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

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35935086]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] Oh wow you are unbelievebly arrogant. There are people in this world who do NOT want to kill someone, even if they are at risk of dying if they dont. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35935207]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] She did negligently discharge a weapon, but given the cirucmstances and intentions it is quite clear that sentencing her to prison will be of no benefit as she is not a danger. Send her to a gun safety course.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935248]Oh wow you are unbelievebly arrogant. There are people in this world who do NOT want to kill someone, even if they are at risk of dying if they dont.[/QUOTE] That doesn't change the contexts of law. That's what we are discussing here. If you want my personal opinion read the whole damn thread.

Y'all be getting Lankist trolled.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35935248]Oh wow you are unbelievebly arrogant. There are people in this world who do NOT want to kill someone, even if they are at risk of dying if they dont. She did negligently discharge a weapon, but given the cirucmstances and intentions it is quite clear that sentencing her to prison will be of no benefit as she is not a danger. Send her to a gun safety course.[/QUOTE] If judges could just hand out whatever sentences they got you would have so many more people on death row. They have the rule of precedent to follow and that's the precedent and it must be followed. She was found guilty by the jury, you have a choice from the get go to do Trial by Judge or Trial by Jury (At least in Canada). She went through the legal system and was found guilty because the actions she took fit the crime she committed. It's sad, it sucks, but they aren't going to give her a free pass because of what happened. She wasn't under duress or anything, she went back into the house by her own choice with a firearm she KNEW she wasn't trained to use and made the decision to FIRE the weapon into the wall. If you want to argue that she was so scared that's what she did, your still an idiot. We have a thing in us called self-preservation. If you believe you are going to be killed, you will do ANYTHING IN YOUR POWER to prevent it. This woman went back into a house to grab keys and she felt she was in Life threatening danger? You can not justify this, she walked OUTSIDE to her GARAGE, grabbed a gun and walked back OUTSIDE into the HOUSE. She was outside twice, she had a chance to leave, she went back inside for her keys. You can not justify her fears due to her actions and that is why she is guilty. If she had shot/killed him, I would have actually believed she feared for her life but she had enough reason to aim the gun away and shoot. She wasn't scared, she was trying to prove something to her abuser. She was attempting to stand up to him and be a bad ass but instead she was a moron and made three stupid decisions. The legal system doesn't give two shits about what you think is right and just, it cares about what the words in the law state and how and when they can apply. Sadly in this case it applied to her. Not due to her race or gender, but due to the DECISIONS she MADE on her own.

Florida: Where stupid laws meet stupid people. [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] also: [QUOTE=choco cookie;35935771]Y'all be getting Lankist trolled.[/QUOTE]

[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] What if you fire blanks?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35946818]What if you fire blanks?[/QUOTE] Don't encourage him...

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35946818]What if you fire blanks?[/QUOTE] That's between your doctor and you.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35946818]What if you fire blanks?[/QUOTE] Still can be considered assault. Actually probably will.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947177]Still can be considered assault. Actually probably will.[/QUOTE] This is true. You dont have to physically touch anyone to assault them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947177]Still can be considered assault. Actually probably will.[/QUOTE] Yes but would it be considered [I]deadly[/I] or [I]lethal[/I] force?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947177]Still can be considered assault. Actually probably will.[/QUOTE] blanks are indeed very deadly at point blank.

[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 don't think anyone is arguing whether this sentence is correct according to the law. The sentence is dumb because this is a person who obviously had no intent to kill anyone, and did not kill or injure anyone. It was a dumb mistake, but a 20 year sentence is fucking retarded in a case like this.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35947394]Yes but would it be considered [I]deadly[/I] or [I]lethal[/I] force?[/QUOTE] As MightyMax said, blanks in real guns may still qualify as deadly force depending upon the context. Additionally, as far as I know, deadly-weapon charges are determined by the weapon, not by its ammunition. Illegal ammunition charges are a separate affair. Real firearms capable of firing real rounds fall under the purview of a deadly weapon, regardless of what precisely they are shooting. If it's a prop gun, the charges may be different. I don't really know of any cases to reference on that matter.

-snip-