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

I think the lesson is, as pointed out earlier in the thread, shooting a gun is no joke. If you feel you need to pull a gun and fire it because of a threat someone poses, you need to do your best to hit your target. You can't just fire randomly. Even a small caliber round will penetrate the walls of a typical home or apartment. That IS the essence of gun safety, don't fire it unless you mean it.

[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] I see what you mean, but I think it needs to be stated a little differently for everyone to understand. The [i]threat of shooting[/i] should be the only warning. A warning shot is more dangerous and less effective than simply pointing the barrel at the target. She added risk to the situation for no real gain by firing at the environment. Further, if the gun had jammed or ran out of ammunition after the warning shot, she would be in more danger than she already was. Thankfully, everyone came out safe in this situation. This is more a case of negligence than criminal behavior, which is why I believe she should be educated rather than punished.

Wait, this is Florida, right? So a woman fires a warning shot and she gets 20 years, presumably in self-defense, and Zimmerman kills someone, also presumably in self-defense, and he is still just being tried (as far as I know?) Not ragging on Zimmerman, just pointing out the absurdity of the situation.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932326]Not saying 20 years is necessary. Saying she does need to be convicted for putting everyone around her in harm's way. [I]Don't[/I] fire "warning shots." Ever. Period. It's unacceptable.[/QUOTE] What would you rather do? Shoot her husband? It was in a momeny of panoc and she didnt eant to die your being a gun freak here

[QUOTE=Repulsion;35933069]Wait, this is Florida, right? So a woman fires a warning shot and she gets 20 years, presumably in self-defense, and Zimmerman kills someone, also presumably in self-defense, and he is still just being tried (as far as I know?) Not ragging on Zimmerman, just pointing out the absurdity of the situation.[/QUOTE] Well, for the record, this incident happened in August 2010, and the court case was only recently. The Zimmerman shooting happened just a few months ago.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;35933082]What would you rather do? Shoot her husband? It was in a momeny of panoc and she didnt eant to die your being a gun freak here[/QUOTE] She had a fairly good period of time from walking out, going to her car, realizing she didn't have the keys, and consciously making the decision to go back inside of the house with a loaded fire arm... Not exactly an instantaneous moment of panic. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Florence;35932320]So she gets 20 years for a warning shot and the Zimmerman case had to be highlighted and called out for an arrest and trial to even take place. Land of the free, home of the brave.[/QUOTE] The situations are entirely different. Where as Zimmerman may have a case based under Floridas current law, this woman does not. She left the harmful situation, tried to get in her car and forgot her keys, and when back inside with a gun to try and scare her husband with a warning shot. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932286]Exactly. She didn't know what the fuck she was aiming at. And bullets have a way of not stopping until they hit something. People get injured and killed for misfires all of the time. You don't fire a fucking "warning shot." You simply don't. You NEVER [I]intentionally[/I] miss. That means you have no fucking idea where that bullet is going or who/what it's going to hit. That is recklessness and negligence. This is the real world, not a video game. Every shot that doesn't hit its target is going to hit [I]something.[/I][/QUOTE] ok mr genus lawyer wut hapen if u shot da ground no seriously if they shoot at the ground, wouldn't that be fine? they would be incredibly unlikely to hit anything that matters if they shoot the ground, and its pretty safe, it wont ricochet on dirt or nothin

I got shot through the arm by a stray bullet, all that really came of it was a story and a scar so i'm cool with it, but shoot to kill people or don't shoot at all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932414]Perhaps she should have learned how to use the firearm she bought.[/QUOTE] Look out guys, we got a badass here. [QUOTE=Lankist;35932315]Not saying 20 years is necessary. Saying she does need to be convicted for putting everyone around her in harm's way.[/QUOTE] Putting everyone around her in harm's way? She purposely did what she did to avoid having to kill anybody. She didn't want to kill the man, she just wanted to get away. She accomplished both of those goals, and yet according to you she's an idiot who doesn't know how to use a gun? Man I'd like to see you hate and fear someone as much as she did and still resist the temptation to shoot the fucker. Seems she would have been better off just doing that, which is RETARDED.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;35933082]What would you rather do? Shoot her husband? It was in a momeny of panoc and she didnt eant to die your being a gun freak here[/QUOTE] If the situation warrants discharging a firearm, then you should fucking [I]aim[/I] it, not shoot a "warning" shot into a room occupied by two children. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FlakAttack;35933486]Look out guys, we got a badass here. Putting everyone around her in harm's way? She purposely did what she did to avoid having to kill anybody. She didn't want to kill the man, she just wanted to get away. She accomplished both of those goals, and yet according to you she's an idiot who doesn't know how to use a gun? Man I'd like to see you hate and fear someone as much as she did and still resist the temptation to shoot the fucker. Seems she would have been better off just doing that, which is RETARDED.[/QUOTE] Read the fucking article. Her warning shot pierced the wall of an adjacent room housing two small children. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Clementine;35933211]ok mr genus lawyer wut hapen if u shot da ground no seriously if they shoot at the ground, wouldn't that be fine? they would be incredibly unlikely to hit anything that matters if they shoot the ground, and its pretty safe, it wont ricochet on dirt or nothin[/QUOTE] Why the fuck are you shooting the ground? [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=_Twitch_;35932981]This is more a case of negligence than criminal behavior, which is why I believe she should be educated rather than punished.[/QUOTE] There is a thing called criminal negligence. This is a prime example of it. If your negligence endangers the lives of bystanders, then it is criminal.

Institutionalized victim blaming here where the real criminal get's away and is rewarded so he can abuse and possible murder more women while the victim is jailed...Epic fail in our 'justice' system.

worried I might sneeze and get life or something. You think that's impossible now but 20 years for a warning shot? We're getting there.

If the respect I had for the US justice system was low before it has hit rock bottom now. It seems there is absolutely no way of telling wether your rights will be respected in a US court. I wouldn't dare travel there just in case I, say, [url=http://facepunch.com/threads/1179653]made the wrong turn and received a long prison sentence.[/url]

Besides the fact that she shot into a room with children in it, she went back into her house to get her car keys. That isn't something someone who is in fear for their life does. "Oh my, I just barely escaped my homicidal husband! Oh wait, I forgot my car keys, better go back.." She could have ran to a neighbors house and called the Police or any number of things, but instead she [u]willingly[/u] chose to go back, gun in hand, to get her car keys back. That's not being defensive, that's being pretty offensive.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35933501] There is a thing called criminal negligence. This is a prime example of it. If your negligence endangers the lives of bystanders, then it is criminal.[/QUOTE] The key is, not every "missed shot" is a negligent one. In this case it may have been, but intentionally missing a target to scare them is not a new tactic, most often it's a shot in the ground near their feet, and that is not a "random shot," it's carefully aimed at the ground and in their proximity. Usually this would be done to respond to a "You don't have the balls" kind of situation, where the assailant thinks the victim is unwilling to actually use their gun. It gives them one final warning that their life is going to end if they continue their assault. A warning shot is only inherently supposed to miss, it is not inherently negligent or haphazard, both of those factors depend on the situation. In this case it may have been negligent, but that can't be said for every case. "Scare tactics" such as warning shots can save lives, and if implemented properly are safe. A blanket statement about whether something is "inherently" anything as it relates to self-defence is often hard to make, as each situation of self-defence is different.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;35933614]The key is, not every "missed shot" is a negligent one. In this case it may have been, but intentionally missing a target to scare them is not a new tactic, most often it's a shot in the ground near their feet, and that is not a "random shot," it's carefully aimed at the ground and in their proximity. Usually this would be done to respond to a "You don't have the balls" kind of situation, where the assailant thinks the victim is unwilling to actually use their gun. It gives them one final warning that their life is going to end if they continue their assault. A warning shot is only inherently supposed to miss, it is not inherently negligent or haphazard, both of those factors depend on the situation. In this case it may have been negligent, but that can't be said for every case. "Scare tactics" such as warning shots can save lives, and if implemented properly are safe. A blanket statement about whether something is "inherently" anything as it relates to self-defence is often hard to make, as each situation of self-defence is different.[/QUOTE] And that's the problem with the current law. It doesn't take into account the situations, just the actions.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;35933614]The key is, not every "missed shot" is a negligent one.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant. This case WAS intentionally missed, and it put two children in harm's way. Yet again, the law does not recognize "warning shots," nor will any firearms safety instructor. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35933639]And that's the problem with the current law. It doesn't take into account the situations, just the actions.[/QUOTE] The actions are most important. We say that justice is blind for a reason. That means no amount of circumstantial justification will justify a crime of negligence.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35933663] The actions are most important. We say that justice is blind for a reason. That means no amount of circumstantial justification will justify a crime of negligence.[/QUOTE] Lankist, I can't stand this double standard bullshit. [url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1181268[/url] In that very thread, you state that we don't prosecute for what COULD have been, but what happened. In that thread, you were all right with a man being crippled and seeing his assailant being let off easy simply because "He didn't murder the cop". Yet you see nothing wrong with the idea that this woman, who acted in self defense and harmed no one, get sent to prison, for more time mind you.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35933663]Irrelevant. This case WAS intentionally missed, and it put two children in harm's way. Yet again, the law does not recognize "warning shots," nor will any firearms safety instructor. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] The actions are most important. We say that justice is blind for a reason. That means no amount of circumstantial justification will justify a crime of negligence.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that it wasn't a crime of negligence, I'm saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The law in place does not account for the situation. It is intended for things like bank robberies and gas station hold ups, not abused women.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35933711]I'm not saying that it wasn't a crime of negligence, I'm saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime.[/QUOTE] That is agreed upon, though for different reasons. My point being that most people here are acting as though the women shouldn't be charged for anything. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=oldeskoolfan;35933709]Lankist, I can't stand this double standard bullshit. [url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1181268[/url] In that very thread, you state that we don't prosecute for what COULD have been, but what happened. In that thread, you were all right with a man being crippled and seeing his assailant being let off easy simply because "He didn't murder the cop". Yet you see nothing wrong with the idea that this woman, who acted in self defense and harmed no one, get sent to prison, for more time mind you.[/QUOTE] What I said is that we do not charge people for murder when nobody died. That does not preclude the inclusion of, in that instance, attempted murder charges (which carry lighter sentences due to results). I did NOT say that we shouldn't charge people for crimes that exist and have been committed. Reckless endangerment is a crime. Negligent discharge of a firearm is a crime. Not once have I implied she should be charged as though one of those children had been injured or killed. I have stated that she should be charged for putting them in harm's way, which is its own crime. Additionally, I have stated here three times that I agree that twenty years is excessive, though I do not think she shouldn't be charged for anything. She endangered two children and a sentence should reflect that. Please, before trying to "call" me on a hypocrisy, attempt to understand what I am saying beforehand. (Additionally, "warning" shots do not qualify as self defense. Only a shot intended to hit its target is a self defense shot. Firing into the next room is not self defense, it is recklessness.) [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] Props on actually remembering shit I said from a few days ago, though. Most people here have the memories of gnats and can't even manage to keep up with what has been said in a single thread. Just don't think that [I]I[/I] don't remember things that I have said.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35933663]Irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Quite the contrary, you made a blanket statement that the action of firing a warning shot is inherently negligent, and that is not the case. [quote]nor will any firearms safety instructor.[/quote] Moreover, while they may not "officially" recognize warning shots, and even that is not guaranteed, again you cannot absolutely state that there is absolutely no firearms instructor across the planet, or even the country, who will not recognize the possible legitimacy, importance, and/or potential of warning shots. Blanket statements cannot be made because every case and individual is different, and you cannot guarantee that a shot that does not hit a person has "missed its target" or was "inherently negligent," or that every individual in the same profession always agrees on certain topics.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;35934220]Quite the contrary, you made a blanket statement that the action of firing a warning shot is inherently negligent, and that is not the case.[/QUOTE] Under the law, it is.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35934233]Under the law, it is.[/QUOTE] Dependent upon state, judge, and jury. I know up here in Canada there's talk of a law that will allow warning shots to be fired at intruders on your property, likely stemming from an individual who did fire warning shots at people firebombing his house, and rather than facing charges for that, they're trying to convict him for "unsafe storage" charges, which is the biggest load of abused bullshit to be included in the Firearms Act.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;35934305]Dependent upon state, judge, and jury. I know up here in Canada there's talk of a law that will allow warning shots to be fired at intruders on your property, likely stemming from an individual who did fire warning shots at people firebombing his house, and rather than facing charges for that, they're trying to convict him for "unsafe storage" charges, which is the biggest load of abused bullshit to be included in the Firearms Act.[/QUOTE] Here in the US there is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. You only fire if you want something dead, not if you want to scare someone away. That's not what the weapon was designed for. It's like trying to grab someone's attention by setting their clothes on fire. Firearms are far too dangerous to permit their use as attention-grabbers. It is an excess, and one that can very easily end in the death of a bystander.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35934333]Here in the US there is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. You only fire if you want something dead, not if you want to scare someone away. That's not what the weapon was designed for.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxD_Kr1zsiQ[/media] Aside from the stereotypical image portrayed here, what you just said is kinda stupid.

I'm implying that you should discharge a weapon only when it is absolutely necessary, not more frequently. A civilian using a firearm should be an extremely rare circumstance, only under extreme circumstances and never for some dumb ancillary purpose like "warning" an assailant.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932286]Exactly. She didn't know what the fuck she was aiming at. And bullets have a way of not stopping until they hit something. People get injured and killed for misfires all of the time. You don't fire a fucking "warning shot." You simply don't. You NEVER [I]intentionally[/I] miss. That means you have no fucking idea where that bullet is going or who/what it's going to hit. That is recklessness and negligence. This is the real world, not a video game. Every shot that doesn't hit its target is going to hit [I]something.[/I][/QUOTE] The floor? The roof? This sounds like that woman in Texas who was killed from a bullet that came from Mexico or something. If you have someone trying to mug you and you have a gun to defend yourself, you're either gonna wave it at them, shoot right at them or shoot some place else to further "show" that you have a gun. Whatever you do is affected by how your nerves are at the moment. A warning shot would be like firing pointing to the air or to a direction without any targets, and lets face it, you aren't gonna give a shit about recklessness and negligence when your life is in dangerous, mainly because you wont even think about it until you calm yourself.

[QUOTE=dass;35934394]The floor? The roof? This sounds like that woman in Texas who was killed from a bullet that came from Mexico or something. If you have someone trying to mug you and you have a gun to defend yourself, you're either gonna wave it at them, shoot right at them or shoot some place else to further "show" that you have a gun. Whatever you do is affected by how your nerves are at the moment. A warning shot would be like firing pointing to the air or to a direction without any targets, and lets face it, you aren't gonna give a shit about recklessness and negligence when your life is in dangerous, mainly because you wont even think about it until you calm yourself.[/QUOTE] Hey bud did you read the article and miss the part how she fired into a room with two children in it? That's why we don't allow that shit. You keep saying "nobody would think to not be a fucking moron in a tense situation," but that doesn't fucking matter. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That you were not thinking does not excuse you when you have committed a crime. You want to stop thinking about your own actions? Fine. But the justice system won't, and you won't get off because you manage to say "I didn't mean to." As if nobody has ever said that before.

Not an "attention-grabber," a non-lethal threat deterrent. Pepper spray is a non-lethal threat deterrent, a warning shot is a non-lethal threat deterrent. A firearm itself is only dangerous in the hands of an untrained individual, in the hands of a trained one a warning shot is not negligent, dangerous, or a threat to bystanders and again, you cannot make a blanket statement that all warning shots are "an excess" and could "very easily" result in a bystander's death, this depends on far too many factors to be used as a blanket statement. That, and if anything, a warning shot, a non-lethal threat deterrent, is far from an excess. There are plenty of ways to fire a safe warning shot, such as planning for such by loading the first shot as a frangible one, which will still penetrate and incapacitate the assailant if fired at them, but will fragment against a hard surface such as the ground or pavement, to prevent the possibility of ricochet, or using a soft-point/hollow-point, which would bend and lose energy against the ground, as a ricochet deterrent, but is designed to kill a living thing, be it man or beast. Both these options minimize risk to any possible bystanders if an aimed warning shot is fired by deterring or preventing ricochet, but still allow for the use of lethal force on the first shot if it is necessary. Besides, hollow-point/soft-point should be used anyways to minimize the possibility of penetration causing collateral damage.

-snip-