Yes. But that does not make it right.
My State, by the way, is not one of them.
Apparently you don’t understand what is written in the link.
BTW, it comes from legal experts, not a social media rambo.
Good catch.
This being the case what he said was absolutely baseless and false under the laws of every state in the union.
I’m quite sure you consider yourself an expert on every law in every state.
You’re an expert on every fucking topic in existence. 
I don’t need to be an expert on every law in every state. I do however have to be very well versed on the laws governing self defense and use of deadly force in every state since I teach both.
Now if you can show me a statute that allows for the use of deadly force absent an imminent and immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm in your state by all means post it and the source.
Either that or man up and simply admit you flat made it up.
Show me where firing a warning shot or brandishing a gun constitutes the use of deadly force and you’ll make a point.
Incidentally, there are recorded cases of justifiable homicide wherein deadly force was obviously used and and resulted in no punishment because it was JUSTIFIED.
Imminent and immediate threat such as what generates fear of one’s life is subjective.
“Brandishing” a firearm is not what is being discussed.
Firing a warning shot is, and in every case firing a warning shot is the use of deadly force in every state, it also eliminates the two main criteria of imminence and immediacy.
I don’t need to be an expert on every law in every state. I do however have to be very well versed on the laws governing self defense and use of deadly force in every state since I teach both.
Now if you can show me a statute that allows for the use of deadly force absent an imminent and immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm in your state by all means post it and the source.
Either that or man up and simply admit you flat made it up.
Look either admit you made it up or provide the documentation to support the claim, I’m not going to play this stupid game with you any more.
The fact is we both know you can’t support your original claim.
https://fairlawpllc.com/warning-shots-and-deadly-force-in-texas/
Firing a warning shot is by definition a demonstration of the use of deadly force.
Brandishing is by definition a threat to use deadly force.
What are we talking about…warning shot?
If so it is my understanding it is illegal in most states.
That’s why I always said…if you need to brandish your weapon shot the bastard.
At least he can’t testify against you. 
1 Like
The fact is that you are alone in “knowing” this. You think you know, but you don’t know.
Here ya go, hotshot…
Perhaps this is not the only firearms related law that you are not familiar with.
It’s when you wound or kill the bastard that one may be in trouble with the law.
Notwithstanding the fact that this demonstrates you lack of omniscience, I do not expect to see an admission of error from you.
Instead of just throwing up a google result it would be helpful if you read the substance.
https://www.vssclub.org/warning-shot-law.html
A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
So, it’s simply not a matter of acting whenever you feel threatened. You must prove that you had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. This is why firing a warning shot is a dangerous game. It decreases the credibility of a self defense claim. In true self defense situations, an attack only lasts mere seconds. If you had time to pull out a weapon, brandish it, make a verbal warning and fire a shot, then chances are you had time to escape the situation and avoid the incident entirely. Also, most deadly attacks occur within a few feet. It will be difficult to prove self defense if an attacker was standing over 10 feet away from you. Pulling out a weapon may actually escalate the situation, and suddenly the victim turns into the aggressor. The presence of a firearm could turn a mere verbal argument into a physical and potentially deadly confrontation. Then who is the real victim??
Unless you have a lawful use of deadly force to begin with the warning shot is unlawful.
In the best case scenario under Florida the most likely result is that you will be indicted because you don’t meet either the imminence or immediacy thresholds.
By all means though, keep flailing.
Likely, it is. I don’t know. Some people pretend to know. I won’t mention any names, but I think you’ll figure out who one of them is.
They’re making “some” headway with stand your ground laws…but when your fire a warning shot over zealous prosecutor can bring a case against you by using the argument that you didn’t feel threaten enough to use it.
That’s when I taught years ago…don’t put yourself in a position unless you’re fully intended on using it for self defense.
In “some” states a prosecutor can/will charge a person for holding someone at bay until police arrives if that person hasn’t displayed a weapon.
At least that’s what I was told by state prosecutor in my state of Washington who happens to be a friend.
Yours is basically an opinion of the Florida law. The fact that it differs from those of other states and the views of your fellow gun safety “experts” does not change its intent. The Florida law says that brandishing a firearm and firing a warning shot does not constitute use of deadly force.
You are not an infallible encyclopedia of factual knowledge. Get over it.
Here is a PDF of the text:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0089/BillText/Filed/PDF
You will find this near the top of page 1:
You do understand what “does not” means, I hope.
The substance of the law is in the text of the law, not the opinions of a club full of opinionated “experts”.
You’ve been supplanted by the sound of crickets. From this I assume you have read the truth and decided not to engage it. That is wise of you.
In the 1989 landmark case of *DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services *, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person. “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist for the majority, “even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual” without “due process of the law.”
The DeShaney decision has been cited by many courts across the nation and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Namely—on June 27, 2005, in *Castle Rock v. Gonzales *, the U.S. Supreme Court again ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.
The average Police response time is 18 minutes. The average school shooting only lasts 12.5 minutes. The average burglar takes less than a minute to break into your home and overall 8 to 12 minutes to get out again.
It’s a fool’s errand to expect Police to save you in a time of need.
2 Likes
I couldn’t disagree more. You do realize nobody knows how many laws there currently are, right?
I think the right to keep and bear arms is a diminished right. We… have accepted infringement after infringement in an idiotic attempt to convince ourselves we are somehow “civilized” above it all and advancing as a species. “Progressing” as it were.
And we have given them control over us. We squabble for crumbs while they continue to write laws to further the control.
The 10 Commandments pretty much cover what we need.
1 Like
Rambo is a pussy. Just remember that.
That is the stupidest law ever written.
No, I don’t…and neither do you. I know there are too many.
Then the laws that “we” think are infringements should be tested before the SCOTUS.
Then who will interpret and enforce them?
I agree. The Terminator would whip his ass in a New York minute.
It gives concealed carry citizens less exposure to felony crime. How could that be considered stupid?
And once again under existing law the criteria governing a justifiable use of force still applies. Absent same the action can be charged as either felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances.
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/self-defense-florida/