20yrs for warning shot.....

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by Mike P, May 11, 2012.


    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    If you fear for your life, shoot the attacker, not the innocent wall….

  2. Argyle64

    Argyle64 New Member

    OMG!!!! I'm sick and tired of all these people throwing the "race" card around. It's not about skin color!!! It's about right and wrong.
  3. My opinion about this particular situation is she should NOT be looking at 20yrs based on what is being reported to us. Would Fla rather she shot and killed her threat?:confused:
  4. Levelcross

    Levelcross New Member

    I agree from what was in the article. The whole truth of the trial may have a different aspect than the article did. It is just wrong a gang banger gets 5-10 year for a drive by shooting, and she gets 20 for shooting a wall.

    I hate that the race card had to be played again, and then the quick spin back to the Trevon shooting. Funny how this is depicted on both sides of the gun.
  5. dougster

    dougster New Member

    Don't call it a "warning shot". Just say you "missed".
  6. Tape

    Tape New Member


    BLCKWLF GrassHopper

    "It is just wrong a gang banger gets 5-10 year for a drive by shooting, and she gets 20 for shooting a wall."

  8. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    They had no choice. FL law requires a minimum of 20 years on an aggravated assault where a firearm is used.

    There's no 5-10 for a driveby in FL. It's a 20 year minimum. Now, if the State Attorney lets them plead down to a lesser charge, that's another matter.
  9. mikecu

    mikecu New Member

    Looks to me that they rolled the dice and crapped out.
    The DA said that she was offered a 3 year sentence prior to the trial.
    Even if she gets an appeal and gets acquitted, I think she will do more time than the pre-trial offer.

    Florida's 10-20-Life

    Pull a Gun - Mandatory 10 Years
    Pull the Trigger - Mandatory 20 Years
    Shoot Someone - 25 Years to Life (whether they live or die)

  10. odgreen

    odgreen Senior Member

    I read another version of this story that said the judge opted to carry out the sentence based on the fact that she came back to the house (after being in fear for her life). I don't have all the facts but it sounds like something fishy was going on there. Self-defense is a viable defense IF you don't come back to the place where the attack is occurring.
  11. Augi

    Augi New Member

    She may go back into the house in defense of her children but she did not assert that. How many times do you hear it said, "don't speak to the police without an attorney present. EVEN if you are innocent." I read in a book by Joel Shumaker, a Florida attorney, that police get 24 hours after a shooting incident before giving a statement, use the same rule of thumb! The police are not interested in your story except as it relates to charging YOU with a crime. They are NOT looking out for your best interests! There are sympathetic cops out there but not all are.
  12. sgtcowboyusmc

    sgtcowboyusmc New Member

    First off the Press is only putting out what they want you to hear and they want you to hear that this poor Black Woman is treated differently than the White/Mexican who killed the poor defenseless Black Boy.
    The prosecution used expert witnesses to prove (At Least to the Jury) that the "Warning Shot" wasn't a warning shot but a barley missed aimed shot. There was also testimony that where she shot put the 2 kids in danger plus the she re-entered the area to shoot him. Now I think any man who beats a woman deserves to be shot but do it by the rules!

    On another note the autopsy on Martin shows he had scraped up knuckles and no other injuries except for the bullet hole. The medical Report from Zimmerman's Dr the Day after the shooting shows Zimmerman had a broke nose and contusions and a possible fracture to the back of the skull. Plus two black eyes.