Mother charged for firing warning shot when daughter is being attacked.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I wonder if she was afraid to shoot to kill? Meaning - a warning shot seems like the lesser of the two crimes. If I were in that situation - lets say a remote location - no one for miles, no cell phone - I know it would cross my mind, even if for a split second. Will I go to prison if I kill this *%#*ard?

If your in need of a weapon your not thinking this but it sounds to me like she hesitated, which is probably why she fired the warning shot. As someone else pointed out - not serious enough to shoot to kill is how the law might interpret it.

But...what if she had killed someone? Is that self defense - even if you have a car and can escape. Or do you need to let them physically attack you for awhile first. Not meant to be a stupid question - seriously wondering how the law would view it. No defensive wounds, maybe they weren't a true threat.




posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

thisguyrighthere
Warning shots are always bad.

Besides the obvious danger of that bullet having to stop/land somewhere there is the fact that if you have time to fire a warning shot then you are not in fear of your life or the lives of others and that gun has no business being out of its holster.

If you're hand is on the gun then you honestly believe a threat to your life is coming. If that gun is out of its holster then the threat to your life is staring you in the face and you're about to send 230 grains into its chest.

Warning shots are a bad idea all around.





While I'm getting kind of tied of having this debate, I'm also getting kind of tired of seeing people parrot your same faulty opinion, every time the topic comes up. I think you're making several poor assumptions here.

First of all, perhaps you do but not everyone trusts their own opinions and judgments completely. (And IMO people who always trust that their own judgments are correct are an arrogant stain on this planet, and are more often wrong than right.) So some of us like to second-guess ourselves. Sometimes quite a lot. Especially when it comes to very serious, important matters.


Second, while there are people out there who would happily squeeze the trigger on another person just for looking at them wrong, there are some other people out there who would rather die, themselves, than to take another human life-- and every gradation in between. Therefore, there are plenty of people who would only take a human life at the point where it was 100% certain their own life was in danger. (See my previous point about being certain of one's own judgments. Then, see my next point...)



Third, I'm not sure how many times you've been in a situation where you were robbed / assualted / threatened / ganged up on / or otherwise potentially in fear for your life. I have been. Many times. I have been robbed, complete with assault and battery against my person, and I have had guns pulled on me, and knives held to my throat while overpowered (both in the context of robbery, and "intimidation.") And I assure you, sometimes it can be VERY difficult to determine what someone's true intentions are in a given situation, or what they may be capable of. If I pulled a gun and fired every time I was in such a situation, and had such fear, I'd already have a pretty "respectable" body count (and yet not even one of those cases being truly "necessary.")

When you are in a situation where you're being approached by someone, or a group of someone's and you don't know what their intentions are, you may not have time to wait until you're certain of their intentions. As you, yourself, sort of conceded to. So I can see the desire to brandish a weapon, as a way to say "look, I'm not easy prey" before it gets to the point where you have no time to spare, and you have to fire a weapon to save your life.

Likewise, I can easily envision situations where a perp might be willing to cross certain lines, so long as it's not too much of a risk to themselves. And judging that kind of thing can be as tough for the perp, as it is for you to judge whether the perp will go through with it. So maybe a "warning shot" is enogh to show them some "proof" and help make up their mind. Sure, it's not perfect, and there may be some dangers there... but I don't think it should be as prohibited as it is, in many situations.

And I also thought the blank-first-round idea was novel and interesting. Certainly wouldn't agree to it being mandated by law. But it could be worth considering, if you're the "warning shot" type.


I also disagree with the "center mass only" proponents. (Honestly, why do you guys follow scripted dogma like you're a religion or a cult? Seriously. I want to know this.) Yes, if it's truly, certainly life-or-death, accept no substitute. But if "hey I've got a gun," and brandishing don't seem enough, but you're reluctant to take a life, or create a potential legal nightmare for yourself? I see no harm in a good old fashioned leg shot, if you've got the aim to pull one off.... In fact, I'd say that's a nice happy medium between the "warning shot" and "shoot to kill."



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
It's different from state to state, but in general, if you feel that you (or others) are threatened with loss of life or great bodily harm, you have the right to defend yourself (or others) with deadly force. You do not have to be attacked first. The rule of thumb is: Would a reasonable person feel their life was in danger if they were in that situation?

It can get very difficult to determine if a shooting is justified simply because we are dealing with feelings instead of facts. For instance, lets say someone is getting right in your face, screaming that they are going to kill you, but they haven't touched you or brandished a weapon. Can you legally shoot them? No. They have conveyed a threat, but they have not displayed the means to carry it out. Now, lets say that they have a gun, or a knife, or a tire iron in their hand. Can you legally shoot them? Maybe. If you are legitimately afraid for your life, than yes, you can legally defend yourself with deadly force. Lets move them 50 yards away and give them a baseball bat or a knife. Can you legally shoot them? No. They have still made the threat, and now they have the ability to carry it out with a weapon, but you can not reasonably be afraid for your life from a baseball bat at 50 yards. Now lets say this confrontation happens near their car. And in addition to screaming about killing you they say they are going to get their gun and turn to walk back to their car. Can you legally shoot them in the back? Yes, if you believe that your life is in danger if they get to their car.

The best way to deal with these situations is to avoid them. Identify, avoid, deescalate. If you are going to carry a firearm, you MUST be willing to take a life if it is warranted. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, carry pepper spray or a stun gun, but please do not carry a firearm as you will just end up arming a criminal.
edit on 24-10-2013 by Doc Gator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Gator
 


That helps. I actually don't routinely carry a firearm on me for that reason. I simply don't have enough expeience to know my judgement would be accurate; if I would panic or be cool headed - if I would second guess or lose courage. I "think" I would be level headed, (thats my coping style in other situations I have survived), but I've never killed anyone and know I probably would not shoot to kill unless in a remote spot under threat of life where there was clearly no other option. When trained to use one I was told what you said, carry pepper spray if you don't believe you can use it for its intended purpose (and know how to use the pepper spray - I've only praciced but have heard of people having it and then spraying themselves when "needing" it - practice with any self defense is a good thing). The one thing I think is across the board legal - if someone enters your home your good to shoot to kill. Outside of the home it gets more iffy, and there is too much subjectivity to it.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 




....At this stage I am more concerned about the whereabouts of the daughter. The police did not arrest any of the 10 guys. They arrested the daughter's protector; the daughter is missing.. If the daughter is harmed I would hope a lawyer could go after the cops for dereliction of duty and not taking all the situation into a consideration before the arrest of the mom and the daughters protector.


My thought too. If the daughter is injured, never turns up or turns up dead, the police and the town need to be taken to court as accomplices before the fact.

No matter WHAT mom did the Daughter was punched. That is assault. Plus why in hades did not an officer escort her to grandma's? There were ten thugs involved.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 





very one leaving alive or without serious injury seem to be an unacceptable outcome. Someone must die or go to jail.


If you are the police then yes.

The cops were called and were too dumb or too lazy to deal with the actual situation and therefore took the easy way out.

Now the girl who was punched is missing AND the cops did nothing to apprehend her assailant(s).

I hope the Mom gets a really good lawyer and a smart judge who reams the cops involved a new one.

Oh boy, I bet the ACLU would really like this one, esp if the daughter doesn't show back up soon.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 





I wonder if she was afraid to shoot to kill? Meaning - a warning shot seems like the lesser of the two crimes...


Good grief

She is a woman not a soldier or hunter. She probably never killed anything bigger than a cockroach before in her life. I would not expect her to try and kill someone. In her position I would do the same. Scare the pants off the kids and hope like heck it works.

No civilized human wants a child's blood on their hands.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
She should have just shot one of them in the balls, what is the point in being able to carry a weapon if you can't defend yourself, I would have shot all 10 of them whilst they were running for there sorry little lives, just try messing with me or my family when I got a gun in my hands.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 



There is one aspect of this that we are all missing.

In a court of law you can not use 'Hear Say' evidence. Without the Daughter to back up Mom with bruises and her testimony the situation becomes entirely different.

There are at least two groups who are aided by the daughter's permanent disappearance.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
It didn't say the the daughter didn't talk to police so they could have first hand from both women.




In a court of law you can not use 'Hear Say' evidence. Without the Daughter to back up Mom with bruises and her testimony the situation becomes entirely different.


Her account is not hearsay. It may not be proven though.
edit on 10/24/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
p.washingtontimes.com... well i blame Biden for telling people this was not only a good idea but legal,warning shots are not legal in any jurisdiction in the usa to my knowledge,cops cant do them civilians cant do them(the military gets to though) and even if it were not illegal its generally frowned upon as the only reason your supposed to draw your weapon is to remove a threat to life or imminent bodily harm,firing a warning shot is tantamount to admitting while you were scared you were not in fear of your life as if you were in fear of your life you would have shot some one not into the air like an idiot

newyork.cbslocal.com... note this guys family was threatened and yet he chose to fire into the ground and thus broke the law warning shots are horrible from a self defense stand point and to those that would say "well i didnt wanna kill any one" well if you dont some day want to be forced to shoot some one (possibly killing them) you have no business having a gun as that hesitation could and often does end up in the person who hesitated being killed with their own gun.and as always the general rule of thumb for ccw holders is dont draw unless your gonna use it and dont flash it off to try to de-escalate a situation as that too can and will be used against you in a court of law,sure no one wants to shoot some one but by doing these things you often either make your self defense claims less valid(lawyers and whatnot) or end up in jail.as far as i know the only group of law enforcement that even gets to do warning shots is coast gaurd(under dhs umbrella i think) and that is when they are interdicting boats smuggling on the water.pretty sure the navy and military can do warning shots but not positive.

full-contact.military.com...

Here’s the impor­tant les­son you must understand… Fir­ing a “warn­ing shot” — even if the bul­let never hits any­thing or any­one — may actu­ally be con­sid­ered “ille­gal” by your local law enforce­ment and court prosecutors. Think about it… How many acci­den­tal mur­ders have hap­pened because of “stray bullets”? Lots!


The ONLY time you should fire your weapon is in self defense when you feel your life is in danger. The “warn­ing shot” myth that so many peo­ple think is ok, could be that one wrong move you make that could land you in prison for the rest of your life.

www.defensivecarry.com...
www.avvo.com...
en.wikipedia.org... legal for military but shorter link then i expected with nothing on civilian warning shots
www.theblaze.com... rning-shot-at-would-be-intruder/

so while i feel for the mother and the others mentioned in the links its a very common "myth" people think they can legally fire warning shots when in fact its almost always illegal and will get you arrested,some get charges reduced or dropped entirely but only after paying lawyers a good amount of money to make it happen so in the grand scheme of things if you are in fear enough to draw your weapon you should be prepared to eliminate the threat not fire into the air or risk skipping rounds across the ground

www.weeklystandard.com...

But listening to Biden's advice could result in breaking the law. "Tom Shellenberger, a lawyer who serves as a spokesman for the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association, told U.S. News that Biden's security tip was 'the worst type of advice,'" reports U.S. News. "I am a member of the Delaware Bar, as is Vice President Biden," noted Shellenberger. "There are a number of statutory restrictions that could be violated by shooting a shotgun 'off the porch.'" In addition to felony charges, Shellenberger cited the "Discharge of a firearm within 15 yards of a road (7 Del.C. § 719), a misdemeanor," and "Violation of the residential dwelling safety zone as set forth in 7 Del.C. § 723, also a misdemeanor." Listening to Biden's advice would also defy common sense.

www.usconcealedcarry.com... another example of how if you fire warning shots and then have to use self defense and actually shoot them can come back to bite you too
but further clarifies the greay area this inhabits and how it can and often does lead to arrest and while i wont quote it it contains several supreme court take on the matter for a few cases
few more links
www.stevemunden.com...
gunwiki.wordpress.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

crimvelvet
reply to post by Dianec
 





I wonder if she was afraid to shoot to kill? Meaning - a warning shot seems like the lesser of the two crimes...


Good grief

She is a woman not a soldier or hunter. She probably never killed anything bigger than a cockroach before in her life. I would not expect her to try and kill someone. In her position I would do the same. Scare the pants off the kids and hope like heck it works.

No civilized human wants a child's blood on their hands.


Then she should not have a gun. It's that simple. That is what training tells you and from what I've heard from others it is always substantiated. Firing warning shots is illegal. Know your laws, know how to use your gun, know when to use your gun - or don't have it with you. You don't have to be a soldier to have that knowledge and anyone can go out and practice at the shooting range and take courses in gun safety and knowhow.

What angers me are people who go buy a gun and take no responsibility for learning the mental and physical rigors of owning that. I am not saying she didn't have training but rather am wondering what her mentality about it was. I wouldn't personally pack a gun with me unless I was prepared in my mind for the possibility of using it (a remote place for me personally). I know my limits - I've been trained well enough to know you must shoot to kill, and am insightful enough to know this isn't something I could do in situations where other resources are available. If she does not have the mentality and confidence to use it as allowed by law she should not be packing it. I'm not sure but it appears she didn't.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 





Her account is not hearsay. It may not be proven though.


Yes it is. Even a written statement is not enough. The person has to be there IN THE FLESH so he can be cross examined or the judge can toss it out. (Been their done that and it is a royal pain.)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

crimvelvet
reply to post by roadgravel
 





Her account is not hearsay. It may not be proven though.


Yes it is. Even a written statement is not enough. The person has to be there IN THE FLESH so he can be cross examined or the judge can toss it out. (Been their done that and it is a royal pain.)


Are we talking about the same incident. She was there, arrested for the warning shot. Her daughter was grabbed by a kid which is why she did it. Her words are first hand of the incident.

edit:


A group of about 10 boys approached them in the parking lot of their apartment complex. One boy began to swear and insult Ms. Gaither and her daughter, who stood up to the boy.

“The two were face to face,” Ms. Gaither said. “He grabs her shirt, she goes to push him off her.”

Ms. Gaither said she realized she’d be putting the both of them at risk if she jumped into the fray.


So the mother saw the boy grab her daughter which caused her fear.

edit:

But the punch part earlier would be hearsay but there was the additional assault.

edit on 10/24/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/24/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 





...Then she should not have a gun. It's that simple. That is what training tells you and from what I've heard from others it is always substantiated. Firing warning shots is illegal. Know your laws...


I understand where you are coming from. However Mom was living in a rather bad neighborhood. That says she did not have much money. I very much doubt she had the money or time for taking a class on gun safety. She probably only bought one because she felt she had to.

As far as 'Know your laws'... You have to be kidding. On June 14, 2011 Federal Register had 34,844 pages and that was only for that year. In 2010, the register totaled 81,405 pages. And that is just the FEDERAL regulations! Even lawyers don't know the laws. That is why they specialize. I realize you are talking about the gun laws but again how in heck would she have a clue.

I have tried to research some laws and it is a real headache because you get one liners attached to a completely different subject. If you ask five different lawyers you get five different answers. I gave up and I have had a couple of college courses in law.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 


TV and the movies have done us a massive disservice when it comes to self defense. Contrary to popular belief, shooting someone with a handgun does not cause them to fly back 10 feet and burst into flames. As a matter of fact, over 80% of the people shot with handguns, even multiple times, do not die. It is very important to understand this because if you ever find yourself (God forbid) in a situation where you must defend you life, it is not going to be what TV and the movies have conditioned you to expect.

Every firearm instructor will tell you to shoot to kill, but that is not really your objective. Your objective is to stop them from doing whatever it was they were doing that caused you to point a gun at them in the first place. Shooting for vitals is the most effective way of doing that. Whether or not they die is not important at this point (it will be in the legal issues that follow), but the only thing that matters is that you stop them.

Lets assume that the bad guy seeing a potential victim that is willing and able to defend themselves has not caused them to change their plans and move on to a softer target and you find yourself in the horrible position of having to pull the trigger on another human being. There are two, and only two, ways to stop them from committing whatever felony they were planning.

1. Disrupt their central nervous system to the point where they are unable to control their limbs and are no longer a threat. This is accomplished by hitting the brain or the spinal column.

2. Poke holes in them until they leak enough to cause their blood pressure to drop to the point that they become unconscious. This can take dozens of shots, especially if they are chemically altered.

Fortunately, the vast majority of confrontations do not come to this. The majority of criminals will move on if you indicate that you intend to defend yourself.

Shooting another human being is ALWAYS an absolute last resort. It is reserved for when every other option has failed and you (or someone else) is about to be killed or seriously injured if you don't act. As I said in an earlier post, the best way to deal with this is to avoid it. Be aware of what is going on around you. Learn to identify dangers before they develop and get out of the area. Deescalate before it becomes a critical situation.

The only thing worse than living with having pulled the trigger on someone is not living because you didn't pull the trigger. Trust me, you don't want any part of either of those.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I hear you. I definitely don't know the laws. Basic ones yes but not even close with regard to more subjective ones or those from State to State. I look them up as needed though (if traveling as an example).

And how would she have a clue? About basic gun laws? Google it, ask the shop keeper your buying it from for a pamphlet, go to the library. I don't carry a weapon unless I'm all alone and in a remote area because I am aware of how little I know about killing someone outside of your home. It got her into trouble, and it did not help since I understand her daughter is missing. To say "how would she have a clue" along side having ownership of a deadly weapon is quite the statement (no intention of being rude with that). If you think about it - no one should own a deadly weapon if they don't have a clue.

I'm not saying what she did was wrong (her reaction is natural), but rather it didn't help her in the end. Had she had some knowledge of her rights with that gun (here is what you can pretty much do with it) maybe she would have chosen differently. I'm not sure - don't know her. I was fortunate to receive some training (for free). I shot it a lot and was told the basics. Maybe a tag should come with every gun that provides a disclaimer and some recommendations.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Gator
 


Thank you. Upon your mentioning the multiple shot thing I remembered the Marine who taught me - telling me to keep shooting until they have stopped. He did tell me to shoot to kill but I realized what he meant was don't hesitate or threaten - if need to pull it use it. I assumed a 38 would kill someone unless hit in the foot or something (I was taught to go for the chest). I didn't realize it may very well not even stop them, so good information. I assumed he told me to keep shooting incase I had missed the chest area. Maybe this is why people keep rifles as home protection - one shot would do it. But those have a kick so I end up on by back too - and that isn't good.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 





...And how would she have a clue? About basic gun laws? Google it, ask the shop keeper your buying it from for a pamphlet, go to the library. ....


Unfortunately many Americans are functionally illiterate not to mention the fact that 50% have an IQ below 100%. (Lord help us)

The government says 23% of the adult American population (40-44 million) is functionally illiterate.


A recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development states that upward of 60 percent of Americans ages 16-25 are 'functionally illiterate', meaning they can't, for example, fill out a detailed form or read a numerical table (like a time schedule). A recent Florida study shows at least 70 percent of recent high school graduates need remedial courses -- that is, basic reading and math -- when they enter community college. www.commondreams.org...


On top of that we have this: Last month, an 18-year-old Woodbridge student was found stabbed to death in a park slightly more than two miles from where the confrontation involving Stewart and her mother happened.

And in following that link:


...Four more teens have been arrested in connection with an attempted robbery gone wrong that led to the fatal stabbing of Virginia teen Kenny Joseph Diaz, authorities said.

The four arrested Wednesday were friends with Diaz, police said. Eight other people have also been charged in connection with what became a deadly confrontation between two feuding groups in a Washington, D.C. suburb.

Police say that Diaz, a varsity football player and student at Woodbridge High School, and his group planned to rob Diandra Janae Samuels, 19, in retaliation for a previous armed robbery against one of Diaz's friends.

Diaz's group -- including three of the four teens now charged -- went to Samuels' Woodbridge home Saturday afternoon, where they got into a confrontation with her and her friends.

The crowd dispersed when the situation escalated, but Diaz couldn't get away. Police said Samuels assaulted him and, with the help of friends, forced him into a car and drove him to a park where she stabbed him....
www.nbcwashington.com...



I think that may explain why she was carrying.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


That sounds like a neighborhood I lived in as a kid. I had a little party (aged 12). It got crashed and I was backed into the bathroom - basically told I was going to get my butt kicked. It was a racial thing for some reason (was friends with one girl - best friends - but she joined a gang or something judging by the people she was with). I hadn't seen her in a couple of weeks but when I did again she was a different girl. I was a weakling. The part I remember the best is how her eyes looked as she led this attack - ashamed; empathy - yet tough talk that did not match her expression. I never saw her again after that. I truly believe she felt bad. Peer pressure can do some nasty things to people.

Where there is a wide mix of races accompanied by poverty there seems to always be trouble with this tough guy stuff. If that many people are truly sitting at an IQ under 100 that only adds to the mix. Remember - IQ has little to do with education - it is ones capacity to learn that it mesures. What happened to create such a backslide on people's ability to learn? Motivation could play a role. I am going to have to get into the research databases on that as it's important to know why.

If I still lived in a neighborhood like that I would also have a gun. I think I (personally) would be more motivated than ever to learn how to use it though. Maybe with the situation she only had time to get one - and because they are not complicated to use assumed just point and shoot - allowed to have them what more could there be to it. When people are continually in survival mode there is little time for much more than that.

I know why she shot into the air - it's the lesser of two bad outcomes. Some of these gangs have more experience and would see this as a sign of inexperience so if not for legal reasons one could argue for protection there should be some free mini courses offered. Or low income ones. If each person was charged 5.00 for an hour on a Saturday morning someone could make a few dollars and also lend to peoples personal safety by building their competence in this area. I'm sure there are reasons that isn't done (litigious nation for one).





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join