• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case

I try to minimize the second guessing of juries. They were presented all the facts by both sides, they spent a not insignificant portion of their time going over those facts, deliberating, and thinking over their decision, and in the end it was unanimous. They obviously disagree with your assessment. I don't know why, but they did. Unless a compelling case is made for jury tampering or overt racism on the part of all jurors involved, I think we have to respect their verdict until the appeals process begins.

All the same, I think this raises strong doubts about mandatory sentencing.
 
Abraxas said:
I try to minimize the second guessing of juries. They were presented all the facts by both sides, they spent a not insignificant portion of their time going over those facts, deliberating, and thinking over their decision, and in the end it was unanimous. They obviously disagree with your assessment. I don't know why, but they did. Unless a compelling case is made for jury tampering or overt racism on the part of all jurors involved, I think we have to respect their verdict until the appeals process begins.

All the same, I think this raises strong doubts about mandatory sentencing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, unfortunately the problem appears that the judge's hands were tied with a ridiculous minimum sentence guideline.
 
This is what I call prosecutorial terrorism. Either plea guilty to something you didn't do, or we'll overcharge you and make an example out of you.
 
i'm not going to argue that the jury made the "right" decision. Based on the laws, they were 100% correct. THE BS part of this is the actual laws. . . just like doppel said, their hands are tied.
 
part of the problem might be:

She said she escaped and ran to the garage, intending to drive away. But, she said, she forgot her keys, so she picked up her gun and went back into the house. She said her husband threatened to kill her, so she fired one shot.
Click to expand...

Entering an area that requires you to take a gun with you to defend yourself against a known threat is not a good idea.

It seems that the truth of the case rests in what kind of threats her husband was making against her. The article is only giving her side of it. It seems likely that the husband would have been called to the stand and could have presented an entirely different view as to what happened.

Also, I have heard that firing warning shots is generally a very bad idea. The basis being that if you really believe yourself in imminent danger you are not going to be firing warning shots. Which gets back to what was her husband's side of things?
 
I do think the woman committed a crime here, because lets face it, this wasn't pure self defense. This wasn't a typical 'stand your ground' situation, which I would fully support the right of this woman to do. The real travesty here is the existence and application of minimum sentencing laws. Courts should have the ability to look at the merits of an individual case to determine an adequate punishment instead of some rigid structure imposed to be 'tough on crime'.
 
Hopefully the Governor of the State will wait, maybe six months, and issue a pardon. On one hand, I can't say the judge, jury, defense, or prosecution did anything wrong, and too inflexible mandatory sentencing guild lines, was risk the defendant took, 20 years is just plain wrong.

Its why I advocate that the Governor or the President are best posed to fix a gross miscarriage of justice.
 
Such a sentence is a crime against humanity.

Of course the Jury did something wrong, if they had any idea how long the sentence would be they could just as easily tell others to f' off and assert the Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The sheep just following orders allowed this to happen.

The Judge could also take a stand, but his pay check and his position - his self interest is too important to do what's right. The problem in this country is people do not stand up for one another against tyranny.
 
She obviously didn't fear for her life. After posting bond, she ignored a court order and went to the man's house, where she physically attacked him and was arrested again. They're both lowlife trash.

That said, mandatory minimum sentences are an abomination. 20 years is an insane sentence for this case.
 
Lemon law said:
Hopefully the Governor of the State will wait, maybe six months, and issue a pardon. On one hand, I can't say the judge, jury, defense, or prosecution did anything wrong, and too inflexible mandatory sentencing guild lines, was risk the defendant took, 20 years is just plain wrong.

Its why I advocate that the Governor or the President are best posed to fix a gross miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

Rosa Parks wouldn't have done anything wrong if she sat in the back of the bus that day.

Sometimes it is our god given duty to do something wrong.
 
Last edited:
Venix said:
She obviously didn't fear for her life. After posting bond, she ignored a court order and went to the man's house, where she physically attacked him and was arrested again. They're both lowlife trash.

That said, mandatory minimum sentences are an abomination. 20 years is an insane sentence for this case.
Click to expand...

Do you have any link for this.

It would pretty much put an end to any question of whether the sentence is right or not.

There is a pretty big difference between "I felt afraid for my life and fired a warning shot" and "I felt like shooting at a guy to teach him a "lesson" in the general direction of children".
 
Jaskalas said:
Such a sentence is a crime against humanity.

Of course the Jury did something wrong, if they had any idea how long the sentence would be they could just as easily tell others to f' off and assert the Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The sheep just following orders allowed this to happen.

The Judge could also take a stand, but his pay check and his position - his self interest is too important to do what's right. The problem in this country is people do not stand up for one another against tyranny.
Click to expand...

I have to agree.
 
Didn't see many details in the written art of that article. Was anyone actually Hurt in this situation?

Someone also mentioned she had a Court Order against her from coming into contact with her husband. If this is the case, then she certainly should face some kind of consequence, but 20 years is ridiculous.
 
Jaskalas said:
Rosa Parks wouldn't have done anything wrong if she sat in the back of the bus that day.

Sometimes it is our god given duty to do something wrong.
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong song Jaskalas, agreed Rosa Parks did nothing wrong in 1954 to sit in a bus after paying her fair, but she did not take along a gun or fire warning shots which would have been wrong tehn and wrong even today.

Rosa Parks did nothing wrong, and our defendant did. But still we both agree 20 Years is way way way too excessive for what she did.

How to fix that miscarriage of justice should be our concern.
 
Jaskalas said:
Such a sentence is a crime against humanity.

Of course the Jury did something wrong, if they had any idea how long the sentence would be they could just as easily tell others to f' off and assert the Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The sheep just following orders allowed this to happen.

The Judge could also take a stand, but his pay check and his position - his self interest is too important to do what's right. The problem in this country is people do not stand up for one another against tyranny.
Click to expand...

How about the ridiculous "mandatory minimum" sentencing laws? If a judge and jury believes someone broke the law, the idiot lawmakers basically tie their hands and force them to either let a guilty person off scot free or dramatically over-punish them. What kind of boneheaded idea is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top