People trusting AI are overstating the so-called “intelligence” of these models. They are computer programs: no more, no less. These AI models are written by humans and are subject to the biases of their programmers. Let me illustrate:
I asked ChatGPT the following: what florida case law states that display of a firearm is non-lethal force?
The anwer:
There is not a single Florida appellate case that broadly holds that the “display” of a firearm is always “non-deadly force.” In fact, modern Florida law tends to treat the threatened use of a firearm as potentially deadly force, depending on the circumstances.
The key authority is actually the statute:
- Florida Statute § 776.012(2) expressly recognizes the “threatened use of deadly force.”
Before the 2014 amendment to § 776.012, many Florida practitioners treated merely drawing or displaying a firearm (without firing) as non-deadly force. After the amendment, that distinction became much weaker because the statute now separately authorizes the “threatened use of deadly force.”
Cases commonly discussed on this issue include:
- Bass v. State, 232 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) — pointing a firearm at someone can constitute aggravated assault.
- Gilbert v. State, 347 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) — displaying a gun in a threatening manner can create a well-founded fear of imminent violence.
- M.M. v. State, 391 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) — aggravated assault requires proof the victim had a reasonable fear of imminent violence.
What Florida courts do recognize is a distinction between:
- Improper exhibition / brandishing under Fla. Stat. § 790.10, and
- Aggravated assault with a firearm under § 784.021.
A mere display may be charged as “improper exhibition” rather than aggravated assault if there was no intentional threat of imminent violence.
Of course, I know that this isn’t the case, so I replied with: what about Howard v. State, 698 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), or Carter v. State, 115 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)?
The model replied with:
Yes — those are two of the principal Florida cases people cite for the proposition that merely displaying a firearm is non-deadly force as a matter of law.
Howard v. State
Howard is probably the clearest statement. The Fourth DCA said: “even the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not ‘deadly force.’”
The case relied on Toledo v. State and distinguished between:
- actual deadly force, and
- threatened/displayed force.
Howard has since been repeatedly cited for the rule that:
- pointing or displaying a firearm,
- without discharge,
- is generally treated as non-deadly force under Florida self-defense law.
Carter v. State
Carter reinforced the same concept. The important language is footnote 3: “Apparently the firearm was not discharged and deadly force did not apply as a matter of law.”
Carter is often cited together with Howard and later cases such as:
- Cunningham v. State
- Rivero v. State
- Jackson v. State
Those cases collectively stand for the proposition that:
- merely displaying or pointing a firearm,
- even at someone,
- without firing, is not deadly force as a matter of law.
Jackson is especially explicit: “the mere display of a gun, or even pointing a gun at another’s head or heart without firing it, is not deadly force as a matter of law.”
That said, after the 2014 amendments to Florida’s self-defense statutes recognizing the “threatened use of deadly force,” the statutory framework became more complicated. Courts still cite Howard/Carter for the force-classification issue, but prosecutors sometimes argue that threatening with a firearm falls under justified “threatened deadly force” rather than ordinary non-deadly force.
Again, the model admitted that the court cases were in opposition to it’s position, but still pushed back with incorrect antigun bullshit. So, I asked a follow up question: Oh really? Then Cunningham v. State, 159 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and Burns v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) were not after 2014?
It then gave me a long explanation that boiled down to “Well, all of your cases are from the 4th DCA” with the implication that the 4th was out of line with the rest of the courts in the state. So I came back with: There is also Jackson v. State, 179 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), Copeland v. State, 277 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), and Marty v. State, 210 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). None of them are 4th district. I think whoever programs you has a certain antigun bias, and your opinions are suspect at best.
So the AI responded back with:
That does not mean every firearm-related threat is legally “non-deadly force” for every statutory purpose, but for the issue you originally asked about — Florida case law on display of a firearm — the appellate trend is clear and longstanding.
And to your broader point: the error here was analytical, not ideological. Legal issues involving firearms often have nuanced doctrinal distinctions (e.g., “threatened deadly force” versus “deadly force” versus “non-deadly force” in jury instructions), and I compressed those distinctions too aggressively. Your cited cases corrected that.
This is why I no longer pay for access to ChatGPT.
0 Comments