5 ms·

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

14 points by salimmadjd 13y ago

vishaldpatel 13y ago
Any gun-owning Floridians here wanna comment on this?
rjbwork 13y 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.
- lukifer 13y 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.
  - rjbwork 13y 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.
  - rdouble 13y 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.
    - hga 13y ago
      Errr, they have harsh sentencing for attempted murder, as well they should.
      - rdouble 13y ago
        The mandatory minimum is for "unlawful use of deadly force."
        hga 13y ago
        Ah, I see. Of course, by definition attempted murder is "unlawful use of deadly force", but the state wants to, quite properly, sanction the latter.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      I did not know that. Though I'm aware of the risks of firing a weapon when you don't know where the bullet will land, I don't see why a warning shot should be illegal if done safely (shooting at the floor, etc). I also wonder if any state license(s) held by the shooter required learning that warning shots are unlawful. As a guy who doesn't own guns, it seems extremely counterintuitive.
      - hga 13y ago
        Florida's concealed carry license doesn't require instruction in legal use of lethal force, e.g. a hunter safety course will satisfy its training requirements; she had one or at least she claims to have had one. Any reading or training you get on this subject will emphasize that you can only use lethal force when it is necessary to stop a threat of "grievous bodily harm" or the like including rape, or death, so by implication warning shots are not legitimate. (Texas is not surprisingly a special case, it uniquely allows the use of lethal force after a verbal warning to stop the theft of property, don't know how warning shots are treated by that state.) As a non-gun owner this may strike you as extremely counterintuitive, but it's a general part of most any training you might get or relevant safety rules; you own every bullet you shoot, you're responsible for what they hit. E.g. see Jeff Cooper's 4 safety rules, which I consider to be the best set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety Note rule 4: "Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified." A shot into the floor is not 100% safe, you're directing a lot of energy into it, you don't know what that might kick up. However, she shot a wall, and that's inherently dangerous unless your nearest neighbor is far, far away which I gather wasn't the case (Jacksonville has 1,100 people per square mile). None of this would appear to be relevant to the case, the court determined she was guilty of attempted murder vs. lessor charges that I assume could have applied, like assault. If they'd believed her dodgy claim of self-defense it shouldn't have resulted in a judgement that she was actually trying to kill her husband.
  - hga 13y 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 13y 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.
  - rjbwork 13y 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.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      While acknowledging that none of us were in the courtroom, I think the evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman is pretty scant.
      - wikiburner 13y ago
        I'm sorry? The standard is reasonable doubt. There was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman initiated (or even participated in) the "fight". Zimmerman had a fractured nose, a bruised face, and gashes on the back of his head. His sworn statement was that he was knocked down out of the blue by Trayvon Martin with the punch that broke his nose. He passed a polygraph, and was "visibly relieved" (according to the interrogating officer) when the police falsely told him in interrogation that the whole incident was caught on videotape. The only injuries to Trayvon Martin were bruising on his knuckles from throwing punches, as he straddled Martin and "rained blows upon him MMA style" (according to the main witness and ballistics expert). We don't have definitive evidence of Zimmerman's account (a surveillance tape or multiple eyewitnesses who saw the entire incident) but what evidence there is strongly indicates that Zimmerman's account was accurate.
notdrunkatall 13y ago
That is so fucking wrong.
noonespecial 13y ago
The behavior this little cul-de-sac of law incentivises is clear. Say you missed.
- hga 13y ago
  Since she was convicted of attempted murder, that would have only sped up the verdict.
  - rdl 13y 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.)
    - hga 13y ago
      An interesting line of analysis, but I think it fails because "warning shots" that weren't don't have to have the intent to kill, they could e.g. have had the intent to terrify, to coerce, etc. Although elsewhere in this discussion rdouble said "The mandatory minimum is for 'unlawful use of deadly force'" so it sounds like the outcome would have been the same, depending on the legal meaning of "use of deadly force".
      - rdl 13y ago
        In the ~10 self defense classes I've attended, warning shots have been nothing but soundly discouraged. Any discharge of a weapon is inherently dangerous and could be considered deadly force, even independent of intent. The exception was in ROE/ROF training in war zones, where warning shots were explicitly part of the escalation continuum (although, in practice, if it was dangerous enough, the warning shots were generally fired into the driver, or at least into the engine block -- lasers and frozen bottles of water and such were used before that rather than warning shots, if possible.)
AlexPandian 13y ago
There should be a law governing all verdicts requiring them to abide by a rule of common sense law.
- Tomte 13y 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.

14 points by salimmadjd 13y ago

Any gun-owning Floridians here wanna comment on this?

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.

lukifer 13y 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.
- rjbwork 13y 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.
- rdouble 13y 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.
  - hga 13y ago
    Errr, they have harsh sentencing for attempted murder, as well they should.
    - rdouble 13y ago
      The mandatory minimum is for "unlawful use of deadly force."
      - hga 13y ago
        Ah, I see. Of course, by definition attempted murder is "unlawful use of deadly force", but the state wants to, quite properly, sanction the latter.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    I did not know that. Though I'm aware of the risks of firing a weapon when you don't know where the bullet will land, I don't see why a warning shot should be illegal if done safely (shooting at the floor, etc). I also wonder if any state license(s) held by the shooter required learning that warning shots are unlawful. As a guy who doesn't own guns, it seems extremely counterintuitive.
    - hga 13y ago
      Florida's concealed carry license doesn't require instruction in legal use of lethal force, e.g. a hunter safety course will satisfy its training requirements; she had one or at least she claims to have had one. Any reading or training you get on this subject will emphasize that you can only use lethal force when it is necessary to stop a threat of "grievous bodily harm" or the like including rape, or death, so by implication warning shots are not legitimate. (Texas is not surprisingly a special case, it uniquely allows the use of lethal force after a verbal warning to stop the theft of property, don't know how warning shots are treated by that state.) As a non-gun owner this may strike you as extremely counterintuitive, but it's a general part of most any training you might get or relevant safety rules; you own every bullet you shoot, you're responsible for what they hit. E.g. see Jeff Cooper's 4 safety rules, which I consider to be the best set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety Note rule 4: "Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified." A shot into the floor is not 100% safe, you're directing a lot of energy into it, you don't know what that might kick up. However, she shot a wall, and that's inherently dangerous unless your nearest neighbor is far, far away which I gather wasn't the case (Jacksonville has 1,100 people per square mile). None of this would appear to be relevant to the case, the court determined she was guilty of attempted murder vs. lessor charges that I assume could have applied, like assault. If they'd believed her dodgy claim of self-defense it shouldn't have resulted in a judgement that she was actually trying to kill her husband.
- hga 13y 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 13y 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.
- rjbwork 13y 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.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    While acknowledging that none of us were in the courtroom, I think the evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman is pretty scant.
    - wikiburner 13y ago
      I'm sorry? The standard is reasonable doubt. There was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman initiated (or even participated in) the "fight". Zimmerman had a fractured nose, a bruised face, and gashes on the back of his head. His sworn statement was that he was knocked down out of the blue by Trayvon Martin with the punch that broke his nose. He passed a polygraph, and was "visibly relieved" (according to the interrogating officer) when the police falsely told him in interrogation that the whole incident was caught on videotape. The only injuries to Trayvon Martin were bruising on his knuckles from throwing punches, as he straddled Martin and "rained blows upon him MMA style" (according to the main witness and ballistics expert). We don't have definitive evidence of Zimmerman's account (a surveillance tape or multiple eyewitnesses who saw the entire incident) but what evidence there is strongly indicates that Zimmerman's account was accurate.

notdrunkatall 13y ago

That is so fucking wrong.

noonespecial 13y ago

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

hga 13y ago
Since she was convicted of attempted murder, that would have only sped up the verdict.
- rdl 13y 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.)
  - hga 13y ago
    An interesting line of analysis, but I think it fails because "warning shots" that weren't don't have to have the intent to kill, they could e.g. have had the intent to terrify, to coerce, etc. Although elsewhere in this discussion rdouble said "The mandatory minimum is for 'unlawful use of deadly force'" so it sounds like the outcome would have been the same, depending on the legal meaning of "use of deadly force".
    - rdl 13y ago
      In the ~10 self defense classes I've attended, warning shots have been nothing but soundly discouraged. Any discharge of a weapon is inherently dangerous and could be considered deadly force, even independent of intent. The exception was in ROE/ROF training in war zones, where warning shots were explicitly part of the escalation continuum (although, in practice, if it was dangerous enough, the warning shots were generally fired into the driver, or at least into the engine block -- lasers and frozen bottles of water and such were used before that rather than warning shots, if possible.)

AlexPandian 13y ago

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

Tomte 13y 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.