TexasCHLforum.com

drjoker wrote:

EEllis wrote:

drjoker wrote:
A DEADLY weapon should only be used if you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE. If you fire a warning shot then you're not fearing for your life because if you life was in danger, you'd be shooting to stop the threat.

If you can argue that you are allowed to use deadly force then you can hardly argue that a warning shot is illegal in the same circumstance.

Well, you don't have to take my word for it, but I invite you to look at the result of this warning shot:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... ing-shots/

I invite you to read the article.

If anything, this is a good argument against mandatory minimum sentences.

And, lookie here, guess who prosecuted the case?

drjoker wrote:

EEllis wrote:

drjoker wrote:
A DEADLY weapon should only be used if you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE. If you fire a warning shot then you're not fearing for your life because if you life was in danger, you'd be shooting to stop the threat.

If you can argue that you are allowed to use deadly force then you can hardly argue that a warning shot is illegal in the same circumstance.

Well, you don't have to take my word for it, but I invite you to look at the result of this warning shot:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... ing-shots/

But she couldn't make the argument that she could fire in self defense either. That's my point. If you can shoot someone you can fire a warning shot otherwise you can't.

Texas Penal code Chapter 9 wrote:Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Wouldn't a "warning shot" fall into this category and thus be legal?

Since we are responsible for every bullet that leaves our gun, in which direction could you guarantee a safe firing of a warning shot?

EEllis wrote:

drjoker wrote:

EEllis wrote:

drjoker wrote:
A DEADLY weapon should only be used if you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE. If you fire a warning shot then you're not fearing for your life because if you life was in danger, you'd be shooting to stop the threat.

If you can argue that you are allowed to use deadly force then you can hardly argue that a warning shot is illegal in the same circumstance.

Well, you don't have to take my word for it, but I invite you to look at the result of this warning shot:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... ing-shots/

But she couldn't make the argument that she could fire in self defense either. That's my point. If you can shoot someone you can fire a warning shot otherwise you can't.

Or you could "miss", but you can't just shoot at somebody to scare them. Ever. I agree with that.

Yes the story of the woman above, has been used by the Trayvon folks to show the criminal justice system is racist in Florida.

The point the prosecution made was that if she could go in the garage and get a gun out of her glove compartment, she could also have just left to safety.

Returning back into the house with a gun, is not standing your ground. However, I was confused as to whether she had a restraining order against him. If there was, it would seem she was still standing her ground, since her husband was not suppose to be in the house. It also sounded like she fired the gun in the direction of the children and husband not just the husband.

In hindsight, probably taking the three years offered would have been a good deal considering the jury only took 15 minutes to convict her.

The two cops in Pensacola fired 16 warning shots before plugging the guy who lunged at them from his car getting a cigarette, and they are on administrative leave.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Texas Penal code Chapter 9 wrote:Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Wouldn't a "warning shot" fall into this category and thus be legal?

No it would not. The law says showing a gun may be use of FORCE under some circumstances but we know from the rest of the chapter that firing a gun bumps up to use of DEADLY FORCE.

We also know that firing a warning shot is reckless and so if somebody dies from the warning shot that's manslaughter.

philip964 wrote:Yes the story of the woman above, has been used by the Trayvon folks to show the criminal justice system is racist in Florida.

The point the prosecution made was that if she could go in the garage and get a gun out of her glove compartment, she could also have just left to safety.

Returning back into the house with a gun, is not standing your ground. However, I was confused as to whether she had a restraining order against him. If there was, it would seem she was still standing her ground, since her husband was not suppose to be in the house. It also sounded like she fired the gun in the direction of the children and husband not just the husband.

In hindsight, probably taking the three years offered would have been a good deal considering the jury only took 15 minutes to convict her.

She did, I believe, have a RO at some point in time but He lived at the house not her. She was living elsewhere at the time. Regardless it wasn't a home invasion situation they had an argument she got mad and then went and got her gun so syg never comes into play if you cannot ever show need.

She said she did not believe she did anything wrong.

(the lady in Florida who got 20 years for firing a warning shot) Thinking she did no wrong, she opted to try the case in court instead of taking the lenient plea bargain of 3 years.

That's a common thread of those in prison. People don't understand that the law isn't about what's right or wrong but what's legal and illegal. Even her abusive husband thinks that she's right and tried to change his story in court to help her but to no avail because they had taken a deposition from him earlier. You see, if they had an argument and she decided during the course of the argument that he was becoming a danger to her and her children, which caused her to fear for her children's lives. This caused her to get her rifle from the car and carry it in a non-threatening way and ask her husband nicely to relinquish the kids so that she could take them away from the abusive husband. However, he lunged at her, causing her to fire a shot to stop the threat. This missed shot stopped his abusive attack, allowing her to escape to safety with her children.

If she and her husband would've shut up until after they had spoken with counsel, the exact same sequence of events told like this with her husband as supporting witness to the event, then this would've been a non-issue and she would've walked. However, she had to blab her big mouth and describe the exact same sequence of events with a different wording using the words "warning shot" that got her thrown in jail for 20 years. All parties involved with at least half a brain knew she was probably gonna be guilty if tried in court so they tried their best to let her off easy with 3 years. Nope, she stupidly even turned that down.

It's no accident that the majority of those in prison have an IQ of less than 80 while the majority of self-made billionaires have an IQ of over 120.

Since you don't believe me, that's fine. When you get in a scrape and fire a shot, I dare you to say the magic phrase, "I fired a warning shot." I double dog dare you. Tell you what, if you say this and DON'T land in jail, I will pay all your legal expenses. The fact of the matter is, if you REALLY feared for your life, then that was NOT a warning shot but a shot that you fired to stop the threat. It doesn't matter what you were aiming at (the ground, COM, etc.) as long as no innocents were hurt and the threat was stopped. However, if you fired a WARNING SHOT then this legally means prima facia that you did NOT fear for your life. Capice?

Thread closed. I will not waste any more time explaining this. If any of you STILL do not belive me then perhaps you will never understand it, not even if you're sitting in jail. The prisons are full of guys and gals who, "didn't do nothin."