Point 1: This is one more example of DON'T TALK TO COPS. If she had gotten a lawyer before she talked to the police she wouldn't be in this mess, and i'm not talking about the public defender, you get what you pay for with lawyers.

Point 2: warning shots are retarded, they will not have the intended effect and will possibly harm someone else instead.

Point 3: In a real attack you will more than likely not have the time to do anything except pull and fire. If you have time to think, your not under attack.

Point 4: when you purchase a firearm, immediately forget everything you have seen about them in movies. Its all bullshiat.

Magorn: ambassador_ahab: Subby, it should read, "unless you're a black woman who fires..."

My first version of the headline included that word, I edited it out because there's really no evidence this is about race rather than gender politics, and Florida's legal system is stupid enough without throwing out inflammatory potential red herrings.into the mix

OK Ms. Fluke....

MycroftHolmes: Mikey1969: SweetSilverBlues: Or you're dead because you didn't scare away the attacker, and you killed your wife who was hiding in a closet upstairs with your oh-so-humane warning shot.

Thank God for Hydro Shock rounds. If I miss and my bullet goes through a wall, I stand a decent chance of it not killing on the other side of the wall. God, wouldn't that suck though? I couldn't imagine living with myself after killing a loved one that way.

This doesn't cover Hydroshocks specifically, but it does point out that even a handgun round can penetrate through dry wall a lot more than we would expect.

The box of truth

+1 for Box of Truth

All the things I 'learned' about guns from television/movies before actually owning or using them turned out to be false. My favorite is the claim that hiding behind cars will stop gunfire just because they're made of metal. Turns out, bullets will fly right through quite a bit.

MycroftHolmes: This doesn't cover Hydroshocks specifically, but it does point out that even a handgun round can penetrate through dry wall a lot more than we would expect.

Link blocked at work. I'll have to check it out at home. Notice in my post I did say that I stood a "decent" chance of it not killing. I know even the Hydro Shocks can maintain some serious momentum, and saying that something can't happen is as good an invitation to be proven wrong by fate as you could ever ask for. Especially with something like my .45.

Lsherm: cryinoutloud: Gee, this is even better than a Zimmerman thread. In this thread you all can talk about how you'd handle a crisis situation, how you'd shoot people yourself, how you'd handle your weapon, and how people who try not to kill people are giant pussies. Maybe you should go out and buy some more ammo after you post. The world looks mighty dangerous from you're sitting.

Madam, this is the internet. A Congressional Medal of Honor recipient would be considered a pussy if he/she didn't manage to kill someone while receiving it.

Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for either of you, I take it.

/yeah, yeah
//do not feed

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?

If an attacker is threatening you with a knife and you are unwilling to use actual deadly force against the attacker then you should not be in possession of a defensive firearm as you are not prepared to use it properly.

I can just picture her screaming at her lawyer and demanding to micromanage the whole case until he threw up his arms watched her talk shiat to the judge.

FTA:"The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases."

Nevermind Zimmerman not being white, does not fit the race baiters

/racist tard

Mikey1969: MycroftHolmes: This doesn't cover Hydroshocks specifically, but it does point out that even a handgun round can penetrate through dry wall a lot more than we would expect.

Link blocked at work. I'll have to check it out at home. Notice in my post I did say that I stood a "decent" chance of it not killing. I know even the Hydro Shocks can maintain some serious momentum, and saying that something can't happen is as good an invitation to be proven wrong by fate as you could ever ask for. Especially with something like my .45.

The results were surprizing. A .22LR penetrated 6 sheets of 3/4 inch drywall. Not too sure what a .45 would do. And one of the problems (I have heard) with hollow points and dry wall is that the cavity fills with dry wall, so the round does not expand.

Lsherm: flyinreallyhigh: Point 3: In a real attack you will more than likely not have the time to do anything except pull and fire. If you have time to think, your not under attack.

It should be this fast.

That scene was completely unexpected when I saw the movie.

Yep pretty much that fast.

Lsherm: SweetSilverBlues: Lsherm: cryinoutloud: Gee, this is even better than a Zimmerman thread. In this thread you all can talk about how you'd handle a crisis situation, how you'd shoot people yourself, how you'd handle your weapon, and how people who try not to kill people are giant pussies. Maybe you should go out and buy some more ammo after you post. The world looks mighty dangerous from you're sitting.

Madam, this is the internet. A Congressional Medal of Honor recipient would be considered a pussy if he/she didn't manage to kill someone while receiving it.

Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for either of you, I take it.

/yeah, yeah
//do not feed

MEh, I'm not really arguing with any of the people here, I just thought her comment was funny.

Ah, gotcha. My snark towards you is summarily withdrawn.

:)

SweetSilverBlues: Mikey1969: SweetSilverBlues: Unless you are a naval vessel, you do not ever need to fire one.

Sweet, because I am, in fact, a naval vessel... I can fire all the warning shots across the bow I want.

/After typing that I now see all kinds of 'full of seamen' jokes running through this thread. Oh well. Carry on :-)

You totally made me giggle.

/totally


:-) That was the effect that I was going for...

You mean that nearly all of the laws created by ALEC that are intended to be passed by states are intentionally vague so that every single one of them is designed to go to the Supreme court to set a precident nation wide? This way the far right only needs to control a single state's legislature in order to impose their agenda upon the country through the only un-elected branch of the government that conservatives have been fighting to get control of for over 30 years. The SCOTUS was intentionally set up with judges that would make rulings in favor of corporate interests.

Citrate1007: You mean that nearly all of the laws created by ALEC that are intended to be passed by states are intentionally vague so that every single one of them is designed to go to the Supreme court to set a precident nation wide? This way the far right only needs to control a single state's legislature in order to impose their agenda upon the country through the only un-elected branch of the government that conservatives have been fighting to get control of for over 30 years. The SCOTUS was intentionally set up with judges that would make rulings in favor of corporate interests.

Mikey1969: SweetSilverBlues: Mikey1969: SweetSilverBlues: Unless you are a naval vessel, you do not ever need to fire one.

Sweet, because I am, in fact, a naval vessel... I can fire all the warning shots across the bow I want.

/After typing that I now see all kinds of 'full of seamen' jokes running through this thread. Oh well. Carry on :-)

You totally made me giggle.

/totally


:-) That was the effect that I was going for...

And your dire seamen prediction has come true!

Are you a wizard?

Voiceofreason01: Are you an amphibious assault ship? Because they load seamen through the rear.

Holy fark, THAT was hilarious!

What's with the ex husband? The woman seems to crave crazy and abuse -except when it gets too over the top- he seems sane so he didn't deliver on that. Based on the dates he was getting cheated on in the marriage. Yet he is coordinating support efforts for a woman who wants this crazy shiat.
Run away man. She ain't goin back to you and you don't need that.

Not that she should get 20 years. Just some damn therapy and a second divorce.

Dimensio: 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?

If an attacker is threatening you with a knife and you are unwilling to use actual deadly force against the attacker then you should not be in possession of a defensive firearm as you are not prepared to use it properly.

Harsh but true. Carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility and if you're not prepared to take correct action (including the somewhat counter-intuitive idea that warning shots are a no-no), then you should not carry a weapon.

Citrate1007: You mean that nearly all of the laws created by ALEC that are intended to be passed by states are intentionally vague so that every single one of them is designed to go to the Supreme court to set a precident nation wide? This way the far right only needs to control a single state's legislature in order to impose their agenda upon the country through the only un-elected branch of the government that conservatives have been fighting to get control of for over 30 years. The SCOTUS was intentionally set up with judges that would make rulings in favor of corporate interests.

Do you think this all up yourself or is there other voices in your head giving you the details?

I love how the 'Voice of Reason' on this thread comes from the gun owners. We're the ones who know the law, and by reinforcing that, the anti-gun people think we're somehow being Doc Holiday loudmouths, when in fact all we are doing is stating how the laws are written, and how they affect you when you use a gun to defend yourself.

SweetSilverBlues: Mikey1969: SweetSilverBlues: Mikey1969: SweetSilverBlues: Unless you are a naval vessel, you do not ever need to fire one.

Sweet, because I am, in fact, a naval vessel... I can fire all the warning shots across the bow I want.

/After typing that I now see all kinds of 'full of seamen' jokes running through this thread. Oh well. Carry on :-)

You totally made me giggle.

/totally


:-) That was the effect that I was going for...

And your dire seamen prediction has come true!

Are you a wizard?

I've heard there aer some who call him.... Tim.

It's not a conspiracy Silly Jesus, they've been talking about this for years. Why do you think they've been talking about liberal activist judges since the 80's. It's quite a brilliant political move and right now the left is just wishing that they'd thought of it first. Generally they would have to attempt to hide or cover up their actions for it to be considered a conspiracy, but numerous party leaders have openly talked about this being part of their strategy....many even mention federal judicial appointments that they will be in control of when campaingning.

Spade: hitlersbrain: I have to disagree, most people don't want to kill another person and would rather just scare them away. If a person was coming towards me I had good reason to believe was going to hurt me (but maybe was not CERTAIN of it), I might fire a shot just to scare him away. Loud noises scare people, just ask a dog. If he is still coming at me after that, I could be certain he deserved it.

You would go to jail.

You used deadly force (you fired a gun) when you weren't certain the person was going to hurt you. That's illegal. Especially since you weren't "certain".

Let's look at Florida's actual law

Use of force in defense of person.-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Note the words "imminent". You used deadly force against a threat that wasn't imminent. Obviously, since you weren't "certain" the guy was actually going to hurt you. Thus, you're going to jail.

Also, you used the word "hurt". "Hurt" doesn't work. If you're just going to be "hurt" using unlawful force then you can only use force to defend yourself proportionally to that. The only way you can use deadly force is to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. In your example, none of those appear to be present.

You'd be going to jail for everything from unlawful discharge of a firearm to attempted murder of the guy in question. And you also randomly fired a gun. Where'd that bullet go after it passed by Mr. Might Me a Threat?

You are looking for certainty in an uncertain world. An adult should know that nothing, nothing, nothing is certain. It's a stupid idea I should not have to explain to a rational adult.

I'm walking down a dark street, I notice a group of menacing guys following me. I suddenly see them running at me, it looks like some might be carrying a knives. I pull a gun and yell 'stop' but they don't stop. They are far enough away for me to shoot a warning shot in case they don't see the gun or don't think I'll use it. So I do and either they leave me alone, they keep coming and I shoot them or they stop and tell me they were just late to get somewhere and did not notice that they had scared me.

If you think you are the master of your environment and know everything... PLEASE, never own a gun. It's a big boy tool.

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'm still looking for citation in which Alexander is confirmed to have lied about the direction she fired the gun. . .

MycroftHolmes: The results were surprizing. A .22LR penetrated 6 sheets of 3/4 inch drywall. Not too sure what a .45 would do. And one of the problems (I have heard) with hollow points and dry wall is that the cavity fills with dry wall, so the round does not expand.

Wow, didn't realize that about the .22, I would expect a sheet or two, but 6 sheets is totally crazy... .22 is higher velocity then my .45, so I would be interested to see the difference. People write off .22 quite often as not being 'dangerous'. These people fall under 2 categories: 'dumb' people and 'ex' people. :-)

The guy's last name was CHONG, that was the best headline you could do???

Mikey1969: I love how the 'Voice of Reason' on this thread comes from the gun owners. We're the ones who know the law, and by reinforcing that, the anti-gun people think we're somehow being Doc Holiday loudmouths, when in fact all we are doing is stating how the laws are written, and how they affect you when you use a gun to defend yourself.

I can't say for everyone, but anti-gunners are notoriously resistant to learning anything about firearms or firearms handling, and some are even proud of this ignorance.

SharkTrager: jbuist: Cythraul: I didn't know firing a warning shot was illegal. Maybe some sort of violation of firearms code where you're not allowed to fire a weapon within city limits? But 20 years, for that? This just doesn't make any sense.

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.

Make a little more sense now?

Plus, it kind of sounds like the immediate threat was over by the time she shot. It's not like she fired while he was choking her.

While it's a strange case and a badly written law, people tend to forget that there's more to any case than which statutes are involved.

Well, even his account seems to suggest that she was going to die. He was going to restrain himself because the kids were around - but he vowed that he was going to kill her. However, he also conceded that he does hit his children (like he hits their mothers') which suggests that he doesn't exercise self-restraint in the way that a normal person would.

SweetSilverBlues: Are you a wizard?

Man, I wish you'd posted the 'Wizard' graphic, that would be perfect!

way south: Center mass.
Center mass ONLY!

/that is all.
/anti-gun laws are farked up, but everyone knows that.

Nothing is absolute. Center mass for the first salvo, and if the attacker is still standing and you aren't dead yet, go for the head or leg shot, because it's more likely to stop the attacker than more bullets into their body armor.

Corporate Self: Stand our ground circumvents our court system.

What now? Guilty until proven dead?

How it is supposed to work:

1. BACK THE FARK OFF!!!!!!
2. Call the Police
3. File charges
4. Prove your case
5. Receive justice

And not:

1. Pull a gun for perceived wrong
2. Shoot the guy
3. Claim self-defense

You are correct; individuals suffering a violent attack should allow themselves to be killed or seriously and permanently injured rather than circumvent the legal system through use of deadly force against their attacker.

hitlersbrain: Spade: hitlersbrain: I have to disagree, most people don't want to kill another person and would rather just scare them away. If a person was coming towards me I had good reason to believe was going to hurt me (but maybe was not CERTAIN of it), I might fire a shot just to scare him away. Loud noises scare people, just ask a dog. If he is still coming at me after that, I could be certain he deserved it.

You would go to jail.

You used deadly force (you fired a gun) when you weren't certain the person was going to hurt you. That's illegal. Especially since you weren't "certain".

Let's look at Florida's actual law

Use of force in defense of person.-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

Note the words "imminent". You used deadly force against a threat that wasn't imminent. Obviously, since you weren't "certain" the guy was actually going to hurt you. Thus, you're going to jail.

Also, you used the word "hurt". "Hurt" doesn't work. If you're just going to be "hurt" using unlawful force then you can only use force to defend yourself proportionally to that. The only way you can use deadly force is to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. In your example, none of those appear to be present.

You'd be going to jail for everything from unlawful discharge of a firearm to attempted murder of the guy in question. And you also randomly fired a gun. Where'd that bullet go after it passed by Mr. Might Me a Threat?

You are looking for certainty in an uncertain world. An adult should know that nothing, nothing, nothing is certain. It's a stupid idea I should not have to explain to a rational adult.

I'm walking down a dark street, I notice a group of menacing guys following me. I suddenly see them running at me, it looks like some might be carrying a knives. I pull a gun and yell 'stop' but they don't stop. They are far enough away for me to shoot a warning shot in case they don't see the gun or don't think I'll use it. So I do and either they leave me alone, they keep coming and I shoot them or they stop and tell me they were just late to get somewhere and did not notice that they had scared me.

If you think you are the master of your environment and know everything... PLEASE, never own a gun. It's a big boy tool.

One, your opinion does not change the law.

Two, either you feel like your life is in danger or you don't.

Yes, it is that simple.

If you have time to rationally think, "Hm, these blokes might be dangerous hoodlums, or they might be on the local track team and are on a run" you do not feel your life is in danger.

And if you think endangering others in reality is okay because you might be in danger in theory, PLEASE never own a gun.

It's a tool for people who don't imagine they're Wyatt Earp.

Mikey1969: SweetSilverBlues: Are you a wizard?

Man, I wish you'd posted the 'Wizard' graphic, that would be perfect!

I'm on my phone. :(

I don't feel like going back a few pages to the guy that said that he/she would want to fire a warning shot at an attacker with a knife. I found the video of a knife attack that I like to show people that think that they will have time to think in an attack.

Link

cryinoutloud: Gee, this is even better than a Zimmerman thread. In this thread you all can talk about how you'd handle a crisis situation, how you'd shoot people yourself, how you'd handle your weapon, and how people who try not to kill people are giant pussies. Maybe you should go out and buy some more ammo after you post. The world looks mighty dangerous from you're sitting.

I am curious: do you suffer physical discomfort as a direct consequence of your mental incompetence, or does your intellectual inability instead produce a constant sensation of euphoria?

hitlersbrain: I'm walking down a dark street, I notice a group of menacing guys following me. I suddenly see them running at me, it looks like some might be carrying a knives. I pull a gun and yell 'stop' but they don't stop. They are far enough away for me to shoot a warning shot in case they don't see the gun or don't think I'll use it. So I do and either they leave me alone, they keep coming and I shoot them or they stop and tell me they were just late to get somewhere and did not notice that they had scared me.

And as soon as you fire that warning shot, regardless of the outcome of the evening, you are guilty of a crime as well. Discharging a firearm in anything other than an immediate imminent threat is a crime. In Phoenix, they have a special law for it, and high tech microphone sprinkled throughout the city that they can use to pinpoint where a gunshot came from. Putting that warning shot into the body of one of the people chasing you is all the warning they need, and it keeps you out of jail for precisely the same reason that this woman is going there.

Cythraul: I didn't know firing a warning shot was illegal. Maybe some sort of violation of firearms code where you're not allowed to fire a weapon within city limits? But 20 years, for that? This just doesn't make any sense.

actually any warning shot is illegal because it's dangerous....you could easily hit an innocent person thru a wall or with gravity....happens enough to make it into law....mostly on New Years and July 4th "celebrations"

NightOwl2255: pyrotek85: All the things I 'learned' about guns from television/movies before actually owning or using them turned out to be false. My favorite is the claim that hiding behind cars will stop gunfire just because they're made of metal. Turns out, bullets will fly right through quite a bit.

Watch the North Hollywood shootout. Hiding behind cars saved several lives. If you have a choice between nothing between you and a shooter, and a car between you and a shooter, take the car.

Oh absolutely a car is better than nothing, I agree. My point is that bullets don't magically bounce off in a shower of sparks like some movies might lead you to believe. I think too many people (and I was guilty as well) believe what we see on television regarding firearms because they're so consistent, we just think that's how it always works. Also in regards to this story, they rarely show what bad outcomes can happen when you fire warning or wounding shots, so again people can be lead to believe that they're OK.

jbuist: Cythraul: I didn't find that information in the article.

Of course not. It wouldn't fit the narrative.

Here's a link. Sebastian dug through the court records to figure out WTF went wrong with her case.

Long story short: Everything.

Okay, in the Order denying immunity under the SYG law, the court opined:

"(The Court notes that despite the Defendant's claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from [her spouse] she did not leave the house. . . "

So, the court is insisting there was a duty to retreat.

In regards to the claim as to whether or not she shot at her husband or at the ceiling:

"The Defendant shot at [her spouse]. . . nearly missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room."

So, the Court is suggesting that she shot at her spouse (a short, obese man) and the bullet ended up in the ceiling.

SweetSilverBlues: One, your opinion does not change the law.

Two, either you feel like your life is in danger or you don't.

Yes, it is that simple.

If you have time to rationally think, "Hm, these blokes might be dangerous hoodlums, or they might be on the local track team and are on a run" you do not feel your life is in danger.

And if you think endangering others in reality is okay because you might be in danger in theory, PLEASE never own a gun.

It's a tool for people who don't imagine they're Wyatt Earp.

No, apparently it's a tool for those who KNOW they are GOD. You're never certain someone is going to kill you until they kill you. It sounds like you should take that route.

People intent on doing others harm don't wear signs announcing their intent. This is not open warfare. If any reasonable option lies open to you to not shoot and kill somebody, I suggest you take it. The situation may not be as it appears. Zimmerman would not be hounded and that kid would probably not be dead if he'd shot into the ground.

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.

Returning to the abuser is very common in domestic violence situations. The Court has recognized this and many states have enacted statues that do not hold this against the women. There's a psychological component in which the women return to their abusers for a variety of reasons. You cannot compare your psychology to theirs.

pyrotek85: NightOwl2255: pyrotek85: All the things I 'learned' about guns from television/movies before actually owning or using them turned out to be false. My favorite is the claim that hiding behind cars will stop gunfire just because they're made of metal. Turns out, bullets will fly right through quite a bit.

Watch the North Hollywood shootout. Hiding behind cars saved several lives. If you have a choice between nothing between you and a shooter, and a car between you and a shooter, take the car.

Oh absolutely a car is better than nothing, I agree. My point is that bullets don't magically bounce off in a shower of sparks like some movies might lead you to believe. I think too many people (and I was guilty as well) believe what we see on television regarding firearms because they're so consistent, we just think that's how it always works. Also in regards to this story, they rarely show what bad outcomes can happen when you fire warning or wounding shots, so again people can be lead to believe that they're OK.

Are you telling me revolvers and other pistols dont hold 100 rounds of ammo and have no kick? Next thing you'll tell me is i have nothing to fear from falling anvils but the coyote and I know better.

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.

Explain this silliness.