(10-25-2013 08:10 AM)Paul M Wrote:  And I don't know why posters keep going on about celebratory shots into the air. Has nothing to do with this.

I get that since a shot up in the air, which is what the woman did, has to come back down sometime. Sometimes, like with that little boy in VA, that bullet that comes back down kills someone.

To establish a crime requires two elements--a criminal act and a criminal state of mind. Here the statute makes the act criminal, so that part is done and dusted. She would try to beat the state of mind element by establishing self-defense as an affirmative (defense has the burden of proof) defense. The elements that would be required generally would be something like 1) she had a reasonable fear for her life (or the life of another, or injury, or some other damage, that part varies by state) and 2) her actions were reasonable in that context. Because what goes up must come down, there is a reckless element to her conduct that could cause her a problem.

(10-24-2013 07:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't just fire your weapon into the air. She should be arrested; the lady is 100% in the wrong.

Disagree HOD..

What crime did she perform? Nobody was hit. She scared the bejeezers out of 10 young troublemaking boys.

If she had hit someone by accident, because of her firing in the air, then I'd say yes, you'd have a criminal activity (misdemeanor).

Firing a weapon is a crime, unless there is a reason for it. Fending people off doesn't count. If she was so scared she should have shot one of those idiots.

I don't think you get it man.

Pull out your phone, they'll grab it and throw it down. Scream for help, they'll silence you. Pull out a knife, they'll just take it from you. Pull out a gun and fire off a shot, they'll understand they f*cked with the wrong person. If an innocent person gets hurt, I'd place blame on the thugs who were threatening my life and MADE me pull out my gun.

What would you have done? Got on your knees and beg?

(10-25-2013 08:58 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't just fire your weapon into the air. She should be arrested; the lady is 100% in the wrong.

Disagree HOD..

What crime did she perform? Nobody was hit. She scared the bejeezers out of 10 young troublemaking boys.

If she had hit someone by accident, because of her firing in the air, then I'd say yes, you'd have a criminal activity (misdemeanor).

Firing a weapon is a crime, unless there is a reason for it. Fending people off doesn't count. If she was so scared she should have shot one of those idiots.

I don't think you get it man.

Pull out your phone, they'll grab it and throw it down. Scream for help, they'll silence you. Pull out a knife, they'll just take it from you. Pull out a gun and fire off a shot, they'll understand they f*cked with the wrong person. If an innocent person gets hurt, I'd place blame on the thugs who were threatening my life and MADE me pull out my gun.

What would you have done? Got on your knees and beg?

Actually, I get it quite well.

I've said what I would have done multiple times; I'd have shot the SOB.

While I understand the concept of "a warning shot", the laws have been written to say that this is not the proper use of a firearm.

The question of arrest isn't that big a deal. She should be able to describe/explain the situation and get a slap on the wrist at worst.

I understand the argument against it and we can have that discussion, but "getting arrested" isn't the same as getting charged much less getting convicted.

(10-25-2013 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To establish a crime requires two elements--a criminal act and a criminal state of mind. Here the statute makes the act criminal, so that part is done and dusted. She would try to beat the state of mind element by establishing self-defense as an affirmative (defense has the burden of proof) defense. The elements that would be required generally would be something like 1) she had a reasonable fear for her life (or the life of another, or injury, or some other damage, that part varies by state) and 2) her actions were reasonable in that context. Because what goes up must come down, there is a reckless element to her conduct that could cause her a problem.

A great point but these two statutes aren't specific intent crimes but general intent.

(10-25-2013 12:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To establish a crime requires two elements--a criminal act and a criminal state of mind. Here the statute makes the act criminal, so that part is done and dusted. She would try to beat the state of mind element by establishing self-defense as an affirmative (defense has the burden of proof) defense. The elements that would be required generally would be something like 1) she had a reasonable fear for her life (or the life of another, or injury, or some other damage, that part varies by state) and 2) her actions were reasonable in that context. Because what goes up must come down, there is a reckless element to her conduct that could cause her a problem.

A great point but these two statutes aren't specific intent crimes but general intent.

Understand, but she still has a self defense argument. Question will be whether a jury buys it as self defense.

(10-25-2013 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To establish a crime requires two elements--a criminal act and a criminal state of mind. Here the statute makes the act criminal, so that part is done and dusted. She would try to beat the state of mind element by establishing self-defense as an affirmative (defense has the burden of proof) defense. The elements that would be required generally would be something like 1) she had a reasonable fear for her life (or the life of another, or injury, or some other damage, that part varies by state) and 2) her actions were reasonable in that context. Because what goes up must come down, there is a reckless element to her conduct that could cause her a problem.

A great point but these two statutes aren't specific intent crimes but general intent.

Understand, but she still has a self defense argument. Question will be whether a jury buys it as self defense.

It would depend on how successfully one could 'muddy the water,' so to speak.

My money is on this not going that far. If I were the DA I'm not sure if I'd charge her. Still, in a purely academic exercise, she's guilt as hell in my opinion.

If I were the DA I would not.

In Texas, I doubt you could get a grand jury to indict, and I'd be shocked if you could find a jury that would convict.

(10-25-2013 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were the DA I would not.

In Texas, I doubt you could get a grand jury to indict, and I'd be shocked if you could find a jury that would convict.

I'd more than likely do it here, in Montgomery County, Alabama. I'd also five myself a 75% shot at a win.

In my experience juries take their oaths and jury instructions almost too seriously and apply elements and such zealously. Oddly enough, it makes DUI convictions difficult but this kind of stuff a knock out.

(10-25-2013 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were the DA I would not.

In Texas, I doubt you could get a grand jury to indict, and I'd be shocked if you could find a jury that would convict.

I'd more than likely do it here, in Montgomery County, Alabama. I'd also five myself a 75% shot at a win.

In my experience juries take their oaths and jury instructions almost too seriously and apply elements and such zealously. Oddly enough, it makes DUI convictions difficult but this kind of stuff a knock out.

There's an old saying about being able to indict a ham sandwich... but no DA wants to get taken down by what should be a pretty obvious case of someone "scared to death", but using discretion anyway... If that appears to be the case as described.

(10-25-2013 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were the DA I would not.
In Texas, I doubt you could get a grand jury to indict, and I'd be shocked if you could find a jury that would convict.

I'd more than likely do it here, in Montgomery County, Alabama. I'd also five myself a 75% shot at a win.
In my experience juries take their oaths and jury instructions almost too seriously and apply elements and such zealously. Oddly enough, it makes DUI convictions difficult but this kind of stuff a knock out.

Knowing both places pretty well, I'm guessing you'd be way more likely to prevail in Montgomery County, Alabama, than here in Montgomery County, Texas.

(10-25-2013 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were the DA I would not.
In Texas, I doubt you could get a grand jury to indict, and I'd be shocked if you could find a jury that would convict.

I'd more than likely do it here, in Montgomery County, Alabama. I'd also five myself a 75% shot at a win.
In my experience juries take their oaths and jury instructions almost too seriously and apply elements and such zealously. Oddly enough, it makes DUI convictions difficult but this kind of stuff a knock out.

Knowing both places pretty well, I'm guessing you'd be way more likely to prevail in Montgomery County, Alabama, than here in Montgomery County, Texas.

LOL!

For a reason I'm going to leave unsaid.

(10-25-2013 12:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were the DA I would not.

In Texas, I doubt you could get a grand jury to indict, and I'd be shocked if you could find a jury that would convict.

I'd more than likely do it here, in Montgomery County, Alabama. I'd also five myself a 75% shot at a win.

In my experience juries take their oaths and jury instructions almost too seriously and apply elements and such zealously. Oddly enough, it makes DUI convictions difficult but this kind of stuff a knock out.

There's an old saying about being able to indict a ham sandwich... but no DA wants to get taken down by what should be a pretty obvious case of someone "scared to death", but using discretion anyway... If that appears to be the case as described.

These stories often leave out details that would be critical in a legal setting. I'd imagine this one isn't any different.

It's funny, for that reason whenever I read a news article I tend to get a whole hell of a lot less fired up than a lot of others. LOL

(10-25-2013 12:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were the DA I would not.

In Texas, I doubt you could get a grand jury to indict, and I'd be shocked if you could find a jury that would convict.

I'd more than likely do it here, in Montgomery County, Alabama. I'd also five myself a 75% shot at a win.

In my experience juries take their oaths and jury instructions almost too seriously and apply elements and such zealously. Oddly enough, it makes DUI convictions difficult but this kind of stuff a knock out.

There's an old saying about being able to indict a ham sandwich... but no DA wants to get taken down by what should be a pretty obvious case of someone "scared to death", but using discretion anyway... If that appears to be the case as described.

These stories often leave out details that would be critical in a legal setting. I'd imagine this one isn't any different.

It's funny, for that reason whenever I read a news article I tend to get a whole hell of a lot less fired up than a lot of others. LOL

Me too... which is why my comment is so filled with "ifs and buts"

Someone looking for injustice can always find enough of it to satisfy their opinions... even when it doesn't exist at all.

(10-24-2013 07:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't just fire your weapon into the air. She should be arrested; the lady is 100% in the wrong.

Disagree HOD..

What crime did she perform? Nobody was hit. She scared the bejeezers out of 10 young troublemaking boys.

If she had hit someone by accident, because of her firing in the air, then I'd say yes, you'd have a criminal activity (misdemeanor).

Firing a weapon is a crime, unless there is a reason for it. Fending people off doesn't count.

Yeah, actually it does.

Quote: If she was so scared she should have shot one of those idiots.

Shoot an innocent person, over shooting into the air? Because it was clear she couldn't shoot the attacker w/o putting her daughter at risk. Ergo, your suggesting she shoot an innocent.

What she did had risk, no doubt. But given the alternatives, it was a reasonable approach.

This is one big reason the country is in trouble: local law enforcement isn't doing their jobs. That allows problems to fester and be exploited by politicians.

(10-25-2013 12:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  LOL!
For a reason I'm going to leave unsaid.

Yes.

We have an interesting demographic here. In Alabama terms, it's about half Mountain Brook and half Winston County.

(10-25-2013 01:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 07:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't just fire your weapon into the air. She should be arrested; the lady is 100% in the wrong.

Disagree HOD..

What crime did she perform? Nobody was hit. She scared the bejeezers out of 10 young troublemaking boys.

If she had hit someone by accident, because of her firing in the air, then I'd say yes, you'd have a criminal activity (misdemeanor).

Firing a weapon is a crime, unless there is a reason for it. Fending people off doesn't count.

Yeah, actually it does.

Quote: If she was so scared she should have shot one of those idiots.

Shoot an innocent person, over shooting into the air? Because it was clear she couldn't shoot the attacker w/o putting her daughter at risk. Ergo, your suggesting she shoot an innocent.

What she did had risk, no doubt. But given the alternatives, it was a reasonable approach.

This is one big reason the country is in trouble: local law enforcement isn't doing their jobs. That allows problems to fester and be exploited by politicians.

There is more than enough in this thread for you to read to fully comprehend the positions that have been taken, why they have been taken, the law itself, and the purpose of it.

(10-25-2013 01:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 12:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  LOL!
For a reason I'm going to leave unsaid.

Yes.

We have an interesting demographic here. In Alabama terms, it's about half Mountain Brook and half Winston County.

(10-25-2013 01:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There is more than enough in this thread for you to read to fully comprehend the positions that have been taken, why they have been taken, the law itself, and the purpose of it.

I understood it all. She shoots the attacker and hits her own daughter? That's not a legit option for her.

I'm not saying juries can't be persuaded to do dumb things to their neighbors, but this would be a bad case. P William county is still fairly conservative.

And yes, I stand by my comment that local law enforcement is a huge problem. Never should have been arrested. Bad cops lead to bad societies.