Via Of Arms and The Law:
Yesterday the Michigan Court of Appeals handed down a decision in a highly public and very controversial case that gun owners across the United States should applaud. In short, it demonstrates and validates the value of armed self-defense even when you do not pull the trigger and — crucially — have no cause to pull the trigger. It justifies the brandishing of a gun as pre-emptive measure to block the use of unlawful force.
A Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broader Than You Might Think
Summary: Woman with a child in her arms points gun to another woman who was being aggressive with her vehicle. he was tried and convicted to two years in prison. The conviction was thrown out by the Court of Appeals which stated that “When one brandishes a weapon without firing it, they don’t, in fact, use “deadly force.”
We had several cases in Florida where a defendant presented a firearm in the course of a confrontation and did not shoot or shot other than killing. Prosecutors hung on to that to say that the defendant was not truly in fear for life or grave bodily harm so it was actually not self-defense but assault with a deadly weapon. Please understand the silly and heartless reasoning: You were better off legally if you killed your attacker rather than scare him off. The state demanded a corpse or at least somebody in the ER so you could claim Self Defense.
Next thing, the victim of the attack was victimized by the states with 20 years of prison because no lives were lost. The most famous case was Marissa Alexander’s which was the final coffin in the nail of Prosecutor Angela Corey, famous for forcing the Zimmerman witch trial to happen. I am still dumbfounded that the Democrats stood against this bill which actually would allow for the de-escalation of a criminally dangerous situation and save lives.
The Florida Legislature changed the law and now we have in Chapter 776, Justifiable use of force, the following wording: Use or threatened use of force in defense of person. I hope the Michigan Legislature follows suit and Michiganders expand their options in a Deadly Force event.
Now, how does that apply to “warning shots?”
There is, in my opinion (IANAL) a big difference between displaying a firearm, and firing a warning shot. Will the court consider a warning shot equivalent to a display?
I skimmed over the FL law and did not see a distinction. I can imagine any number of scenarios where a warning shot will cement the threat in the perp’s mind. A stalker ex might not actually believe that their “true love” is going to shoot them might need a bit more than a display of a gun. On the other hand, bullets that are fired at something other than the target tend to end up in unexpected places.
…and it’s that last bit that would worry me.
In Holland when I was growing up, firing warning shots was standard police practice. Their notion of warning shots was a shot fired somewhat above the perpetrators.
I never did see any discussion in the papers of what happens with rounds fired just a little above head high, in a city.
If I really thought a warning shot was needed and I’m standing on plain old Mother earth, I wouldn’t worry about a shot nearly straight down. In a paved public area, I guess a shot nearly straight up would be the best option, and hope it wouldn’t land on someone’s head. Not a decision to be made lightly.
Under Florida law a person is justified in firing a warning shot if they would be justified in using deadly force to begin with. It was just added recently.