It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Judge in this case is correct.
Her situation is not covered by SYG laws.
.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013...The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person
Originally posted by Golf66
Ironically, in Maryland every elected legislator, judge, DA and prosecutor in the State can carry a concealed weapon with no screening, no permit required nor any training verification.
Originally posted by Jaellma
If the Stand Your Ground law was more thorough and inclusive, it should have used some aspect of domestic violence laws as a subset of the SYG law. Why? It just makes sense. Domestic violence is violence and as such there needs to be an overarching law that dictates how and when to treat each possible aspect of it.
Originally posted by Jaellma
Not necessarily. She indicated it was a warning shot and that was corroborated by both her husband and her sons who witnessed it.
Originally posted by Jaellma
Please address these points:
1. The judge presiding over the Jacksonville case dismissed the defense's attempt to argue self-defense.
Originally posted by Jaellma
2. The dismissal of the self-defense claim was based on the judge's perception that the defendant had an opportunity to leave the situation before the shot was fired. [Which, according to the defendant, is not true since she felt she did not have an opportunity to leave due to her not having the keys to exit the garage and the only way out was to go back past her husband who reportedly had just threatened to kill her]
Originally posted by Jaellma
3. As you can see, there is quite a bit of ambiguity concerning the Stand Your Ground law, especially in Florida.
According to Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, section 2 is key,
.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013...The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person
The problem here is there was a previous restraining order against her husband so clearly the Stand Your Ground law should have been honored.
Its that action, the warning shot, that screwed her. In the eyes of the law, which is the standard being used, a gun constitutes the presence of a potential deadly force encounter. If a person is in that much fear, where they arm themselves with deadly force abilities, how can a warning shot be justified?
Originally posted by SyphonX
Originally posted by Golf66
Ironically, in Maryland every elected legislator, judge, DA and prosecutor in the State can carry a concealed weapon with no screening, no permit required nor any training verification.
Gee whiz, one wonders what's really going on here. They keep this up and they'll be needing to schedule for training courses really fast.
(To reiterate here, I'm not calling for violence on federal or state officials. It just seems to me, that the level of unfairness in law would cause violence and chaos unto itself on a larger scale, just as a matter of fact, but we're not just not seeing it, at all. It's bizarre.)
Originally posted by Unity_99
The LAW IS AN AS$??????
Originally posted by Unity_99
First of all, married or not, everyone has the right to self defense.
Originally posted by Unity_99
And many people do not kill, they would warn first. I would! I would never ever shoot to kill but show I meant business and do what she did.
Originally posted by Unity_99
That makes it 100% clear that the evil LUCIFERAN CREEPS PUNISHED HER FOR BEING LOVE AND LIGHT!
Originally posted by Unity_99
I hope there is a huge out cry and people get her out and those guys into the hot seat where they belong.edit on 2-5-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)
If you pull a weapon, you better be ready to shoot to kill. If you just pull it out, or fire a warning shot, you are not in imminent danger of losing your life.