FL Mom gets 20 years for warning shots - Zimmerman Walks...

This just in from CNN. From the same people who brought you the names of the pilots of that Asiana flight in S.F. ..................

George Zimmerman's apartment shares the wall where the fired bullet went through. He was in his kitchen cooking Collard Greens when the bullet wizzed just above his head.

He's the luckiest, and best fed, SOB alive.

Keep up the good work Boncho

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Fromabove

 

You don't need to be suffering severe bodily harm - You need to have a legitimate fear for your physical well being or life. It's obvious that she did.

I love how you guys try to spin this by misinterpreting the law. =]

Actually it is obvious that she was NOT in fear for her life or really understands weapons. No offense meant here. If you pull a weapon you should have already decided to kill before doing so. If you are firing warning shots then you are obviously not in fear for your life. I am aware that most people are not aware of that and would like to change that but sorry reality does not change with people's beliefs.

Originally posted by Elliot
I had not heard of this story previously and neither have I read deeply into it but, I thought your vice pres. Mr Biden was not so long ago saying that people were to fire warning shots at their potential attackers?

Yes Vice-President Biden is a idiot. Firing warning shots is against the law. Even worse he said to fire two shots from a double barroled shotgun thereby disarming yourself.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


You do realize the same prosecutor in charge of going after Zimmerman was in charge of this, Angela Corey. She clearly thought Zimmerman was guilty, but even she thinks drawing comparisons between these cases is ridiculous.

thegrio.com...:angela-corey-4x3-jpg

And kudos to Boncho for researching and posting the facts behind this case. I noticed those upset about this case have abstained from responding to you, probably because they aren't really interested in seeing the truth.

Originally posted by Fromabove

In order for the law to apply as it did with George Zimmerman, it would have to be in self defense. Was she suffering severe bodily harm at the time she was shooting at her husband? Could a reasonable person say that she was in fear for her life ?

And that's why she goes to jail and Zimmerman goes home.

so if someone comes to attack me. I have to wait until they have actually started hurting me before I can do anything? Like its whoever makes the first move is in the wrong? No freakin way! If i feel like im about to be in danger or someone is about to attack me I will act pre-emptively

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo


No, you have to have a reasonable fear for your life. You don't leave the scene, then come back with a weapon if you are being reasonable, scared or not.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Please read the source before commenting. Thanks!

After reading the comments that people are making about her case, its clear that any "stand your ground" situation doesnt apply here.

SHE was arrested for a previous domestic violence assault, not him. Thirdly, SHE left the scene, acquired a weapon, returned to the scene and fired shots WITH HER CHILDREN PRESENT.
I am certain of one thing....NO ONE who fears someone goes to a safe place and returns !!

Once she left the house to go to her car, that law no longer applied to the situation. By returning to the house, she showed she was not in fear, so shooting at her husband is attempted murder.

These important details were missing from the news story.

CBS has materially altered and manipulated this story into something it isn't.

Isn't funny how the event has a different look when all the info is looked at and not just the bit and pieces the media like to sell the public?

reply to post by boncho


I'm not even defending her in entirety, she shouldn't have been there apparently. However once there I think she did come under threat, she tried to leave and couldn't so she got her gun and fired a warning shot. No one was even hurt in the scenario. 20 years in prison. Then we have that other case from the link I put up.

On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon Florida, got out of bed to get a drink and found Walter Conley, 32, having sex his wife, Johanna Lynn Flores, 41, in the living room. He immediately went back into his bedroom, grabbed his gun and shot Conley three times. Conley died. Wald claims that he thought Conley was a stranger who had broken in and was raping his wife – despite the fact that Conley lived next door, had been his wife’s roommate and lover, and had his wife’s name tattooed onto his neck and arm. During a 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Wald if the man he shot was dead, Wald responded, “I hope so!” Wald never used the word rape in later reports to police, opting instead for “fornicate.” And while the fact that the two were lovers doesn’t imply consent, Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening. They say that Wald, who suffers from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage. Flores admits that she and Conley had sex regularly before and after her marriage to Wald. While testifying, Wald explained that his erectile dysfunction and his wife’s reluctance to have sex with him made them compatible: “In fact, she would joke a lot with me … that we were a perfect couple… She didn’t want to do it, and I couldn’t do it.” On May 30, after deliberating for two hours, a jury found Wald not guilty. After the verdict was announced, Wald continued to show no remorse: “If the same thing happened again, I would do the same thing.”

Acquitted.

Then of course we have the Zimmerman case, also acquitted, even though he caused the whole thing. I get why the jury had to acquit, and maybe the jury's in the other cases had no choice but to come to the verdicts they did as well. So there seems to be a major problem with Florida law where such radical inconsistencies are common place. Whatever the reasons behind it, racial, class or just simply horrible incompetence, it needs to be addressed.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by boncho

 

I'm not even defending her in entirety, she shouldn't have been there apparently. However once there I think she did come under threat, she tried to leave and couldn't so she got her gun and fired a warning shot. No one was even hurt in the scenario. 20 years in prison. Then we have that other case from the link I put up.

On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon Florida, got out of bed to get a drink and found Walter Conley, 32, having sex his wife, Johanna Lynn Flores, 41, in the living room. He immediately went back into his bedroom, grabbed his gun and shot Conley three times. Conley died. Wald claims that he thought Conley was a stranger who had broken in and was raping his wife – despite the fact that Conley lived next door, had been his wife’s roommate and lover, and had his wife’s name tattooed onto his neck and arm. During a 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Wald if the man he shot was dead, Wald responded, “I hope so!” Wald never used the word rape in later reports to police, opting instead for “fornicate.” And while the fact that the two were lovers doesn’t imply consent, Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening. They say that Wald, who suffers from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage. Flores admits that she and Conley had sex regularly before and after her marriage to Wald. While testifying, Wald explained that his erectile dysfunction and his wife’s reluctance to have sex with him made them compatible: “In fact, she would joke a lot with me … that we were a perfect couple… She didn’t want to do it, and I couldn’t do it.” On May 30, after deliberating for two hours, a jury found Wald not guilty. After the verdict was announced, Wald continued to show no remorse: “If the same thing happened again, I would do the same thing.”

Acquitted.

Then of course we have the Zimmerman case, also acquitted, even though he caused the whole thing. I get why the jury had to acquit, and maybe the jury's in the other cases had no choice but to come to the verdicts they did as well. So there seems to be a major problem with Florida law where such radical inconsistencies are common place. Whatever the reasons behind it, racial, class or just simply horrible incompetence, it needs to be addressed.

Holy crap, someone who gets it. I think this thread can be deleted now.

Nice title, OP. Misleading much? You have to do your homework BEFORE posting on ATS.

You should know better.

If you look at the history, you can see that hundreds of people that shot warning shots got arrested. I believe there was a few threads on this case too long ago...

Yes the 20 years is absurd, but if you're gonna have a gun, make sure you know how to use it/ what to do with it when the law is around.

Well unfortunately if your story is not publicized and have mindless zombies spewing money for your cause you will have no support and get the full extent to the law. Simple really if you have no money the justice system can do nothing for you.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus


So I guess the moral of the story is that if you're going to fire a gun, make sure you kill anyone that might be nearby and then claim self-defense.

How the hell does this make sense to any thinking individual?

That is the line of thinking taught in CCW trainings. Shoot to kill or else you are very likely to be liable.

Seems kinda harsh, it does say she is a mom so my thinking is that she got so much time because of the possible danger that she put her child in.

She took out a gun in her home without the intent to kill for her or her childs life but to fire warning shots, she had no specific target and in her act of just shooting to shoot she possibly endangered her child's life . Can't say I don't understand wanting to scare off the scumbag who was abusing her but it doesn't sound as if her life was in imminent danger or she would have shot pointblank or went out the backdoor as they stated a person fearing for their life would have.

I don't have all the facts but that's my guess. 20 years is very harsh but jeez guns aren't toys they are tools meant to be used not waved around and fired as if one is in a cowboy cartoon.

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo

Originally posted by Fromabove

In order for the law to apply as it did with George Zimmerman, it would have to be in self defense. Was she suffering severe bodily harm at the time she was shooting at her husband? Could a reasonable person say that she was in fear for her life ?

And that's why she goes to jail and Zimmerman goes home.

so if someone comes to attack me. I have to wait until they have actually started hurting me before I can do anything? Like its whoever makes the first move is in the wrong? No freakin way! If i feel like im about to be in danger or someone is about to attack me I will act pre-emptively

edit on 15-7-2013 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)

With this rationalization you are saying the ___hole abusing boyfriend would have been allowed to shoot her that day. Take into account she was charged 4 months prior for attacking him and the judge told her to stay away from him as she was on bail for assaulting him.



I am not ignoring the fact that he abused her before she was charged with assaulting him. But you are saying they both had the right to kill each other, and luckily for both their sake, and the sake of the children present, the law does not allow that.

reply to post by brandiwine14

Seems kinda harsh, it does say she is a mom so my thinking is that she got so much time because of the possible danger that she put her child in.

I actually misread initially too, although I believe I corrected myself, it was her stepchildren in the room when she fired. Rico Gray's kids. She has a child with Gray but it is an infant.

She fired the gun at Gray (head level) and his two sons were in the room. She claims it was a warning shot, yet, the bullet went through the wall about ten inches from the height of his head, and then ricocheted into the ceiling. It could have just as easily ricocheted into his face.

That is not a warning shot.

A warning shot is fired in the opposite direction of a person, or into the air. If you are firing directly at someone, but inches off, you may as well shoot them because a ricochet can easily kill someone.

Early on you learn in gun safety... firing line and ricochets. And there is a reason indoor handgun shooters wear safety glasses. Especially shooting silhouettes. Metal target, metal in walls (wiring, etc.)... same thing.

She took out a gun in her home without the intent to kill for her or her childs life but to fire warning shots, she had no specific target and in her act of just shooting to shoot she possibly endangered her child's life .

As I said before, his kids, and I believe his home. The prosecutor said she violated judges orders by showing up there. And "no specific target" might be an argument if she fired directly in the air, but she fired into the wall, hit the wall between the kitchen and the living room, aimed inches above his head.

It hit the ceiling after on ricochet.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Holy crap, someone who gets it. I think this thread can be deleted now.

Individual cases have their own merit. One thing about law people should really look into is Mens Rea. The intent, aka: Criminal Intent, to perpetrate a crime.

Zimmerman called police, was in pursuit but stopped pursuing when the dispatcher told him to. He was arranging to meet up with police (not Martin) but it was Martin (who had already reached his destination), who went back to confront Zimmerman.

Why do so many people overlook the facts of the Zimmerman case?

Zimmerman Acquitted.



Alexander, was on bail and on charges for assaulting Rico Gray, her estranged ex. Went to his place against judge orders, confronted him, after the confrontation went to her car, retrieved her pistol, said "I got something for you" and then fired. Part of this was overheard on the 911 call, just as it was in the Zimmerman case.

And again, we have someone going back to a situation, like Martin did. But in this case, the aggressor was the person trying to use the stand your ground defence.

Alexander Convicted.




In the other case, the man shoots his wife's lover. Personally, if he believed she was being raped, in the dark about a willful relationship between his wife and the deceased, Mens Rea might not be evident. If he didn't intend a criminal action, the jury found him innocent of murder.

I don't know that much about the case. I do know under what I have heard about it, I personally think the wife is responsible more so than the husband.

There are far too many woman who cheat on their husbands and cry rape, or act like they were coerced somehow. Just admit you don't love the guy anymore! Or that you like stepping outside the marriage!

Dear lord. That goes for men too, anyone... Tell your loved one's you have something on the side, so they aren't going around making asses of themselves or killing people.

Here is the 911 call, Rico Gray repeatedly says things like, "She was shooting at me and my sons." or "She took the gun and aimed at me."

Link to soundcloud 911 call

"Me and my kids just ran out of the house."


And:

To his kids he says, "It's gonna be alright man."



"She said 'she's sick of this #' and proceeded to the garage and came back, got a gun out of the glovebox, and came back in front of me and my kids and shot"

Portion is paraphrased.

Bolded is direct wording.

Below are pictures of the bullet hole. Keep in mind Gray is tall, I read reports that are putting Rico Gray from 5'9" to 6'0"

Personally, if someone shot that close over my head I would not consider it a warning shot. In his 911 call, he states that she owns a 9mm and a .45, and for the inexperienced shooter, both have sufficent recoil. She could have been aiming dead on, but fired high merely because of recoil.

And if she was an experienced shooter, she would know that a warning shot shouldn't be anywhere near his direction, because a ricochet could easily kill him.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


20 years for warning shots is a little harsh. I'd imagine that anyone would at least concede that.That said, 20 years for firing a gun is pretty mandatory under Florida law unless you had a really good reason for firing the gun. It comes down to ignorance on the part of the unfortunate lady here. Any Floridian should at least be aware of 10-20-life. They should know that when they fire a gun, assuming that they aren't at a gun range, it needs to be in self defense not to scare someone.

They offered her a plea deal(3 years), she declined, and they curb stomped her with the maximum sentence for declining. This is the typical way prosecutors deal with people that decline plea offers.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


The moral to this story may be that the lady was black