Warning shot fired in fear or anger?

[Que]

This is why I do not believe in warning shots.

Warning Shot Costs Florida Woman 20 Years | The Truth About Guns

 

[Bunnykid68]

I read this a while back and kind of agreed with the judge to an extent, she left and came back. If she would have shot him it would all depend on what she and the kids told the police what happened. The kids very well could have told the police something that would have gotten her charged with murder.

He had a right to be there and you have a he said/she said. But I do not think she deserves any jail time over this though

 

[theblackknight]

There is no really to "believe" in. Using deadly force in a chest beating manor is criminal posturing.

 

[mrjarrell]

Sad to see they hammered her. In a just world she would have walked. Of course, lots of people here on INGO hammered her for her actions back when it first occurred. So, at least one group will be satisfied.

 

[Que]

There is no really to "believe" in. Using deadly force in a chest beating manor is criminal posturing.

What are you talking about?

 

[HoughMade]

The first warning shot anyone will get from me is when I believe that I or another is in imminent danger of great harm or death....and you will have to be pretty lucky to live through that warning shot.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

She claims that she fired a warning shot - but I believe her husband's first statement was that she was attempting to shoot him, he ducked, and she missed.

The bullet struck the wall first, before the ceiling...

I still cannot fathom a situation where a warning shot is the reasonable course of action - but if she was attempting to fire a warning shot or shoot him is not completely clear.

Also, I fail to buy the "she was protecting her children" line, since after she fired - HE was the one fleeing with the children. Also, I believe the children stated that she was yelling at them also....

 

[Sylvain]

Ammo is expensive, no warning shot for me.
Unless I miss because my aim sucks and later say it was a warning shot.

 

[tom1025]

She kinda stuck a fork in herself when she went back inside. Sounds like a bad situation all the way around. I am surprised no one is bashing her yet for leaving her firearm in a vehicle unattended yet.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

With the situation as I understood it, I am in the you can't go around shooting at everybody camp. With that being said I have to question her getting a longer sentence than she would get for actually killing someone. Maybe she has a parole option after a few years and the judge/jury factored that into their decisions?

Oh, btw never leave your gun in the car!

 

[hoosiersasquatch]

I agree with the "don't leave the gun in the car" statement.
I have known some jerks who have had the mentality towards their ex-wife...girlfriend etc. "if I can't have you no one can approach," I would have thought she should have called 911 as soon as he left to get a proper report filled out on her behalf rather than leaving that to him, which the article hints at taking some time later.
Bottom line, seems they are trying to make statement with her situation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is why I do not believe in warning shots.

Warning Shot Costs Florida Woman 20 Years | The Truth About Guns

Absolutely! Warning shots (aside from situations in which they are required)* are all minuses and no plusses.

* The only situation I have encountered in which they are required is the event of an inmate escaping from prison, which requires a whistle, a shouted warning, a warning shot, and then shooting the inmate if he has failed to stop by that time. I also recall the supposedly facetious suggestion that no one could prove otherwise if you shot him, yelled 'stop!' and then fired a warning shot.

 

[88GT]

This is why I do not believe in warning shots.

Warning Shot Costs Florida Woman 20 Years | The Truth About Guns

She claims that she fired a warning shot - but I believe her husband's first statement was that she was attempting to shoot him, he ducked, and she missed.

The bullet struck the wall first, before the ceiling...

I still cannot fathom a situation where a warning shot is the reasonable course of action - but if she was attempting to fire a warning shot or shoot him is not completely clear.

Also, I fail to buy the "she was protecting her children" line, since after she fired - HE was the one fleeing with the children. Also, I believe the children stated that she was yelling at them also....

Are we discussing this from a legalistic standpoint or from a philosophical standpoint? Because I absolutely support warning shots if the shooter decides in his reasonable mind that it is preferable to give the perpetrator a chance to retreat prior to having to blow his brains out.

The alternative is making it harder to justify shoots without forcing the individual to get that much closer to real and imminent danger. Why should I have to wait for the asshat to be advancing towards me, losing valuable time to respond, when I could send a shot over his proverbial bow and give him the option of saving both of us a lot of grief?

Sad to see they hammered her. In a just world she would have walked. Of course, lots of people here on INGO hammered her for her actions back when it first occurred. So, at least one group will be satisfied.

I don't so much have an opinion on this particular case since there isn't a lot of hard evidence either way. But if her conviction is based solely on the warning shot, I'd acquit. In a heart beat.

 

[Que]

I've never taken any training or formed the mindset to place myself in a situation where I raised a rifle or pulled my pistol out of the holster without the purpose of shooting. Also, I've not read where a warning shot ever proves to be a positive for the victim. We even have one INGO member hauled into court for shooting a warning shot at a dog.

If a warning is to be given, it should be verbal. If the gun is drawn and pointed at someone, at that instance a legal question is introduced. Without a shot, that person is brandishing a weapon and that violation just may be addressed in a courtroom.

In this case the woman said she pointed at the ceiling and the man said he pointed it at her. I guess the 20 years tells us who the jury believed.

 

[pirate]

She is not longer the victim when she went back inside. Someone truly in fear would have kept on going down the road. Aiming and shooting a gun around with your kids in the house too, wow..

 

[Que]

She is not longer the victim when she went back inside. Someone truly in fear would have kept on going down the road.

I get the fact that she probably should not have returned after fleeing. I understand the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground is probably not applicable, but the change of identity (victim or BG) is not what I'm addressing. I'm simply saying that if you pull a gun, be ready to use it or leave it alone.

During most classes, people are asked if they can take a life. Without exception, people are quick to say "yes." It is the hardest choice someone could ever make, but if that woman had it to do over again, I bet she would shoot rather than being jailed away from her children for the next 10 years.

 

[pirate]

I get the fact that she probably should not have returned after fleeing. I understand the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground is probably not applicable, but the change of identity (victim or BG) is not what I'm addressing. I'm simply saying that if you pull a gun, be ready to use it or leave it alone.

During most classes, people are asked if they can take a life. Without exception, people are quick to say "yes." It is the hardest choice someone could ever make, but if that woman had it to do over again, I bet she would shoot rather than being jailed away from her children for the next 10 years.

If she shot him, do you think the kids would be brought in as witnesses to its justification or lack thereof? That would be a conundrum. Who would they side with?

 

[88GT]

I've never taken any training or formed the mindset to place myself in a situation where I raised a rifle or pulled my pistol out of the holster without the purpose of shooting. Also, I've not read where a warning shot ever proves to be a positive for the victim. We even have one INGO member hauled into court for shooting a warning shot at a dog.

If a warning is to be given, it should be verbal. If the gun is drawn and pointed at someone, at that instance a legal question is introduced. Without a shot, that person is brandishing a weapon and that violation just may be addressed in a courtroom.

In this case the woman said she pointed at the ceiling and the man said he pointed it at her. I guess the 20 years tells us who the jury believed.

You are viewing this through the legal prism. I don't have a problem with that per se, but introducing such a standard as the only standard is garbage. She should have been free to defend herself however she saw fit (arguments about the necessity of defense notwithstanding).

Brandishing? Really.

It is a sad state of affairs when self defense comes with caveats and restrictions, and we tell people they are limited to being the victim or causing bodily harm. There is no middle ground.

 

[Tinner666]

That whole issue is wacked.

In reality, you only draw to shoot, but....... I have drawn and not shot because the BG totally froze in mid-draw and turned and ran. It seemed like slo-mo as it happened. PD was already there too. One LEO, just looked at me and said "Good job.. What was that about?" There was no comment or issue about 'brandishing', though it could have been, to some, I suppose.

 

[Que]

You are viewing this through the legal prism. I don't have a problem with that per se, but introducing such a standard as the only standard is garbage. She should have been free to defend herself however she saw fit (arguments about the necessity of defense notwithstanding).

Brandishing? Really.

It is a sad state of affairs when self defense comes with caveats and restrictions, and we tell people they are limited to being the victim or causing bodily harm. There is no middle ground.

What other way should we look at this, other than according to the law? We SHOULD be free to do a lot of things, but aren't. All I'm saying is, warning shots have not proven to be a positive for victims.