.........You know what? Nothing I can correct you on there, I think you have it nailed!I live in Pinellas County, and our sheriff is Sheriff Bob Gualtieri.
There was an article about Senate Bill 89 in the Miami Herald where Sheriff Bob was quoted as saying that it weakened the SYG law by requiring that a threat be "imminent".
And now, Simmons is saying that SB89 would weaken SYG.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/warning-shot-bill-gets-new-critic-in-florida-lawmaker-who-drafted-stand/2181017
HOWEVER, the bill is here, with changes to the existing law, and with removed wording striken through and new wording underlined:
http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0089/BillText/er/PDF
The word "imminent" was already there before!! See page 5 going into page 6.
Bob Gualtieri is SUPPOSEDLY a Second Amendment supporter. But it doesn't appear that his words reflect what the bill is trying to change, which is keeping timid beaten-up-before ladies out of prison for firing warning shots.
Reasons:
1. Bob Gualtieri is too lazy to go read the bill?
2. Bob Gualtieri, an attorney, is too stupid to understand the bill?
3. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri is deliberately lying and trying to get firearms owners to panic and call the governor in opposition to the bill?
3a: He's doing this to keep a "warning shot" bill from becoming law because of collateral damage to bystanders?
3b: He's lying because he has another agenda... like perhaps a desire to run for higher office?
I know he ain't lazy; I know he isn't stupid, either. So he's lying. And Simmons is lying. Even if I give them the benefit of the doubt and decide to believe 3a above, they are still lying to us. They are lying to firearms owners via Pravda West and the Miami Socialist Herald. I hate being lied to!!!
If I am not analyzing this stuff correctly, then please PLEASE correct me. Because otherwise I cannot continue to support Gualtieri.
THANKS!!
Why are so many people spreading lies about Senate Bill 89?
I live in Pinellas County, and our sheriff is Sheriff Bob Gualtieri.
There was an article about Senate Bill 89 in the Miami Herald where Sheriff Bob was quoted as saying that it weakened the SYG law by requiring that a threat be "imminent".
And now, Simmons is saying that SB89 would weaken SYG.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/warning-shot-bill-gets-new-critic-in-florida-lawmaker-who-drafted-stand/2181017
HOWEVER, the bill is here, with changes to the existing law, and with removed wording striken through and new wording underlined:
http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0089/BillText/er/PDF
The word "imminent" was already there before!! See page 5 going into page 6.
Bob Gualtieri is SUPPOSEDLY a Second Amendment supporter. But it doesn't appear that his words reflect what the bill is trying to change, which is keeping timid beaten-up-before ladies out of prison for firing warning shots.
Reasons:
1. Bob Gualtieri is too lazy to go read the bill?
2. Bob Gualtieri, an attorney, is too stupid to understand the bill?
3. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri is deliberately lying and trying to get firearms owners to panic and call the governor in opposition to the bill?
3a: He's doing this to keep a "warning shot" bill from becoming law because of collateral damage to bystanders?
3b: He's lying because he has another agenda... like perhaps a desire to run for higher office?
I know he ain't lazy; I know he isn't stupid, either. So he's lying. And Simmons is lying. Even if I give them the benefit of the doubt and decide to believe 3a above, they are still lying to us. They are lying to firearms owners via Pravda West and the Miami Socialist Herald. I hate being lied to!!!
If I am not analyzing this stuff correctly, then please PLEASE correct me. Because otherwise I cannot continue to support Gualtieri.
THANKS!!
There was an article about Senate Bill 89 in the Miami Herald where Sheriff Bob was quoted as saying that it weakened the SYG law by requiring that a threat be "imminent".
And now, Simmons is saying that SB89 would weaken SYG.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/warning-shot-bill-gets-new-critic-in-florida-lawmaker-who-drafted-stand/2181017
HOWEVER, the bill is here, with changes to the existing law, and with removed wording striken through and new wording underlined:
http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0089/BillText/er/PDF
The word "imminent" was already there before!! See page 5 going into page 6.
Bob Gualtieri is SUPPOSEDLY a Second Amendment supporter. But it doesn't appear that his words reflect what the bill is trying to change, which is keeping timid beaten-up-before ladies out of prison for firing warning shots.
Reasons:
1. Bob Gualtieri is too lazy to go read the bill?
2. Bob Gualtieri, an attorney, is too stupid to understand the bill?
3. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri is deliberately lying and trying to get firearms owners to panic and call the governor in opposition to the bill?
3a: He's doing this to keep a "warning shot" bill from becoming law because of collateral damage to bystanders?
3b: He's lying because he has another agenda... like perhaps a desire to run for higher office?
I know he ain't lazy; I know he isn't stupid, either. So he's lying. And Simmons is lying. Even if I give them the benefit of the doubt and decide to believe 3a above, they are still lying to us. They are lying to firearms owners via Pravda West and the Miami Socialist Herald. I hate being lied to!!!
If I am not analyzing this stuff correctly, then please PLEASE correct me. Because otherwise I cannot continue to support Gualtieri.
THANKS!!
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
.........You know what? Nothing I can correct you on there, I think you have it nailed!
Who says Bob Gualtieri is supposedly a 2A supporter? He is to 2A supporters as RINOs are to Republicans.Bob Gualtieri is SUPPOSEDLY a Second Amendment supporter. But it doesn't appear that his words reflect what the bill is trying to change, which is keeping timid beaten-up-before ladies out of prison for firing warning shots.
Thank you Mike and Brian. I see that I messed up the thread title. I had meant to say "lies" and not "likes".
Okay, I am going to lambast him on facebook, and I just wanted to make sure I was NOT missing something.
Thanks!!!!!
Okay, I am going to lambast him on facebook, and I just wanted to make sure I was NOT missing something.
Thanks!!!!!
Ask him if he was one of the six County Sheriffs who stood with the NRA and broke ranks with the Florida Sheriffs Assn on the evacuation bill. My Sheriff stood with the NRA.Thank you Mike and Brian. I see that I messed up the thread title. I had meant to say "lies" and not "likes".
Okay, I am going to lambast him on facebook, and I just wanted to make sure I was NOT missing something.
Thanks!!!!!
I belong to several other gun forums and I see a huge potential problem in voting for candidates in this years elections. Many candidates are picking and choosing the age groups, demographics and the "hot topic of the area" to bolster their campaigns. All of a sudden out of no where, especially here in rural New York where 2A is the top concern in the up coming election everyone is a for the 2A and to repeal the SafeAct that was passed ( well....rammed down the throats of the citizens of New York in a Kangaroo court atmosphere at 3 AM with out due process of normal law making. Review and learn the candidates records or their past experience. Voting is very important this election, but voting for the right person is the most important issue.
To my knowledge Gualtieri has opposed everything that Florida Carry has ever pushed for legislatively (including open carry). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that. Best I can tell he's one of those politicians that likes to say they are pro-gun and then turn around and actively work against us at every turn.Ask him if he was one of the six County Sheriffs who stood with the NRA and broke ranks with the Florida Sheriffs Assn on the evacuation bill. My Sheriff stood with the NRA.
The long and short of it is that the bill assures (to the degree that is possible), that someone who could have justifiably shot another human being, but chooses rather to display the firearm in a threatening manner or fire a warning shot (though those words are not in the bill) in lieu of justifiably shooting that human being, is not charged with a 10-20-Life crime, when shooting the human being would have not resulted in a 10-20-Life crime.
In essence, you should never face a criminal charge (intended to lock up criminals) for not shooting a human being, when shooting the person would have been justified. Don't punish a person for their attempt to deescalate a violent situation and avoid bloodshed. It's that simple. Not sure why people are all wrapped around the axle about it.
Senator Simmons is an attorney, and IMHO a pretty smart guy. I'd like to see his detailed analysis of why he thinks this bill hurts SYG.
In essence, you should never face a criminal charge (intended to lock up criminals) for not shooting a human being, when shooting the person would have been justified. Don't punish a person for their attempt to deescalate a violent situation and avoid bloodshed. It's that simple. Not sure why people are all wrapped around the axle about it.
Senator Simmons is an attorney, and IMHO a pretty smart guy. I'd like to see his detailed analysis of why he thinks this bill hurts SYG.
What the supporters of this bill would have you believe is that many people have been convicted of threatening to use deadly force in situations where the actual use of deadly force was justified. However, those instances have never been documented.
What the bill actually does is make the threatened use of deadly force legal ONLY in situations where the actual use of deadly force would be justified. While it would now be legal to fire a warning shot, in situations where you would be legally justified, under Chapter 776, to actually shoot an assailant, you are no longer legally justified to threaten to shoot someone under circumstances which would not justify you to shoot a person, under Chapter 776. So, if a little old lady points a pistol at someone or verbally threatens to shoot someone, who does not present a threat which would legally justify actually shooting someone, the lady commits the crime of aggravated assault, a felony.
Prior to the passage of this bill, it was possible to successfully argue that threatening to use deadly force was justified, regardless of whether the actual use of deadly force was justified, if the threat was presented in necessary self defense, or just self defense in general. Now that the threat of using deadly force, in self defense, is directly equated with the actual use or application of deadly force, in self defense, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to justify the threat in cases where the application of deadly force in not legally justified under Chapter 776.
Actually, the bulk of S89 deals with expunging a criminal record if an arrest or indictment is vacated based upon a valid finding of self defense.
What the bill actually does is make the threatened use of deadly force legal ONLY in situations where the actual use of deadly force would be justified. While it would now be legal to fire a warning shot, in situations where you would be legally justified, under Chapter 776, to actually shoot an assailant, you are no longer legally justified to threaten to shoot someone under circumstances which would not justify you to shoot a person, under Chapter 776. So, if a little old lady points a pistol at someone or verbally threatens to shoot someone, who does not present a threat which would legally justify actually shooting someone, the lady commits the crime of aggravated assault, a felony.
Prior to the passage of this bill, it was possible to successfully argue that threatening to use deadly force was justified, regardless of whether the actual use of deadly force was justified, if the threat was presented in necessary self defense, or just self defense in general. Now that the threat of using deadly force, in self defense, is directly equated with the actual use or application of deadly force, in self defense, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to justify the threat in cases where the application of deadly force in not legally justified under Chapter 776.
Actually, the bulk of S89 deals with expunging a criminal record if an arrest or indictment is vacated based upon a valid finding of self defense.
Wow they make the bill so complicated you don't know if it's good or bad , that sucks
Did this come about as a result of unintended consequences, or do you think the NRA fully realized that possibility when they were negotiating compromises on the bill?What the supporters of this bill would have you believe is that many people have been convicted of threatening to use deadly force in situations where the actual use of deadly force was justified. However, those instances have never been documented.
What the bill actually does is make the threatened use of deadly force legal ONLY in situations where the actual use of deadly force would be justified. While it would now be legal to fire a warning shot, in situations where you would be legally justified, under Chapter 776, to actually shoot an assailant, you are no longer legally justified to threaten to shoot someone under circumstances which would not justify you to shoot a person, under Chapter 776. So, if a little old lady points a pistol at someone or verbally threatens to shoot someone, who does not present a threat which would legally justify actually shooting someone, the lady commits the crime of aggravated assault, a felony.
Prior to the passage of this bill, it was possible to successfully argue that threatening to use deadly force was justified, regardless of whether the actual use of deadly force was justified, if the threat was presented in necessary self defense, or just self defense in general. Now that the threat of using deadly force, in self defense, is directly equated with the actual use or application of deadly force, in self defense, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to justify the threat in cases where the application of deadly force in not legally justified under Chapter 776.
Actually, the bulk of S89 deals with expunging a criminal record if an arrest or indictment is vacated based upon a valid finding of self defense.
Wrong again. Here's the pertinent section of the bill which refutes your allegation.What the bill actually does is make the threatened use of deadly force legal ONLY in situations where the actual use of deadly force would be justified. While it would now be legal to fire a warning shot, in situations where you would be legally justified, under Chapter 776, to actually shoot an assailant, you are no longer legally justified to threaten to shoot someone under circumstances which would not justify you to shoot a person, under Chapter 776. So, if a little old lady points a pistol at someone or verbally threatens to shoot someone, who does not present a threat which would legally justify actually shooting someone, the lady commits the crime of aggravated assault, a felony.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
This subsection sets the legal standard at which non-deadly force is justified. It says non-deadly force, such as granny pulling her gun to ward off what she reasonable believes to be an imminent use of ANY unlawful force, is justified. Unlawful force could be a simple battery, or being cornered. It does NOT, as you assert, say that non-lethal force is only authorized when one reasonably believes an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death exists. That was, and still is, the legal standard at which deadly force is authorized.
The real question is, will this and other bills ever reach the governors desk so the clock on his signing them can start ticking?
Yes, of course. All bills are usually taken care of by July 1.The real question is, will this and other bills ever reach the governors desk so the clock on his signing them can start ticking?
I don't get it. Isn't pulling a gun equal to threatening to use deadly force?Wrong again. Here's the pertinent section of the bill which refutes your allegation.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
This subsection sets the legal standard at which non-deadly force is justified. It says non-deadly force, such as granny pulling her gun to ward off what she reasonable believes to be an imminent use of ANY unlawful force, is justified. Unlawful force could be a simple battery, or being cornered. It does NOT, as you assert, say that non-lethal force is only authorized when one reasonably believes an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death exists. That was, and still is, the legal standard at which deadly force is authorized.
Wrong-O. Note the first underlined phrase section, "except deadly force". Under the changes to Chapter 776, the threatened use of deadly force is only justified, when the actual use of deadly force is justified. The legal standards for the use of deadly force and the threatened use of deadly force were different before this bill was passed. As the threatened use of force was not directly regulated in statute, it was possible to argue that the threatened use of deadly force was justified in any case where self defense was justified. And, most case law recognized the difference. What S89 does is eliminate the legal difference between the use of deadly force and the threatened use of deadly force by equating the two and limiting the legal justification to threaten the use of deadly force to those circumstances when the actual use of said deadly force would be statutorily justified.Wrong again. Here's the pertinent section of the bill which refutes your allegation.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
This subsection sets the legal standard at which non-deadly force is justified. It says non-deadly force, such as granny pulling her gun to ward off what she reasonable believes to be an imminent use of ANY unlawful force, is justified. Unlawful force could be a simple battery, or being cornered. It does NOT, as you assert, say that non-lethal force is only authorized when one reasonably believes an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death exists. That was, and still is, the legal standard at which deadly force is authorized.
I guess this is the part that is all a matter of semantics IMO. It seems as if someone is cornered or in the middle of a battery would in fact have a case that an imminent threat exists. My simple mind made me understand this bill as me not getting into a large amount of trouble if someone is walking towards my family screaming that they are going to hurt us and I pull out my gun and say "ah, no you're not" with some space left between us before I had to "unload" to see if they would rethink their actions....Wrong again. Here's the pertinent section of the bill which refutes your allegation.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
This subsection sets the legal standard at which non-deadly force is justified. It says non-deadly force, such as granny pulling her gun to ward off what she reasonable believes to be an imminent use of ANY unlawful force, is justified. Unlawful force could be a simple battery, or being cornered. It does NOT, as you assert, say that non-lethal force is only authorized when one reasonably believes an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death exists. That was, and still is, the legal standard at which deadly force is authorized.
regardless, thanks for the info and the discussion.
I really don't know. I would like to think that it was simply a case of unintended consequences due to a lack of ability to foresee such consequences by whoever wrote the bill. But, who knows? Even these two legislators don't seem to have a good grasp of what the bill does. It would have no bearing on SYG, only on the threatened use of force.Did this come about as a result of unintended consequences, or do you think the NRA fully realized that possibility when they were negotiating compromises on the bill?
It is all about semantics, the language of the law. In the case of this bill, it specifically regulates when the threatened use of deadly force can and can not be used. and it directly equates the threatened use of deadly force with the actual use of deadly force. In simple terms, you can no longer threaten another person with possible deadly force, in a self defense situation, unless you are legally justified in using deadly force in the situation.I guess this is the part that is all a matter of semantics IMO. It seems as if someone is cornered or in the middle of a battery would in fact have a case that an imminent threat exists. My simple mind made me understand this bill as me not getting into a large amount of trouble if someone is walking towards my family screaming that they are going to hurt us and I pull out my gun and say "ah, no you're not" with some space left between us before I had to "unload" to see if they would rethink their actions....
regardless, thanks for the info and the discussion.
Going by the black letter law I tend to think that Mac's interpretation is correct. I'm going to take the above and rewrite it eliminating the "or" in the beginning and replacing it with the effective language that the "or" creates.1. A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
The bolded portion could be read to say that you may not threaten to use deadly force against even an imminent use of force that is simply unlawful.1. A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.
A person is justified in threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.
A person who uses force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using such force.
A person who threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before threatening to use such force.
Then there is the next section which apparently intends to deal with deadly force.
Parsing that yields this:2. 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 for 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.
The end result appears to be that you can only threaten to use deadly force if you could legally actually use deadly force.2. A person is justified in using deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using 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 is justified in threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that 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.
I think the average juror would say that drawing a firearm to low ready would constitute threatening to use deadly force.
Unless there is a bullet proof (no pun intended) argument to counter the above, then I would say with regard to pulling your firearm as a deterrent measure to another's offer of non-deadly force, by the black letter of the law the result of the new law will indeed be more restrictive than in the past.
In the past I believe that the only statute that potentially criminalized "defensive display" was 790.10 (displaying "in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense"). That said, I don't know enough about the cases where people were convicted for threatening to use a firearm and sentenced to mandatory minimums. Were they charged under an overbroad reading of some other statute? If so, then we'd probably have to look at that statute as well.
I scanned the legislative purpose and findings in the first part of the bill and don't find anything that would clarify or refute the reading of the text that would imply that you cannot threaten to use deadly force against merely unlawful force.
My mind is open to persuasion in all directions at the moment, but the above is my conclusion after reading the posts thus far and parsing the text of the revised statutes.
Edited to add: It is important to note, and it just dawned on me, that 776.012, 776.013 are permissive statutes. They do not criminalize any behavior. They simply decriminalize behavior that might have otherwise been considered criminal. In that respect no new restriction on your ability to threaten to use force has actually occurred. The simple fact (if indeed it is a fact) that 776.012 does not authorize you to threaten to use deadly force against one whom merely offers unlawful force against you does not mean that it criminalizes doing so. So it would seem that with regard to that particular fact pattern (old lady draws gun to ward off unarmed bully) nothing may have actually changed.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Florida Concealed Carry
A forum community dedicated to Florida’s concealed firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about every day carry, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
brownie
248 Replies
Anduril
102 Replies
Lautermilch
100 Replies
Recommended Communities
