If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law means you cannot be prosecuted for using deadly force against an attacker-unless you're a woman who fires a warning shot to stop your husband's attack-then you get 20 years   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 448
    More: Asinine, warning shot, fires  
•       •       •

15084 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 May 2012 at 8:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



448 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-02 10:07:17 AM

rudemix: Carousel Beast: rudemix: probesport: Warning shot is the issue. If you can fire just a warning then you are no longer in fear for your life.

This is not rocket surgery.

I've always wondered when that opinion became fact. Where was it proven that a warning shot is an indicator that one isn't in fear for their life? In courts by lawyers that spin it? Repeated ad nauseum as urban legend for so many years it's taken as gospel? I believed it for a long time but I wonder at it now. Maybe someone who fires a warning shot (possibly not this person) is in fear for their life but still hesitant to 'murder' a fellow human being. Maybe there is variation in people's fight or flight responses that can vary based upon a lifetime list of events and happenings that make us all different. I don't really buy anymore that it is a proven fact that someone who fires a warning shot isn't in fear for their life. To some people guns and/or violence is so foreign to them a warning shot might by the most aggressive action they've ever mustered in their life, and the step of shooting someone's face off just isn't in them, despite the fear for their life that caused them to fire a warning shot.

Because as I said to Magorn: the law is not about your personal opinion or emotions. It's (ideally) about reality. I see where you're coming from, and I understand the how/why of your inquiry, but you aren't thinking it through.

You may indeed be afraid for your life, but that doesn't mean your life is in danger. If we go on how people *feel* rather than what happened, society goes into anarchy pretty quickly (look at mob mentality for examples). One of the ways that's been determined to help decide if you were in imminent danger is if you have time to fire a warning shot. Why? Because an assailant can cover 14ish feet in a lunge lasting just over a second. If you have time to fire a warning shot, which takes about the same amount of time, then - usually - your "attacker" was not making that final, ...


The 21-foot rule or Tueller Drill is accepted by most police forces and taught in most CCW classes. If your attacker is within 21 feet you normally don't have time to take out and shoot your firearm before they attack you. If she fired a warning shot when he was within 21 feet it is easy to argue she didn't fear for her life.
 
2012-05-02 10:09:37 AM

Carth: The 21-foot rule or Tueller Drill is accepted by most police forces and taught in most CCW classes. If your attacker is within 21 feet you normally don't have time to take out and shoot your firearm before they attack you. If she fired a warning shot when he was within 21 feet it is easy to argue she didn't fear for her life.


Only if you accept as a given that people make rational decisions when in fear for their lives.
 
2012-05-02 10:09:48 AM
If she had a knife, could she have done a warning stab? or is that also illegal?
 
2012-05-02 10:10:01 AM

BurnShrike: 20 years for firing a shot that didn't hit anyone?! The US penal system has become a farce. That's just ridiculous.

You could rape and murder someone and be back on the streets faster than that.


Hell, you rape and murder some and you get a radio gig and a lucrative TV contract.
 
2012-05-02 10:10:15 AM

HAMMERTOE: Stupid broad. If she fired towards him, she should have told the police, "I shot at him and missed. He didn't wait around for me to correct my aim. Since he ran, I didn't fire again.

Stand your ground would have covered her, all except for her idiotic reconciliation with him.


I'm guessing she has more than a few liberal friends, who would have been so horrified at the thought of shooting at another human being even if you're in fear for your childrens' lives that they might have actually testified against her if she hadn't pretended she was shooting at the ceiling. That's the problem with insisting life should be like a pre-scripted television show... it's not, and most of the things that make the perfect defense on CSI actually prove the exact opposite in real life.

/on CSI, firing warning shots into the ceiling proves you never wanted to hurt anybody, gets Grissom on your side, and he wins your case for you
//in real life, it proves you didn't really think you were in danger and used your gun as a very dangerous noisemaker
 
2012-05-02 10:10:42 AM

Fine I'll Join Fark: Aarontology: jbuist: The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

thanks, I was having a hard time reading those skinny little letters


Not to mention a SWAT team had to be sent to get her out. And for the record, *both* have been charged by the prosecutor. It isn't like Zimmerman got to walk.
 
2012-05-02 10:10:52 AM

Voiceofreason01: Personally and morally I agree with you but firing a warning shot drastically increases your chances of going to jail pretty much anywhere in the US. Firing a warning shot is not legally self defense because if you have time to fire a warning shot you did not consider lethal force necessary to defend yourself and firing a gun(even a warning shot) is very likely to be interpreted as lethal force in a court room. Brandishing is also a bad idea(unless you're in your own house in a State with a strong castle law).

/this is like day 1 stuff in CC class


Wow, I feel so much safer now that I know that if someone with a gun feels threatened by me, the only legally defensible action they can take is to shoot me in the face. I mean, seriously, "if you have time to fire a warning shot you did not consider lethal force necessary to defend yourself and firing a gun(even a warning shot) is very likely to be interpreted as lethal force" is some steaming lawyer horseshiat.
Not to mention the fact that basic psychology says when someone feels threatened, they're not thinking straight. Under what bizarre system is a quickly-made decision made under stress to attempt to defend oneself without taking another life (because, as Clint always said, that's a hell of a thing, and even if you're in the right, it could legally and emotionally haunt you forever) an intentional 20-year felony?!
 
2012-05-02 10:11:02 AM

Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.


Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa
 
2012-05-02 10:11:12 AM

Carth: If she fired a warning shot when he was within 21 feet it is easy to argue she didn't fear for her life.


I would defend against this in court by stating the following:
1. She believes that taking a human life, even an attacker is wrong.
2. Since that means she would NEVER shoot to kill, the only option is to frighten.
3. The warning shot is meant to frighten.
 
2012-05-02 10:11:14 AM

Aarontology: jbuist: The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.


I love the way Conservatives have the amazing ability to see through time and space. It's how they know that George Zimmerman, who shot and killed a black teenager, was completely justified, and how they know that this woman, who just happens to be black, deserves 20 years because she fired a warning shot "in the general direction" of her abusive husband and children. But of course, they're not racist, and don't you dare imply that they are.
 
2012-05-02 10:12:15 AM

madgonad: 20 years is BS.

The jury hammered her with that because she is a stupid biatch who also happens to be black. Warning shots are generally handled as class A misdemeanors and almost never result in anything more than 6 months in the county farm. She is an idiot that fired a weapon to frighten someone. If she had the guy tied up and was performing mock executions on him (think: Allen West) she would have only gotten a few years.


Wrong wrong and wrong. A negligent or accidental disharge is a misdemeanor. Shoot a warning shot is assault. Regaurdless of race. Nice try though buddy. Really.
 
2012-05-02 10:12:37 AM

proteus_b: SweetSilverBlues: This woman needs to be removed from society. I agree with the jury.

because she fired a gun in the air after her boyfriend beat and choked her? she is probably an idiot, sure, but twenty years in prison? seriously? not only do people frequently do less for manslaughter, they usually do less for manslaughter.

i suppose you'd also lock up every first offense DUI for 20 years, speeders and slow drivers for 10, and jaywalkers for 5.


Wow, reactionary much?

So, by your own logic method, I suppose you believe that she should have been let go with no consequences whatsoever for endangering the lives of her children and possibly her neighbors.

I said nothing about agreeing or disagreeing with the mandatory minimum sentence, but yes, the choices being what they are I am glad she was incarcerated.

Do I think 20 years is too long? Yep, but she turned down a plea that would have reduced the sentence and she did, in fact, recklessly endanger lives.

Will she actually serve the full 20? Probably not, but that's pure speculation.
 
2012-05-02 10:13:39 AM

Carth: Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.

Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa


What does that make Charlize Theron then?
 
2012-05-02 10:14:40 AM

madgonad: Carth: If she fired a warning shot when he was within 21 feet it is easy to argue she didn't fear for her life.

I would defend against this in court by stating the following:
1. She believes that taking a human life, even an attacker is wrong.
2. Since that means she would NEVER shoot to kill, the only option is to frighten.
3. The warning shot is meant to frighten.


I don't think personal morality has much sway in court. If you fear for your life you are authorized in FL to use lethal force not to scared an assailant you don't intend to kill with a gun.
 
2012-05-02 10:15:54 AM

Mavent: Aarontology: jbuist: The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

I love the way Conservatives have the amazing ability to see through time and space. It's how they know that George Zimmerman, who shot and killed a black teenager, was completely justified, and how they know that this woman, who just happens to be black, deserves 20 years because she fired a warning shot "in the general direction" of her abusive husband and children. But of course, they're not racist, and don't you dare imply that they are.


Holy Fark! My "favorite" of you awhile back continues to be incredibly accurate...


Mavent
2012-05-02 10:11:14 AM
(favorite: Race Baiter (Trayvon Idiot))
 
2012-05-02 10:15:56 AM

madgonad: Carth: If she fired a warning shot when he was within 21 feet it is easy to argue she didn't fear for her life.

I would defend against this in court by stating the following:
1. She believes that taking a human life, even an attacker is wrong.
2. Since that means she would NEVER shoot to kill, the only option is to frighten.
3. The warning shot is meant to frighten.


Well, then it's aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which is what they convicted her for. The 20 years is because of minimum sentencing guidelines in Florida, and it's 20 years because she fired the weapon.

Honestly, the only real mistake she made here is not killing the asshole in the first place. Dead men don't contradict your story.
 
2012-05-02 10:16:32 AM

Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.

Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa

What does that make Charlize Theron then?


Besides insanely hot?

A descendent of colonists.
 
2012-05-02 10:16:42 AM

Giltric: Alexander is going to spend 20 years of her life in prison for a single warning shot while in her own home.


(1) 20 years is the mandatory minimum (yes those are stupid)
(2) Warning shots are retarded, obviously she didn't fear for her life so right off the bat no SYG. This had been covered
(3) Shooting off a weapon in your own home for no good reason can still get you jail time for a variety of things in almost every state. Everything from reckless endangerment to discharge of a weapon in city limits or whatever.
 
2012-05-02 10:18:11 AM

RminusQ: Wow, I feel so much safer now that I know that if someone with a gun feels threatened by me, the only legally defensible action they can take is to shoot me in the face.


If you're the kind of person to go around threatening random people you don't know well enough to know whether they're armed or not, my society doesn't want you to feel safe.

/maybe if more bullies realized how much danger they out themselves in, there wouldn't be so much bullying
 
2012-05-02 10:18:26 AM

Silly Jesus: Mavent: Aarontology: jbuist: The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

I love the way Conservatives have the amazing ability to see through time and space. It's how they know that George Zimmerman, who shot and killed a black teenager, was completely justified, and how they know that this woman, who just happens to be black, deserves 20 years because she fired a warning shot "in the general direction" of her abusive husband and children. But of course, they're not racist, and don't you dare imply that they are.

Holy Fark! My "favorite" of you awhile back continues to be incredibly accurate...


Mavent
2012-05-02 10:11:14 AM
(favorite: Race Baiter (Trayvon Idiot))


You are an absolute moron.
 
2012-05-02 10:18:49 AM

Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.

Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa

What does that make Charlize Theron then?


You could say she is South African American if you want to talk about her nationality. I'm guessing she is Caucasian if you mean her race but I didn't research her family tree.
 
2012-05-02 10:19:35 AM
The article has a link to the husband's story here.

That story contains this tidbit from Marissa's ex-husband (her ally):
He also said that Marissa Alexander retrieved the firearm from the glove compartment of her vehicle parked in the garage of her home at some point during the argument.


So she left the argument, retrieved a gun, and then *came back* to a dangerous situation.
Stand your ground does not apply.
 
2012-05-02 10:20:23 AM

s2s2s2: Had subby paid attention in the Zimmerman threads, SYG applies to use of lethal force, not use of warning shots. If you can fire a warning shot, you must believe you can get away, or are sure you would not, at that point, need to use deadly force to get away. Perception and how one's actions speak to one's perception is what the law is framed around.


This is the biggest piece of flawed thinking and bullshiat I have ever heard of. You and everybody else knows damned well that even if they are about to be murdered there are people that will not be able to bring themselves to kill another human, especially a loved one, and would fire a shot up in the air in hopes it would scare the person off. And if you think about it, her warning shot did stop her asshole boyfriend from beating her.

Anybody that agrees with this at all is a complete moron and it makes me question them as a person.
 
2012-05-02 10:20:39 AM

Cythraul: Never fire a warning shot? Okay, quick scenario:

Guy with a butcher knife is coming towards me, threatening my life. I have a gun in my hand, but I think maybe if I just scare the shiat out of him, taking his life will not be necessary. If I can't fire a warning shot in the air, or the ground, do I menacingly show him my weapon without pointing it at him, or something?


Fire all the warning shots you want. But your story should be that your first shots missed because you were nervous.
 
2012-05-02 10:21:10 AM

Mavent: Aarontology: jbuist: The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

I love the way Conservatives have the amazing ability to see through time and space. It's how they know that George Zimmerman, who shot and killed a black teenager, was completely justified, and how they know that this woman, who just happens to be black, deserves 20 years because she fired a warning shot "in the general direction" of her abusive husband and children. But of course, they're not racist, and don't you dare imply that they are.


It has nothing to do with conservative/liberal and everything to do with the facts. I am far from conservative and can see the difference. Zimmerman was on his back getting his face caved in when he shot and her husband was nowhere near her when she decided to shoot....intentionally in the direction of children. I would say it is you that cannot see things for what they are. I think 20 years is harsh, but the idiocy of mandatory sentencing is an entirely different discussion.
 
2012-05-02 10:21:21 AM
She had the option of retreating for years. She stuck with the abusive husband. She missed. Now she pays. Good.
 
2012-05-02 10:21:24 AM

SweetSilverBlues: So, by your own logic method, I suppose you believe that she should have been let go with no consequences whatsoever for endangering the lives of her children and possibly her neighbors.


The industrial strength Stupid in this thread is beyond belief.

What everyone with... you know... A brain in this thread is saying is this: It seems a little odd that Florida initially refused to even arrest a guy for KILLING an unarmed black teen, yet is set to give a black woman 20 years for (and hold on to something, because this is going to confuse you) not killing anyone. The fact that some of you can't seem to grasp this is mind-boggling. Instead, you ramble on about completely moronic, unrelated issues. The bottom line is that they let someone who actually murdered another human being walk free with zero repercussions until forced to do something by national humiliation, while simultaneously giving 20 years to a woman who didn't kill anyone at all.
 
2012-05-02 10:22:22 AM

ongbok: s2s2s2: Had subby paid attention in the Zimmerman threads, SYG applies to use of lethal force, not use of warning shots. If you can fire a warning shot, you must believe you can get away, or are sure you would not, at that point, need to use deadly force to get away. Perception and how one's actions speak to one's perception is what the law is framed around.

This is the biggest piece of flawed thinking and bullshiat I have ever heard of. You and everybody else knows damned well that even if they are about to be murdered there are people that will not be able to bring themselves to kill another human, especially a loved one, and would fire a shot up in the air in hopes it would scare the person off. And if you think about it, her warning shot did stop her asshole boyfriend from beating her.

Anybody that agrees with this at all is a complete moron and it makes me question them as a person.


And those people would be endangering the lives of others doing so and should probably avoid access to a firearm.
 
2012-05-02 10:22:25 AM

SweetSilverBlues: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.

Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa

What does that make Charlize Theron then?

Besides insanely hot?

A descendent of colonists.


South African-American.
 
2012-05-02 10:23:02 AM

Pumpernickel bread: Not to mention a SWAT team had to be sent to get her out. And for the record, *both* have been charged by the prosecutor. It isn't like Zimmerman got to walk.


Apparently, you're unaware of the facts surrounding the Zimmerman case. Is your cave air-conditioned?
 
2012-05-02 10:23:09 AM

RminusQ: Voiceofreason01: Personally and morally I agree with you but firing a warning shot drastically increases your chances of going to jail pretty much anywhere in the US. Firing a warning shot is not legally self defense because if you have time to fire a warning shot you did not consider lethal force necessary to defend yourself and firing a gun(even a warning shot) is very likely to be interpreted as lethal force in a court room. Brandishing is also a bad idea(unless you're in your own house in a State with a strong castle law).

/this is like day 1 stuff in CC class

Wow, I feel so much safer now that I know that if someone with a gun feels threatened by me, the only legally defensible action they can take is to shoot me in the face. I mean, seriously, "if you have time to fire a warning shot you did not consider lethal force necessary to defend yourself and firing a gun(even a warning shot) is very likely to be interpreted as lethal force" is some steaming lawyer horseshiat.
Not to mention the fact that basic psychology says when someone feels threatened, they're not thinking straight. Under what bizarre system is a quickly-made decision made under stress to attempt to defend oneself without taking another life (because, as Clint always said, that's a hell of a thing, and even if you're in the right, it could legally and emotionally haunt you forever) an intentional 20-year felony?!


It's really quite simple. You cannot fire a gun until you are in imminent danger. If you fire a warning shot (and it works) you were not yet in imminent danger. In other words, warning shots are not legal. This may seem stupid to a lot of you, but it makes sense if properly thought out. Society does not want you to fire a gun unless you absolutely have to. So much so, we would rather gamble on the prospective attacker changing his own mind instead of letting his intended victims try to change it for him.
 
2012-05-02 10:23:14 AM

you have pee hands: Carth: The 21-foot rule or Tueller Drill is accepted by most police forces and taught in most CCW classes. If your attacker is within 21 feet you normally don't have time to take out and shoot your firearm before they attack you. If she fired a warning shot when he was within 21 feet it is easy to argue she didn't fear for her life


I see this and where it supports a decision by people in training and experience as a guide but don't see how it sets a precedent. It may be easy to argue she wasn't in fear for her life but there is nothing there, to me, that automatically negates the argument she was in fear for her life. I guess in most situations an armed victim vs armed criminal there should be some form of knowledge of their weapon and what it's use entails and can be judged on that. I suppose I'm thinking more of an average person, my wife would be a good example. She's not violent, fairly sweet tempered and doesn't carry a gun. If she was accosted in a parking lot by someone that was carrying, and for some reason she was able to get the weapon away, her fear for her life might be what prompts her to even put the gun in the air an fire instead of just dropping something she is inherently afraid of. I think it'd be easy to say that anyone, once attacked by an armed criminal is in fear for their life, who wouldn't be? But that fear will bring about different responses in all people and I don't think the blanket throwing out of the defense I was in fear of my life because of a warning shot is right in all cases.

I was raised with a police officer father and his advice to me for a home invasion is to shoot three times. Two immediately into the criminal one into the ceiling. Then you point to the shot in the roof as your first warning shoot and the two in the crook as the ones you fired after. I guess for double coverage of the fear for your life thing. Though now I think it's more unrealistic to believe people will be taking into account future court hearings when they truly are fearing for their lives. I don't think much beyond 'I could die here!' would be going through my mind if I was truly in fear for my life.
 
2012-05-02 10:23:35 AM

Spade: Giltric: Alexander is going to spend 20 years of her life in prison for a single warning shot while in her own home.

(1) 20 years is the mandatory minimum (yes those are stupid)
(2) Warning shots are retarded, obviously she didn't fear for her life so right off the bat no SYG. This had been covered
(3) Shooting off a weapon in your own home for no good reason can still get you jail time for a variety of things in almost every state. Everything from reckless endangerment to discharge of a weapon in city limits or whatever.


Uh you'll get no argument from me about it....my commentary is based on the questions the article asks...like why is she in jail...(shes been tried and found guilty) while Zimmerman is walking around a free man (he is out on bail pending trial).

If a journalist has to ask those questions maybe its time to go back to writing fake testimonials for the Gardens Alive catalog.
 
2012-05-02 10:23:46 AM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Silly Jesus: Mavent: Aarontology: jbuist: The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

I love the way Conservatives have the amazing ability to see through time and space. It's how they know that George Zimmerman, who shot and killed a black teenager, was completely justified, and how they know that this woman, who just happens to be black, deserves 20 years because she fired a warning shot "in the general direction" of her abusive husband and children. But of course, they're not racist, and don't you dare imply that they are.

Holy Fark! My "favorite" of you awhile back continues to be incredibly accurate...


Mavent
2012-05-02 10:11:14 AM
(favorite: Race Baiter (Trayvon Idiot))

You are an absolute moron.


Do tell?
 
2012-05-02 10:24:17 AM

Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: Rule #1: Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destory
Rule #2: NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT

/if you're facing a real imminent threat to your life you do not have time to fire a warning shot
//plus a gun is not a precision weapon and you don't know where that bullet will end up

Never fire a warning shot? Okay, quick scenario:

Guy with a butcher knife is coming towards me, threatening my life. I have a gun in my hand, but I think maybe if I just scare the shiat out of him, taking his life will not be necessary. If I can't fire a warning shot in the air, or the ground, do I menacingly show him my weapon without pointing it at him, or something?


The hell does the warning shot communicate? That you're not going to kill him? In this scenario you die either way
 
2012-05-02 10:25:00 AM

Mavent: SweetSilverBlues: So, by your own logic method, I suppose you believe that she should have been let go with no consequences whatsoever for endangering the lives of her children and possibly her neighbors.

The industrial strength Stupid in this thread is beyond belief.

What everyone with... you know... A brain in this thread is saying is this: It seems a little odd that Florida initially refused to even arrest a guy for KILLING an unarmed black teen, yet is set to give a black woman 20 years for (and hold on to something, because this is going to confuse you) not killing anyone. The fact that some of you can't seem to grasp this is mind-boggling. Instead, you ramble on about completely moronic, unrelated issues. The bottom line is that they let someone who actually murdered another human being walk free with zero repercussions until forced to do something by national humiliation, while simultaneously giving 20 years to a woman who didn't kill anyone at all.


Zimmerman was in mortal danger when he shot. A guy was on top of him caving his face in. This woman wasn't. Moreover, even though her life wasn't in danger, she still chose to send a bullet in the general direction of children. Apples and oranges
 
2012-05-02 10:26:11 AM

ongbok: s2s2s2: Had subby paid attention in the Zimmerman threads, SYG applies to use of lethal force, not use of warning shots. If you can fire a warning shot, you must believe you can get away, or are sure you would not, at that point, need to use deadly force to get away. Perception and how one's actions speak to one's perception is what the law is framed around.

This is the biggest piece of flawed thinking and bullshiat I have ever heard of. You and everybody else knows damned well that even if they are about to be murdered there are people that will not be able to bring themselves to kill another human, especially a loved one, and would fire a shot up in the air in hopes it would scare the person off. And if you think about it, her warning shot did stop her asshole boyfriend from beating her.

Anybody that agrees with this at all is a complete moron and it makes me question them as a person.


It may be flawed thinking, and it may be bullshiat, but it's the law.

And, yeah, people have gotten arrested and gone to jail for it.

Also, there's the plain fact that warning shots are, most of the time, dangerous to innocent people. That round is going to go somewhere, and in an urban area there aren't a lot of good backstops that are going to stop it. Yeah, sure, you didn't have to kill Mr. Bad Guy With The Knife, but you get to explain why Mr. 13 Year Old Playing In His Backyard 1000 yards away got shot.
 
2012-05-02 10:26:19 AM

Mavent: The bottom line is that they let someone who actually murdered killed another human being in self defense walked free with zero repercussions until forced to do something by national humiliation, while simultaneously giving 20 years to a woman who didn't kill anyone at all attempted to murder someone.


There you go. Now engage that lump of sh*t between your ears.
 
2012-05-02 10:28:34 AM
Mavent
SweetSilverBlues: So, by your own logic method, I suppose you believe that she should have been let go with no consequences whatsoever for endangering the lives of her children and possibly her neighbors.

The industrial strength Stupid in this thread is beyond belief.

What everyone with... you know... A brain in this thread is saying is this: It seems a little odd that Florida initially refused to even arrest a guy for KILLING an unarmed black teen, yet is set to give a black woman 20 years for (and hold on to something, because this is going to confuse you) not killing anyone. The fact that some of you can't seem to grasp this is mind-boggling. Instead, you ramble on about completely moronic, unrelated issues. The bottom line is that they let someone who actually murdered another human being walk free with zero repercussions until forced to do something by national humiliation, while simultaneously giving 20 years to a woman who didn't kill anyone at all.


Yes, when you dont look at any of the details of the case you can view it in any fashion that you want.
 
2012-05-02 10:29:19 AM

Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.

Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa

What does that make Charlize Theron then?


Boer, technically.

The difficulty with the above definition is that it excludes the Nubians, who are a supra-Saharan tribe.
 
2012-05-02 10:29:22 AM

moothemagiccow: The hell does the warning shot communicate? That you're not going to kill him? In this scenario you die either way


The point that a lot of you Internet Toughguy/Sociopath Wannabes tend to forget is that normal, sane human beings tend to not want to kill other human beings. I love all the thirteen-year-old Halo addicts in these threads who run around screaming "Shoot to kill! No warning shots! Fire until your clip runs dry! HORK HORK HORK!" In real life, most people don't want to have the death of another person on their hands. But I guess understanding that that would take a level of maturity and humanity that some of you will never aspire to.
 
2012-05-02 10:31:10 AM

This text is now purple: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.

Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa

What does that make Charlize Theron then?

Boer, technically.

The difficulty with the above definition is that it excludes the Nubians, who are a supra-Saharan tribe.


Also, technically, EVERYONE is a descendant of Sub-Saharan Africans.

Scholarship please?
 
2012-05-02 10:31:48 AM

rudemix:
If she was accosted in a parking lot by someone that was carrying, and for some reason she was able to get the weapon away, her fear for her life might be what prompts her to even put the gun in the air an fire instead of just dropping something she is inherently afraid of.

I was raised with a police officer father and his advice to me for a home invasion is to shoot three times. Two immediately into the criminal one into the ceiling. Then you point to the shot in the roof as your first warning shoot and the two in the crook as the ones you fired after. I guess for double coverage of the fear for your life thing. Though now I think it's more unrealistic to believe people will be taking into account future co ...


Don't. Fire. Rounds. Randomly. Into. The. Air. Ever.

Your father's advice is also incorrect.
 
2012-05-02 10:32:17 AM

This text is now purple: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: What an actual African-American might look like...

[www.bff.tv image 400x400]

I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.

Technically I think African American is supposed to refer to American citizens descended from the native population of Sub-Saharan Africa

What does that make Charlize Theron then?

Boer, technically.

The difficulty with the above definition is that it excludes the Nubians, who are a supra-Saharan tribe.


Cool, learned a new term. I never knew they had a word specifically for the descents of the Dutch farmers in South Africa.
 
2012-05-02 10:33:04 AM
"Warning shots" are fine...if you are a coast guard vessel.

For firearms, not so much.
 
2012-05-02 10:33:52 AM

BurnShrike: 20 years for firing a shot that didn't hit anyone?! The US penal system has become a farce. That's just ridiculous.

You could rape and murder someone and be back on the streets faster than that.


Fire a warning shot at someone with a decent chance of hitting a child, lie to police about it, violate a court order, and get re-arrested for domestic battery during the trial. THEN see how the penal system treats you.

RTFA. I think the penal system worked fine in this case.
 
2012-05-02 10:33:54 AM

Mavent: SweetSilverBlues: So, by your own logic method, I suppose you believe that she should have been let go with no consequences whatsoever for endangering the lives of her children and possibly her neighbors.

The industrial strength Stupid in this thread is beyond belief.

What everyone with... you know... A brain in this thread is saying is this: It seems a little odd that Florida initially refused to even arrest a guy for KILLING an unarmed black teen, yet is set to give a black woman 20 years for (and hold on to something, because this is going to confuse you) not killing anyone. The fact that some of you can't seem to grasp this is mind-boggling. Instead, you ramble on about completely moronic, unrelated issues. The bottom line is that they let someone who actually murdered another human being walk free with zero repercussions until forced to do something by national humiliation, while simultaneously giving 20 years to a woman who didn't kill anyone at all.


No, most people with *dramatic ellipses...* a brain understand that more than one issue can be discussed at a time, ie the particulars of the case and the generalities of Florida law overall.

Does Florida have stupid, badly written laws? Yes. But I don't live there, I can't change them.

You seem to think that it's a bad thing that national humiliation is drawing attention to said laws. I don't.

It got Zimmerman up on charges, which is good, but the prosecution has one hell of an uphill battle to make them stick with the current state laws.

As I said, and you ignored, do I think 20 years is too long? Yes, I do. But between that and no charges at all, I'll take it.
 
2012-05-02 10:33:59 AM

Mavent: SweetSilverBlues: So, by your own logic method, I suppose you believe that she should have been let go with no consequences whatsoever for endangering the lives of her children and possibly her neighbors.

The industrial strength Stupid in this thread is beyond belief.

What everyone with... you know... A brain in this thread is saying is this: It seems a little odd that Florida initially refused to even arrest a guy for KILLING an unarmed black teen, yet is set to give a black woman 20 years for (and hold on to something, because this is going to confuse you) not killing anyone. The fact that some of you can't seem to grasp this is mind-boggling. Instead, you ramble on about completely moronic, unrelated issues. The bottom line is that they let someone who actually murdered another human being walk free with zero repercussions until forced to do something by national humiliation, while simultaneously giving 20 years to a woman who didn't kill anyone at all.


Even though you are stupid, I'll try this once.

One is self-defense.

The other isn't.

This is what the laws state.

It's not about race, even though you desperately want it to be.

/troll on
 
2012-05-02 10:34:03 AM

Mavent: moothemagiccow: The hell does the warning shot communicate? That you're not going to kill him? In this scenario you die either way

The point that a lot of you Internet Toughguy/Sociopath Wannabes tend to forget is that normal, sane human beings tend to not want to kill other human beings. I love all the thirteen-year-old Halo addicts in these threads who run around screaming "Shoot to kill! No warning shots! Fire until your clip runs dry! HORK HORK HORK!" In real life, most people don't want to have the death of another person on their hands. But I guess understanding that that would take a level of maturity and humanity that some of you will never aspire to.


Sometimes taking a life is neccessary even though you don't want to do it....it is no different then when your mom tells you to take out the garbage.
 
2012-05-02 10:34:31 AM

Mavent: moothemagiccow: The hell does the warning shot communicate? That you're not going to kill him? In this scenario you die either way

The point that a lot of you Internet Toughguy/Sociopath Wannabes tend to forget is that normal, sane human beings tend to not want to kill other human beings. I love all the thirteen-year-old Halo addicts in these threads who run around screaming "Shoot to kill! No warning shots! Fire until your clip runs dry! HORK HORK HORK!" In real life, most people don't want to have the death of another person on their hands. But I guess understanding that that would take a level of maturity and humanity that some of you will never aspire to.


Then do not engage a weapon. If possible, remove yourself from the situation. Engaging a weapon in a non-lethal manner will only 1) escalate the situation, or 2) endanger bystanders. Never pull a gun as a bluff or a threat. Only own a gun (for self defense) if you have already mentally prepared yourself for when you would use it, so that you don't hesitate when the time comes. A gun is not a toy, is not a fashion accessory, and is not something you should buy to make yourself feel tougher. It is a tool that should be used properly and at appropriate times, or not at all.

If you have a gun for self defense, be mentally prepared to use it. If you are not prepared to use it, it is irresponsible and dangerous to have it.
 
Displayed 50 of 448 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report