Florida mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots (2012)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

by salimmadjd • 13 years ago

14 36 13 years ago

Any gun-owning Floridians here wanna comment on this?

rjbwork3• 13 years ago

The sentence is excessive, but some sort of penalty definitely should be assessed. The stand your ground/castle laws provide for someone to defend themselves and others in their house with deadly force with a firearm when they are in imminent danger.

If you are firing warning shots and not shooting the center of mass to disable and/or kill, then you don't need to be discharging your weapon at all. Guns are not toys and they aren't meant to dissuade someone from a course of action. They are meant to end the life of someone.

In short, if you're not threatened enough to kill, you're not threatened enough to fire your weapon.

lukifer3• 13 years ago

In short, if you're not threatened enough to kill, you're not threatened enough to fire your weapon.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously, the discharging of a firearm should never be taken lightly. But the sound of a gunshot is an extremely effective deterrent, and I don't see why that doesn't make it a legitimate form of self-defense.

Guns... aren't meant to dissuade someone from a course of action

Isn't that exactly what they're for? Police don't (usually) draw their weapons for the express purpose of killing. They do so to force a violent attacker to stand down, ideally without having to fire a shot.

rjbwork3• 13 years ago

I meant actually firing one. I mean, most gun training classes do actually tell you that you shouldn't ever point your firearm at anything you don't intend on harming. I tend to think of a policeman drawing their weapon slightly differently, because they are an extension of the, ostensibly legitimate, force of the state. This is different than a private citizen using a firearm according to the law.

rdouble3• 13 years ago

Warning shots are illegal everywhere. It's considered use of deadly force when it is not required. Any firearms training course will tell you this. It just so happens Florida has very harsh mandatory minimum sentencing for this offense. In Vermont they'll just give you a fine.

hga11• 13 years ago

Well, it's not, and not for police outside of perhaps riot situations. And in many if not most states civilians are allowed to use the threat of lethal force in self-defense, just like the police.

Shooting is lethal force; if you're not justified in using lethal force, you're not justified in shooting to begin with.

There's also the minor detail that the court system determined she tried to murder her husband, "Alexander was convicted of attempted murder..." (and even if not officially, with an aggravating factor of putting children at risk), but "Fla. mom gets 20 years for being a bad shot" isn't as sexy, and "Fla. mom gets 20 years for attempted murder" is not even nationally newsworthy.

free652• 13 years ago

Zimmerman walks free for shooting an unarmed teenager who he stalked and this woman should go to jail? Looks like she had to kill her husband and walk free.

rjbwork3• 13 years ago

There's clearly some various biases going on here. In an ideal world Zimmerman would be in jail for a long time and this woman would be doing community service or something.

EDIT: I'm actually rescinding my comment here. I don't honestly know enough about the Zimmerman case to say he should be in jail for a long time. I haven't been following it at all, but I just read an article/long thread, and it would seem that the guy he killed physically assaulted him before Zimmerman shot.

notdrunkatall• 13 years ago

That is so fucking wrong.

noonespecial2• 13 years ago

The behavior this little cul-de-sac of law incentivises is clear. Say you missed.

hga11• 13 years ago

Since she was convicted of attempted murder, that would have only sped up the verdict.

rdl2• 13 years ago

IMO, it might have been self defense if she'd been in a genuine self defense situation, as reflected by "shooting to stop her attacker", even if she missed. Warning shots is a sign her life wasn't in danger, so she fired, which put him at risk, which is attempted murder. Which is weird, but sort of consistent.

IANAL. (I also don't fire warning shots except to center of mass, and generally don't miss less than 10m with a pistol, and don't shoot unless it's a clearly justified situation.)

noonespecial2• 13 years ago

Had she simply stated "I was in fear for my life so I tried to shoot him. I guess I missed", this would have gone down quite differently.

She probably said something like "I was afraid of getting beaten again so I fired some warning shots to scare him." So jail then.

There's no part of this thats right.

AlexPandian• 13 years ago

There should be a law governing all verdicts requiring them to abide by a rule of common sense law.

Tomte5• 13 years ago

That is equivalent to abolishing rule of law.

And leads to an immediate race to the bottom of human sentiments and emotions.

Feel free to google for "Gesundes Volksempfinden" (~"healthy people's perception"). The central pillar that allowed German jurists in the Third Reich to distort the existing law at will.

The German civil code has been changed often, but fundamentally it's the same now as it was in 1900. Pretty fascinating how it's now seeing the fourth totally different political system.

Florida mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots (2012)

Related Stories