Support NeoGAF

[Kettch]

Did she give him an opportunity to back off after brandishing her gun? If she feared for her life, why didn't she shoot him?

What the fuck? Maybe because she didn't want to kill someone?

If the husband was unarmed, firing a warning shot to keep him away is far more sensible than shooting him. Have we really gotten to the point where you can't fear for your life without wanting to kill the other person?

 

[Zoe]

Your asking questions none of us has the answer to. Further, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Warning shots are reckless, and she endangered others who were not involved in the fight.

 

[Chumly]

Warning shots are reckless, and she endangered others who were not involved in the fight.

So it's Better to kill someone???

 

[BHZ Mayor]

Warning shots are reckless, and she endangered others who were not involved in the fight.

So do you think she should have just killed him instead?

 

[Zoe]

So it's Better to kill someone???

So do you think she should have just killed him instead?

I think she should have kept running. Going back in and firing was not the right choice.

 

[BHZ Mayor]

I think she should have kept running. Going back in and firing was not the right choice.

I see...

 

[Casp0r]

Hahah ...

Yet you can shoot a black kid walking down the road and get away with it ... unless you have a national campaign to get you arrested.

 

[kame-sennin]

Warning shots are reckless, and she endangered others who were not involved in the fight.

So then charge her with criminal negligence. The fact remains that this prosecution was improper.

I think she should have kept running. Going back in and firing was not the right choice.

And if he tried to chase her, she'd be fucked. I like how we're critiquing the escape strategy of a woman who was nearly strangled by her abusive husband as if we can expect every decision to be perfectly rational.

 

[BattleMonkey]

How. How. I've had people beating me over the head with Stand Your Ground rationalizations for months, please, please explain how this does not apply now.

Because it's the law here in Florida. You literally can not pull out your gun and show it off to scare someone, you may get jailed for that. Shooting warning shots is also not legal here. A gun can only be used to shoot in self defense in Florida under the stand your ground laws.

Taking your concealed permits here, they make a point of how warning shots, or just brandishing a weapon as a threat ill get you jailed. The gun is only ever supposed to be visible and taken out for the purpose of shooting someone in self defense.

So do you think she should have just killed him instead?

From a legal standpoint, probably. Self defense course I took once had the instructor basically telling us this. Anything else can get you arrested or sued by the person you injure. It is silly but it's how the laws in Florida are

 

[Zoe]

Yea, there's no way a grown man could outrun a middle-aged woman.

She had a gun. She would have been justified in using it on him.

 

[soundahfekz]

I think she should have kept running. Going back in and firing was not the right choice.

Zoe you're in every thread with black people being shit on doing the same shit over and over.

How you're still around is beyond me. It's not even thinly veiled anymore, it's a fucking pattern

 

[victreeb3l]

she shouldnt have been charged at all. florida is such a stupid ass place

 

[BHZ Mayor]

I think she should have kept running. Going back in and firing was not the right choice.

Ok, forget the snark of my last post. Let me ask you this. Why does Zimmerman get a pass for killing Martin after doing the opposite of exactly what you suggest she should have done?

 

[Kettch]

From a legal standpoint, probably. Self defense course I took once had the instructor basically telling us this. Anything else can get you arrested or sued by the person you injure. It is silly but it's how the laws in Florida are

Which is insane.

How does it deal with people who intend to shoot their target but miss? Since that would entail all the risks to innocents that a warning shot would.

 

[Kinyou]

This is ridiculous. You'd give someone like that a real big fine and permanently revoke their gun ownership.

It was a warning shot. While it was something wrong to do, it still wasn't mean spirited. There's no reason rehabilitate her.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Which is insane.

How does it deal with people who intend to shoot their target but miss? Since that would entail all the risks to innocents that a warning shot would.

It happens, but people generally don't get in trouble for it. There is usually a very clear difference between someone on purpose firing warning shots, and a person shooting in defense and missing.

Warning shots are generally not legal anywhere, it is highly dangerous and reckless thing to do that can harm innocents. Same reason why people are not trained to "shoot to wound" as it's much more risky to do with higher risk of collateral damage.

Now obviously the 20 years in this case is ridiculous.

 

[dojokun]

Nope. At least 3 publicly documented cases of Domestic violence:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93359936/Marissa-Alexander-Husband-Rico-Gray-Domestic-Abuse-History

And the husband himself...

EDIT: Beaten to it.

Oh okay. What about the rest of my post?

 

[Onemic]

I think she should have kept running. Going back in and firing was not the right choice.

Your perspective on this is rather odd considering it is the absolute opposite of a similar story a few months ago...

 

[kehs]

Any details as to what her first offense was?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Oh okay. What about the rest of my post?

Read the link I posted above re: the location of the altercation and the trajectory of the bullet.

Keeping in mind that this is a man who previously sent this woman to the hospital during domestic disputes.

 

[Kettch]

It happens, but people generally don't get in trouble for it. There is usually a very clear difference between someone on purpose firing warning shots, and a person shooting in defense and missing.

Warning shots are generally not legal anywhere, it is highly dangerous and reckless thing to do that can harm innocents. Same reason why people are not trained to "shoot to wound" as it's much more risky to do with higher risk of collateral damage.

Now obviously the 20 years in this case is ridiculous.

I would think that a warning shot and a missed shot would both entail the same risk to innocents though.

And even if it hits the target, is the human body the safest object you can shoot to avoid a ricochet that hits someone else? I'm not very learned when it comes to ballistics.

 

[GungHo]

Which is insane.

How does it deal with people who intend to shoot their target but miss? Since that would entail all the risks to innocents that a warning shot would.

Because intending to be a dumbass is a different thing than accidentally being a dumbass.

Warning shots are generally not legal anywhere, it is highly dangerous and reckless thing to do that can harm innocents. Same reason why people are not trained to "shoot to wound" as it's much more risky to do with higher risk of collateral damage.

It's a bad shoot even if it were a LEO.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I would think that a warning shot and a missed shot would both entail the same risk to innocents though.

And even if it hits the target, is the human body the safest object you can shoot to avoid a ricochet that hits someone else? I'm not very learned when it comes to ballistics.

It would depend on the weapon and ammo used. Most self defense ammo sold it meant to stick in the body and reduce collateral damage. Lot of pistol rounds also would stay in the body usually or not go far after. Course this also is part of the whole thing behind limits on specific types of weapons like larger calibur assault rifles which could potentially over penetrate... but that is another matter of debate people deal with.

The whole intention of the laws as they are written here are supposed to be that a gun will only ever be used, as a last resort, and nothing more. But it of course creates it's own issues as we have seen in recent months in Florida

 

[Zoe]

Ok, forget the snark of my last post. Let me ask you this. Why does Zimmerman get a pass for killing Martin after doing the opposite of exactly what you suggest she should have done?

Your perspective on this is rather odd considering it is the absolute opposite of a similar story a few months ago...

Who said he should get a pass?

In this case if there was a threat to her life, she would have been justified in shooting him. That does not mean that she was justified in shooting a warning shot.

 

[Onemic]

Who said he should get a pass?

In this case if there was a threat to her life, she would have been justified in shooting him. That does not mean that she was justified in shooting a warning shot.

You did, multiple times in fact.

And I didn't know attempting to strangle someone and living with an abusive husband wouldn't be at least threatening to you on some level. So really what you're suggesting is that she should have either just killed him or run away?

 

[Neuromancer]

That sucks but her lawyer should have advised her to take the 3 years.

 

[Zoe]

You did, multiple times in fact.

Citation, please.

 

[marrec]

Well, the problem is she didn't fire at her abusive husband. She fired at the room the kids were in.

We shouldn't be punishing a woman for a misguided attempt to protect her life that in some nebulous other reality might have injured children.

 

[DY_nasty]

Who said he should get a pass?

In this case if there was a threat to her life, she would have been justified in shooting him. That does not mean that she was justified in shooting a warning shot.

It doesn't have to be a threat of death.

Also... I can't understand any of this.

 

[timetokill]

How is it aggravated assault if no one got shot? His life was never in danger.

"Attempted murder"... now honestly, what is that?
Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?

 

[Rubbish King]

GAF?

Wait what? probably had a REALLY shit lawyer

 

[dojokun]

We shouldn't be punishing a woman for a misguided attempt to protect her life that in some nebulous other reality might have injured children.

I'm just saying that with all these details in question, I can see how the prosecutor isn't so sure it's just a matter of self-defense. It doesnt appear that the prosecuting is saying she wanted to hurt the kids, but the prosecutor seems to think that maybe the woman was too reckless in how she went about it. If she says she actually feared for her life, it makes sense to question going back into the house for keys instead of going to a neighbors house. Once she has the gun, she doesnt need the keys.

 

[Onemic]

Citation, please.

Apologies, I mistook someone else's comment for yours. However my other comments still stand; you're saying that she should either have run away or just killed him?

 

[Kinyou]

That sucks but her lawyer should have advised her to take the 3 years.

Even 3 years seem too much. After all did (fortunately) no one get hurt by the warning shot.

 

[Zoe]

Apologies, I mistook someone else's comment for yours. However my other comments still stand; you're saying that she should either have run away or just killed him?

Yes. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to shoot. You don't shoot unless you have a target. The air, the wall, the window does not count as a target.

 

[Aurongel]

20 years for effectively startling someone. SMH florida justice system.

 

[Omegasquash]

Florida.

 

[DY_nasty]

I'm just saying that with all these details in question, I can see how the prosecutor isn't so sure it's just a matter of self-defense. It doesnt appear that the prosecuting is saying she wanted to hurt the kids, but the prosecutor seems to think that maybe the woman was too reckless in how she went about it. If she says she actually feared for her life, it makes sense to question going back into the house for keys instead of going to a neighbors house. Once she has the gun, she doesnt need the keys.

she supposed to just walk? In order to leave the situation in it's entirety, she needs to get far away - best to do that with a car. And best to govern the next meeting with her husband on her own terms too.

 

[Chumly]

Yes. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to shoot. You don't shoot unless you have a target. The air, the wall, the window does not count as a target.

This is some seriously messed up reasoning.

 

[Neuromancer]

Even 3 years seem too much. After all did (fortunately) no one get hurt by the warning shot.

I know but it still would have been smarter than gamble with 20, and she could have gone through an appeals process afterwards. Also she wouldn't have done the full 3 years probably.

I'm not real sure on the law of warning shots other than they're frowned upon.

This is some seriously messed up reasoning.

It's the way people are trained. The idea is if you're in a dire enough situation to pull your gun and use it, you should be using it to neutralize the threat. Not scare someone.

 

[Xenon]

That sucks but her lawyer should have advised her to take the 3 years.

No, that plays into the prosecutor's strategy of overcharging her to almost force her to take the 3 years. But it just highlights the ridiculousness of mandatory sentencing and the power it gives prosecutors.

 

[DY_nasty]

Yes. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to shoot. You don't shoot unless you have a target. The air, the wall, the window does not count as a target.

There's no room for shades of grey in that?

 

[DY_nasty]

So kill the guy?

There's a difference between a warning shot and aiming for the knee.

 

[kehs]

There's no room for shades of grey in that?

Guns have a purpose. It's irresponsible to treat them differently.

 

[dojokun]

she supposed to just walk? In order to leave the situation in it's entirety, she needs to get far away - best to do that with a car. And best to govern the next meeting with her husband on her own terms too.

I mean just go the neighbors house.

 

[BattleMonkey]

There's no room for shades of grey in that?

Florida state law? No.

There's a difference between a warning shot and aiming for the knee.

Legally I believe they are considered the same thing. Shooting to wound is considered a no no anywhere though, and falls under same issues of warning shots.

 

[DY_nasty]

Guns have a purpose. It's irresponsible to treat them differently.

The way a civilian handles a weapon in self-defense is going to be different. You can't expect someone to treat a firearm like a trained pro. That's unreasonable.

 

[Neuromancer]

No, that plays into the prosecutor's strategy of overcharging her to almost force her to take the 3 years. But it just highlights the ridiculousness of mandatory sentencing and the power it gives prosecutors.

It's not like the prosecutor made up the law. And it's also not as though the prosecutor was the one who found her guilty (that was the jury's job.) I don't see why the prosecutor is getting attacked. If there was no case there a judge would have put the kibosh on it before it even went to trial.

 

[DY_nasty]

Florida state law? No.



Legally I believe they are considered the same thing. Shooting to wound is considered a no no anywhere though, and falls under same issues of warning shots.

Pardon me if I speak outside of legality. Obviously the law fucked up here.

And a warning shot doesn't equate to shooting to wound/disable either.

 

[Onemic]

Yes. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to shoot. You don't shoot unless you have a target. The air, the wall, the window does not count as a target.

So do you believe the 20 year sentence was fair then?