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

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;35934446]a warning shot is a non-lethal threat deterrent.[/QUOTE] Yet again: not by any measure of the law it is [I]not.[/I] You can argue that to yourself all you want, but that is not the way the law sees it.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;35934446]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.[/QUOTE] Warning shots are not legal anywhere. Have you even read the thread man?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35934464]Yet again: not by any measure of the law it is [I]not.[/I] You can argue that to yourself all you want, but that is not the way the law sees it.[/QUOTE] You can also argue as much as you want that she is being justly imprisoned under law, but allow me to present to you a sobering fact. The Law is not perfect.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35933501]Why the fuck are you shooting the ground?[/QUOTE] Do you eve know what this thread's about? Because that's a safe place to shoot a gun in the case of a warning shot.

I tried looking up the legalities of warning shots, and found cases from across the US with different outcomes. Again, I believe it comes down to state and county laws and the opinions of the judge and/or jury.

I think it would be helpful to keep in mind why she says she fired the gun(and the warning shot): Self defense, she's invoking stand your ground. So before you side with 'warning shots are acceptable', consider that it voids her claim of self defense. If you are warning someone off, then that means they have not posed the threat yet. That's why you are warning them, you are saying IF you attack me I'm shooting you. That's the difference between this case and the ZImmerman case. In the Zimmerman case the shooting happened during a confrontation, who started the confrontation is the unresolved issue. But there was a fight and that's when the shooting happened. This woman says he threatened to kill her and she believed he would and that's why she fired. But she didn't fire at him, why? Because she knew he wasn't actually going to try and kill her in that moment. The proof is that she fired a warning shot, the sign of someone feeling they are so in control of the situation that they don't even have to shoot at the person threatening them.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;35934594]I tried looking up the legalities of warning shots, and found cases from across the US with different outcomes. Again, I believe it comes down to state and county laws and the opinions of the judge and/or jury.[/QUOTE] We tend to ignore the gun laws that Texas cooks up.

[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] Not all people are going to react the same in such a situation you prick. It's quite possible she truly believed that he was going to kill her but she didn't want to kill him, so she fired a shot to scare him away.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35934863]Not all people are going to react the same in such a situation you prick. It's quite possible she truly believed that he was going to kill her but she didn't want to kill him, so she fired a shot to scare him away.[/QUOTE] And her reaction endangered the lives of two children. That is an unacceptable reaction.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35934921]And her reaction endangered the lives of two children. That is an unacceptable reaction.[/QUOTE] "You fear for your life? Oh well, you better let the guy kill you or you should kill him or you're getting 20 years."

[QUOTE=Lankist;35934921]And her reaction endangered the lives of two children. That is an unacceptable reaction.[/QUOTE] The man told her he was going to kill her. Does it not stand to reason that he would do something to the kids too? Clean up the evidence, so they couldn't testify at his trial if he's ever caught? The children's lives were already in danger before the gun was drawn.

Needs to seek mental help because she'd be pretty fucked up mentally from the relationship and probably probation instead. Nothing worth 20 years.

That's your best argument? "They were already in danger so why not fire randomly into their room?" I'm sorry, you think a jury is going to buy that? [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;35934953]"You fear for your life? Oh well, you better let the guy kill you or you should kill him or you're getting 20 years."[/QUOTE] Yet again, she [I]didn't shoot him[/I], she shot the wall between her and two children. Unacceptable. Not self defense. I don't care about some panic reaction you can fix up in your own head to justify that. It was her responsibility to know how to use a gun. She failed at that, and in doing so she endangered the lives of two children. Some hypothetical "what if" doesn't fucking matter. What happened is she fired blindly and irresponsibly, endangering two children in the process, rather than shooting a target that she should have shot were he a threat to her or those children. That is negligence on a criminal level.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;35934960]The man told her he was going to kill her. Does it not stand to reason that he would do something to the kids too? Clean up the evidence, so they couldn't testify at his trial if he's ever caught? The children's lives were already in danger before the gun was drawn.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;35934953]"You fear for your life? Oh well, you better let the guy kill you or you should kill him or you're getting 20 years."[/QUOTE] What you two don't realize is there's no way it would have held up in court for self defense since she had gone outside, gotten a gun, and went back inside. On top of that it seems like the threats were primarily against her, not her children. The discharge of a firearm as a warning shot is illegal pretty much everywhere, especially while inside a home. She committed a crime one way or another, it's just the punishment does not fit the crime whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35934969]That's your best argument? "They were already in danger so why not fire randomly into their room?" I'm sorry, you think a jury is going to buy that? [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] Yet again, she [I]didn't shoot him[/I], she shot the wall between her and two children. Unacceptable. Not self defense.[/QUOTE] "They are in danger, I should do something, but what?????????" She panicked, and she gets 20 years for making a mistake? Now she'll miss seeing her kids grow up and they'll probably be in foster care because she made one mistake under extreme stress? Do you actually support her 20 year sentence?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;35934993]"They are in danger, I should do something, but what?????????" She panicked, and she gets 20 years for making a mistake? Now she'll miss seeing her kids grow up and they'll probably be in foster care because she made one mistake under extreme stress? Do you actually support her 20 year sentence?[/QUOTE] For the fifth time, I think the sentence is excessive. But she should NOT just walk away from such reckless disregard. Panic responses do NOT justify criminal behavior. I can't fucking believe you people can be all "she didn't know what to do!" as though that means [I]anything[/I]. Ignorance is absolutely no excuse.

[QUOTE=Liem;35932150]What the Fuck, Really, WARNING SHOT. Not assault[/QUOTE] An assault is to put fear in someone that you're going to cause physical harm to them. What you're thinking of is a battery. If she actually shot the man it'd be (attempted) murder. The court system takes into fact things like battered wife syndrome and other excuses like that when they're determining the sentencing. Unfortunately for her the facts must of pointed out that what she really did was completely out of line. (Aggravated assault means the person used a weapon) Also they stack charges, so she probably got charges for recklessly endangering the lives of her two children, and that explains the lengthy prison time.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35934969] Yet again, she [I]didn't shoot him[/I], she shot the wall between her and two children. Unacceptable. Not self defense. I don't care about some panic reaction you can fix up in your own head to justify that. It was her responsibility to know how to use a gun. She failed at that, and in doing so she endangered the lives of two children. Some hypothetical "what if" doesn't fucking matter. What happened is she fired blindly and irresponsibly, endangering two children in the process, rather than shooting a target that she should have shot were he a threat to her or those children. That is negligence on a criminal level.[/QUOTE] Oh wow. So basically in this situation the only way that she would not have been charged with a crime is if she either: a) let herself be killed b) killed her husband sounds reasonable.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;35934993]"They are in danger, I should do something, but what?????????" She panicked, and she gets 20 years for making a mistake? Now she'll miss seeing her kids grow up and they'll probably be in foster care because she made one mistake under extreme stress? Do you actually support her 20 year sentence?[/QUOTE] If you read the thread, you'd see he doesn't. He's saying what she did was still a crime, just a petty one that got blown up and being punished too severely.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935007]Oh wow. So basically in this situation the only way that she would not have been charged with a crime is if she either: a) let herself be killed b) killed her husband sounds reasonable.[/QUOTE] Except she wasn't in immediate danger. She had time to leave, go outside and get a gun, and then come [I]back[/I] and fire a "warning shot." Not call and wait for the police, or get neighbors for help, or doing any of the multitude of things that don't involve recklessly discharging a firearm. No, it's fucking cowboy time with a pistol and two children in the mix. If it were "kill or be killed," someone would be dead. That was clearly NOT the case. The circumstance implies no immediate danger.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935007]Oh wow. So basically in this situation the only way that she would not have been charged with a crime is if she either: a) let herself be killed b) killed her husband sounds reasonable.[/QUOTE] Seeing as she was able to get out of the house unharmed, and went back inside with a fire arm, seems to me she had plenty of time to escape.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35935029]Seeing as she was able to get out of the house unharmed, and went back inside with a fire arm, seems to me she had plenty of time to escape.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;35935027]Except she wasn't in immediate danger. She had time to leave, go outside and get a gun, and then come [I]back[/I] and fire a "warning shot" If it were "kill or be killed," someone would be dead. That was clearly NOT the case.[/QUOTE] And it seems neither of you read the article which points out she went into the garage to get in her car and leave when she realised she forgot her keys, so she went inside after picking up her gun in case she needed to protect herself. She didn't go outside, pick up and a gun and then decide "hey I better try and threaten him". And Lankist why do you insist that if no one is dead it's not a life threatening situation? Are you suggesting that attempted murder is not life threatening because no one died?

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935055]And it seems neither of you read the article which points out she went into the garage to get in her car and leave when she realised she forgot her keys, so she went inside after picking up her gun in case she needed to protect herself. She didn't go outside, pick up and a gun and then decide "hey I better try and threaten him".[/QUOTE] Fucking walk. Go across the street and bang on a neighbor's door. Scream. Don't fucking act like a cowboy and endanger the lives of two children with stupid, reckless bullshit. You can throw out all the excuses you want, they don't change what happens. Now, I've got sympathy for this sort of situation. Were it just her and the husband I might be thinking differently about it. But it wasn't. There were bystanders that were put directly into harm's way. That trumps all circumstance.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935055]And it seems neither of you read the article which points out she went into the garage to get in her car and leave when she realised she forgot her keys, so she went inside after picking up her gun in case she needed to protect herself. She didn't go outside, pick up and a gun and then decide "hey I better try and threaten him". And Lankist why do you insist that if no one is dead it's not a life threatening situation? Are you suggesting that attempted murder is not life threatening because no one died?[/QUOTE] What she was intending is besides the point. If it was a life threatening situation before hand she would have been able to escape, If it was after the fact she would have shot him.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935055]And Lankist why do you insist that if no one is dead it's not a life threatening situation? Are you suggesting that attempted murder is not life threatening because no one died?[/QUOTE] Because if someone's life is legitimately in danger, you don't fucking: -Go back inside to get the keys -Piss around firing 'warning shots' -Have the time to wander around between the home and the garage and back to the home again when there is a violent aggressor who has confronted you directly with physical threat. If it is a life-or-death situation and you've got to defend yourself, you fucking defend yourself. You don't fire off randomly to ward someone away. If that's your plan, you shouldn't be using a fucking gun. It's not an air horn. It is not a deterrence. It is not non-lethal. You use it for one thing and one thing only in the context of self defense, and if you use it for anything else your negligence is putting others in harm's way.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35935076]Fucking walk. Go across the street and bang on a neighbor's door. Scream. Don't fucking act like a cowboy and endanger the lives of two children with stupid, reckless bullshit. You can throw out all the excuses you want, they don't change what happens. Now, I've got sympathy for this sort of situation. Were it just her and the husband I might be thinking differently about it. But it wasn't. There were bystanders that were put directly into harm's way. That trumps all circumstance.[/QUOTE] I am Lankist. I am a robot who is able to function with cognitive clarity while I am scared for my safety. Again, she was attempting to leave. Just because she didn't choose the best option at the time (leaving on foot rather than in car) doesn't mean that she did not fully intend to leave.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935107]I am Lankist. I am a robot who is able to function with cognitive clarity while I am scared for my safety. Again, she was attempting to leave. Just because she didn't choose the best option at the time (leaving on foot rather than in car) doesn't mean that she did not fully intend to leave.[/QUOTE] Yet again, ignorance is no excuse. Saying "oopsie" does not excuse criminal negligence. If it did, that crime would not exist. I don't care what her state of mind was. That does not excuse what she DID (putting the lives of children at risk by SHOOTING A GUN INTO THEIR ROOM). We don't just let people off the fucking hook because they didn't know better at the time. That's not how shit works.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35935121]Yet again, ignorance is no excuse. Saying "oopsie" does not excuse criminal negligence. If it did, that crime would not exist. I don't care what her state of mind was. That does not excuse what she DID (putting the lives of children at risk by SHOOTING A GUN INTO THEIR ROOM). We don't just let people off the fucking hook because they didn't know better at the time. That's not how shit works.[/QUOTE] You come in every thread about criminal cases arguing that rehabilitation is key, that 14 years for attempted murder, assault with a weapon and attempted robbery is too harsh yet you don't seem to care that she was sentenced for 20 years for an accident. As someone said earlier, forcing her to take a course in gun safety would be FAR more beneficial to her than sending her to prison for 20 years or even at all. She is not a danger to society. I wonder how you would react in a life threatening situation, I'm sure you will always make perfect decisions, afterall, you are perfect in every way.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935191]You come in every thread about criminal cases arguing that rehabilitation is key, that 14 years for attempted murder, assault with a weapon and attempted robbery is too harsh yet you don't seem to care that she was sentenced for 20 years for an accident. As someone said earlier, forcing her to take a course in gun safety would be FAR more beneficial to her than sending her to prison for 20 years or even at all. She is not a danger to society. I wonder how you would react in a life threatening situation, I'm sure you will always make perfect decisions, afterall, you are perfect in every way.[/QUOTE] He said he doesn't support the 20 year sentence. He is simply pointing out the laws and why she was punished as such, as well as what she should be punished for (which would be negligent discharge of a fire arm, which is undeniable)

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;35935198]Would you rather have someone dead, or have them both live? Think a little.[/QUOTE] I'd rather not endanger the lives of bystanders. The lives of bystanders take precedence over the lives of belligerents [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935191]I wonder how you would react in a life threatening situation, I'm sure you will always make perfect decisions, afterall, you are perfect in every way.[/QUOTE] I'd expect to be held responsible for whatever I did.