Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice in Florida: Marissa Alexander gets a new trial (354 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, if true, that's a really dumb law IMO (7+ / 0-)

    So it is not ok to try to avoid killing someone by warning them. Okaayyyyy. I totally disagree with that law and it should be changed. I would think that trying one's best to avoid death or injury if at all possible should be the first choice of any reasonable and responsible person. I thought the point of owning a gun was protection? If you can protect yourself by frightening off an attacker, why on earth would that not be the preferred course of action over killing them? Absurd.  

    But I take your word for it that this is not the current law. Sad. However, I would still suggest to consider removing your uprate on jim sandler's comment - he is a vile racist on his way to being banned, hopefully. See here:

    This guy should be HR'd into oblivion for this

    •  Lots of gun llaws are dumb (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright, elginblt, LilithGardener

      That is central to this case and many others.


      That a dumb law is on the book does not make it just. It simply means gun manufacturers and their poodle, the NRA, bought lawmakers and then had their way with them.

    •  CS - done, rec removed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CS in AZ, LilithGardener

      Thanks for the tip.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 04:18:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's the point of open carry. (0+ / 0-)

      people see you have the gun, and deal appropriately.

      •  Well that is equally dumb (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DarthMeow504, LilithGardener

        Not everyone can see your gun. What if someone is outside my window trying to break in? I cannot fire a warning shot to scare them off, or I will go to jail for 20 years. But I can point my gun at the window and shoot them in the chest and kill them and that is okey dokey.

        That is stupid and wrong. NO they should not be breaking in and if I HAD to kill them to protect myself then ok. Self defense, yes. But instant-death-penalty no matter what is going way too far.

        For the law to say you have to kill them, because it is illegal to warn them with a shot that does not inure anyone first, is just stupid.

        if I am standing there pointing a gun at someone who is threatening me in some way, saying "do not come any closer or I will shoot you" -- isn't that also a crime then? Even giving them a chance is now an assault with a deadly weapon! You have to just kill them or else! Good god, I cannot believe how stupid these mandatory-use-your-gun-to-kill laws are.

        •  no you mis-state the problem (0+ / 0-)

          if you see a person outside and fire a warning shot through the glass, it's criminal ADW, because you were not in reasonable fear of GBH.

          if you see a person outside and you fire a shot through the glass and kill them, it's murder because you weren't in reasonable fear of GBH.

          if you are outside and you see someone coming right at you
          and you fire a warning shot, and scare them off, it's assault because you obviously weren't in fear of GBH.

          if you are outside and you see someone coming right at you and you are REASONABLY in fear of GBH and fire a lethal shot it's self defense.

          these are 4 different tests.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site