PDA

View Full Version : FL-Gov. Rick Scott signs bill legalizing "warning shots"




Anti Federalist
06-21-2014, 12:00 AM
Here's hoping this gets Marissa Alexander out of a jam.



Warning Shot Bill Signed by Scott

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Warning-Shot-Bill-Signed-by-Scott-264064291.html

Friday, Jun 20, 2014 | Updated 9:45 PM EDT

Floridians who fire a warning shot or threaten to use a gun could avoid criminal prosecution under a law signed Friday by Gov. Rick Scott.

The legislation, which marks one of the most significant changes to the state's self-defense laws since the 2012 killing of teenager Trayvon Martin, was one of nearly 60 bills signed by Scott on Friday.

The Republican incumbent also signed measures expanding the use of private school vouchers, creating a new incentive program for sports stadiums and making it a crime in Florida to kill or injure a fetus at any stage of development.

The "warning shot" bill (HB 89) was partially inspired by the case of Marissa Alexander. The Jacksonville woman was initially sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a shot near her estranged husband during an altercation. She contended she fired in self-defense, but a judge rejected her use of the "stand your ground" law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe their life is in jeopardy.

The verdict was thrown out on appeal and she is awaiting a new trial. Her attorneys have asked the judge in her case to consider the new law.

The measure would allow someone to threaten to use force without falling under the state's "10-20-Life" law. That's the 1999 law that requires anyone who shows a gun while committing certain felonies to be sentenced to 10 years in prison. If someone is shot and wounded, the sentence increases to 25 years to life.

Rep. Neil Combee, the sponsor of the legislation, said Friday on Twitter that he hopes it will help with Alexander's case.

James Madison
06-21-2014, 12:13 AM
If you brandish a firearm, you do so with the knowledge that you may end a person's life. Either shoot to kill or keep it in its holster.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-21-2014, 12:22 AM
The conventional wisdom is shooting to stop the threat, but that can no longer apply in today's world. You might stop the immediate threat without killing somebody. If that happens, then you often have an even bigger threat in the aftermath.

Schifference
06-21-2014, 12:35 AM
Plea Deal

BSWPaulsen
06-21-2014, 12:41 AM
If you brandish a firearm, you do so with the knowledge that you may end a person's life. Either shoot to kill or keep it in its holster.

You shoot to stop a threat, not necessarily to kill (the former does not imply the latter). Such bloodthirsty thinking has the capability to dramatically exacerbate problems by needlessly limiting options. If it is accomplished without hitting the target, then all the better.


The conventional wisdom is shooting to stop the threat, but that can no longer apply in today's world. You might stop the immediate threat without killing somebody. If that happens, then you often have an even bigger threat in the aftermath.

I hope this is sarcasm. Failure to kill someone does not imply they become a bigger threat later. It can, but it is not a compulsory condition. What you wrote would make for a great excuse for cops to use when performing street executions.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-21-2014, 01:30 AM
If it is accomplished without hitting the target, then all the better.

Not the Jacksonville FL case.




I hope this is sarcasm. Failure to kill someone does not imply they become a bigger threat later. It can, but it is not a compulsory condition.

No, it is not sarcasm. Take a look at today's upside world. The Jacksonville case is one of many, many cases.




What you wrote would make for a great excuse for cops to use when performing street executions.

A little sarcasm of your own?

In case you have not noticed--they already do that and don't need any excuses. A whole group of people has been way ahead of you for years, bub.

James Madison
06-21-2014, 01:36 AM
You shoot to stop a threat, not necessarily to kill (the former does not imply the latter). Such bloodthirsty thinking has the capability to dramatically exacerbate problems by needlessly limiting options. If it is accomplished without hitting the target, then all the better.

No, pointing a gun at someone is not something you do lightly. Firing warning shots is a great way to get an innocent person killed.

BSWPaulsen
06-21-2014, 03:36 AM
Not the Jacksonville FL case.

Which highlights why a bill dealing with warning shots is a good thing.



No, it is not sarcasm. Take a look at today's upside world. The Jacksonville case is one of many, many cases.

The world being upside down does not, in any way, shape, or form, negate warning shots being viable to the point that they should not merit incarceration. Surely you can agree on this.

That, or you're of that decidedly Authoritarian camp where she should be caged because of the fact she failed to harm someone with her gun in the pursuit of self-defense. Take your pick.



A little sarcasm of your own?

In case you have not noticed--they already do that and don't need any excuses. A whole group of people has been way ahead of you for years, bub.

They do not do it to such a degree that the logic is endemic to their executions.

Fearing for "officer safety" now (nebulous and relative as "officer safety" is) can only be made worse by logic endorsing executions in order to deal with potential "officer safety" that may only come into question later.

For obvious reasons, everyone should be thankful we're not at that stage yet, because that will be when this country is well and truly fucked in classic Orwellian fashion. It's probably coming, but we're not there... Yet.



No, pointing a gun at someone is not something you do lightly. Firing warning shots is a great way to get an innocent person killed.

Firing warning shots is a great way to avoid killing a person you may feel you don't have to kill. It accomplished its purpose in the Jacksonville case, did it not? Let each individual determine how they should go about securing their self-defense.

Situations should always be judged based on their specifics. Writing off warning shots as a strictly "great way to get an innocent person killed" is inane.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-21-2014, 04:08 AM
The world being upside down does not, in any way, shape, or form, negate warning shots being viable to the point that they should not merit incarceration. Surely you can agree on this.

That, or you're of that decidedly Authoritarian camp where she should be caged because of the fact she failed to harm someone with her gun in the pursuit of self-defense. Take your pick.

Sounds like you're addressing somebody else because I don't know what you're talking about.




They do not do it to such a degree...

Yeah they do. Just talk to all the dead dog ghosts and the Kelly Thomas families of the world.


For obvious reasons, everyone should be thankful we're not at that stage yet,

Yeah, the reasons are so obvious that I am drawing a total blank. Praise the Lord, I guess.


because that will be when this country is well and truly fucked in classic Orwellian fashion. It's probably coming, but we're not there... Yet.

It will be 2084 and bozos will still say that 1984 was just a book.




Firing warning shots is a great way to avoid killing a person you may feel you don't have to kill. It accomplished its purpose in the Jacksonville case, did it not?

No, it did not. The woman is in the just-us system. That's my whole point. The threat from just-us is infinitely higher that the threat from a person on the street.

daviddee
06-21-2014, 04:11 AM
...

MelissaWV
06-21-2014, 06:08 AM
Ideally, the warning shots in and of themselves are the issue here. They are a viable tool, as some have pointed out.

IF your "warning shot" maims or kills someone, then it becomes another issue entirely (ie - bullet goes through the wall or ceiling and kills a neighbor), and should be addressed on the basis of the result. This is where the responsibility that others have mentioned comes in.

Lastly, two of you are talking past each other. It's not that someone who's had a warning shot fired at them becomes a larger threat. It's that you can fire a warning shot, accomplish relatively little, then get arrested and ruin the rest of your life. That's the threat.

BSWPaulsen
06-21-2014, 01:20 PM
Yeah they do. Just talk to all the dead dog ghosts and the Kelly Thomas families of the world.

Kelly Thomas does not fit the category of logical thinking I am describing. They didn't come out screaming "We had to kill him now, or he would have been a bigger problem later!". Atrocious murder? Yes. In line with the "neutralize now, or he'll become a threat later" idea? No. The cops should have been hung for their actions, but what they did was not prophylactic murder.

The American people suck at defending their rights - otherwise we wouldn't be where we are - but the Authoritarians still have some distance to go before they are totally accepting of pre-emptive strikes at home ala the Thought Police with the occasional exceptional prole that comes along.


No, it did not. The woman is in the just-us system. That's my whole point. The threat from just-us is infinitely higher that the threat from a person on the street.

The "just-us" system is an abominable failure, of that there is no doubt. Things like the bill this thread is about help the blind, deaf, and dumb squirrel find the justice nut once in awhile.

The following poster gets what I was driving at:


When we get to a point where all shots must kill someone, then we are no better than the police state.

Perfect.

Pericles
06-21-2014, 01:31 PM
No, pointing a gun at someone is not something you do lightly. Firing warning shots is a great way to get an innocent person killed.

Presently, my main concern with display of a firearm as a means of de-escalation (and years ago this did tend to happen - and I've done it), is that the person being an ass, who used to get the message, will now call 911 and report being threatened by an armed person.

James Madison
06-21-2014, 02:15 PM
Examples:

1. Truck full of guys were casing my house. They did not realize I was in the garage and all the lights were off in the house. As they proceeded to my house, I unloaded 3 rounds from a shotgun and they ran faster than lightning back to their truck. Never to be seen again. If I was a complete douchebag I would have let them enter the house and dropped them all...

2. Drunk guy was screwing with my wife in the parking lot of a backwoods convenience store. Legally, I could have blown him away in the State of Florida. Warning shot, the guy hauled ass.

3. Two guys were pounding on a friend. Three warning shots. Saved my friend a further ass beating (that he probably deserved) and the lives of the guys who wanted to live another day.

The gene pool of future generations laments your decision.


Long story short, I am not looking to kill someone who is making a stupid mistake because of various life issues.

Casing a house; attempted rape; these are more than 'stupid mistakes'.


I -am- looking to modify their behavior in that particular moment and I hope someone would do the same for me.

I wouldn't count on it.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-21-2014, 02:15 PM
Kelly Thomas does not fit the category of logical thinking I am describing.

It fits the "logic" I'm talking about, but fine, go ahead and pick your category. Pick the pig who already decided he was going to "fucking gut" a dog while he was getting out of his car. Pick the pig who executes the handcuffed guy.


They didn't come out screaming "We had to kill him now, or he would have been a bigger problem later!". Atrocious murder? Yes. In line with the "neutralize now, or he'll become a threat later" idea? No.

They address their bigger problem in a different way. They can do whatever they want because their method works differently than that of the mundane. Same result. Different method.


The American people suck at defending their rights

People don't always suck at defending their rights. The deck is stacked. A jury trial, for example, might not granted until a case is appealed. This circumvention of the sixth amendment is a convenient advantage for the home team. The home team also has unlimited resources. They can just continue to tax until they get the desired result. Sort of like a team with an unlimited supply of players on their bench. Plenty of examples like that. Ask Terry Bressi.



Things like the bill this thread is about help the blind, deaf, and dumb squirrel find the justice nut once in awhile.

Oh great; nothing like settling for less. Instead of 100 out of 100 dogs getting gutted and never receiving any justice--your goal is 99 of 100.


The following poster gets what I was driving at:

I'm driving at things like the situation in the OP, and the examples just like that all over America.

HOLLYWOOD
06-21-2014, 04:20 PM
This is the reason the law was passed... Florida's Dumbest Fucking Law of "Mandatory Minimum 20 years for firing a warning shot" These mandatory-minimums are/were lobbied by LEs and the Prison lobbyists. Watching the one video interviewing the county Sheriff involved in the Wollard case, boasted that "Liberal Judges were letting Floridians off with light sentences, when defending and pushed for the mandatory minimums.

Below are very sad situations of a father(dad gets 20 years) defending his family/daughter against a psycho boyfriend and the US Air Force airman 'stand your ground' gets him 25 years.

Story: http://famm.org/orville-lee-wollard/

http://kwout.com/cutout/f/5q/vg/yjb_bor.jpg http://kwout.com/cutout/8/7m/sa/z8p_bor.jpg

US airman stands his ground in Florida, sentenced to 25 years (http://thegrio.com/2013/12/04/us-airman-stands-his-ground-in-florida-sentenced-to-25-years/)

20 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence for a Father Protecting his Family (http://www.change.org/petitions/commute-the-20-year-mandatory-minimum-sentence-for-a-father-protecting-his-family)

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-21-2014, 04:58 PM
These mandatory-minimums are/were lobbied by LEs and the Prison lobbyists.

Thanks, and thanks for posting those stories.

Your comment about mandatory minimums is also exactly on the money. I know a guy who works as a prison guard. He told me about their proposed new terminology, which would refer to inmates as "customers." Yeah, the private prisons that are all the rage would not do very well without customers, now would they?

You think I am going to wait around for fat slob Americans to approve me protecting my family?! You think you can define my dog as property, and thus, shoot him at will?! Go ahead. Cower and think that your "law" is going to protect you forever.

osan
06-21-2014, 05:28 PM
If you brandish a firearm, you do so with the knowledge that you may end a person's life. Either shoot to kill or keep it in its holster.

Generally speaking, I agree with this philosophy. I do, however, note that things are often not so clear-cut in the circumstances between people. I would also add that most people are not trained in such matters. That reality does not dismiss their right to defend life and limb. While from my perspective a "warning shot" is idiocy in the flesh, that some poor ignorant schmuck employs such an idiotic tactic should not open them up to felony charges.

osan
06-21-2014, 05:31 PM
Florida: just another dangerously stupid place in which to live in the USA.

No thanks.

mad cow
06-21-2014, 05:58 PM
And just in time for Recovery Summer!This might put Disney World back on the short list for the Biden's vacation plans!

amy31416
06-21-2014, 06:11 PM
I'm with Daviddee on this. I don't care what the laws are, killing a person should always be a last resort.

MelissaWV
06-21-2014, 06:12 PM
He also signed something saying you don't get in trouble for having a Pop Tart shaped like a gun.

amy31416
06-21-2014, 06:22 PM
He also signed something saying you don't get in trouble for having a Pop Tart shaped like a gun.

These days that makes him a hero.

jkr
06-21-2014, 08:08 PM
but BONGS are still a felony, Amiright

brushfire
06-21-2014, 08:12 PM
If my firearm comes out, the time for warnings has passed. Lethal force is lethal force, and warning shots are for old cowboy shows.

JMO

SeanTX
06-21-2014, 08:40 PM
No, pointing a gun at someone is not something you do lightly. Firing warning shots is a great way to get an innocent person killed.

THIS. I would hope people thinking about shooting "warning shots" will at least consider the fact that a bullet fired into the air is likely to fall back to the ground at a dangerous velocity (considering the angle fired, projectile mass, etc) , and shots fired into the ground may result in a ricochet, or fragments hitting an innocent party.

You're not a cop, you can't just fire a weapon every time someone/some thing frightens you, so you have to do it as a last resort before the absolute last resort.

amy31416
06-21-2014, 09:05 PM
THIS. I would hope people thinking about shooting "warning shots" will at least consider the fact that a bullet fired into the air is likely to fall back to the ground at a dangerous velocity (considering the angle fired, projectile mass, etc) , and shots fired into the ground may result in a ricochet, or fragments hitting an innocent party.

You're not a cop, you can't just fire a weapon every time someone/some thing frightens you, so you have to do it as a last resort before the absolute last resort.

Well...not firing a warning shot could get someone killed too. Isn't the obvious answer to shoot a warning shot at the ground?

satchelmcqueen
06-21-2014, 09:57 PM
sad that a JURY convicted this man. stupid asses.
This is the reason the law was passed... Florida's Dumbest Fucking Law of "Mandatory Minimum 20 years for firing a warning shot" These mandatory-minimums are/were lobbied by LEs and the Prison lobbyists. Watching the one video interviewing the county Sheriff involved in the Wollard case, boasted that "Liberal Judges were letting Floridians off with light sentences, when defending and pushed for the mandatory minimums.

Below are very sad situations of a father(dad gets 20 years) defending his family/daughter against a psycho boyfriend and the US Air Force airman 'stand your ground' gets him 25 years.

Story: http://famm.org/orville-lee-wollard/

http://kwout.com/cutout/f/5q/vg/yjb_bor.jpg http://kwout.com/cutout/8/7m/sa/z8p_bor.jpg

US airman stands his ground in Florida, sentenced to 25 years (http://thegrio.com/2013/12/04/us-airman-stands-his-ground-in-florida-sentenced-to-25-years/)

20 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence for a Father Protecting his Family (http://www.change.org/petitions/commute-the-20-year-mandatory-minimum-sentence-for-a-father-protecting-his-family)

Pericles
06-21-2014, 10:53 PM
sad that a JURY convicted this man. stupid asses.

That is why it is important to serve on juries - an easy way to strike a blow for liberty.

BSWPaulsen
06-22-2014, 12:23 AM
It fits the "logic" I'm talking about, but fine, go ahead and pick your category. Pick the pig who already decided he was going to "fucking gut" a dog while he was getting out of his car. Pick the pig who executes the handcuffed guy.

What I am addressing is the possibility of pre-emptive strikes against citizens being publicly excused by claiming that they had to be killed before they became a problem later.

It's obvious at this point that your primary concern and mine are two different things in this thread. There is no point in belaboring this point further.



People don't always suck at defending their rights. The deck is stacked. A jury trial, for example, might not granted until a case is appealed. This circumvention of the sixth amendment is a convenient advantage for the home team. The home team also has unlimited resources. They can just continue to tax until they get the desired result. Sort of like a team with an unlimited supply of players on their bench. Plenty of examples like that. Ask Terry Bressi.

We're not sitting in this nascent/established police state because people are good at defending their rights. It is plainly obvious that Americans, as a collective, have been awful at securing theirs. The proof is in the pudding.



I'm driving at things like the situation in the OP, and the examples just like that all over America.

Which is why, ultimately, we really are just talking past each other right now.

Anti Federalist
06-22-2014, 12:26 AM
FWIW

I have had to pull a firearm in defense twice, once in defense of myself, once in defense of another person.

In both cases lighting up the aggressor with the laser red dot sight was enough to stop the attack in its tracks, without having to kill anybody.

Anti Federalist
06-22-2014, 12:26 AM
///////

Weston White
06-22-2014, 01:26 AM
Are they not misapplying that law, as it apparently reads: “who shows a gun while committing certain felonies to be sentenced to 10 years in prison”, which indicates that the act of being armed in and of itself cannot be the sole felony involved; with its context intending to serve as a multiplier for say armed robberies, kidnapping, rapes, etc?

Further, law enforcement personnel are unwittingly trained to eliminate or reduce the potentiality for future lawsuits, by shooting multiple rapid shots directly into the chest of their targets, and thereby making it much less likely for juries to become emotional and feel guilty by not having to bear witness to permanently disabled plaintiffs within the courtroom or hearing their tragic version of events in person; and at worst with the decedent’s family members filing suit, they better the odds that any payouts granted to surviving family members will be much less likely or smaller in sum than otherwise would have been granted if the plaintiff had filed suit on their own behalf. Being that so many of these officer involved shootings are deemed “justified” on the criminal side, are highly questionable even still when tried on the civil side.

Origanalist
06-22-2014, 02:32 AM
[snip]

For obvious reasons, everyone should be thankful we're not at that stage yet, because that will be when this country is well and truly fucked in classic Orwellian fashion. It's probably coming, but we're not there... Yet. [snip]


No, really? Do tell.

Lucille
10-06-2014, 11:38 AM
This is the reason the law was passed... Florida's Dumbest Fucking Law of "Mandatory Minimum 20 years for firing a warning shot" These mandatory-minimums are/were lobbied by LEs and the Prison lobbyists. Watching the one video interviewing the county Sheriff involved in the Wollard case, boasted that "Liberal Judges were letting Floridians off with light sentences, when defending and pushed for the mandatory minimums.

Below are very sad situations of a father(dad gets 20 years) defending his family/daughter against a psycho boyfriend and the US Air Force airman 'stand your ground' gets him 25 years.

Story: http://famm.org/orville-lee-wollard/



US airman stands his ground in Florida, sentenced to 25 years (http://thegrio.com/2013/12/04/us-airman-stands-his-ground-in-florida-sentenced-to-25-years/)

20 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence for a Father Protecting his Family (http://www.change.org/petitions/commute-the-20-year-mandatory-minimum-sentence-for-a-father-protecting-his-family)

So now that there's a warning shot law, where are the pardons?

This recent article makes no mention of the new law or his request for clemency:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781660/I-hadn-t-wrong-Father-two-given-20-year-prison-sentence-firing-warning-shot-scare-violent-thug-threatening-family-hits-out.html


An aggravated assault involving a firearm in Florida comes with a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years. Wollard was given a plea offer of probation and no jail time but he declined, convinced he was innocent.

He said: 'It never dawned on me that I would lose, because I hadn't done anything wrong. I'd protected my family, and I didn't even hurt anybody. Everything is gone.'

The judge told him that he would not have given him such a length sentence if he hadn't been obligated to do so.

He said: 'It didn't matter that Lee Wollard was a first offender, or that no one was physically injured. In Florida, a conviction for aggravated assault involving a firearm means an automatic 20 years. That's the mandatory minimum sentence.

'I looked at him and told him, 'I would not be sentencing you to this term of incarceration, 20 years Florida state prison, if it were not for the fact that I was obligated under my oath as a judge to do so.'

Prosecutors believe that mandatory sentencing laws prompt defendants to opt for a plea bargain rather than going through a lengthy trial.

He said: 'It never dawned on me that I would lose because I haven't done anything wrong.

In Florida if you kill someone when standing your ground then you may face no prison time at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mandatory-minimum-sentencing-injustice-served/3/


The Polk County State's Attorney, whose office prosecuted Wollard, refused to discuss his case. But nationally, there is a move to return some discretion to judges.

Earlier this year, federal sentencing guidelines were amended to reduce prison time. And in Florida, the legislature passed a law that exempts firing warning shots from the current harsh penalties.

But it comes too late for Wollard.

"Everything, everything is gone," he said.

Wollard has asked the Florida Governor for clemency -- which, incidentally, his daughter's former boyfriend supports. If he doesn't get it, Lee Wollard will leave prison in July 2028, when he is 73 years old.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2014, 12:08 PM
Marissa Alexander agrees to plea deal

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/24/marissa-alexander-agrees-to-plea-deal/19483503/

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Facing a possible 60 years in prison for firing a gun at her estranged husband and his two sons, Marissa Alexander agreed Monday to a plea deal that effectively ends the four-year old criminal case against her.

Related: Marissa Alexander Timeline

According to the terms of the plea, Alexander was ordered to serve three years in prison after pleading guilty to all three counts against her. Alexander will get credit for the 1,030 days she's already spent in jail.

That means she'll have to spend 65 more days in jail. Alexander will return to Duval County Jail following Monday's hearing. She'll be released on Jan. 27.

Because the second count against Alexander is considered an 'open plea,' she could still be sentenced to five years in prison at the hearing on Jan. 27.

The case has drawn national attention, in part because Alexander unsuccessfully tried to invoke a Stand Your Ground defense, and later because, when she was convicted, Florida's 10-20-Life laws mandated a stringent 20-year prison sentence -- despite the fact that her shot didn't injure or even hit anyone.

Alexander herself became the focus of anti-domestic violence advocates, since she claimed the victim in the case, estranged husband Rico Gray, was a serial abuser who attacked her first.

Alexander was convicted by a jury in 2012 of three counts of aggravated assault, but that conviction was overturned on appeal because of an error in jury instructions.

Following her jail term, Alexander's been ordered to spend two years under community control, or house arrest, with a monitor.

jmdrake
11-26-2014, 12:15 PM
He also signed something saying you don't get in trouble for having a Pop Tart shaped like a gun.

You know, the other day my son somehow made a gun shape out of Ramein noodles and pointed it at me. I laughed but thought "Some stupid goon could put him in a lot of trouble for this."

JK/SEA
11-26-2014, 12:23 PM
If you brandish a firearm, you do so with the knowledge that you may end a person's life. Either shoot to kill or keep it in its holster.

what if someone brandishes a knife at you?..

Anti Federalist
11-26-2014, 12:24 PM
You know, the other day my son somehow made a gun shape out of Ramein noodles and pointed it at me. I laughed but thought "Some stupid goon could put him in a lot of trouble for this."

Reported.

presence
11-26-2014, 12:27 PM
FWIW

I have had to pull a firearm in defense twice, once in defense of myself, once in defense of another person.

In both cases lighting up the aggressor with the laser red dot sight was enough to stop the attack in its tracks, without having to kill anybody.



Sure as shit worked on me. I had about 20 red dots all over me. They said, "drop the bong" and I dropped that fucking bong.

jmdrake
11-26-2014, 12:30 PM
No, pointing a gun at someone is not something you do lightly. Firing warning shots is a great way to get an innocent person killed.

Well....nobody got killed...or hurt. Making her a felon for what might have happened is stupid.

jmdrake
11-26-2014, 12:30 PM
Reported.

Me or him?

brushfire
11-26-2014, 12:41 PM
Lethal force is lethal force - by the time the gun comes out, the warning phase is over.

One is responsible for one's projectile, and deliberately sending it off into the air is irresponsible, under nearly any circumstance that I can think of. Into the ground is arguably just as bad. As I said, when my gun comes out, it will be in the defense of my family or myself, and I will do everything within my ability to make sure I hit the intended target.

I'm 100% with James Madison on this fact, and so is every court. The precedent says, lethal force. Pi$$ing away lethal force into the air shows that you are not capable of understanding the responsibility, and is also action that completely contradicts any defense based on imminent grave bodily harm or death... Drawing the firearm alone should be a pretty damn good indicator, to any rational human being, as to what actions ensue - a rational human being should not require a demonstration.

I'm very pro-gun owner's rights, but I see any law that permits "warning shots" as being reckless. JMO. (Also applies to police - in legitimate defense situations).

jmdrake
11-26-2014, 12:45 PM
Lethal force is lethal force - by the time the gun comes out, the warning phase is over.

One is responsible for one's projectile, and deliberately sending it off into the air is irresponsible, under nearly any circumstance that I can think of. Into the ground is arguably just as bad. As I said, when my gun comes out, it will be in the defense of my family or myself, and I will do everything within my ability to make sure I hit the intended target.

I'm 100% with James Madison on this fact, and so is every court. The precedent says, lethal force. Pi$$ing away lethal force into the air shows that you are not capable of understanding the responsibility, and is also action that completely contradicts any defense based on imminent grave bodily harm or death... Drawing the firearm alone should be a pretty damn good indicator, to any rational human being, as to what actions ensue - a rational human being should not require a demonstration.

I'm very pro-gun owner's rights, but I see any law that permits "warning shots" as being reckless. JMO. (Also applies to police - in legitimate defense situations).

Okay. But a felony? 60 years in prison? Sorry but that's ridiculous.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2014, 12:49 PM
Me or him?

Both of you Komraden, both of you.

Await quietly with your hands up.

SWAT will be there shortly.

(you know I'm just pulling your leg of course?)

jmdrake
11-26-2014, 12:53 PM
Both of you Komraden, both of you.

Await quietly with your hands up.

SWAT will be there shortly.

(you know I'm just pulling your leg of course?)

My son just heard me laughing and asked why. I told him the "gun tart" story. He gave me this incredulous look and said "What did they think he was going to do? Shoot food at people?" Sad that some kids are smarter than many adults.

brushfire
11-26-2014, 12:54 PM
Okay. But a felony? 60 years in prison? Sorry but that's ridiculous.

60 years is pretty ridiculous. You can actually murder someone and not do 60 years.