fire in the direction of the target, why should it be interpreted as deadly force?

The devil is in the details though.

How is one to know it's only a warning shot vs somebody missing the target? I can see that defense being used.

The good part of the law would be that if you missed the target you could always claim it was a "warning shot".
What about a "warning magazine"?

A-R wrote:There is just A LOT that can go wrong with a "warning shot" and I don't think a state should be granting immunity for such things that need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

I agree but neither should a state criminalize things that need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. A rancher putting a round into a safe backstop on his property should not be arrested, much less charged, simply if his shot passed within 10 feet of a trespasser. On the other hand, if somebody in the suburbs hits his neighbor's car with his warning shot, I think he should be prosecuted criminally. Maybe grant immunity if the round does not leave the shooter's property?

My concern is how long 'till someone is charged for NOT taking a warning shot and shooting center of mass. What will be called a "kill" shot.

Topbuilder wrote:My concern is how long 'till someone is charged for NOT taking a warning shot and shooting center of mass. What will be called a "kill" shot.

Excellent point. Also, what if someone was high on some K2-spice and never backed off and instead kept going forward and trying to disarm you?!!!

I wouldn't exercise such an option - was it thought up by an anti?

Abraham wrote:I wouldn't exercise such an option - was it thought up by an anti?

I wouldn't carry a SAA but I don't think they were thought up by an anti-gunner.

Dori,

Please elaborate as I haven't a clue what your message is...

Thanks!