Latest Headlines
- Early Morning Stabbing In Cantonment Under Investigation
- Escambia School Grades Released. See How Your Child’s School Scored.
- Bond Set For Cottage Hill Man Charged With Threatening To Kill Local Magistrate
- Cottage Hill Man Charged With Threatening To Kill Local Magistrate
- Five WaWa Stores In The Works For Escambia County. Here’s The List.
- Baldwin County Road 112 Closure To Impact Drivers From Escambia County
- Five Arrested On Drug Charges In Atmore
- Ascension Sacred Heart Pensacola Designated As Only Level One Trauma Center In Panhandle
- Tate Aggies Volleyball Attends Florida Gators Camp
- Blue Wahoos Seize Big Inning, Sink Shuckers To End Four-Game Slide
Greg Evers’ Warning Shot Bill Aimed Toward Passage
January 9, 2014
A bill that would grant immunity to Floridians who show guns or fire warning shots in self-defense could be poised to pass this year after failing to get a hearing in 2013.
The so-called “warning-shot” bill (SB 448), which would amend the state’s controversial “stand your ground” self-defense law, cleared its first Senate panel on Wednesday.
After listening to descriptions of Floridians serving 20-year sentences for firing warning shots to defend themselves or others, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee unanimously passed the bill by committee Chairman Greg Evers, R-Baker.
One member of the panel, Sen. Charlie Dean, a former Citrus County sheriff, even asked House sponsor Neil Combee to consider adding an amendment that would expunge the criminal records of people charged in this way; Combee said he would.
“What part of ‘innocence’ do we not understand?” Dean demanded.
Combee, a Polk City Republican, first sponsored the 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 dispute with her husband.
Combee described Alexander’s sentence as 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 2013 version of Combee’s bill sought to amend 10-20-Life rather than “stand your ground,” and it was opposed by the Florida Sheriffs Association and many prosecutors and law enforcement officers who argued that the sentencing bill was working too well to be altered.
So the 2014 bills by Combee and Evers would amend “stand your ground” instead. The bills, which are identical, 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.
That switch sped the bill to passage in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee in November.
It also gained allies for the bill who did not support it last year, such as the Florida Public Defender Association.
“We think it’s an important clarification to the existing self-defense laws, that someone could be justified in threatening to use force and not have to actually use force to enjoy the protections of the self-defense laws and ’stand your ground,’ ” Stacy Scott, the public defender for the 8th Judicial Circuit, told the Senate panel on Wednesday. “The statutes aren’t clear on that.”
National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, who has worked with Combee on the bill since last year, said it was needed to curb prosecutorial abuses under 10-20-Life.
“Prosecutors are using it wrongly to prosecute people who, in an act of self-defense or defense of a loved one, threaten to use force because they really don’t want to shoot somebody,” Hammer said. “If you actually shoot an attacker, the law protects you. But if you merely threaten to shoot an attacker and the attacker runs away, some prosecutors will still try to put you in prison for 10 to 20 years. Some, not all, but any is too many.”
The committee seemed ready to move to a vote, but Gainesville-based state attorney Bill Cervone of the 8th Judicial Circuit asked to speak.
“I personally feel a little bit pilloried sitting here and listening to some of this,” Cervone told lawmakers. “And something that’s not being said is that there are two sides to every one of these cases. If somebody is in prison for one of these situations, it’s because a judge and a jury rejected his version claiming self-defense.”
Evers said he knew of local cases in which people had been wrongly charged for defending themselves, including a 74-year-old retiree who displayed a shotgun to protect his daughter.
“Senator, I have no idea what that case is about,” Cervone began.
“But I do,” Evers broke in. “That’s the reason for this bill.”
“Senator, if the Legislature is concerned about these (aggravated) assaults, take them out of 10-20-Life,” Cervone said.
“Well, I think this bill does that,” Evers replied.
The panel then passed the measure unanimously.
But the bill’s best omen for success this year may be that the Florida Sheriffs Association will remain neutral. On Wednesday, association spokeswoman Sarrah Carroll confirmed that the group would not oppose the measure.
Now called the Threatened Use of Force Act, the bill faces two more House committees and two more Senate committees.
Comments
20 Responses to “Greg Evers’ Warning Shot Bill Aimed Toward Passage”
Due to the expense of ammo, these days, I’m not going to give a warning shot. Why waste it? LOL. Of course with my eye sight, I would miss anyway, so they’ll think it’s a warning shot. LOL.
Heard something a while back that makes real sense.
Discussion was about an intruder in your home, business, etc.
Many think the “Clack-Clack” of a shotgun or pistol action will help deter a criminal who is there to do harm.
Expert said doing that tells the bad ones where YOU are as gives a “warning” and can make you a target.
Said, Have your weapon loaded, round in the chamber and ready to use and do so making the last thing they see is a flash of bright light…..
As the law stands now if someone is breaking into your property OUTSIDE your home there’s nothing you can do about it (unless they attack you) and use of deadly force in not justified in protecting your rusty ol’ lawnmower,a warning shot would help a simpleton breaking into your garage know you mean business and are in possession of a firearm…..someone breaking into your home or occupied vehicle is another matter entirely,center mass no hesitation period.
Where is that warning shot going to land? Too many stories about people being killed by shots fired into the air.
Again, this law is being used to slowly amend the “stand your ground law.” Do not let them fool you. If this law is passed, you might fing yourself in a world of …. because you either defend your family, property or yourself, the first thing the authorities will ask you is ;” did you show the victim your gun or fire a warning shot before you fired at him/her?” Remember anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Be smart and stay alert. It will come back and bite you. Even if your find not guilty, you’ll go through allot of stress with the police, courts, lawyer fees. I agree with “melodies4us.” in that If you show a gun, you better be prepared to use it.. Once again, open carry is the best option!
Dont’ need to flash you gun. For the last time, “pass the open carry law and we wouldn’t need this.” Leave the “stand your ground law” alone and no warning shots would be needed! People get the adrenaline pumping and feel very nervous if they get into a situation in which they have to use deadly force. A warning shot may go astray hurting an innocent bystander. Even worse, it can injure your assilant and now you have a lawsuit on your hands! Think people, THINK!
If you show a gun, you better be prepared to use it. This sounds like a horrible idea. I much prefer “Stand your ground”. It protects innocent people from predators and a fair minded judge can easily tell weather or not it was self defense.
This gives you an option, as it stands now you could be prosecuted for firing a warning shot protecting life or property! The perpetrator may be at a distance from you. Warning shots are ment to be done at a distance, not close up or inside your home! I use to work @ 3 different prisons in Alabama, trust me a warning shot WILL get even the hardened crooks attention! Use common sense, this bill gives you the option, not the responsibility to use the warning shot. Be careful being trigger happy. Killing someone WILL haunt you for the rest of your life! Nevertheless sometimes we may not have a choice, that’s when I say the criminal chose his/her on destiny!
Seriously? Firing a warning shot will get you killed!
This bill would be OK — as long as it does not REQUIRE you to give a warning shot first.
this law will get you killed
Almost forgot. If you are scared to use deadly force for the love of God don’t carry concealed. You are a liability to everyone and bad guys have enough guns already no need to let them take yours and kill you or someone else with it.
My issue with this law is that it will make people believe that firing a warning shot is acceptable or even a good idea when nothing could be further from the truth. Now I don’t think people should necessarily go to jail for a warning shot (depending on the totality of the circumstances), but everyone needs to know that it is a horrible idea. It is a dangerous prospect to just start popping off rounds as a show of force. You could hit yourself or bystanders directly, by ricochet or by splash when the round impacts a hard surface. For instance the case in the article: a woman fires into the wall to prevent argument. What if someone was on the other side of that wall? It is also a bad tactical decision. On the one hand you have shown your ace in hole, and on the other you have just demonstrated that you are unwilling to use it. In fact you have also told your assailant that you are scared and have little or no training or experience with a weapon. In other words, you’re still an easy target.
I’m scary enough to where it would take another crazy person to mess with me.. I’m Not wasting ammo.. 230GR 45.+P’s kinda hurt the one holding the gun too..
“COMMON SINCE”
“COMMON SINCE”
“COMMON SINCE”
Let everybody have some!!!!
For everyone who thinks this is a good idea, think about this – most civilians who carry a firearm are not going to have the mindset to ’safely’ fire a warning shot when put into a high stress situation.
Fire into the air? What goes up must come down.
Fire into the ground? Ricochet or debris kicked up can injure or kill.
Fire beside the offender? Hopefully you won’t shoot little sally playing down the road.
There is no ’safe’ way to give a warning shot. It’s negligent discharge or reckless endangerment at the least.
If you pull a firearm on someone it is always as a last resort, NEVER as a scare tactic. Anyone who brandishes a firearm as a ‘threat’ has no business handling a weapon system.
If the situation is reversed and I am the attacker? Lets say I am also armed. You fire a warning shot at me? I will just assume you can’t aim and will now return fire because you have just escalated the situation.
So, let me get this straight – the contention here is that people who were legally in possession of firearms, within their rights to be where they were at the time (not trespassing or committing a crime or assaulting someone), and being attacked, fired a weapon at the wall, ground, or other non-lethal target, in order to deter an impending life threatening attack, where the factual account of the attack is not disputed, are in jail for doing so? What jury reached that verdict? There has to be more to this than we’re hearing. The larger issue is if someone does shoot an attacker in self defense without firing a warning shot, what happens to them? If the assailant survives, can he now file a lawsuit against the shooter because they didn’t fire the warning shot? He could contend that he would have ceased the attack if he’d only been warned. Don’t say it can’t happen, some judges will allow anything into court. I ask you this – if you have time for one shot, where do you aim?
..the sight if a firearm will stop most bad guys ..even a warning shot into the ground is better that shooting someone ….but if he keeps coming , then put him on the ground …..there are too many folks on death row for 30-40 years now …
I really hope the bill passes into law,I do hold a cwp and I carry sometimes,not allway’s,taking someones life would be hard for me,I could do it if it was my only option,but I would like to know I gave them every chance to surrender first.
It is past time for this bill to be law! You should have the opportunity not to have to shoot someone when your life is threatened. Sometimes just making them understand that they are taking their life into their hands by threatening you will save your life and theirs.