Mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots!?

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

This doesn't make any sense at all. The poor woman had a restraining order against the guy who was abusing her and only fired warning shots. How can the judge not comprehend what was happening?

A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

There is also a petition to have the judge vacate her sentence.

http://www.change.org/petitions/circuit-court-judge-james-daniel-vacate-sentence

[Lumber_Jack]

I've been befuddled by this story myself. It seems clear cut, Stand your ground. But in Florida you have a special hearing and if that judge doesn't feel it's stand your ground, then you can't use that in your defense at trial. Seems ridiculous.

I guess the moral of the story is just shoot the man and she'd be free. Even if she is guilty if discharging the gun, 20 years is a ludicrous sentence.

[Guest zort]

shoot to kill

[Moped]

His hands were tied because the Florida Legislature set the sentence for him. I suspect she had a prior also. Personally, I thought the DA was stupid and should have her law license suspended for charging this poor woman in the first place. But the woman was stupid for going back in the house with the gun. She should have run to the neighbors house and called the police and had her husband taken to jail. BTW, the DA is the same DA that is trying George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case and she was roundly criticized for her role in this trail by one of Florida's black house members, Florida Representative Corrine Brown blasted her soundly over all this.

[Reservoir Dog]

I guess the moral of the story is just shoot the man and she'd be free. Even if she is guilty if discharging the gun, 20 years is a ludicrous sentence.

Yep. There is never a justification for warning shots. EVER! If the situation warrants you discharging a firearm, you better be shooting at the threat. The fact that she did not fire at him shows me that she was not in fear of her life or serious injury. Therefore, she should not have fired.

She played a stupid game, and is getting a stupid prize. However, 20 years for this is quite ridiculous.

[Erik88]

The punishment does not fit the crime.

[DaveTN]

It took a jury 12 minutes to find her guilty.

That’s amazing.

I’m not sure I understand what happened. One story I read on this said she was trapped in the house, another said she left the house, went to her car and got a gun, and reentered the house.

20 years is a long time for defending yourself against an abusive husband. Especially when he testified he abused her. She probably wouldn’t have done 20 years if she shot him.

[Reservoir Dog]

shoot to kill

That's just plain dumb. Never shoot to kill, and for God's sake, don't ever say those words to the police, or anybody else.

[mikegideon]

There's something missing in this story

[DaveTN]

There's something missing in this story

That’s what I’m wondering. I know it was only a six person jury, but there couldn’t have been much more than a nod or a show of hands. You would think they would at least take a smoke break before returning a verdict that would send someone to prison for 20 years; must not have had any smokers on the jury.

12 minutes on a 20 year felony…. Wow, I don’t think I have ever heard of something like that.

[mikegideon]

The devil is usually in the details, and the media SUCKS at details.

[mcurrier]

Yep. There is never a justification for warning shots. EVER! If the situation warrants you discharging a firearm, you better be shooting at the threat. The fact that she did not fire at him shows me that she was not in fear of her life or serious injury. Therefore, she should not have fired.

She played a stupid game, and is getting a stupid prize. However, 20 years for this is quite ridiculous.

Liberal anti-gun loons have pounded into some people's brains that there must be a better way to defend yourself from an attacker when you have a gun than shooting him, such as only shooting him in the arm or leg, or firing 'warning' shots. After all, that must be more humane than killing the poor fellow who is really innocent and oppressed by society. Those of us with a brain know that is b.s. and will only get you killed, sued, or sent to prison like this woman. She was not properly trained on use of her firearm or on the legalities and responsibilities of discharging that weapon and the consequences.

Had a security guard in VA Beach fire a weapon into the air chasing a fleeing robber at the oceanfront back in the 80's. Bullet landed in a sunbather on the beach a few blocks away. Your are responsible for where your bullets land. The woman in this 20 year sentence story should have either shot the guy...or not fired.

[bubbiesdad]

That’s amazing.

I’m not sure I understand what happened. One story I read on this said she was trapped in the house, another said she left the house, went to her car and got a gun, and reentered the house.

20 years is a long time for defending yourself against an abusive husband. Especially when he testified he abused her. She probably wouldn’t have done 20 years if she shot him.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html

[Jonnin]

5 more years would have been worth it to cap the jerk.... but that says "during a crime". What crime was she doing that pulling a firearm upped the charges? If she was not commiting a crime at the time of the gunshot, the above should not apply. Something isnt right.

[TripleDigitRide]

She screwed herself when she went back into the house and fired her weapon. If she was truly in fear for her life, she would not have gone back in the house. That's what they are saying, anyway.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

[Jonnin]

She screwed herself when she went back into the house and fired her weapon. If she was truly in fear for her life, she would not have gone back in the house. That's what they are saying, anyway.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

well, its true. If you are in fear, you get out of there. Pursue and confront is never a good plan unless you seek to save someone else from being harmed. Look at the recent case where a guy got out of his car to pursue someone.... its just a poor idea for any civillian to do that without a very, very, very good reason.

[Murgatroy]

She screwed herself when she went back into the house and fired her weapon. If she was truly in fear for her life, she would not have gone back in the house. That's what they are saying, anyway.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

That is exactly the way I read it, and the way I saw it broken down.

[vontar]

shoot to kill

actually to stop the threat. A shot to center mass normally does that.

(remember it is not to kill just to stop them)

A co worker suggested a warning shot 6 inches above center mass, but I told him center mass was the warning.

[K191145]

There's got to be more to this, if not then the judge and DA needs to be disbarred. After the example of the Martin/Zimmerman media circus you can't trust anything you read or hear from TV or an internet link. Usually there's a hint in an internet news link that tells you that the story/artical you're about to read may contain up to %75 bull s#it. The hint in this link is CBS.

[RobertNashville]

I've never heard of a good reason (or justification) for a "warning shot". If you aren't justified in shooting to stop the threat then you aren't justified to discharge your weapon at all; at least that's what I've always been taught.

As armed citizens, "stand your ground laws" or no, we should do what we can, at least within reason, to avoid the need to use deadly force but if deadly force is justified and required then we use it, we don't shoot into the ground or up into the air.

[bubbiesdad]

There's got to be more to this, if not then the judge and DA needs to be disbarred. After the example of the Martin/Zimmerman media circus you can't trust anything you read or hear from TV or an internet link. Usually there's a hint in an internet news link that tells you that the story/artical you're about to read may contain up to %75 bull s#it. The hint in this link is CBS.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1504428.html

From Corey's statements/evidence. Alexander's supporters don't have much of a leg to stand on.

she told Gray, “I got something for your ass,†Corey said.

Edited May 14, 2012 by bubbiesdad

[Guest Nikator]

They reported that the gun was fired into a wall.

There were children standing in the room on the other side of the wall.

I think the sentence is high, but she was offered a plea deal for 3 years but rejected it and opted to go to trial. She had a bad / no attorney. She was facing a MANDITORY sentence of 20 years. Ignorance of the laws are not a defense. She got herself out of the life threatening situation, but chose to grab a gun and put herself back into it. If she thought she was in danger she'd have shot him.

[RobertNashville]

They reported that the gun was fired into a wall.

There were children standing in the room on the other side of the wall.

I think the sentence is high, but she was offered a plea deal for 3 years but rejected it and opted to go to trial. She had a bad / no attorney. She was facing a MANDITORY sentence of 20 years. Ignorance of the laws are not a defense. She got herself out of the life threatening situation, but chose to grab a gun and put herself back into it. If she thought she was in danger she'd have shot him.

I agree. It seems to me that this "mom" is guilty of the crime; the issue is the sentence and as I think has been noted, this is a mandatory sentence.

Many people like mandatory sentencing for criminals which came about as a response to what seemed like lenient sentences being handed out by judges when they shouldn't have been. But, as if often the case, people addressed the symptom (lenient sentences) by applying mandatory sentencing rules rather than addressing the actual problem (stupid, liberal judges).

When you take discretion away from bad judges you also take it away from good ones too and then you get cases like this one.