umad: Bontesla: Please provide an explanation as to how Zimmerman used self-defense but Alexander didn't.

Difficulty: You cannot solely rely on either Zimmerman or Alexander's testimony.

Zimmerman didn't confront Trayvon, leave the area to retrieve his gun from his car, then return to Trayvon to continue the confrontation. No testimony needed.

You're a massive idiot. You realize this, right?

Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Cataholic: 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.

I'm sure you have citation for th ...

Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: Carth: 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.

The reason why you did/did not do something is relevant in a Court (especially if it's necessary to convict - it is not in this case).

The question the jury will need to ask themselves is if, they too, would have been in fear for their lives. This is part of the "reasonable" standard. This is where the defendant and the alleged victim can offer their account of what happened. No one's account is devoid of personal value. Everyone has some personal bias.

And a jury (apparently) found they wouldn't have feared for their lives in her situation. I think her having the time and willingness to fire a warning shot likely played into that verdict. But unless we hear an interview where they talk about why they found her guilty we'll never know for sure so it is just a guess.

Yeah. The jury is the ultimate fact-finder and since this did go to trial, absolutely, they found her claim too incredible.

If I were her attorney, I would file for an appeal based on the trial court's own admittance that they denied her the SYG because she didn't flee when she had the opportunity.

I cannot take you seriously anymore. You're now "Potato" and bright pink.

Mavent: SweetSilverBlues: Mavent: Joe Blowme: If you pull your weapon, be prepared to use it. If you have to shoot... empty it... center mass

Ok, you're just being deliberately obtuse now. *sigh*

I had no idea there was anyone in this thread who actually wanted to have an adult discussion. But assuming from your comments that there is, in fact, one or two rational human beings taking part in the thread:

My point is that the only people I'll ever need to worry about shooting me are the exact same kind of people that are wandering through this thread talking about how "warning shots are for pussies" and you need to "empty your gun" at the "center of mass". I will never need to fear sane human beings. I've lived amongst sane human beings for decades now, and never been shot. In fact, the only people I personally know who have been killed by guns are my brother, who was shot by exactly the kind of gun-fetishist retard that appears to populate this thread, and my cousin, who was playing with a gun to impress his girlfriend and accidentally put a round through his own temporal lobe.

Me, I don't own a gun. Because I'm not a lunatic. Nor do I sit around masturbating furiously to the idea that a burglar might someday break into my home, thus affording me a chance to kill somebody. Nor do I consider guns a hobby, because once again, I'm not a lunatic. The general argument put forth by the gun nut crowd is "eventually you'll need a gun to protect yourself from one of us". That's not a good enough argument for me. Personally, I wish the lunatics, crazies, sociopaths and gun lovers would all just leave me and mine the hell alone. But one thing is for certain: I'm not going to become one of them in order to protect myself from them, any more than I'd become a rapist to protect myself from rape.


THE POTATO IS STRONG IN THIS ONE

Lsherm: s2s2s2: Lsherm: The bullet ended up in the ceiling of a different room.

FTFA(but first, reading is that thing you do where you look at words and understand what they mean):
What happened to Marissa Alexander sure sounds a lot like 'standing your ground': her abusive husband came after her, choked her, and when she finally broke free, she grabbed a gun fired a single warning shot into ceiling

You aren't reading an article, you are reading a biased puff piece that is deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to garner sympathy from retards who can't bother to do any research. You know, lazy idiots.

Let's take a look at the farking court order denying her motion to dismiss, shall we? You can get your mom to read it to you if you have problems comprehending it. Under some of the words that big line points out the important part, you can show that to your mom.

The Defendant shot at blank,nearly missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The Victims fled the residence and immediately called 911.

This isn't the special olympics, you don't get points for blindly believing everything that is written on a goddamn blog. Like I said before, she could have been aiming high, but saying "she shot a ceiling in the next room" is deliberately misrepresenting what she was shooting at. She wasn't shooting at a ceiling, she was shooting in his general direction. The bullet ended up in a ceiling. Not THE ceiling, A ceiling. In the next room. At best, she was shooting at the wall.

K. Good work. Have a biscuit.

Mavent: umad: Bontesla: Please provide an explanation as to how Zimmerman used self-defense but Alexander didn't.

Difficulty: You cannot solely rely on either Zimmerman or Alexander's testimony.

Zimmerman didn't confront Trayvon, leave the area to retrieve his gun from his car, then return to Trayvon to continue the confrontation. No testimony needed.

You're a massive idiot. You realize this, right?

Like RAAAAIIIIIINNNNN....

Mavent: SweetSilverBlues: Mavent: Joe Blowme: If you pull your weapon, be prepared to use it. If you have to shoot... empty it... center mass

Ok, you're just being deliberately obtuse now. *sigh*

I had no idea there was anyone in this thread who actually wanted to have an adult discussion. But assuming from your comments that there is, in fact, one or two rational human beings taking part in the thread:

My point is that the only people I'll ever need to worry about shooting me are the exact same kind of people that are wandering through this thread talking about how "warning shots are for pussies" and you need to "empty your gun" at the "center of mass". I will never need to fear sane human beings. I've lived amongst sane human beings for decades now, and never been shot. In fact, the only people I personally know who have been killed by guns are my brother, who was shot by exactly the kind of gun-fetishist retard that appears to populate this thread, and my cousin, who was playing with a gun to impress his girlfriend and accidentally put a round through his own temporal lobe.

Me, I don't own a gun. Because I'm not a lunatic. Nor do I sit around masturbating furiously to the idea that a burglar might someday break into my home, thus affording me a chance to kill somebody. Nor do I consider guns a hobby, because once again, I'm not a lunatic. The general argument put forth by the gun nut crowd is "eventually you'll need a gun to protect yourself from one of us". That's not a good enough argument for me. Personally, I wish the lunatics, crazies, sociopaths and gun lovers would all just leave me and mine the hell alone. But one thing is for certain: I'm not going to become one of them in order to protect myself from them, any more than I'd become a rapist to protect myself from rape.

Your willingness to suffer injury or death while offering no defense against an unprovoked violent attacker is admirable. Your insulting and dishonest claim that those who are not as irrational nor as masochistic as yourself are "lunatics" is not.

Happy Hours: People keep saying this and other people have said warning shots tend to escalate the violence.

Seems by that logic that any kind of warning should not be given even if it's as simple as brandishing a baseball bat.

Say you live on a farm and a pickup truck full of klansmen show up. A reasonable person, especially if they happened to be black might be a little concerned about that. Do you a) go outside and talk to them as ask them to please go away? b) start shooting them immediately or c) fire into the air before they even exit their truck? (remember you're on a farm in the country so it's highly unlikely the falling bullet is going to strike anything except an ear of corn.

As far as I know, choice "a)" is the only legal choice in most states. I wouldn't really call it reasonable, though.

Really, you call the cops in that situation, because at that point all the klansmen are doing is being suspicious and/or trespassing. Depending on local laws, the fact that they are trespassing might allow you to use lethal force, but it's stupid (and wrong, in my opinion) to do so when they haven't actually threatened you in any way. If they get off the pickup truck and start moving towards you, especially if they have weapons, blow them away. A reasonable person isn't going to expect a bunch of hooded klansmen to be asking the nice black fellow for directions.

Silly Jesus: 1. "Seeks out the confrontation" is a bit of a stretch based on what we know so far.

We know that he said 'I'm going to follow this guy.' and the dispatcher said 'No, don't follow him, the police will be there and you can give them a description of this person when they get there.'. He chose to ignore the dispatcher's advice and seek out Martin.

Silly Jesus: 2. They legislator should have made sure that he understood the law more thoroughly before sending it on.

I think he DID understand it. He just thinks it's being used incorrectly here, against the design he had in mind when crafting the law.

Silly Jesus: 3. I think that it's pretty much settled law that, depending on the circumstances, an "aggressor" can later use SYG.

And I agree, except that the situation here is that one person is walking at night, after making a K Stop, with a bag of Skittles and an AZ Iced Tea. Someone he doesn't know shouts at him, and starts following him, not giving up, and continuing to follow him. As a result, acting to take out the threat of the unknown stalker would be 'Standing His Ground', IMHO. That's also how the guy who made the law saw it, not to protect the people who chase down others in the dark with no reason, but to protect those people who gets chased down in the dark by strangers who harass them.

Happy Hours: Carousel Beast: 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, decisive escalation of the situation to call for deadly force. Now, your adrenalin may have been up and your fear in full force, but those are not justification for that use of deadly force.

People keep saying this and other people have said warning shots tend to escalate the violence.

Seems by that logic that any kind of warning should not be given even if it's as simple as brandishing a baseball bat.

Say you live on a farm and a pickup truck full of klansmen show up. A reasonable person, especially if they happened to be black might be a little concerned about that. Do you a) go outside and talk to them as ask them to please go away? b) start shooting them immediately or c) fire into the air before they even exit their truck? (remember you're on a farm in the country so it's highly unlikely the falling bullet is going to strike anything except an ear of corn.

Simple - you arm yourself, lock the door(s), and call for help - the police if possible, neighbors/friends if not. By going outside, at all, you have escalated the situation. Even if you don't take a weapon, you have turned it into a confrontation.

Now, there are variations on your scenario and what's a reasonable response, but really you're looking for some way to argue for judgement without really understanding that we are already saying you use it. De-escalate and disengage. Best way not to get hurt in a fight is to not get in a fight.

Mavent: My point is that the only people I'll ever need to worry about shooting me are the exact same kind of people that are wandering through this thread talking about how "warning shots are for pussies" and you need to "empty your gun" at the "center of mass".

Putting your pathological fear of inanimate objects, who exactly is saying that warning shots are "for pussies?" All I'm seeing is people correctly stating that firing a warning shot is terribly stupid and dangerous. Warning shots are still gunshots and have all the lethal potential of any other gunshot. The thread is full of examples of how that can end horribly. Alternatively, you can try ONLY shooting at the person who is trying to attack you.

Also, "shooting at the center of mass until the threat is neutralized" isn't bloodthirsty. It's the most effective way to neutralize a threat. It generally does so quickly enough to keep you safe, and it's a large target. This allows for a margin of error in your shooting so you don't accidentally shoot someone or something you didn't intend to shoot.

In short, the things you have a problem with us saying are the measures which, when followed, keep innocents from being harmed.

Mikey1969: Silly Jesus: 1. "Seeks out the confrontation" is a bit of a stretch based on what we know so far.

We know that he said 'I'm going to follow this guy.' and the dispatcher said 'No, don't follow him, the police will be there and you can give them a description of this person when they get there.'. He chose to ignore the dispatcher's advice and seek out Martin.

Silly Jesus: 2. They legislator should have made sure that he understood the law more thoroughly before sending it on.

I think he DID understand it. He just thinks it's being used incorrectly here, against the design he had in mind when crafting the law.

Silly Jesus: 3. I think that it's pretty much settled law that, depending on the circumstances, an "aggressor" can later use SYG.

And I agree, except that the situation here is that one person is walking at night, after making a K Stop, with a bag of Skittles and an AZ Iced Tea. Someone he doesn't know shouts at him, and starts following him, not giving up, and continuing to follow him. As a result, acting to take out the threat of the unknown stalker would be 'Standing His Ground', IMHO. That's also how the guy who made the law saw it, not to protect the people who chase down others in the dark with no reason, but to protect those people who gets chased down in the dark by strangers who harass them.

Not going to rehash the entire Zimmerman/Martin nonsense here. It's been covered over and over in other threads devoted to it.

I think that the law was followed and that Zimmerman will rightfully walk. That's all I'll say on it here.

Carousel Beast: Best way not to get hurt in a fight is to not get in a fight.

Second best way: sucker punch your opponent and run away

/i kid

Silly Jesus: I cannot take you seriously anymore. You're now "Potato" and bright pink.

That's very clever and I am completely stealing that idea from you.

/Thanks!

DrExplosion: Putting aside your pathological fear of inanimate objects

FTFM

SweetSilverBlues

Sadly, there are often bad situations where there are no right answers.

So the right answer is to let her serve 20 because her answer wasn't right "enough". . . even though there aren't any right answers. Seems totes okay, then.

However, when she left, got the gun, came back and fired, she was drastically escalating a dangerous situation, to herself and her children.

She "left" to another room in the house. Substitute garage for the nightstand by the bedroom or a drawer in the kitchen if it makes helps to clarify things for you. She returned to the man threatening to kill her - a threat that stands indefinitely once he suspected infidelity - a threat that he fully acknowledges he would have acted on.

This time, she's armed, and she fires a shot above his head. It passes through a wall and embeds itself into the ceiling.

Did she escalate the situation? Well, if she felt there was a legitimate threat to her life then no, he escalated the situation by threatening her life. She had no duty to retreat given the Florida law.

If she was afraid enough to fire the gun, she should have shot him.

Incorrect. They just had a baby together. He was threatening to kill her because he thought the baby wasn't his. In crazy-woman talk, that means by providing the fidelity of her relationship and the paternity of the baby, they could have a peaceful relationship.

A fatal shot doesn't further their goal - which is a reunited marriage - it obviously destroys their goal. That doesn't mean she didn't fear for her life - it only meant that she hoped for reconciliation. This is stupid thinking. Very, very stupid thinking. It's also common among battered women. As such - the law takes previous abuse into consideration.

Guns are not toys, they are not noisemakers or fireworks. When used for self defense they are to be used to kill. Treating them lightly (it's "just" a warning shot) is the height of stupidity.

Riiiiight. So while I agree that she was not properly trained - and that ANYONE owning a firearm MUST be properly trained - I don't think this is the right approach to take. So, she wouldn't have done what you have done, and you suggest that it's her lack of training.

But firearm safety isn't always free - and isn't necessarily mandated. So, to shrug and say that she was being dumb isn't really the appropriate response. It appears as though she took precaution not to hit and injure anyone which may have been her instinct. One doesn't normally assume their instincts are wrong without first having been told so.

I think you're holding her to an unreasonable standard. You're certainly holding her to a standard that is inconsistent with the current law.

There's also the possibility of a warning shot serving to further enrage the aggressor, again increasing the threat.

And if she would have carefully weighed those pros and cons - then many would argue that she obviously didn't feel the threat was imminent.

She compounded an already dangerous situation by trying to use a firearm as a bogeyman, and got arrested for it.

That's a poor argument. By that logic - no one could ever use a weapon as a response to a deadly threat because it would "compound an already dangerous situation by trying to use a firearm as a boogeyman".

I also think your knowledge of the law is television-based. She should have been charged. Anyone acting in violation with a criminal code should be arrested and charged accordingly. This includes anyone who is acting out of self-defense. They should be charged with the crime committed while defending themselves. This is how the law works. In cases where the defendant is claiming self-defense, the defendant is admitting to not complying with the criminal code, but is arguing that their action was justified. For example, "Yes, I killed my husband, but it was either him or me. My action was lawfully justified."

So, the problem ISN'T that she was charged with the crime. This is how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. The problem is that this appears to be a valid SYG defense (under a horribly written law) and the judge rejected it arguing that she wasn't allowed to stand her ground if she could have left.

It was a terrible situation, but introducing a gun to it in that manner was reckless and only compounded the danger.

This is how self-defense works. Period. You have a threat of death and you strike first in an attempt to defend your own life. You may disagree with whether or not she was acting in self-defense BUT your general argument is wrong. You absolutely have the right to bring your gun to a skittles fight so long as it's justified.

Spade: hitlersbrain: 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.


You're going to jail.

Let's look at the actual law. Again

(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

"Looks like they might be carrying knives"?

And you just pull out deadly force? Where's the imminence?

No, you're pulling the deadly force card way way too early. And that's what a warning shot is considered, deadly force. And you're in the wrong.

Either that or you're going to jail for shooting at somebody for no reason.

You need to not carry a gun, because evidently you think it's a-okay to put rounds in the air when something "might" be a threat. And that's not how the law works.

Er. Legally incorrect.

So, hypothetically, if you have a carrot in your pocket and you claim it's a gun, I can lawfully shoot you if I believe that it's an actual gun.

The threat is perceived. There's no requirement that the threat must be actual.

So, pulling out your cell phone may be perceived as pulling out a gun if the circumstances warrant that leap.

Now, regardless, you're going to be arrested because the law insists on it. You'll have the right to defend your actions - to prove them lawful - during the court proceedings,

Spade: SweetSilverBlues: However, when she left, got the gun, came back and fired, she was drastically escalating a dangerous situation, to herself and her children.

If she was afraid enough to fire the gun, she should have shot him. Guns are not toys, they are not noisemakers or fireworks. When used for self defense they are to be used to kill. Treating them lightly (it's "just" a warning shot) is the height of stupidity.

Pretty sure the whole "left, got the gun, came back" thing would destroy any self defense case for her.

So, she does have a duty to retreat?

Carousel Beast: Silly Jesus: I cannot take you seriously anymore. You're now "Potato" and bright pink.

That's very clever and I am completely stealing that idea from you.

/Thanks!

Upon testing, bright pink may not have been the best choice. It's not very easy on the eyes and there are two Potatos right now that enjoy incredibly long posts.

Florida is a state where you can do some interesting things if you know how to bend the laws the right way. I'm a pretty big fan of Statute 776.08 myself.

Especially if you read what a forceible felony is.

Stand your ground is sort of a paranoid extension of a justifiable use of force.

Spade: Bontesla: 1). Her warning shot entered THE CEILING. Was her spouse on the ceiling? Firing it at the ceiling - but above someone's head - is not firing the weapon at someone.
2). Unless the children were also on the ceiling - the chance of the children being hit by that bullet is less than the spouse.
3). Citation where she lied to the police about where she shot.
4). Violation of the court order in cases of domestic violence situations carry lesser weight if the court order is designed to separate the spouses (in most states). This is because the Court recognizes a psychological component.
5). The Court denied her a SYG immunity because she stood her ground (and didn't flee). The system failed her.

Doesn't matter where she fired. She used deadly force. That's it.

As for SYG, well, she left to get the gun. And then came back. She evidently didn't need to stand her ground because she'd already successfully left once. And if the situation was so dangerous as to require the use of deadly force (which it didn't, warning shot and all), why did she go back into it?

Also pointed out in my CCW class, if you're attacked and you get away one thing you cannot do is go back and get the guy.

Incorrect.

It matters where she fired the gun because it goes to her intent. It's something that's raised during her defense. This is how I know you're trying to argue law and you're not a lawyer.

It also doesn't matter whether or not she had the opportunity to flee and didn't take it. The SYG allows for standing your ground. She didn't "leave and return" - she armed herself and returned. Previous case law allows for the defendants to actually run home, grab a bike, and chase down the "attacker" while still claiming self-defense.

In Texas, a defendant saw two men burglarizing a neighboring residence. He called the authorities, announced that he could legally kill them, grabbed a gun, exited his residence, and then shot the men. He was never convicted.

Now, I realize that the Texas law is different, and that the application of the law evolves as cases are raised to challenge it. So, in that sense, the last example is a demonstration of how an imminent threat doesn't always mean what you think it means.

Mavent: I had no idea there was anyone in this thread who actually wanted to have an adult discussion. But assuming from your comments that there is, in fact, one or two rational human beings taking part in the thread:

That's because you haven't been following along.

Mavent: My point is that the only people I'll ever need to worry about shooting me are the exact same kind of people that are wandering through this thread talking about how "warning shots are for pussies" and you need to "empty your gun" at the "center of mass".

"Warning shots" aren't for "pussies", they are for inept, completely irresponsible people who don't understand ballistics, and don't care where the bullet goes after it has been fired, as long as the person that is threatening them has been "warned".

Mavent: I will never need to fear sane human beings. I've lived amongst sane human beings for decades now, and never been shot.

That's because sane gun owners find it to be irresponsible to fire a gun without having a target, and knowing what is behind that target. Sane gun owners don't believe that firing a bullet into the air is "safe".Mavent: In fact, the only people I personally know who have been killed by guns are my brother, who was shot by exactly the kind of gun-fetishist retard that appears to populate this thread...

He was threatening someone's life? Sorry, but that's what you get when you make that decision.

Mavent: ...and my cousin, who was playing with a gun to impress his girlfriend and accidentally put a round through his own temporal lobe.

Well, not one of your "sane" people that you're so excited about. Maybe you shouldn't use that particular example. I've been around guns all of my life and don't know ANYONE that's been shot.Mavent: Me, I don't own a gun. Because I'm not a lunatic.

Ahhhh, THERE'S that "adult conversation" you were so excited about.

Mavent: Nor do I sit around masturbating furiously to the idea that a burglar might someday break into my home, thus affording me a chance to kill somebody. Nor do I consider guns a hobby, because once again, I'm not a lunatic.

But you ARE a douchebag, always important to have SOME kind of hobby.

Mavent: The general argument put forth by the gun nut crowd is "eventually you'll need a gun to protect yourself from one of us".

Actually the "general" argument is that one day you MIGHT have to protect yourself from someone who doesn't follow the law and intends to do you harm. This includes the gun laws that won't stop criminals from using guns.

Mavent: Personally, I wish the lunatics, crazies, sociopaths and gun lovers would all just leave me and mine the hell alone.

And when have the "lunatics, crazies, sociopaths and gun lovers" come into your house and harassed you, exactly?

Mavent: But one thing is for certain: I'm not going to become one of them in order to protect myself from them, any more than I'd become a rapist to protect myself from rape.

Thank God, you'd probably kill someone while firing "warning shots", and give gun owners MORE bad press for the morons out there to lap up like jizz on the floor of your favorite adult 'arcade'. We don't really want stupid people to have guns. Most agree that guns need to be handled respectfully and treated with care.

You? I'm not even sure if I feel comfortable with you driving a car, you'd probably give pedestrians 'warning bumps' to keep them from straying off of the sidewalk.

Silly Jesus: THE POTATO IS STRONG IN THIS ONE

Nice... That's even better than your previous one.

Carousel Beast: Simple - you arm yourself, lock the door(s), and call for help - the police if possible, neighbors/friends if not. By going outside, at all, you have escalated the situation. Even if you don't take a weapon, you have turned it into a confrontation.

Now, there are variations on your scenario and what's a reasonable response, but really you're looking for some way to argue for judgement without really understanding that we are already saying you use it. De-escalate and disengage. Best way not to get hurt in a fight is to not get in a fight.

One thing you left out is to let the police know who you are and that you will be armed if anything occurs, so that as they drive up, they don't just shoot everybody. I believe in forewarning the police in any situation, so as to make sure that I am not violating any laws, whether I happen to be carrying a knife in my pocket, or my gun in the car, so that it doesn't come down as a potentially dangerous confrontation in their eyes. I surrender my weapon at that point, and then get it back when everything is done.

Carousel Beast

You can move the goal posts all you want, but it's obvious you're ignoring the legal points to either troll or be willfully stupid. You completely ignored Spade's rebuttal to you.

I didn't ignore it. I hadn't got there yet. I responded to it on page 8. You're being intentionally daft or accidentally ignorant.

Here, I'll repost it for you:

Spade: As for SYG, well, she left to get the gun. And then came back. She evidently didn't need to stand her ground because she'd already successfully left once. And if the situation was so dangerous as to require the use of deadly force (which it didn't, warning shot and all), why did she go back into it?

Fine. I'll just copy and paste my response. Again:

So, she does have a duty to retreat?
And:
Incorrect.

It matters where she fired the gun because it goes to her intent. It's something that's raised during her defense. This is how I know you're trying to argue law and you're not a lawyer.

It also doesn't matter whether or not she had the opportunity to flee and didn't take it. The SYG allows for standing your ground. She didn't "leave and return" - she armed herself and returned. Previous case law allows for the defendants to actually run home, grab a bike, and chase down the "attacker" while still claiming self-defense.

In Texas, a defendant saw two men burglarizing a neighboring residence. He called the authorities, announced that he could legally kill them, grabbed a gun, exited his residence, and then shot the men. He was never convicted.

Now, I realize that the Texas law is different, and that the application of the law evolves as cases are raised to challenge it. So, in that sense, the last example is a demonstration of how an imminent threat doesn't always mean what you think it means.

Also pointed out in my CCW class, if you're attacked and you get away one thing you cannot do is go back and get the guy.

Is your CCW class taught by a lawyer?

Holy Fark, I almost forgot guys, Bontesla is a lawyer.

I'm crossing my fingers for Patent Law and not Criminal Law.

Either way...

Mikey1969: Bontesla: I'm sure you have citation for this.

Yeah, it's called the internet. Seriously, they have laws all over the place about this. a warning shot is the same as randomly discharging a firearm in public. Some cities and states have gotten even more direct with this, such as Phoenix with Shannon's Law. You do not have a legitimate target, therefore you are endangering the public as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_law_(Arizona)

First, NEVER cite Wikipedia. You do it again and I will laugh at you hysterically and always remind you of how willfully ignorant you are.

Second, my request for a citation was for the following argument:

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.

So far, you've yet to provide citation as to whether or not a warning shot means you're not in actual danger and how that's not a legally acceptable defense.

Silly Jesus: Bontesla:

Are you arguing about what the law IS or about what it SHOULD BE?

Maybe this is why everyone, including me, is confused by everything that you are saying.

What the law is.

If you're confused - maybe you're not a lawyer . . .

Unless, of course, you have provide cited evidence that conflicts with what I've put forth.

Silly Jesus: 1. "Seeks out the confrontation" is a bit of a stretch based on what we know so far.

Not to threadjack, but in what other way do you interpret following someone after they take off running?

Bontesla: Carousel Beast

You can move the goal posts all you want, but it's obvious you're ignoring the legal points to either troll or be willfully stupid. You completely ignored Spade's rebuttal to you.

I didn't ignore it. I hadn't got there yet. I responded to it on page 8. You're being intentionally daft or accidentally ignorant.

Here, I'll repost it for you:

Spade: As for SYG, well, she left to get the gun. And then came back. She evidently didn't need to stand her ground because she'd already successfully left once. And if the situation was so dangerous as to require the use of deadly force (which it didn't, warning shot and all), why did she go back into it?

Fine. I'll just copy and paste my response. Again:

So, she does have a duty to retreat?
And:
Incorrect.

It matters where she fired the gun because it goes to her intent. It's something that's raised during her defense. This is how I know you're trying to argue law and you're not a lawyer.

It also doesn't matter whether or not she had the opportunity to flee and didn't take it. The SYG allows for standing your ground. She didn't "leave and return" - she armed herself and returned. Previous case law allows for the defendants to actually run home, grab a bike, and chase down the "attacker" while still claiming self-defense.

In Texas, a defendant saw two men burglarizing a neighboring residence. He called the authorities, announced that he could legally kill them, grabbed a gun, exited his residence, and then shot the men. He was never convicted.

Now, I realize that the Texas law is different, and that the application of the law evolves as cases are raised to challenge it. So, in that sense, the last example is a demonstration of how an imminent threat doesn't always mean what you think it means.

Also pointed out in my CCW class, if you're attacked and you get away one thing you cannot do is go back and get the guy.

Is your CCW class taught by a lawyer?

That probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

MycroftHolmes: Silly Jesus: 1. "Seeks out the confrontation" is a bit of a stretch based on what we know so far.

Not to threadjack, but in what other way do you interpret following someone after they take off running?

Anything that I say you're just going to come back with "nuh-uh." That's how these Zimmerman threads work...but just for shiats and giggles I'll give it a go...and I'll be brief.

It is my interpretation of the events that he was attempting to keep Martin in view. I don't believe that he intended on a physical confrontation. Also, he was asked for the location of Martin by the dispatcher and he had to run to see where Martin had gone after Martin rounded the corner of a row of apartments. Part of "observe and report" is being able to "observe."

Are you asserting that someone cannot attempt to keep a visual on another person while on the phone with the police without also wanting to physically fight them?

Bontesla: So far, you've yet to provide citation as to whether or not a warning shot means you're not in actual danger and how that's not a legally acceptable defense.

Yeah, because it's not like I haven't seen posts dealing specifically with FLORIDA'S law in this very thread.

Since you're too stupid, I will post a link, just like others have posted today.


1 Things to consider before firing a warning shot

A warning shot is the use of "deadly force" in Florida, and "deadly force" can only be legally used to stop or prevent the imminent commission of a "forcible felony" (ie: only the most serious felonies), or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person. If you decide to fire a warning shot to try to stop an attack -- your legal position is the same as if you actually shot the intruder.

2 Legal repercussions of firing a warning shot

While a person may lawfully use "non-deadly force" in almost all situations in defending themself -- using "deadly force" when that is not permitted is usually a felony. Thus, under Florida's very tough mandatory minimum sentencing provisions -- the unlawful use of deadly force will normally carry a 20 year mandatory minimum prison sentence! A very good reason not to use warning shots except in the most dire of circumstances.


Jon H. Gutmacher
About Me

While I handle a variety of criminal matters, I primarily handle cases involving firearms, weapons, and self defense issues such as aggravated assault, and other weapon violations. I also represent firearm licensees before BATFE, security personnel and CWP holders before the Florida Bd.of Licensing, and occasionally do NICS database corrections thru the FBI. I am an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, Refuse to be a Victim Instructor, and was a in-field legal advisor to a narcotics strike unit when I was a prosecutor. I write extensively in my field, and my book "Florida Firearms -- Law, Use & Ownership" is considered by many to be the "bible" on Florida and Federal firearm, weapon, and self defense laws with over 120,000 copies sold. I pride myself on being honest with my clients, and giving each case the time and concentration it deserves. I no longer handle civil rights cases unless they directly relate to a false arrest on an unfounded weapons charge.

Have someone read this for you

You're like 47 different kinds of stupid, aren't you? This has been provided before, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe one of your Johns was visiting the trailer when this came up before, but here it is now.

Mikey1969: Bontesla: So far, you've yet to provide citation as to whether or not a warning shot means you're not in actual danger and how that's not a legally acceptable defense.

Yeah, because it's not like I haven't seen posts dealing specifically with FLORIDA'S law in this very thread.

Since you're too stupid, I will post a link, just like others have posted today.


1 Things to consider before firing a warning shot

A warning shot is the use of "deadly force" in Florida, and "deadly force" can only be legally used to stop or prevent the imminent commission of a "forcible felony" (ie: only the most serious felonies), or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person. If you decide to fire a warning shot to try to stop an attack -- your legal position is the same as if you actually shot the intruder.

2 Legal repercussions of firing a warning shot

While a person may lawfully use "non-deadly force" in almost all situations in defending themself -- using "deadly force" when that is not permitted is usually a felony. Thus, under Florida's very tough mandatory minimum sentencing provisions -- the unlawful use of deadly force will normally carry a 20 year mandatory minimum prison sentence! A very good reason not to use warning shots except in the most dire of circumstances.


Jon H. Gutmacher
About Me

While I handle a variety of criminal matters, I primarily handle cases involving firearms, weapons, and self defense issues such as aggravated assault, and other weapon violations. I also represent firearm licensees before BATFE, security personnel and CWP holders before the Florida Bd.of Licensing, and occasionally do NICS database corrections thru the FBI. I am an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, Refuse to be a Victim Instructor, and was a in-field legal advisor to a narcotics strike unit when I was a prosecutor. I write extensively in my field, and my book "Florida Firearms -- Law, Use & Ownership" is considered by many to be the "bib ...

Stop trying. It doesn't get any better. Many people tried for quite a while in the Zimmerman threads and it was the exact same derp. She/He's like teflon when it comes to facts or salient points.

Mikey1969: Bontesla: 1). Her warning shot entered THE CEILING. Was her spouse on the ceiling? Firing it at the ceiling - but above someone's head - is not firing the weapon at someone.
2). Unless the children were also on the ceiling - the chance of the children being hit by that bullet is less than the spouse.

Bullets do not hit a single target and stop. It doesn't matter what the "chance" of the kids getting hit was, it's the "chance" that sunk her. This also includes the "chance" that a neighbor could get shot, someone driving by, someone walking their dog. Once you pull that trigger, the bullet is it's own beast, and travels until it loses momentum, regardless of where you 'wanted' it to go. If you fire randomly, then you are risking the lives of all those around you, and that is why it is illegal.

You can absolutely lawfully fire a warning shot in self-defense. If you have case evidence to suggest otherwise then now would be the time to reference it.

Now, she committed the crime of aggravated assault (three charges). Her completely entirely legal defense was affirming the crime but argued it was necessary for her safety.

I never argued that bullets stopped at a single target. I don't dispute this fact. I also don't dispute that she committed a crime.

My entire argument is exceptionally simple: the judge was wrong. By insisting that Alexander flee when provided with the opportunity despite case law that says otherwise - the judge was wrong.

The judge's opinion is published. You can google it. She faulted Alexander for not fleeing under a Stand Your Ground consideration. This isn't a footnote - this was one of the primary reasons for not dismissing charges.

Carousel Beast: Bontesla: Point02GPA: corn-bread: 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.

Great find.

She doesn't have a duty to retreat and she didn't retreat (by the Court's standards). You're wrong.

Gotcha, you're trolling. Might as well get some more mileage out of the account you created for it, right?

Account created: 2012-03-15 19:36:45

I'm openly an alt of Tantalea03.
I'm also openly not a troll.

I'm sorry you cannot handle disagreements.

Voiceofreason01: Bontesla: Actually, it is so long as that threat is perceived to be against your life or your property. The threat does not need to be a legitimate actual threat - it needs to only give the impression of a legitimate threat to a reasonable person.

Self defense, Castle laws and SYG are not magic, if you shoot and kill someone you better be ready to go to court and argue that you reasonably feared for your life. Different States have different rules but I don't know of anywhere where you can go all Norway on a person then claim self defense.

In what way does my argument suggest these laws are magic?

Mikey1969: Spade: Bontesla: 1). Her warning shot entered THE CEILING. Was her spouse on the ceiling? Firing it at the ceiling - but above someone's head - is not firing the weapon at someone.
2). Unless the children were also on the ceiling - the chance of the children being hit by that bullet is less than the spouse.
3). Citation where she lied to the police about where she shot.
4). Violation of the court order in cases of domestic violence situations carry lesser weight if the court order is designed to separate the spouses (in most states). This is because the Court recognizes a psychological component.
5). The Court denied her a SYG immunity because she stood her ground (and didn't flee). The system failed her.

Doesn't matter where she fired. She used deadly force. That's it.

As for SYG, well, she left to get the gun. And then came back. She evidently didn't need to stand her ground because she'd already successfully left once. And if the situation was so dangerous as to require the use of deadly force (which it didn't, warning shot and all), why did she go back into it?

Also pointed out in my CCW class, if you're attacked and you get away one thing you cannot do is go back and get the guy.

You might have to type this in Potato, I don't think the common sense is percolating through...

It's like you're allergic to facts. You keep sneezing nonsense all over the place.

Silly Jesus: Stop trying. It doesn't get any better. Many people tried for quite a while in the Zimmerman threads and it was the exact same derp. She/He's like teflon when it comes to facts or salient points.

Yeah, it's like arguing with a puddle, but without the depth of personality and high level of intelligence the puddle inherently has.

Bontesla: I'm openly an alt of Tantalea03.
I'm also openly not a troll.

I'm sorry you cannot handle disagreements.

Now WHY would someone need an alt? ON a board where you can only post 'X' number of posts in 'Y' time, it makes sense, but fark limits you only in posting too fast, and that is about a 10 or 15 second delay, nothing that a legitimate can't wait out. I see no other legitimate need for an alt.

It's definitely not because you have so many friends on fark...

Mikey1969: Carth: Bontesla: Silly Jesus: 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

Please provide an explanation as to how Zimmerman used self-defense but Alexander didn't.

Difficulty: You cannot solely rely on either Zimmerman or Alexander's testimony.

According to the Witness John, Zimmerman was pinned under and being beaten when he fatality shot Martin.

""The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John."

Too bad audio forensics have conclusively eliminated Zimmerman as the person yelling "help" in the 911 tapes, it kind of makes John's account a little suspect. They can't confirm that it was Trayvon yelling help because it's hard to get vocal recordings from a dead person, but Zimmerman wasn't the one ...

You assert: According to the Witness John, Zimmerman was pinned under and being beaten when he fatality shot Martin.""The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John."

Okay, so your argument is that because Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman could legally shoot Martin. To establish this - you used John's testimony.

But - Alexander's spouse choking her and threatening to kill her - did not warrant self defense? Using Alexander's spouses' testimony, he wanted to kill her, and intended on killing her, and would have killed her.

Now explain, legally, why given the two stories, the SYG law would apply to Zimmerman and not Alexander.

Mikey1969: Bontesla: Why are you pretending like this is a legal argument?

Because it is. We're talking life, death, assault here, not discussing a recipe for potato salad. You, on the other hand keep trying to beat that dead horse, and purposefully ignore salient arguments to the contrary.

If you think that's a legal argument . . . then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Mikey1969: Rindred: OK, so my takeaway after reading all this is:

If you have a situation where you've been choked down by your spouse, are too soft-hearted and/or suffering from psychological co-dependence toward said spouse (dysfunctional "love") to shoot them dead, your legal choices are to either go back to the house and let him fulfill his promise to murder you, or suddenly have a sudden, nigh-impossible clearing-up of that mental baggage, flee the house, and leave the kids to the care of the abusive spouse who is already in an agitated state.

What a country we live in.

Actually, you call the cops at that point. I didn't realize the woman had left the house, got the gun and came back. In either situation, a warning shot is completely illegal, but in this scenario, it is neither self defense, nor is it a case of her standing her ground. She had already conceded said ground, now she is trying to take it back, which isn't covered by Florida's poorly written law.

She didn't leave the house. Ffs. She went into another room.

Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Lsherm: s2s2s2: Pumpernickel bread: Was it really a warning shot

Was her attacker on the ceiling?

The bullet ended up in the ceiling of a different room. It actually made it through a wall first. Walls are those vertical things below the ceiling that serve as dividers for rooms. I'm not sure you can say "she fired into the ceiling" if she couldn't see the damn ceiling in the first place.

Just a technical note, she still could have been aiming high. But "she gets 20 years for firing into the ceiling" seems to be leaving out a critical detail. It's like saying "I got 20 years for firing into an empty field" because I was aiming at a guy, missed, and the bullet landed a half-mile away.

I agree - to some extent. I think the most accurate phrasing would have been, "I fired several feet above his head with absolute certainty that it would have missed him."

But she's uneducated. This is why you NEVER speak without your attorney present. Never ever. NEVER. Even if you're just offering witness testimony - you make sure your attorney is present.

Both sides were hyperbolic.

Where did your idea come from that a warning shot has to be directed at the person? Furthermore, it wouldn't be a warning shot anymore if you actually hit the person.

Where, specifically, did I say that a warning shot has to be directed at a person?

No where. Stop putting forth arguments attacking things I've never said.

Spade: Bontesla: It is not legally required that you use lethal force to defend your life or your property. A warning shot is a perfectly legal approach to self-defense.

A warning shot is legally considered lethal force. It is not a perfectly legal approach to self-defense. Because by it's very use it says you used lethal force when you believed lethal force was not actually needed. If you had believed lethal force was actually necessary, you would've shot the guy.

If you need to go less-lethal, get pepper spray.

Legally, warning shots may be but are not necessarily considered lethal force. She was charged with aggravated assault which is only the threat of force using a deadly weapon and not the actual utilization of force with a deadly weapon.

In this case - you're arguing something that the prosecution didn't argue. That seems very silly.

DrExplosion: Mavent: My point is that the only people I'll ever need to worry about shooting me are the exact same kind of people that are wandering through this thread talking about how "warning shots are for pussies" and you need to "empty your gun" at the "center of mass".

Putting your pathological fear of inanimate objects, who exactly is saying that warning shots are "for pussies?" All I'm seeing is people correctly stating that firing a warning shot is terribly stupid and dangerous. Warning shots are still gunshots and have all the lethal potential of any other gunshot. The thread is full of examples of how that can end horribly. Alternatively, you can try ONLY shooting at the person who is trying to attack you.

Also, "shooting at the center of mass until the threat is neutralized" isn't bloodthirsty. It's the most effective way to neutralize a threat. It generally does so quickly enough to keep you safe, and it's a large target. This allows for a margin of error in your shooting so you don't accidentally shoot someone or something you didn't intend to shoot.

In short, the things you have a problem with us saying are the measures which, when followed, keep innocents from being harmed.

Mavent's disdain for responsible civilian firearm use, in defensive contexts, is actually understandable. In advocating (and, in rare situations where warranted, using) appropriate civilian defensive firearm methods and in discouraging irresponsible methods such as discharging a "warning shot", civilian firearm ownership rights advocates promote increased public safety. This promotion of safety may reduce incidents of negligent injury and property damage resulting from improper handling of a firearm in a defensive context. This reduced rate of negligent injury and damage will diminish advocacy and popularity of unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership rights.

Advocates of "gun control" measures revile safe firearms usage and instruction specifically because such usage and instruction reduces support for restrictions upon personal liberty.

Bontesla: Because being willing to kill human beings to protect your own life or the life of your friends and family is exactly the same as wanting to kill human beings.

/keep farking that chicken

Whhhhhhhhhat the fark?

Do those threatening lose the status of human being because you disagree with their tactics?

Sure, why not? Can't possibly be that survival often requires people do things they don't want to do.

/the benefit of a GED in law, folks
//it's like having that D&D Monk Class power that lets you jump as far as you want, except it only applies to conclusions

Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Lsherm: s2s2s2: Pumpernickel bread: Was it really a warning shot

Was her attacker on the ceiling?

The bullet ended up in the ceiling of a different room. It actually made it through a wall first. Walls are those vertical things below the ceiling that serve as dividers for rooms. I'm not sure you can say "she fired into the ceiling" if she couldn't see the damn ceiling in the first place.

Just a technical note, she still could have been aiming high. But "she gets 20 years for firing into the ceiling" seems to be leaving out a critical detail. It's like saying "I got 20 years for firing into an empty field" because I was aiming at a guy, missed, and the bullet landed a half-mile away.

I agree - to some extent. I think the most accurate phrasing would have been, "I fired several feet above his head with absolute certainty that it would have missed him."

But she's uneducated. This is why you NEVER speak without your attorney present. Never ever. NEVER. Even if you're just offering witness testimony - you make sure your attorney is present.

Both sides were hyperbolic.

Where did your idea come from that a warning shot has to be directed at the person? Furthermore, it wouldn't be a warning shot anymore if you actually hit the person.

Where, specifically, did I say that a warning shot has to be directed at a person?

No where. Stop putting forth arguments attacking things I've never said.

As a courtesy to you, so you don't waste your time, I'll tell you that I won't reply to you if the topic is Zimmerman/Martin or anything related.

Bontesla: Okay, so your argument is that because Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Zimmerman could legally shoot Martin. To establish this - you used John's testimony.

Actually I didn't. Someone else pointed to the link with the testimony. I showed the statement that said that Zimmerman was screaming to be false, because audio forensics have shown that while they can't prove that the voice screaming 'Help!' on the other end of the line was Martin, they have ruled out Zimmerman, therefore, the testimony of 'John' is suspect. If you were paying attention, you would have seen this. I have stated(Even on this here thread) that I think Zimmerman is full of shiat, and his claim of self defense is pretty weak. At the very least, he sought out the confrontation and brought this on himself by pursuing Martin, even after the police dispatcher told him to stop.

Bontesla: But - Alexander's spouse choking her and threatening to kill her - did not warrant self defense? Using Alexander's spouses' testimony, he wanted to kill her, and intended on killing her, and would have killed her.

Self defense would have been fine. Had she actually been defending herself. If she had grabbed a gun in her purse while still in the house, picked one up off the counter, anything, that would have been self defense. Leaving, taking yourself out of the danger situation, and then coming back into the danger situation stops being self defense and starts being attempted murder. If she really DID leave the house, as people are saying, then it's no longer self defense.

Bontesla: Now explain, legally, why given the two stories, the SYG law would apply to Zimmerman and not Alexander.

I don't think it applies to either, I DO think that technically Zimmerman man have been defending himself, but the difference being that he didn't leave Trayvon Martin, go to his truck, get his gun, come back and then shoot him, he pulled his gun and shot him in the heat of an altercation. According to people here that have found more in depth stories on this, Alexander left her house, went to her car and came back in. If so, it's not self defense. Either way, I don't believe that either of the cases is actually an example of the SYG law being used correctly.

Now, go back to bouncing your ball up against the side of the house and stop trying to inject what you WANT someone to say into the actual conversation.

Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Bontesla: 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.

I don't see it as the court saying there was a duty to retreat. Apparently she left the house to get the gun and came back in and fired the shot. Arguing that she should have stayed gone isn't the same as saying there is a duty to retreat.

As to your second point...was she standing or sitting when she fired? Did she "limp wrist" the gun? There are many ways that this is perfectly plausible.

The Court said that if she felt in danger, as she claimed, then she could have gone out the back door which was unrestricted. The Court is arguing that, in fact, she didn't retreat. She armed herself. Therefore, she has no protection under the SYG law. I'm not interpreting this poorly. It's in the Court's argument.

It's curious that the garage is party of the house (attached). It's akin to entering into a kitchen in which there's a back door. It's simply a room within the house. She didn't retreat from the house - she simply retreated to a different room in the house.

My second point is arguing that no one can assert, factually, that she fired ...

1. I interpret it as there not being enough immediacy of harm for SYG to take effect.

Ffs.

A Miami Dade Circuit Judge, Beth Bloom, cleared Garcia under Stand Your Ground, after Garcia chased a Miami man, Pedro Roteta, for two blocks, after Roteta stole his car radio. The judge ruled the alleged thief swung a bag of stolen radios, which was enough of a threat for Garcia to stab him to death. Garcia didn't call 911. Instead he hid the knife and sold the radios, even the ones that weren't his.

So you're arguing that Garcia's imminent threat lasted two blocks as he chased after the initial aggressor but Alexander didn't face an imminent threat? I'm sure you have an actual case that makes this argument for you. I'll wait.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/jogger-wont-be-charged-in-f a tal-town-n-country-shooting/1144768

2. A warning shot is a warning shot no matter if you are aiming at the ceiling or a foot from the head of the person.

I didn't say otherwise.

umad: Bontesla: Please provide an explanation as to how Zimmerman used self-defense but Alexander didn't.

Difficulty: You cannot solely rely on either Zimmerman or Alexander's testimony.

Zimmerman didn't confront Trayvon, leave the area to retrieve his gun from his car, then return to Trayvon to continue the confrontation. No testimony needed.

Citation as to relevance.