• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots

How about some facts? State's Motion. I didn't watch this trial. As discussed yesterday, it is not legal to fire warning shots, or to brandish a firearm at all, to threaten someone.
 
Actually this is interesting, as I've never been able to find a satisfactory dividing line between the legal definition of "brandishing", and "drawing a gun in anticipation of possible need for self defense." So does the law REQUIRE that you actually use a gun if you draw it from a holster? And if you fire that gun, it must be AT someone?
 
Dave, I believe the sentences have mandatory minimums, and in addition to whatever her crime is, there is an additional sentence if she uses a firearm to accomplish it. I don't think there is any latitude for the judge to be lenient if s/he chooses.
 
Seemingly a pretty classic case of "be careful about what you wish for" when saying the government needs to DO something.
 
No warning shots across the bow, make a good clean head shot, then its only your word...
 
Nanci said:
How about some facts? State's Motion. I didn't watch this trial. As discussed yesterday, it is not legal to fire warning shots, or to brandish a firearm at all, to threaten someone.
Click to expand...

Which does seem sort of hypocritical in these laws. What if she did shoot and kill him and claimed stand your ground? Maybe she gets off and goes free?

I would think threatening someone with a gun as self defense is better than killing someone with a gun in self defense. Seems these laws incentivize killing someone.

Unless I'm missing something?
 
If you fire a warning shot, in my opinion, you are not truly in fear for your life. Too much potential for abuse.
 
Blue Apple Herps said:
I would think threatening someone with a gun as self defense is better than killing someone with a gun in self defense. Seems these laws incentivize killing someone.

Unless I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

I felt the same way when I took my conceal carry class, but had it explained much better when I took "Mag 40," a 40 hour carry class. Both those pro and anti allowing citizens to carry in public agreed that allowing even a little leeway for brandishing would drastically increase the likelihood of citizens pulling guns! Believe me, people still do it all the time when robbed/threatened/etc., and in some cases they lose their permits. In others, they were able to "prove" they felt the need to exercise deadly force, then the situation changed -and in still others, a mugger ran and police were never notified I'm sure. It's not a perfect system, but none are -we are dealing with humans after all.
 
Um... She refused a 3 year sentence because she feels she did nothing wrong? After reading the report it scares me that she feels she did no wrong. I am happy she got 20.
 
I havnt read the article guys but i have to completely disagree if someone fire warning shots vs kills someone in self defense how is that punishment even logical. if some one is lets say chasing you and you shoot you gun in the air is that then threatening.

especially if there has been a history of abuse?
 
cornbreadandmilk said:
I havnt read the article guys but i have to completely disagree if someone fire warning shots vs kills someone in self defense how is that punishment even logical. if some one is lets say chasing you and you shoot you gun in the air is that then threatening.

especially if there has been a history of abuse?
Click to expand...

Read the report... Warning shots aren't aimed at the head of your husband in the same direction your children are in.

Which btw, she had plenty of opportunity to leave the home. If fact she had to go back out into her car to get the gun, then come back into the house.
 
Nanci said:
If you fire a warning shot, in my opinion, you are not truly in fear for your life. Too much potential for abuse.
Click to expand...

*emphasis mine*

Devils advocate here, the same could be said about stand your ground. It's almost cart blanche to put yourself in dangerous situations, and then be given a license to kill.

I'm not saying people should be able to pull guns and threaten left and right. But if someone truly felt their life was in danger and pulling a gun diffused the situation, to me that's better than killing them.
 
Well if she really felt she was in danger, she would of gotten in the car and left instead of going to her car getting a gun and walking back in.
 
You can only fire a warning shot if all the conditions are present to used deadly force.

Have you heard Martin's star "White Cracker" witness on the news programs? Apparently, she withheld a lot of information about her phone conversation with Martin at the time of the incident.

Things like she thought Zim might be a rapist and shouldn't be allowed to follow Martin home where his little brother is. If anybody "profiled" anybody, it was Martin and his White Cracker friend profiling Zim as a Homo Rapist. If there was a hate crime involved in this incident, it was a Black putting some "woop ass" on a profiled gay Hispanic guy.
 
ecreipeoj said:
You can only fire a warning shot if all the conditions are present to used deadly force.

Have you heard Martin's star "White Cracker" witness on the news programs? Apparently, she withheld a lot of information about her phone conversation with Martin at the time of the incident.

Things like she thought Zim might be a rapist and shouldn't be allowed to follow Martin home where his little brother is. If anybody "profiled" anybody, it was Martin and his White Cracker friend profiling Zim as a Homo Rapist. If there was a hate crime involved in this incident, it was a Black putting some "woop ass" on a profiled gay Hispanic guy.
Click to expand...

I suspect that 99 percent of what she says is entirely fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top