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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Actually, in this thread. the people who have gone through training for a CCW are pointing out the ignorance of armchair lawyers who only learn what they know by watching CSI: Miami. We've learned the law as a requirement to get the permit, and others have studied it on their own because we want to know how we're covered if we DO shoot some jackass who breaks in. It's not paranoia, it's called 'education', something you seem to be avoiding like the plague.

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

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

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

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

Your father's advice is also incorrect.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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


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

If she had a knife, could she have done a warning stab? or is that also illegal?

vpb: Bit'O'Gristle: Ok, if i'm reading this right, she's getting 20 years for a WARNING SHOT that didn't even connect? Wtf is this sorcery?

Mandatory minimum sentience.

Many Floridians do not meet this qualification.

Magorn: None of which facts, in my professional opinion have even the slightest bearing on whether what happened that night was a criminal act or legitimate self-defense. Her later re-unification with him is especially irrelevant as it is an extremely common feature of domestic violence cases. Even the "shoot at children" aspect is extraordinarily subjective, especially since officers were no there when the shot was fired so it would be impossible to determine whehther the children were anywhere near the path of the bullter when it was fired.

What IS relevant is that the man was actually choking her minutes before she fired, and the 20 year is wildly excessive as a sentence even absent the violence inflicted on her.

She didn't shoot the guy, so she didn't "stand her ground". One point my firearms instructor stressed is "NO WARNING SHOTS". If you shoot a warning shot it means you were not in actual fear of grievous bodily injury and/or death. If you are in enough fear to fire that gun then it needs to be enough fear to shoot the person. If you are scared just enough to fire a warning shot then you are not in enough danger to shoot the gun at all.

If she had shot the guy she could have used the SYG law and been out of jail by dinner time. This has nothing to do with race, sex, color, or even hairstyle. The article is a poorly written attempt at stirring up some sort of racial controversy where there is none.

At best this is a case where mandatory sentencing farked over someone who shouldn't be in jail that long.

Let that be a lesson to you. If you are going to use a gun, SHOOT THE S. O. B.

You fire a warning shot, you give them a chance to call the cops and spin their own story

Shoot him in the face, and then it is your word against the corpse. And the last I heard, corpses don't do much talking

DUMBmitterdid a nice job of picking an article with no facts and then writing a trolling/misleading headline.

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?

No, you aim center of mass and keep shooting until he's no longer a threat. Hesitating in that situation can cost you your life, attackers can cover ground pretty quickly and be on top of you before you know it.

jbuist: jbuist: 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

Forgot to mention she was re-arrested on domestic battery charges during the trial.

So, yeah. Credibility shot.

IANAL, but I don't believe that would have come up during her trial for the 3 charges of aggravated assault for which she was found guilty.

I served on a jury for auto theft once. It seemed fairly obvious the guy was wasted when he was arrested but this was not mentioned at all - just that he was found passed out in the car which had crashed into a cul-de-sac and was still running. We weren't considering any other charges (and did not know if any other charges had been brought).

This article didn't even say what she was charged with. It's fairly one-sided and relies on her own words. Some people actually believe she got 20 years for firing a gun into a ceiling.

Ok, if i'm reading this right, she's getting 20 years for a WARNING SHOT that didn't even connect? Wtf is this sorcery?

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.

ambassador_ahab: It was my understanding that she was in her own home. In many jurisdictions, stand your ground doesn't even apply if you're being attacked in your own home, because you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself in the place where you live.

Here, the man was coming after her, and she didn't even fire a shot at him....only at the ceiling to show him she meant business. It worked--he ran away and nobody got hurt. I don't see how that could possibly even constitute using deadly force against an attacker. More like deadly force against the ceiling....

This is one of those "need to read multiple articles" things, because her story had issues.

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.

Discharging a firearm within a home is, legally, use of deadly force. Firing a "warning shot", rather than a shot directly aimed at an attacker, implies that the shooter did not believe him or herself to be facing imminent death or grievous bodily injury preventable only through immediate application of deadly force. As such, a "warning shot" cannot be legally justified.