notalawyer
Regular Member
There are more facts to the case. I'll post a link later tonight.
I would appreciate that. The appellate case is the only thing on which I am able to based an opinion.
There are more facts to the case. I'll post a link later tonight.
I would appreciate that. The appellate case is the only thing on which I am able to based an opinion.
i feel like i'm taking crazy pills reading these comments.
a person can't "fire a warning shot" just because, now.
what a person CAN do, is use the "threat" of lethal force instead of "actual" lethal force when they believe lethal force is necessary, and not face an assault charge.
but i mean, correct me if i'm wrong.
Always could.what a person CAN do, is use the "threat" of lethal force instead of "actual" lethal force when they believe lethal force is necessary,
Unless, of course, you get a POS SA. Just like what happens today.and not face an assault charge.
Florida makes clear that self-defense laws apply equally to defensive threat of force (including warning shots) as to actual force.
By Eugene Volokh June 24 at 11:21 AM
Friday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed HB89, which mainly makes clear that self-defense laws — including the Florida no-duty-to-retreat law (often called “stand your ground”) — apply equally to defensive threats of force, including warning shots, as they do to actual force. This seems to me quite right: whatever one might think of the possible scope of self-defense, and of no-duty-to-retreat laws, if actually killing or injuring someone is justifiable self-defense, then threatening to do so should be as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ots-as-to-actual-force-2/?wp_login_redirect=0
A brief summary would read: The law, which is not really necessary, due to existing case law, might help clear up the fouled up self defense jury instructions, which were already under review by the Florida Supreme Court. :uhoh:
i feel like i'm taking crazy pills reading these comments.
a person can't "fire a warning shot" just because, now.
what a person CAN do, is use the "threat" of lethal force instead of "actual" lethal force when they believe lethal force is necessary, and not face an assault charge.
Otherwise, why not just shoot a round in the air every few minutes as a preventative measure...that does not sound OK.
but i mean, correct me if i'm wrong.
OP, as paulH would state ~ the rest of the story...
the original case occurred around the same time as zimmerman and the woman in question is serving 20 years as her attorney tried to use the same defense as zimmerman ~ self defense against an attacker, in this case, her partner.
truth of the matter was the woman, in a violent argument w/her partner, left the house into the safe haven garage to 'leave via the family vehicle' but discovered she lacked the keys. so instead of locking her self in the vehicle for protection until LE arrived, she grabbed the firearm from the vehicle and 'reentered' the house and discharged a 'warning shot' in the air towards her husband, oh and possibly her off spring. her attorney tried to use self defense argument in court, but thankfully, IMHO, the jury decided to find her guilty of her crime.
sorry they threw out the original convection on appeal...
ipse
Please get your facts correct. She never left the house. Under Florida law the garage is the house. She went from one room in the house to another.
Yeah, you missed a few important provisions. Try reading the bill again. http://laws.flrules.org/2014/195
http://www.thenation.com/blog/17864...years-prison-firing-warning-shot-self-defense
Alexander has claimed she fired a warning shot at her estranged husband, Rico Gray, and wasn’t trying to hit Gray or his two children from a previous relationship. She has said the incident, which happened days after she’d given birth, began when Gray accused her of infidelity and questioned whether the newborn child was his.
Alexander told him to leave and locked herself in the bathroom until he broke through the door, grabbed her by the neck and shoved her to the floor.
as has been stated many times out here...guilty pure and simple as the woman left a hostile environment for a safe zone ~ garage & car. she says the garage door wouldn't open but then grabbed a pistol from the vehicle and re-entered the hostile environment with the aggressor inside with the possible presumed intent of harming her husband.
also remember her offspring were in the house when she pulled the trigger and shot her 'warning shot' at her aggressor.
(side bar: if someone is charging me...wouldn't have missed so the shot wouldn't have been considered a warning shot)
"what ifs" ~ if she had locked herself in the vehicle, and the husband came into the garage and attempted to break in the vehicle, and she used the firearm...not guilty...
ipse