Florida woman in warning-shot case released

[luckytxn 2,265]

I read it online from a google search.

You got the story all wrong, buddy. Did you make that up all by yourself or what?

Edited November 30, 2013 by luckytxn

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I read it online from a google search.

Well, you must have picked up a link where someone else made up the circumstances of the incidents. Because what you presented here has little resemblance with what actually occurred.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Well, you must have picked up a link where someone else made up the circumstances of the incidents. Because what you presented here has little resemblance with what actually occurred.

Since when did we at VJ care about what actually occurred when we have a discussion?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Proof positive that guns make people stupid.

Absolutely incorrect, Pookster...

Proof positive that anyone with money and a clean record can own a gun. The stupidity part is already on the inside, has nothing to do with the gun.

Because what you presented here has little resemblance with what actually occurred.

Since when did we at VJ care about what actually occurred when we have a discussion?

PARTICULARLY the poster whom you are quoting, from what I have seen.

[Pooky 3,840]

Absolutely incorrect, Pookster...

Proof positive that anyone with money and a clean record can own a gun. The stupidity part is already on the inside, has nothing to do with the gun.

I disagree. If she doesn't have the gun, she doesn't go back inside. This would be the smart move.

Instead, she has the gun, so she goes back inside and uses it. This is the stupid move.

The gun made her stupid. QED.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I disagree. If she doesn't have the gun, she doesn't go back inside. This would be the smart move.

Instead, she has the gun, so she goes back inside and uses it. This is the stupid move.

The gun made her stupid. QED.

So having several guns, I should be really stupid. But I have shot at no one. QED^2.

Then again, all my guns are well trained. I have left an assault rifle in my driveway (supported on the bipod) for 12 hours one day, fully locked and loaded with 31 rounds, pointed at the neighbors house, and it never fired, not even once. Not at their dog, not at the neighbors mowing the yard, not even their windows. Well-trained, that one!

[Pooky 3,840]

So having several guns, I should be really stupid. But I have shot at no one. QED^2.

Then again, all my guns are well trained. I have left an assault rifle in my driveway (supported on the bipod) for 12 hours one day, fully locked and loaded with 31 rounds, pointed at the neighbors house, and it never fired, not even once. Not at their dog, not at the neighbors mowing the yard, not even their windows. Well-trained, that one!

I never said it makes everyone stupid, I said it makes people stupid. Where this woman is concerned, I think I have made a good case.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am not sure if "SYG" was a good defense, but I do not think that anyone that needs to defend themselves should go to prison. "SYG" is not always the way to go as it places a lot of burden on the defendant. This is why GZ's attorneys were smart enough never to make it an issue. Neither was it required in his case. A good old pure "self defense" is many times the better route.

Another reason to ALWAYS be armed. The defendant's problem in this case is she left the apartment, retrieved a gun from her car, came back and fired the "warning shot". It is "SYG" NOT, "leave, come back with a gun and SYG" Had she been armed at all times (as she should be) she could have fired 3-4 "warning shots" into the man's chest and walked! Warning shots are stupid. You cannot even POINT a gun at someone unless you have justification for the use of deadly force. If you have the justifcation for deadly force then the "warning shots" should be aimed for "center mass" Deadly force should, preferably, be deadly.

I am glad she got a new trial. She may end up convicted anyway, but I believe in a fair trial for everyone.

ALWAYS be armed. If you are ALWAYS armed it can also eliminate all sorts of claims from racism ("I only carry a gun in bad neighborhoods") to excessive force to "intent" to kill.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I disagree. If she doesn't have the gun, she doesn't go back inside. This would be the smart move.

Instead, she has the gun, so she goes back inside and uses it. This is the stupid move.

The gun made her stupid. QED.

Agreed.

Keep the gun on you at all times. Fire warning shots into the heart lung area of the assailiant

So having several guns, I should be really stupid. But I have shot at no one. QED^2.

Then again, all my guns are well trained. I have left an assault rifle in my driveway (supported on the bipod) for 12 hours one day, fully locked and loaded with 31 rounds, pointed at the neighbors house, and it never fired, not even once. Not at their dog, not at the neighbors mowing the yard, not even their windows. Well-trained, that one!

Point made.

The only loaded gun here is on my hip. Though I COULD leave a loaded gun on the kitchen table and the kids/grandkids/wife would spill things on it but it would never fire.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since when did we at VJ care about what actually occurred when we have a discussion?

touché

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Dead victims don't testify in court. Wounded ones do. Point a gun at someone and you need to shoot to kill. And back up your actions.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since when did we at VJ care about what actually occurred when we have a discussion?

Most importantly...

1. Try to avoid writing more than one sentence,

2. avoid the actual topic at all costs,

3, state that your opponent is wrong but offer no correct "information"

4. Post only when being paid with other people's money for doing something else, which no one really needs you to do because you can post on VJ and no one notices.

5. When all else fails....run!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is NOT fishing. No "shoot and release"

GZ walked because ...

1. He was carrying his gun when TM attacked him, he didn't have to leave and go get it from his truck. THAT would be stupid....AND murder.

2. He fired his warning shot into TMs heart, TM subsequently died.

3. GZ claims self defense does not testify.

4. The prosecution must then prove that GZ was NOT in fear of his life or serious injury. Right. What kind of moron ever thought there would be a conviction? You would have to be stupid enough to plan to call 911 for a stranger with a gun to get TM off you before he killed you and who would do THAT?

Dead victims don't testify in court. Wounded ones do. Point a gun at someone and you need to shoot to kill. And back up your actions.

In THIS case, the woman and man have an argument. The woman leaves the premises, gets a gun and comes back then fires a shot into the ceiling. This constitutes "deadly force" which she had no justification to use at that moment. Her "victim" is alive and well and can testify in court. She is a dumb@ss. She may have had reason for deadly force during the argument. She cannot claim SYG as she did NOT stand her ground but left. Had she shot the guy dead during the initial argument, she would have walked As the old saying goes "the things you see when you haven't a gun"

BUT let's make sure she gets a fair trial, I have no problem with that.

The key here is to always use enough gun and always have it with you.

[Karee 4,191]

In THIS case, the woman and man have an argument. The woman leaves the premises, gets a gun and comes back then fires a shot into the ceiling. This constitutes "deadly force" which she had no justification to use at that moment. Her "victim" is alive and well and can testify in court. She is a dumb@ss. She may have had reason for deadly force during the argument. She cannot claim SYG as she did NOT stand her ground but left. Had she shot the guy dead during the initial argument, she would have walked As the old saying goes "the things you see when you haven't a gun"

BUT let's make sure she gets a fair trial, I have no problem with that.

The key here is to always use enough gun and always have it with you.

Seems to me you're advocating that murderers go free. Kind of a "kill all the witnesses" argument.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Seems to me you're advocating that murderers go free. Kind of a "kill all the witnesses" argument.

No. I am suggesting everyone have competent representation. If her attorneys presented a SYG defense they are incompetent.

It is the state's burden to prove a claim of self defense is NOT valid. A person who defend's himself is not a "murderer" since he/she is not guilty of murder. Not all homicides are murder.

I am advocating that good guys be prepared to defend themselves from bad guys at all times since good guys never know when bad guys will threaten them and it is patently obvious that if you plan to call good guys with guns when you are threatened, they will arrive too late. We have no idea what occured prior to her leaving and returning with a gun. As I said, she MAY (you probably missed that word in my writing, you know what it means, right?) HAVE HAD justification for the use of deadly force during the initial argument but lost it when she chose to disengage and leave. Whether she regained the need for deadly force when she returned is yet to be determined. She had NO claim to SYG. That is certain and is also the reason she was convicted. The new defense will be different and we will find out if it is successful...after the trial.

Karee, I ALWAYS say exactly what I mean. "Killing all witnesses" would be advocating killing people who merely saw what happened but were not assailants themselves. I suggested no such thing. I do not think I am vague in what I advocate at all.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Gary and Alla