Florida lawmakers want to expand SYG law

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Rocky7, Nov 8, 2013.

  1. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
  2. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    Lol

    I don't agree expanding it to "warning shots". The convicted woman was actually trying to murder her husband who had a restraining order against her...
     

  3. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    This is absolutely great. The antis got a hearing wanting to abolish the law and instead it was expanded! I'm laughing myself sick. As the antis would say "Ain't that a kick in the a$$".
     
  4. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    even if they do expand it to include the ability to use a warning shot, i still don't agree either that they are a good idea. but still, it's a step in the right direction, that they are looking to expand the power of the SYG laws, instead of repealing them.

    and IIRC, Marissa Alexander left the residence and got a gun and then returned. i can't see being in fear for her life under those circumstances. and she was also offered a three year sentence, but wanted her day in court. she deserves exactly the sentence she got due to her stupidity.

    i'll just bet this ruling is chapping some butts now!:p
     
  5. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,980
    418
    83
    I was taught never to display a firearm as a means of intimidation. "Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot." Good rule.
     
  6. FrontierTCB

    FrontierTCB Active Member

    1,147
    5
    38
    Warning shots being legally used as a level of self defense is not a good thing. If god forbid a person has to shoot an attacker the first thing they will ask: Why was there no warning shot??

    Other than that, Pretty awesome.
     
  7. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    I didn't read it as requiring a warning shot, just that there would be no necessary penalty if you decided to do so.

    I hear you about how this could morph into a requirement, but I don't see that in the news report at all. As for the "rules" about CCW and armed self-defence.....aren't we the crowd that rejects rules? I think sometimes we might forget to trust each other?
     
  8. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,980
    418
    83
    Each other we trust. The government we do not.
     
  9. slick1911

    slick1911 New Member

    7
    0
    0
    Warning shots are nothing but trouble. Where did the bullet go? The situation was bad enough to discharge a firearm, but not bad enough to shoot the aggressor. Just bad news all the way around.
     
  10. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    I agree 100%. Who would fire a warning shot when their life was in danger???
     
  11. JayCody

    JayCody New Member

    315
    0
    0
    Indeed, the bullet would have to go somewhere. Warning shots are a danger to anyone in the surrounding area.
     
  12. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    Correct. This was in no way a SYG or SD case. She had been abused in the past, but was not being attacked at the time of the shot fired. To top it off, the man was holding one of their small children.

    She was flat out wrong and tried to use SYG as a "get out of jail free card" The antis claim SYG allows this type of behavior, obviously it doesn't because she is in jail, where she belongs.
     
  13. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    when she left the residence, she was by all rights out of danger. she returned with a gun. she chose to enter back into a situation that she claimed made her fear for her safety, and by that, IMO she can't claim self defence.

    had she left, and he followed her, then i might have a little more understanding and would give her the benefit of the doubt, that she fired in self defence.
     
  14. Mason609

    Mason609 Active Member

    1,850
    0
    36
    I love when things backfire for the antis, it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

    I think if you can de-escalate a life and death situation just by showing you are prepared to use deadly force, then you should not fear any "brandishing" penalties. Showing is part of the escalation of force used by the military, and should be allowed for civilians as well. It should not be a "you pulled it, you must use it" kind of thing - taking another's life, no matter the situation is only easy for sociopaths and psychopaths.

    Edited to add: I don't agree with warning shots.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2013
  15. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,369
    57
    48
    I don't agree with warning shots.

    But there are a lot of people out there who recommend them.
    (Joe Biden even suggests firing two shots from your shotgun, remember?)
     
  16. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    my belief is that warning shots are potentially dangerous. if a person is fear enough to have to present a firearm in the first place, then it is serious enough to the point that a warning shot isn't probably in your best interests.

    the only thing that gets a warning shot from me, are stray dogs that i don't want hanging around the house.
     
  17. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,435
    109
    63
    I could be wrong, but I think she had the restraining order, but was at his home when she fired the shot.

    If a warning shot can be fired that hits no one, and does no damage, is it a harmful thing? I am not so sure. If it ends the situation, and no one is injured, it might be a good thing. May keep someone from going to court and getting potentially screwed.
     
  18. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,435
    109
    63
    After reading this, maybe my last post was wrong. I remember once in Philly a family went after the police because the police did not shoot the gun out of their son's hand.

    I certainly can see this being a question in court. A question you might not be able to answer correctly no matter what you say.
     
  19. FrontierTCB

    FrontierTCB Active Member

    1,147
    5
    38
    I agree. How many times do you see the media interviewing some dim wit asking "why didn't the cops just shoot him in the leg"? etc. I think it opens up a huge can of worms that just leaves CCW holders and LEO's vulnerable to criminal and civil hell.

    In addition, as usual the "lawmakers" do not have enough education or real world experience to make sound decisions.

    It's like asking me to make recommendations on how brain surgery should be performed. I would tell you "I don't have a clue"! Unfortunately most politicians are not capable of making such a statement.
     
  20. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    i can answer that question. most LEO's are usually backed up by one or more additional officers, have usually been trained in the use of less than lethal weapons to take the BG. they are there to enforce the law and to bring criminals to justice for the most part with the least amount of potential danger to the victim or innocent bystanders.

    when a citizen is attacked, their only criteria is to survive an encounter with a BG at whatever means possible. personally, myself i will worry about the legal issues after the fact. my main focus will to be to survive and live through it.