4 ms·

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 i

by 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.

by lukifer 13y ago

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.