By Dean Weingarten


Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- Florida is moving toward a “Defensive Display” law that includes the possibility of a warning shot or shots being acceptable as a part of self defense, if no innocents are injured.
Arizona passed a similar law several years ago after the aggressors in self defense situations were using the criminal justice system to have the defenders arrested on aggravated assault charges. Arizona’s law does not include warning shots.
In the case that I know of, the aggressors were following the defender in a “road rage” scenario. At one point, they pulled up along side of him, while traveling, and threw a beverage container at him with enough force that it cause a small cut. When he stopped at a light, boxed in by traffic, two of them got out of their vehicle and started running toward him from a couple of cars back. He held up his defensive sidearm for them to see, and they quickly stopped their aggressive actions and ran back to their vehicle. Then they called 911. He was also on the phone to 911. The police came to his house, and eventually arrested him (he thinks that it was because, under stress, he made a bad joke that offended the investigating officer). He was going to trial, when the prosecution informed the defense that there was a third 911 call that confirmed the defender’s version of events. The case was dismissed, but there was tremendous stress and expense involved. The aggressors were never arrested or charged.
With the Florida law, the most contentious issue is that of “warning shots”. Here is a discussion of the issue from a retired State Patrol firearms instructor. I have edited it a little for spelling, with permission of the author:
I think defensive display can have a place in a self defense situation.
More then one criminal assault has been stopped when it has become know that victim is armed.
Warning shots are a lot tougher because of the high probability of some thing bad happening.
When I was on my Department’s firearms and use of force committee, we had a long discussion on warning shots. Some were for forbidding them all together, some were for a more modest policy.
We were trying to determine if the policy should allow or forbid them. We decided the policy should read, that they should be RARE and INFREQUENT, based on the facts at the time they were used.
This was decided mostly on the facts of two situations where warning shots were used and the suspects were taken into custody after the warning shots without harm to the officers or suspects.
Having read the use of force reports and interviewing the officers I truly believe without the warning shots the officers would have ended up shooting both suspects.
It seemed clear that both of these suspects were trying to commit suicide by cop and the warning shots jarred them out of that line of thought and they surrendered because of the warning shots and not pressing forward with their attack on the officers that would have forced the officers to shoot them.
One was armed with a baseball bat the other was not armed, but kept making threats saying he had a gun and making movements like he had a gun and was going to use it.
Both warning shots were fired into good bullet stopping areas and there was no one else around.
Warning shots good, bad, or other wise, I guess one would have to take the totality of the situation into account before determining if they were justified or not and safely executed.
This summation of warning shots seems well thought out. I have always taught a policy of *not* firing warning shots, but with the caveat the every policy has exceptions. The idea that warning shots should be rare, but that each circumstance should be considered in the totality of the situation, appeals to me and to my understanding that each defensive shooting is unique.
In most situations, it is a better resolution to a situation if it can be resolved without having to shoot someone.
©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

I agree that display as a deterrent should be protected. As for warning shots, in the VAST majority of situations, showing the gun should be the ONLY warning. In the case of ‘suicide by cop’ cases cited in the article, such a case doesn’t apply to self defense buy a civilian.
Marc de Piolenc: While I agree with you that the chances of someone being hurt or killed by a bullet fired into the air are extremely slim, a human body takes up very little space in comparison to the amount of ground space, it does happen.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356851/Seven-year-old-boy-dies-hit-stray-bullet-fired-air-walked-July-4-fireworks-display.html
Wikipedia also has an extensive list of injuries and deaths associated with “Celebratory Gunfire.”
Granted that it is physically possible for someone to be hurt or even killed by a bullet fired into the air, but please: find me ONE instance – just one – where this has actually happened! And as for “shoot for center of mass” – I used to buy into that dogma, but now I prefer to have the option of making a credible threat. As for getting tossed in jail, well, better tried by twelve than carried by six.
I have been taught that unless you know where your bullet will stop, do not fire the weapon. I target shoot on my property, and before I go shoot, I walk the area to be sure there is minimal chance of the bullet hitting anything but the low part of a hillside if I miss my target. I also set my target low on the tree. I live out where there are few neighbors, and we all shoot on our respective properties. The idea of shooting with the intent to miss implies you are putting a bullet into the air… Read more »
If you feel that your life is in danger, draw and fire at the center of mass. If you feel that a warning shot is warranted then you do not really feel your life is in danger – keep your weapon holstered. Besides, with the current cost of ammo “warning shots” are expensive and can get you tossed in jail.
I agree with sivispace, always avoid a confrontation whenever possible and only draw and fire your weapon when there is no other alternative. Even though I live in Florida, I would discourage firing a warning shot and I cannot conceive of a time I would fire one. Once you pull the trigger, there is no recalling that bullet. You never really know where that bullet is going. Even firing at an attacker may hurt some other person. Firing a warning shot just increases the danger to innocent bystanders. If your life is truly in danger, you should only fire at… Read more »
I have avoided several bad situations just by letting my concealed firearm become exposed to the troublemaker , but in my state even this is illegal , but it definitely gives pause to an overly aggressive person and I have never had to fire any shots . This action should be legal but also carry the same responsibility as concealed carry in general .
Craig,
I agree with what you say but, in many jurisdictions, firing until you’re out of ammo will get you charged with at least manslaughter.
You just can’t win, can you?
[firing a warning shot would endanger no one or nothing if a blank was used first]
You might want to ask Jon-Erik Hexum about that. Oh, wait, you can’t. He died after being shot with a blank.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0382149/bio
Seems there’s this thing in a blank called the “wad” that at close (self-defense) range can kill.
“I didn’t MEAN to kill him” is not something you ever want to say, particularly in court.
The best gunfight is one that never happens.