Yes, for the last 10 years… next question?
Wait! Really! How smart is that!?
OK, here’s the story…
A Florida woman was convicted in 2012 for threatening use of lethal force against her abusive husband. She fired a gun but not in the direction of the threat, therefore it was deemed not a reasonable response. The whackjob Leftist judge disallowed a “Stand Your Ground (STG)” defense because STG (at that time) covered only “use”, not “threatened use”, of force. So the judge sentenced her to 20 years under a law (“10-20-Life”) designed specifically to make Leftist judges like her do their jobs instead of letting criminals off easy. A fired gun under what the judge deemed to be the facts requires a 20 year sentence. But it was never a law to be applied to self-defense. That’s right – she avoided shooting somebody and was sentenced to 20 years. Had she shot him, it would likely have been deemed lawful use of deadly force. Yes… very messed up.
In that context, it seems right that she should not have even been prosecuted, much less imprisoned, for the warning shot.
So, reasonable legislators saw this as a ridiculous situation that only they could solve, so they amended the STG laws in 2014, signed by Gov. Scott, to include “threatened use of force”.
https://m.flsenate.gov/Statutes/776.012
Notice that the term “warning shot” does not appear in the law.
Remember that I am not an attorney, and never even played one on TV, but here is how I see it…
In Florida brandishing a gun is crime and firing it constitutes use of deadly force no matter if it was towards or away from the person, or even by accident. Therefore, one must be justified in the use of deadly force to be able to fire a warning shot (“…reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm…”)
Also, any shot fired must be directed so that there is no reasonable expectation of injury, such as into the ground. That being said, there is always a possibility of ricochet or fragmentation, even off of water. The bottom line is that you are responsible for every bullet you launch.
As far as I can ascertain the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement has no official policy for police, though some individual departments and agencies have their own. Generally, if addressed, they are prohibited, but there is some shift away from that position nationwide.
The Division of Licensing of the Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which licenses security and private investigators, prohibits them under any and all circumstances.
So, are warning shots a good idea? NO.
Are the EVER justified? MAYBE, under very limited circumstances.
So are we opening up a can of worms?
Massad Ayoob, the legendary firearms expert points out that if an intentionally non-lethal shot is taken in a deadly force situation, then why not shoot to wound? If you are new to the discipline, shooting to wound is considered ABSOLUTELY wrong under all circumstances. Generally it is considered wrong to take a shot which you know is much less likely to incapacitate an attacker while claiming that you were in imminent fear of death. Of course, if you were indeed in fear of death, you would take the best and fastest path towards stopping the attack, which is usually center of mass.
How did we get into such a mess? To a great extent we are here because of the Left’s influence on law enforcement and their manipulation of the courts through public opinion. That is another whole article but let it suffice to say that 50 years ago we did not have these issues. At its root is the loathing the Left has for the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment, and the USA as a whole.