3 ms·

Warning shots are illegal everywhere. It's considered use of deadly force when it is not required. Any firearms training course will tell you this. It just so h

by rdouble 13y ago

Warning shots are illegal everywhere. It's considered use of deadly force when it is not required. Any firearms training course will tell you this. It just so happens Florida has very harsh mandatory minimum sentencing for this offense. In Vermont they'll just give you a fine.

hga 13y ago
Errr, they have harsh sentencing for attempted murder, as well they should.
- rdouble 13y ago
  The mandatory minimum is for "unlawful use of deadly force."
  - hga 13y ago
    Ah, I see. Of course, by definition attempted murder is "unlawful use of deadly force", but the state wants to, quite properly, sanction the latter.
lukifer 13y ago
I did not know that. Though I'm aware of the risks of firing a weapon when you don't know where the bullet will land, I don't see why a warning shot should be illegal if done safely (shooting at the floor, etc). I also wonder if any state license(s) held by the shooter required learning that warning shots are unlawful. As a guy who doesn't own guns, it seems extremely counterintuitive.
- hga 13y ago
  Florida's concealed carry license doesn't require instruction in legal use of lethal force, e.g. a hunter safety course will satisfy its training requirements; she had one or at least she claims to have had one. Any reading or training you get on this subject will emphasize that you can only use lethal force when it is necessary to stop a threat of "grievous bodily harm" or the like including rape, or death, so by implication warning shots are not legitimate. (Texas is not surprisingly a special case, it uniquely allows the use of lethal force after a verbal warning to stop the theft of property, don't know how warning shots are treated by that state.) As a non-gun owner this may strike you as extremely counterintuitive, but it's a general part of most any training you might get or relevant safety rules; you own every bullet you shoot, you're responsible for what they hit. E.g. see Jeff Cooper's 4 safety rules, which I consider to be the best set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety Note rule 4: "Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified." A shot into the floor is not 100% safe, you're directing a lot of energy into it, you don't know what that might kick up. However, she shot a wall, and that's inherently dangerous unless your nearest neighbor is far, far away which I gather wasn't the case (Jacksonville has 1,100 people per square mile). None of this would appear to be relevant to the case, the court determined she was guilty of attempted murder vs. lessor charges that I assume could have applied, like assault. If they'd believed her dodgy claim of self-defense it shouldn't have resulted in a judgement that she was actually trying to kill her husband.
Tomte 13y ago
That's wrong (you may mean "in the US", though, I don't know about that). And incredibly stupid. Of course it is desirable to give the attacker a chance to retreat by firing a warning shot. If he continues and you're in imminent physical danger, you shoot at the legs. And only if that did not help you go for the torso. (If there is enough time, if the killing shot is the only one you're ever going to get to fire, then that it is)
- Casseres 13y ago
  In the U.S. state I'm from, you are not allowed to perform "kill shots". You are only allowed to shot to stop. Training classes will always advise against shooting at the legs. They are easily missed, take precious time, and waste ammo (hopefully you won't need to use all of your ammo, but it has happened to persons defending themselves against multiple threats). Ask police officers or soldiers if they shoot at the legs of threats, or if their first shot is towards center-mass.
- hga 13y ago
  Sorry, but echoing Casseres, you've demonstrated you know little to nothing about the legal use of lethal force in the US or practical self-defense with a gun. If you own a gun, please get a book like this classic http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001/ http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection... before you end up being convicted of a serious crime. Extending his remarks, if you hit the femoral artery in someone's upper leg, they're going to quickly bleed out unless they get serious first aid.
  - Tomte 13y ago
    Well, but I know about what German courts require in cases of self-defense with a gun. I'm sorry to hear that the US have not developed some sensible framework of self-defense.
    - hga 13y ago
      Ah; the US has 50+ frameworks of self-defense, given our federalism. What do you not find sensible about Florida's? If you accept Zimmerman's account of the incident, which we presume the jury did, he only resorted to lethal force after he was in legitimate fear for his life, and he never had an opportunity to retreat (states vary greatly on duty to retreat vs. stand your ground). What do German courts require?

by rdouble 13y ago

hga 13y ago

Errr, they have harsh sentencing for attempted murder, as well they should.

rdouble 13y ago
The mandatory minimum is for "unlawful use of deadly force."
- hga 13y ago
  Ah, I see. Of course, by definition attempted murder is "unlawful use of deadly force", but the state wants to, quite properly, sanction the latter.

lukifer 13y ago

I did not know that. Though I'm aware of the risks of firing a weapon when you don't know where the bullet will land, I don't see why a warning shot should be illegal if done safely (shooting at the floor, etc). I also wonder if any state license(s) held by the shooter required learning that warning shots are unlawful. As a guy who doesn't own guns, it seems extremely counterintuitive.

hga 13y ago
Florida's concealed carry license doesn't require instruction in legal use of lethal force, e.g. a hunter safety course will satisfy its training requirements; she had one or at least she claims to have had one. Any reading or training you get on this subject will emphasize that you can only use lethal force when it is necessary to stop a threat of "grievous bodily harm" or the like including rape, or death, so by implication warning shots are not legitimate. (Texas is not surprisingly a special case, it uniquely allows the use of lethal force after a verbal warning to stop the theft of property, don't know how warning shots are treated by that state.) As a non-gun owner this may strike you as extremely counterintuitive, but it's a general part of most any training you might get or relevant safety rules; you own every bullet you shoot, you're responsible for what they hit. E.g. see Jeff Cooper's 4 safety rules, which I consider to be the best set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety Note rule 4: "Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified." A shot into the floor is not 100% safe, you're directing a lot of energy into it, you don't know what that might kick up. However, she shot a wall, and that's inherently dangerous unless your nearest neighbor is far, far away which I gather wasn't the case (Jacksonville has 1,100 people per square mile). None of this would appear to be relevant to the case, the court determined she was guilty of attempted murder vs. lessor charges that I assume could have applied, like assault. If they'd believed her dodgy claim of self-defense it shouldn't have resulted in a judgement that she was actually trying to kill her husband.

Tomte 13y ago

That's wrong (you may mean "in the US", though, I don't know about that). And incredibly stupid. Of course it is desirable to give the attacker a chance to retreat by firing a warning shot. If he continues and you're in imminent physical danger, you shoot at the legs. And only if that did not help you go for the torso. (If there is enough time, if the killing shot is the only one you're ever going to get to fire, then that it is)

Casseres 13y ago
In the U.S. state I'm from, you are not allowed to perform "kill shots". You are only allowed to shot to stop. Training classes will always advise against shooting at the legs. They are easily missed, take precious time, and waste ammo (hopefully you won't need to use all of your ammo, but it has happened to persons defending themselves against multiple threats). Ask police officers or soldiers if they shoot at the legs of threats, or if their first shot is towards center-mass.
hga 13y ago
Sorry, but echoing Casseres, you've demonstrated you know little to nothing about the legal use of lethal force in the US or practical self-defense with a gun. If you own a gun, please get a book like this classic http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001/ http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection... before you end up being convicted of a serious crime. Extending his remarks, if you hit the femoral artery in someone's upper leg, they're going to quickly bleed out unless they get serious first aid.
- Tomte 13y ago
  Well, but I know about what German courts require in cases of self-defense with a gun. I'm sorry to hear that the US have not developed some sensible framework of self-defense.
  - hga 13y ago
    Ah; the US has 50+ frameworks of self-defense, given our federalism. What do you not find sensible about Florida's? If you accept Zimmerman's account of the incident, which we presume the jury did, he only resorted to lethal force after he was in legitimate fear for his life, and he never had an opportunity to retreat (states vary greatly on duty to retreat vs. stand your ground). What do German courts require?