Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shots fired in air = 20 years update

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If the drafters of the law intended the law to cover a narrow range of actions and did not write that into the law, then they're idiots and it's their fault that it's letter is being used in such a manner.
    Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

    Comment


    • #17
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1530035.html

      Here's the Huff Post article. It's a couple months old. She -could- have gotten a much lighter sentence, except for the Florida law.

      At the May 11 sentencing, Alexander's relatives begged Circuit Judge James Daniel for leniency but he said the decision was "out of my hands."

      "The Legislature has not given me the discretion to do what the family and many others have asked me to do," he said.
      That being said, she could have taken a plea deal for only 3 years, but didn't. Her lawyers probably thought they had a pretty solid case.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
        If the drafters of the law intended the law to cover a narrow range of actions and did not write that into the law, then they're idiots and it's their fault that it's letter is being used in such a manner.
        Welcome to the world of law.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3561701.html

        Florida wanted to ban internet cafes since they could be used as a place for online gambling. Instead the hastily drafted law managed to ban ALL computers (or any device that can be connected to the internet for that matter) if the letter of the law were to have been carried out.

        Never underestimate the power of our current kakistocracy.
        “There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.” - Sylvester McCoy as the Seventh Doctor.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TheHuckster View Post
          Then whoever wrote the CBS News article is a dishonest dipshit. Oh, wait, that's right, this kind of asshattery in the media is nothing new.
          I was actually gobsmacked at the sheer dishonesty that went into that article. The author must really not think much of his readers.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mongo Skruddgemire View Post
            Welcome to the world of law.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3561701.html

            Florida wanted to ban internet cafes since they could be used as a place for online gambling. Instead the hastily drafted law managed to ban ALL computers (or any device that can be connected to the internet for that matter) if the letter of the law were to have been carried out.

            Never underestimate the power of our current kakistocracy.
            Which is kind of funny since Congress banned using credit cards for Internet Gambling a few years ago. This in essence put the kibosh on it.

            Comment


            • #21
              I'd really like it if people would stop referring to this case as a woman who fired a "Warning Shot." I don't think it's a warning shot simply because you MISSED the guy.
              "Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
              ipsum, versiculos nihil necessest"

              Comment


              • #22
                Ok, I took the time to re-acquaint myself with this case and now remember why I thought SYG was a ridiculous defense at the time, and why it took a jury only 12 minutes to find her guilty.

                While the man involved is a piece of work with battery charges from multiple women, apparently the woman involve is a "baiter" who went to his home multiple times after the incident against court orders and at one point physically attacked him after which incident she initially claimed no knowledge, then changed that to having an alibi, then finally claimed that he attacked her first, although police noted that she had no visible marks. My suspicion is that she hit him in an attempt to get him to hit her back so she could play victim some more.

                Article with more detail at MediaTrackers (this article is mostly comparing the two high-profile jury cases, but provides quite a lot of information about just how not innocent this woman was)
                Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Hyena Dandy View Post
                  I'd really like it if people would stop referring to this case as a woman who fired a "Warning Shot." I don't think it's a warning shot simply because you MISSED the guy.
                  All right, then. What is your preferred definition of "warning shot" and why do you believe this does not qualify?
                  "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I honestly think that, if you're shooting a gun in a way that passes someone's head, like the court document said, that's not a warning shot. She said she shot it directly in the air. That would be a warning shot. I think, if you're shooting a gun, and your aim is in a direction that could possibly hit someone, you shouldn't call it a warning shot.
                    "Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
                    ipsum, versiculos nihil necessest"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Hyena Dandy View Post
                      I honestly think that, if you're shooting a gun in a way that passes someone's head, like the court document said, that's not a warning shot. She said she shot it directly in the air. That would be a warning shot. I think, if you're shooting a gun, and your aim is in a direction that could possibly hit someone, you shouldn't call it a warning shot.
                      If the Navy or Coast Guard wants someone to stop and that someone is not stopping, they will put a shot across the bow. It lets the chasee know that they mean business. Granted that is a different situation. But still...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mikoyan29 View Post
                        If the Navy or Coast Guard wants someone to stop and that someone is not stopping, they will put a shot across the bow. It lets the chasee know that they mean business. Granted that is a different situation. But still...
                        Yes, it is. And it's not really relevant to this discussion. That person is trying to get away, and the purpose of the shot is to stop them, and let them know you're willing to shoot if they don't stop. Her defense is that the shot was to stop him from ATTACKING her. At that point, since he had raised his hands above his head, and had asked her not to shoot, HE WAS NOT ATTACKING HER. It's not a warning shot once you've already accomplished what you claim you're trying to accomplish.
                        "Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
                        ipsum, versiculos nihil necessest"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mikoyan29 View Post
                          If the Navy or Coast Guard wants someone to stop and that someone is not stopping, they will put a shot across the bow. It lets the chasee know that they mean business. Granted that is a different situation. But still...
                          If she were firing a warning shot, she would have fired to the side or up in the air. But based on the trajectory of the bullet alone, it's obvious that she fired from a position where had her aim been off, she would have grievously wounded him. In front of the two kids.

                          Honestly, based on the further reports of her behavior from both before and after the incident, including one where she violated the court order to go to his house, again, and try to insist she be allowed to sleep there overnight, again, she then attacked him, and later fled. When police found her she first claimed having no notion of why they were there, then she claimed that she totally had an alibi, and when that didn't work she finally tried to claim that he attacked her and not the other way around despite the fact that he was sporting a black eye and she was physically unharmed. Plus, as before, he was the one that called for help, not her. She never called because she was never afraid, which is particularly evident by the fact that she keeps on going back to his house.

                          I honestly believe that she got so much attention after he hit her the first time (he's no saint) that she's spent the entire rest of the relationship trying to provoke him into hitting her again.

                          I know just reading about her makes me want to try to slap some sense into her.
                          Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X