lennynatural said: I'm not going to get into a debate about warning shots. In a "stand your ground" state a woman was being threatened by her ex, she felt her safety and life were in danger, she had a gun and purposefully fired the gun away from the perp, hoping that it would scare him off. The bullet did not cause any harm to anyone. She was arrested and charged, tried and was sentenced to a prison term. In the same state another person started an argument with another person, either lost his temper (probable) or felt threatened, pulled out his weapon, shot and killed the other man (he was not even in his own home). He was given a free pass, no charges, citing the stand your ground law. So, what was different between the two cases? Although they were in the same state, it was different jurisdictions. Authorities in one locale being very relaxed about it (it makes their jobs easier) and the other jurisdiction holding people to a much higher standard. Also, the peoples races in the two incidents were different, the woman being a minority. I am not claiming there was overt racism but I recently read an article by a guns rights group that authorities tend to look at armed minorities more critically then they do with whites. Also, if the prosecutors in a locale are anti-gun, they tend to be more vigorous in those instances regardless of the state law.
So, I stand by my original assertion that the administration of justice is very even and is indeed a crap shoot. I find it troubling that victims of crime can be considered the criminals for defending themselves in a manner not allowed by statute.
In the first case, the woman was prosecuted because she failed to meet the requirements of what Stand Your Ground 'is'. First off, she was in a place she was not legally allowed to be. She went to an ex's residence, put her car in the garage, and let herself in. She had a restraining order against her, and was not allowed to be on the property or have any contact with the individual. (Strike one).
The owner of the property returned home, and at some point they engaged in a verbal confrontation.
This is where that case goes sideways.
She claims 'self defense' and Stand Your Ground because he supposedly threatened her and her children (that lived with HIM). She willingly engaged in the confrontation (strike two). She LEFT the immediate area where the confrontation took place. (She went from the area of the confrontation to her vehicle in the garage, retrieved a firearm from her purse, and then reentered the living space of the dwelling. Strike three.) She then brandished the firearm, threatened the individual (strikes four and five), and then fired a warning shot(s) above the individuals head into the wall/ceiling (Strike six).
Strike one - you cannot engage in illegal activity and claim protection under Stand Your Ground or self defense.
Strike two - you cannot engage or participate in 'mutual combat' (ie, start or enter the altercation or argument) and then claim your actions are 'self defense' when they are not legal and/or lawful.
Strike three - you cannot remove yourself from the threat, then reenter the threat environment, and claim you 'stood your ground'. No, you left your ground.
Strike four - you cannot engage in ANY illegal activity and claim stand your ground or self defense. You can't pull a weapon and threaten someone because you had an argument.
Strike five - you CANNOT illegally discharge a weapon, regardless of where it's pointed, if you are not legally allowed to do so. (There are multiple state and local rules and laws prohibiting this).
Strike six - since the rounds were fired in the general direction of an individual, and there was no legal allowance to do so...
As Paul Harvey used to say... and now we have, the rest of the story.
The second case. I'm guessing was the nationally covered Neighborhood Watch person. Who was, legally in a place they were allowed to be, engaging in an act they were legally allowed to do. The defense in the case CLEARLY showed that the individual was then attacked in some way by the supposed 'victim'. The individual then produced a firearm and, since they were under attack and feared for their personal safety/life by the attack of the supposed 'victim', used the firearm to protect themselves.
And before anyone tries to go there, the case in question has audio tapes of a 911 dispatcher telling the person something about - you don't have to follow them, or you don't have to do that. I forget the exact wording.
Anyway, a 911 dispatcher has ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NO, NONE, or ANY authority to tell a citizen or anyone else what they can or cannot do. In most cases, 911 dispatchers are not even law enforcement (and even if they are a LEO, it is irrelevant). They are paid employees who answer a phone and send appropriate units to various emergencies. They DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to restrict you from being places you are legally allowed to be! Period. Dot.
So, as was proven after a VERY expensive trial and lots of liberal hand wringing and whining... we have laws that work (until snowflakes get their hands on them and make perfectly good laws useless).
)
Private Messages
Your Block List
Support Tickets
Photo Manager
Comment Manager
Moderator Application
Recover Password
Delete Pics/Vids
Delete Account
Like how you put 911 (112), lol. In the UK we call 999 for the police, fire department and ambulance.
