Latest Headlines
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
- Cantonment Man Charged With Sexual Battery, Molestation Of 5-Year-Old
- Truck Driver Airlifted After Crash On Quintette Road
- Two Newly Elected Escambia School Members Installed
- Bratt Elementary Releases Honor Roll, Perfect Attendance
- Century Correctional Inmate Charged With Drug Trafficking Inside The Prison
- Bogia And Mystic Springs Railroad Crossing Closures Planned For The Weekend; Becks Lake Next
- Northview Chiefs Fall To Pensacola Christian Warriors (With Gallery)
- Matt Gaetz Withdraws From Attorney General Consideration
Public Defenders Back Revised ‘Warning Shot’ Bill
December 16, 2013
The Florida Public Defender Association has decided to back a measure (HB 89) that would grant immunity to people who show or fire guns in self-defense — the so-called “warning-shot” bill by Rep. Neil Combee, a Polk City Republican.
Last month, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee passed HB 89 overwhelmingly as a committee substitute, now called the Threatened Use of Force Act. It faces two more House committees. The Senate companion, by Senate Criminal Justice Chairman Greg Evers, R-Baker, faces three committees.
An earlier version of the bill died during the 2013 legislative session, but the proposal is back for a second try during the upcoming 2014 session — with some key changes that backers hope will propel it to passage this time.
Changes include getting the public defenders, who didn’t back the first bill, on board.
“We see, routinely, clients that we believe shouldn’t be prosecuted because they did act in lawful self-defense,” said Stacy Scott, the Gainesville-based public defender for the 8th Judicial Circuit. “We’re fighting those cases in court every day.”
Combee sponsored the 2013 bill after hearing about Marissa Alexander, a Jacksonville woman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison under the 10-20-Life sentencing law for firing a gun into a wall during a fight with her husband. Combee said her sentence was an example of the “negative unintended consequences” of 10-20-Life, which requires mandatory-minimum prison terms for gun-related crimes.
Under the 10-20-Life law, possessing a gun while committing certain crimes is punishable by at least 10 years in prison, discharging a gun while committing those crimes is punishable by at least 20 years in prison, and hurting or killing someone during those crimes is punishable by 25 years to life in prison.
“The public defenders are, in general, in favor of having judges have discretion about sentencing as opposed to mandatory punishments,” Scott said. “And so we felt like, with the amendments that were made to House Bill 89 in its current version, that there was some really important legislative-intent language that talked about 10-20-Life and encouraged prosecutors to not seek those kinds of punishments on people who threaten to use force in self-defense.”
Combee’s first bill would have amended 10-20-Life, but the sentencing law proved too formidable. Many criminal justice professionals credit 10-20-Life with lowering the crime rate, and Combee’s measure drew opposition from a number of prosecutors and law enforcement officers, including Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, now president of the Florida Sheriffs Association, and State Attorney Angela Corey of the 4th Judicial Circuit, who sought Alexander’s 20-year sentence.
That’s why the new iteration of Combee’s bill seeks to amend the “stand your ground” self-defense law, not 10-20-Life. It would permit people who are being attacked and fear for their lives to display guns, threaten to use the weapons or fire warning shots under the same circumstances by which they could legally shoot to kill.
Corey opposes House Bill 89 as too dangerous, saying prosecutors have the discretion they need.
And State Attorney Bill Cervone of the 8th Judicial Circuit said many prosecutors already take a dim view of changes to Florida’s self-defense laws since 2005, when “stand your ground” was passed.
“Collectively, I think we are greatly concerned about scenarios where there could be a miscarriage of justice,” he said. “We’re more concerned about guilty people who hide behind (’stand your ground’). The defense bar has equal concerns about the other side of the coin. ….I guess our position is that modifying or tweaking the concept is unnecessary in terms of what we already had in place.”
The sheriffs have not yet taken a position on the new bill. But National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, who has worked with Combee on the measure since last year, said the public defenders’ backing could be important.
“They are in a unique position of knowing exactly how often law-abiding people who have exercised self-defense are being prosecuted — and, in fact, persecuted in some cases,” Hammer said. “If state attorneys are not aware that some of their prosecutors are doing it, we hope they will become aware. We need a sea change in attitude in how victims are being treated.”
Comments
16 Responses to “Public Defenders Back Revised ‘Warning Shot’ Bill”
All I’m saying is, try to car-jack me, or invade my home and it’s 2 to center mass and 1 to the head and then the coroner can have you.
Everyone deserves a warning shot…..use hollow points…the whistle from the bullet is plenty of warning.
Some good points made but…
@Lars – Me pointing my side arm at you IS brandishing a weapon. Pulling back your coat or shirt to show a pistol tucked into your waist band is “thuggish” in my book. I will brandish my weapon by POINTING IT AT YOU. Less things I have to do before pulling the trigger.
@Don – your point is invalid when you are talking about another species. The “thing in your yard” must be able to understand your language in order to understand your commands, or at least be able to understand that what you are holding would harm them. (example, someone who does not speak English understands what a gun is)
@James Smith – I agree!
And I DO agree with others that say, “Enter my home illegally, and your warning is two shots center mass, one to the head”. No arrest, no trial, no sentencing, just the medical examiner with a body bag.
Bottom line: A warning shot is a wasted round!
And what does the local elected public defender, Bruce Miller, say? Nothing. He is useless as an elected official and manager. PD’s office went way down hill with him and it was already way down there with Owens running it.
My question is do Cops fire a warning shot? NOPE they blast away. Remember the shooting in front of the McDonalds on 9 mile road, 106 rounds were fired, some going through the playground equipment at the resturant.
Nice Shooting !
Your home or your occupied car is another thing entirely,someone who enters either of these illegaly gets a triple tap,your rusty lawn mower in your shed would be a warning shot.A few years back I had a neighbors dog in my yard growling,barring his teeth and I told him I had a weapon,he still growled,I showed him my weapon he still growled,I fired one round into the grass beside him…GONE!!!
All they need to do is pass the open carry law and none of this would be needed
Y’all think someone coming into your house is going to warn you first? think someone mugging you will warn you first? think someone car jacking you will warn you first? I don’t and I think they should have the same warning as the one I get. I was trained two center mass one to the head.
I agree with some of the other posters. I think warning shots, a la Joe Biden, are a bad idea for multiple reasons. However, I would like to see the “brandishing” part of the law go forward. I could foresee a situation where an angry person with a bat or pipe or some other weapon is standing in a yard threating someone and by simply showing the bat wielding manic a pistol, they choose to leave the area. The brandished weapon de-escalates the situation without doing permanent damage to anyone or anything. Brandishing would not be appropriate in every situation of course. Things like distance to the target, type of weapon held by the attacker and so forth would affect the brandish/shoot decision.
I agree with Mark. A verbal command stating you will shot if they do not stop should be the requirement. I feel like he does if I pull my weapon it will be with the intention of using it.
A shooter is responsible for all rounds fired from their weapon, warning shot or not. If you shoot a warning shot in the air, you are responsible for any damage or loss of life that round may cause.
“Stop or I’ll shoot” is warning enough. If I ever draw my weapon, it is for one purpose, and that is to pull the trigger.
Bad idea. Most people are not in their right minds when pulling a firearm in a defensive situation and will not pay attention to where the ‘warning’ round ends up. If I pull my weapon out of its holster, it’s to stop the attacker because the situation has escalated. Firing a warning shot means you are no longer shooting at what you intend to destroy. The law should stay as it is – negligent discharge of a firearm.
Don, I’m not sure I can agree with you on the wisdom of warning shots. Where does one aim when firing a warning shot? What about the risk of a ricochet or wayward bullet hitting an uninvolved and unsuspecting person, such as a child playing nearby? In the case of outdoor warning shots, unless you fire directly into something which absorbs the round, you run a great risk of hitting an unintended target or person. If drawing your weapon and a loud verbal warning doesn’t deter the person threatening you, what are you waiting for? If your life is in danger, it’s time to defend yourself, not make an additional decision about whether a warning shot would help. You have to re-aim and acquire the intended target, and then fire again, this takes time, and time is crucial in a stressful situation. And, to further the point, if one warning shot doesn’t work, maybe another would?
I do agree that taking a life or even severely wounding someone is a gravely serious decision, but one that must be made in a split second. It must only be to protect yourself or another person from imminent death or grievous bodily harm. If you are truly in danger or death or grievous bodily harm, and can articulate that, it’s time to shoot, not issue further warnings.
Another reason the warning shot worries me, is once this becomes legal, it also becomes expected, possibly requiring someone who didn’t do so to defend that decision in court.
This whole idea over-complicates that decision and I think gives the bad guy a little more time to act.
I understand there is a mindset of taking this additional intermediate action before firing at the threat, but I don’t agree that it is advisable from a tactical or legal perspective.
Sad thing is that 10-20-LIFE generally is not used in punishment. Most will plea to 1-5-10 or less.
I hope it passes,taking a life has severe consequences,that’s why law enforcement are required to attend mental health evaluation classes after a shooting.Fifing a warning shot would let the offender know you are armed and mean business,if they continued the act after the warning shot at least you gave them a chance.
Yep, a warning shot right between the eyes.