Interesting...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/0...es-senate.html
Printable View
Interesting...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/0...es-senate.html
That is quite interesting. I don't think I want people getting the message that "warning shots" are okay.
The article talks about the woman getting 20 years for her warning shot at her husband. Don't know the full story on that one, but 20 years is extreme IMO.
Domestic argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
She went to the garage to her car and got her pistol (he did not follow)
Went BACK into the house
Argument continued
She fired "warning shot"
Oops
here's a decent synopsis of the case
http://mediatrackers.org/florida/201...ase-in-florida
I get that it is stupid, but 20 YEARS for a warning shot?Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
The real problem with this case is mandatory mins...
same BS as "zero tolerance" in schools..... no room for common sense.
Totally agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by clublights
Given that the bill doesn't seem to confer immunity to civil liability, I think the message to firearms owners should be: Shoot ONLY when necessary to stop a serious threat, and be aware that they are responsible for every bullet they fire, regardless of where that bullet comes to rest. Personally, I'm not going to assume that any attacker that I consider a "threat of serious bodily injury or death" will be neutralized by a "warning shot"
"Shots" aren't for "warning."
If I have to discharge my weapon, it is for one purpose only.