Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - Polidicks

[QUOTE=The golden;35932405]Yes. I too think carefully and cautiously about my actions while I'm being cased by a person who wants to kill me.[/QUOTE] Perhaps she should have learned how to use the firearm she bought.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932414]Perhaps she should have learned how to use the firearm she bought.[/QUOTE] Pretty judgmental statement there bud.

[QUOTE=faze;35932412]So she should have ended this man's life then?[/QUOTE] If she was going to fire, she should have aimed for the center-of-mass, yes. The bullet would have been accounted for. It likely would not end up in somebody's wall, or through somebody's wall and into their head. It is an implement of killing. You don't use it except to kill. Every gun-safety course is going to teach you this. You always shoot to kill. You NEVER fire randomly to "warn" someone. The unlucky bystander you hit won't get that warning.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932252]FYI there is no such thing as a "warning shot" in terms of law. At very least, not to my knowledge. If you fire a gun, it is automatically assumed you meant to kill someone. When you shoot a gun and intentionally miss, you put everyone in the vicinity within harm's way. You simply DO NOT fire a gun if you don't want whatever you're aiming at to be dead.[/QUOTE]This. If you're really in danger then you want to shoot the person that is endangering you, not warn them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932449]If she was going to fire, she should have aimed for the center-of-mass, yes. The bullet would have been accounted for. It likely would not end up in somebody's wall, or through somebody's wall and into their head. It is an implement of killing. You don't use it except to kill. Every gun-safety course is going to teach you this. You always shoot to kill. You NEVER fire randomly to "warn" someone. The unlucky bystander you hit won't get that warning.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot. She wanted to scare him off. You're not getting it at all. Just stop.

[QUOTE=faze;35932432]Pretty judgmental statement there bud.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I just expect people to be fucking responsible with the [B]FIREARM[/B] that they bought. Silly me. No need to know how to use it or anything, just point and shoot however you want. Not like you're endangering the lives of any bystanders or anything cowboying shit up.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932407]No. Always aim for the center of mass. There is a reason the law typically does not recognize wounding-shots or warning-shots. It has a way of treating EVERY shot as a lethal shot, because [I]every[/I] shot is potentially lethal. If you fire a gun, it had better be to kill. You don't fire at a limb or randomly as a "warning," you aim for the center of mass or you don't fire at all.[/QUOTE] No, I get that any shot counts as lethal force. I don't advocate warning shots or less lethal shots. I'm just saying that one can still remain accountable for the shot and that warning shots don't always have to be unaimed and haphazard.

[QUOTE=faze;35932454]You're an idiot. She wanted to scare him off. You're not getting it at all. Just stop.[/QUOTE] You don't fire a gun to fucking "scare" someone, you fire a gun to [I]kill[/I] them. You can [I]threaten[/I] them, but if you pull that fucking trigger you had better goddamn well know where that bullet is going. Because whatever that bullet hits, that is on your ass.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;35932237]Unfortunately many jurors do not know that they have the right to disregard the law when determining guilt if they so choose, and they do not have to be informed of this right.[/QUOTE] Is this true? I would like to know more about this. Jury Nullification. I'm still not quite sure how it works, especially pertaining to laws like this.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932458]Sorry, I just expect people to be fucking responsible with the [B]FIREARM[/B] that they bought. Silly me. No need to know how to use it or anything, just point and shoot however you want. Not like you're endangering the lives of any bystanders or anything cowboying shit up.[/QUOTE] Go marry a physically abusive man as a woman, see what happens. See how you react when your life is at risk, and you don't want to kill anybody. Ten bucks says you've never even been in a life threatening situation. So you have no grounds to argue here.

[QUOTE=faze;35932454]You're an idiot. She wanted to scare him off. You're not getting it at all. Just stop.[/QUOTE] faze, don't dig yourself even deeper. Don't scare people off with a firearm. In a court of law pretty much any use of a firearm will be looked at as lethal force.

[QUOTE=iFail;35932468]No, I get that any shot counts as lethal force. I don't advocate warning shots or less lethal shots. I'm just saying that one can still remain accountable for the shot and that warning shots don't always have to be unaimed and haphazard.[/QUOTE] They are haphazard by their very nature. You are intentionally missing a target and sending a deadly projectile into the distance. Listen, this is not how you treat firearms. They solve one problem and one problem only. To use them for anything else out in the open is completely irresponsible, and the guilty party should be held accountable for that. 20 years if there are no casualties? Yeah, that's excessive. I'll agree with that. But there is such a thing as criminal negligence.

[QUOTE=faze;35932454]You're an idiot. She wanted to scare him off. You're not getting it at all. Just stop.[/QUOTE]You're the one that's not getting anything. Self-defense is only applicable if you try and shoot them, not fire off a warning shot

[QUOTE=faze;35932175]In a life or death situation people tend to panic and do what seems right. 20 years is bullshit, especially for [I]this[/I] little tidbit:[/QUOTE] Um then she should have shot him square in the head. If you are in fear for your life, you don't firing a warning shot, you don't shoot into a wall children are behind, you shoot to kill. If this was truly a life or death situation she would have been dead now, and if she felt she was in a life or death situation she wouldn't have missed.

[QUOTE=faze;35932485]Go marry a physically abusive man as a woman, see what happens. See how you react when your life is at risk, and you don't want to kill anybody. Ten bucks says you've never even been in a life threatening situation. So you have no grounds to argue here.[/QUOTE] Being beaten doesn't give anyone the right to endanger bystanders, pal. I don't care what you do about it, your shit is [I]not[/I] worth a bystander's life.

hey america stop ruining people lives, fuckwits

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932383][url=http://www.news4jax.com/news/Boy-Shot-By-Police-Remains-Critical/-/475880/2010836/-/ibtk3vz/-/index.html]Or a two-year-old[/url][/QUOTE] You're really trying to make this out as that was the sole reason she was prosecuted. The reason the went for the prosecution was because there were children present in the room where she fired. While it doesn't state it in the article, I would assume it was fired into the ceiling since up is the primary direction for a warning shot. Any standard pistol round (9mm to .45) would stop before it exited the roof since it would have to go through numerous layers of dry wall, wood, and insulation (and this is assuming its a 1 floor home). While not a safe or generally advised idea at all, that bullet would have stopped long before it exited the home. The highest velocity any of those rounds would achieve is roughly 1300 fps. 9mm would have the best chance, but even then it's so light that it would be slowed down and even deflected by the insulation alone.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932513]20 years if there are no casualties? Yeah, that's excessive. I'll agree with that. But there is such a thing as criminal negligence.[/QUOTE] I can agree to this. I don't think she should be punished very long (if much at all), maybe just given gun safety classes. And a divorce. [QUOTE=yawmwen;35932520]Um then she should have shot him square in the head. If you are in fear for your life, you don't firing a warning shot, you don't shoot into a wall children are behind, you shoot to kill. If this was truly a life or death situation she would have been dead now, and if she felt she was in a life or death situation she wouldn't have missed.[/QUOTE] Except that it could have been a life or death situation, stopped by the warning shot.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35932554]You're really trying to make this out as that was the sole reason she was prosecuted.[/QUOTE] No I'm not. I'm not talking about the case at all. I just said "FYI the law does not recognize 'warning shots'," and suddenly everyone in this thread flips their fucking shit. You guys are acting like a 'warning shot' is a valid thing. It isn't. You never fire a gun if you aren't trying to hit a target. Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER. That bullet is going to hit something, and you had better know what it is.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932571]No I'm not. I'm not talking about the case at all. I just said "FYI the law does not recognize 'warning shots'," and suddenly everyone in this thread flips their fucking shit. You guys are acting like a 'warning shot' is a valid thing. It isn't. You never fire a gun if you aren't trying to hit a target. Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER. That bullet is going to hit something, and you had better know what it is.[/QUOTE] I always figured that no warning shots was a given. Then again half the people here don't know their own states gun laws.

[QUOTE=faze;35932454]You're an idiot. She wanted to scare him off. You're not getting it at all. Just stop.[/QUOTE] You take out a gun and point it at someone you intend to shoot to kill. There is no "shoot to wound" or "shoot to scare". You point a loaded firearm at someone your intentions are to kill them. The law states she may use deadly force to defend herself, not the THREAT of deadly force and that's why she was prosecuted, along with the fact she decided to endanger the lives of two children instead of her abusive husband. Honestly yes she should have killed him. He was an abusive man and if let go more then likely would have continued abusing his partners, not everyone can be 'saved' or 'fixed' like people like to believe. Aside from my personal beliefs that he doesn't deserve to live any more, it would have been within her legal rights to have shot him and killed him. She would have gotten off on self defence and he wouldn't be around any more, the bullet would have more then likely stopped inside of his gut and definitely would not have gone through the wall after going through him, ensuring the children would have been fine either way. This case is a sensitive one, but if you compare it to the Trayvon Martin case your a fucking idiot. The difference between them is huge. For one this one doesn't have an edited 911 call to incite racial tension or suggest racist motivations.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932571]No I'm not. I'm not talking about the case at all. I just said "FYI the law does not recognize 'warning shots'," and suddenly everyone in this thread flips their fucking shit. You guys are acting like a 'warning shot' is a valid thing. It isn't. You never fire a gun if you aren't trying to hit a target. Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER. That bullet is going to hit something, and you had better know what it is.[/QUOTE] It's not like you're intentionally shooting around a target. You just substitute your original target (the person) for a new one, like a conveniently placed berm. Not that warning shots make any sense or that her intentions matter.

[QUOTE=iFail;35932630]It's not like you're intentionally shooting around a target. You just substitute your original target (the person) for a new one, like a conveniently placed berm. Not that warning shots make any sense or that her intentions matter.[/QUOTE] And in this case she just so happened to fire into a room containing two small children. Which is why we frown upon unnecessary discharge of a firearm.

fyi lankist is right hopefully gunfox finds this thread and gives you guys a lesson on firearms discharge laws or w/e you wanna call it

I still think 20 years is insane.

[QUOTE=Kalibos;35932730]fyi lankist is right hopefully gunfox finds this thread and gives you guys a lesson on firearms discharge laws or w/e you wanna call it[/QUOTE] i dunno i think the only one of us who hasn't got the memo is faze. ironically enough since he actually posts in the firearms thread.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35932596]I always figured that no warning shots was a given. Then again half the people here don't know their own states gun laws.[/QUOTE] We don't have guns here. None of my family members are allowed to legally purchase them right now, and even then handguns are a restricted weapons. However, a battle-axe and a samurai sword is just fine.

[QUOTE=Kalibos;35932730]fyi lankist is right hopefully gunfox finds this thread and gives you guys a lesson on firearms discharge laws or w/e you wanna call it[/QUOTE] It's not that we don't know the laws, its just the laws are fucked up. In this case she was given 20 years because the law deems it necessarily regardless of the situation. It's like Texas being able to give the death penalty to those who were participating in a crime where a murder takes place. They may not have pulled the trigger, and they may have actually tried to stop someone from pulling the trigger, but regardless they're guilty of association no matter the circumstances.

Somewhere in the past, the people of Florida decided that mandatory sentencing was a good idea. This is what happens when you take the decisions out of the hands of judges. He HAD to give her that sentence once she was convicted. As for the stand you ground, I have no problem with her going back for her keys, but a warning shot? You aren't in danger for you life if you feel like warning someone to stay away is all that's called for. She should have shot and killed the guy.

So, it seems to me that. If someone doesn't die, you commit a crime. Seems like a very weird way to promote safe usage of guns.