'Warning shot' bill moves ahead in Florida

[gunsmith]

'Warning shot' bill moves ahead in Florida

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Bill-to-Pr ... 71541.html

Florida legislators are pushing ahead with a bill designed to make it clear people can show a gun, or fire a warning shot, without drawing a lengthy prison sentence.

The legislation was partially inspired by the case of Marissa Alexander, who was given a 20-year prison sentence after firing a gun near her estranged husband during an argument. Alexander's conviction was thrown out by an appeals court and she is scheduled to have a new trial this year.

A Senate committee on Wednesday voted in favor of the bill (SB 488) while a similar version has already moved (HB 89) through a House committee.

Link now fixed

[ttousi]

wrong link?

it takes me to:

A South Florida woman accused of injecting people’s buttocks with Fix-a-Flat and other substances in an alleged black market business turned herself in to authorities Tuesday to begin serving her prison sentence.

[xd ED]

Bill to Protect Those Who Fire Warning Shots Moving Ahead in Florida

The bill would grant the same protections already in place under Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to people who only threaten to use force.

[jdege]

Here in Minnesota, concerning warning shots in self-defense:

CRIMJIG 7.06 Self-Defense—Death Not the Result
The defendant is not guilty of a crime if the defendant used reasonable force against ____________ to resist (or to aid ____________ in resisting) an offense against the person, and such an offense was being committed or the defendant reasonably believed that it was.

It is lawful for a person, who is being assaulted and who has reasonable grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon the person, to defend from an attack. In doing so, the person may use all force and means that the person reasonably believes to be necessary and that would appear to a reasonable person, in similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent an injury that appears to be imminent. An assault is (the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another) (or) (an intentional attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another) (or) (an act done with intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death in another.

The kind and degree of force a person may lawfully use in self-defense is limited by what a reasonable person in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

(The rule of self-defense does not authorize one to seek revenge or to take into his or her own hands the punishment of an offender.)

[Randygmn]

Here in Minnesota, concerning warning shots in self-defense:

CRIMJIG 7.06 Self-Defense—Death Not the Result
The defendant is not guilty of a crime if the defendant used reasonable force against ____________ to resist (or to aid ____________ in resisting) an offense against the person, and such an offense was being committed or the defendant reasonably believed that it was.

It is lawful for a person, who is being assaulted and who has reasonable grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon the person, to defend from an attack. In doing so, the person may use all force and means that the person reasonably believes to be necessary and that would appear to a reasonable person, in similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent an injury that appears to be imminent. An assault is (the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another) (or) (an intentional attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another) (or) (an act done with intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death in another.

The kind and degree of force a person may lawfully use in self-defense is limited by what a reasonable person in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

(The rule of self-defense does not authorize one to seek revenge or to take into his or her own hands the punishment of an offender.)

There's no mention here of the discharge of a weapon. What am I missing?

[Evad]

There's no mention here of the discharge of a weapon. What am I missing?

My guess:

may use all force and means that the person reasonably believes to be necessary and that would appear to a reasonable person, in similar circumstances

[Sietch]

There's no mention here of the discharge of a weapon. What am I missing?

My guess:

may use all force and means that the person reasonably believes to be necessary and that would appear to a reasonable person, in similar circumstances

Bingo. Similarly, 624.714 doesn't mention ankle holsters or Thunderwear. Their mention in the statute is not required to lawfully use such holsters.

[Nougat]

a year and a half for failing to prove that she had fired her shot in self-defense. and she is still being treated as guilty, they want to revoke her bond. Is it just me or does it seem like there has been an increase in the number of guilty until proven otherwise cases. hers might not be the best example but the driving checkpoint videos and disarming law abiding carriers makes me feel like it.

sorry if my dates/time spent or wording is wrong... I don't like that there are much larger scale crimes ( corporate type ) that go completely ignored but average folks are getting jacked around like this just to put them further down when they are supposed to be who's in charge not money.