If you are shooting a gun (a deadly weapon) then what exactly is your intent if not to kill?
FL - Mother shoots daughter, mistaking her for intruder
- Thread starter los2188
- Start date
New Posts
-
GA GA - Shirley, 87, & Russell Dermond, 88, Putnam Co, 2 May 2014 - #13
- Latest: concernedcitizen706
If you are shooting a gun (a deadly weapon) then what exactly is your intent if not to kill?
Tillicum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2014
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 25,053
Reduce risk of threat, warning.
Warning shots aren't legal. You could get years in prison for "warning shots." Either you believe there is a threat or you don't. If you don't, you aren't supposed to shoot.
Lulu14
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2014
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 62
A first responder should be able to identify the type of wound, no? The fact that he got fooled shows that it was a wound that did not scream bullet hole.
Lulu14
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2014
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 62
Making the aggressor angrier, letting him know your cards, endangering your life further.
Wound doesn't scream anything. Sometimes a type of wound can be only determined during an autopsy.
Warning shots are legal in Florida. It is covered under the stand your ground law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...arning-shots-marissa-alexander_n_5519168.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...arning-shots-marissa-alexander_n_5519168.html
So FL changed it recently to make it legal. However in this case the mother never claimed she fired a warning shot. By her own story she fired at the person who was coming in her direction. Some posters seem to be widely speculating not even based on something this mother or the step-father claimed.
LolaMoon08
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 7,138
- Reaction score
- 248
You have valid questions. I have my own questions. I am not throwing in the towel here. I do believe we need answers.
As a Floridan, I fully understand your distrust in anything being done. I live here. I get it. I think if anyone knows, it would be a Floridian. We're sick of it too.
I just need more information.
LolaMoon08
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 7,138
- Reaction score
- 248
Worst Law Ever. JMO
I agree from MSM the mother did not claim she was firing a warning shot. It was also stated that warning shots are illegal. I posted the link only to show that they are legal in Florida.
There is a lot of speculation here both ways. He heard the gunshot, he saw the gun. They husband and wife discussed the shooting before first responders got there. They didn't talk about it. It's a cover up. It's not a cover up. It's all speculation of what each person believes to be true.
I believe that the mother did not intentionally shoot her daughter and there is not a cover up. I do respect the opinion of others that are in the belief that it was intentional and a cover up. There are some very valid points brought up about things seeming off, but I can also look at the other side of the coin and see explanations for them. That's my opinion only.
There is a lot of speculation here both ways. He heard the gunshot, he saw the gun. They husband and wife discussed the shooting before first responders got there. They didn't talk about it. It's a cover up. It's not a cover up. It's all speculation of what each person believes to be true.
I believe that the mother did not intentionally shoot her daughter and there is not a cover up. I do respect the opinion of others that are in the belief that it was intentional and a cover up. There are some very valid points brought up about things seeming off, but I can also look at the other side of the coin and see explanations for them. That's my opinion only.
A witness doesn't have to be an eye witness.
That's what HuffPo article stated, but not under all circumstances. Maybe FL law itself would help us discuss whether new-ish law allows Mom, if arrested for dau's death to claim self defense or stand your ground.
* FL Criminal Code XLVI (bbm)
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that persons will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened 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; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a persons dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) Dwelling means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) Residence means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) Vehicle means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195.(b) Residence means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) Vehicle means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Even if some neighbor heard a shot, that wouldn't prove anything. What we know is that there were 3 people in that house. Step father claims that he was sleeping, daughter is dead. So that leaves the mother as the only one who actually knows what happened.
There doesn't seem to be a motive. Even the friend of the daughter and mother who is posting here has said how close they were. Without a motive for wanting her daughter dead, I doubt her death was anything BUT accidental, IMO. I do wonder if the bullet may have hit the pacemaker first.
The first responders, medics, and LE were all witnesses to the scene and from what they saw, it matches what the mother said happened. IMO
What happened is that mother shot and killed her daughter (allegedly thinking that daughter was an intruder). If daughter was living in that house with them (which is what it appears right now) then that daughter had a right to be in that house. I don't understand how somebody can shoot another person who has a right to be in the house and not be charged with anything (even negligent homicide).
It's not accidental if you deliberately shoot someone (you just shoot the wrong person). I don't understand how it can be called accidental. Daughter had a right to be in the house. As for bullet hitting the pacemaker, that in itself wouldn't cause the death.
Pacemakers are put in people that have arrhythmias. They don't beat instead of the heart, they help to control heart rhythm. If only pacemaker was hit, daughter could have survived without the pacemaker until a new one was put in.