|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Leisher 
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: May 15 2012,06:46 |
|
   |
Woman gets 20 years.
20 years for firing a warning shot. Not trying to hit anyone, but intentionally firing into the ceiling as a warning to her attacker (her abusive husband).
20 years.
The average time a convicted murderer spends in jail? 7 years.
20 years for defending herself.
That is one severely fucked up law.
She would have served less time if she had shot and killed him. The joke there is that it's not a joke.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: May 15 2012,06:49 |
|
 |
Obama has a great opportunity here to make a phone call or sign his name or whatever and keep an innocent woman from having her life destroyed.
Tell him she's gay, he's all about gay this week.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: May 15 2012,08:20 |
|
|
Say they fire buckshot, into their swimming pool...
If we start prosecuting for "mights", then shouldn't drunk driving be 20 years? Odds are far greater that a drunk driver will kill someone before a bullet fired into the air/ceiling will.
Setting off fireworks? 20 years. Sorry, but those are explosives. Not only could you incite panic in folks thinking terrorists are attacking, but what happens if those fireworks start a fire and kill someone? Or what if one doesn't explode, and then a baby picks it up, puts it in his/her mouth, and then it explodes? That's murder! (By law, not really, but neither is shooting a ceiling.)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: May 15 2012,08:29 |
|
|
I guess running a red light is also worth twenty years, then. You could have killed a pedestrian!
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Cakedaddy
Group: "Members"
Posts: 6241
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: May 15 2012,10:12 |
|
|
Saw a program where a dude used deadly force protecting himself from someone at a park. Â Character witnesses said the shooter was an awesome dude and a real pillar of the community. Â The dead guy was a dick to everyone and anyone that knew him all said the same thing "I've always said he was either going to end up killed or killing someone". Â This was on the stand so the jury heard it. Â They convicted him because:
1. He used hollow point bullets. Â Seemed excessive to them.
2. THEY wouldn't have shot the guy, so he shouldn't have.
3. Used a 45. Which is bigger than what cops carry for crying out loud. Excessive.
4. Three round burst. Excessive. One is enough.
5. Some other incredibly stupid reasons.
Also, as soon as the shooter stopped him, he immediately performed first aid and went for help. Â But, he did a three round burst with hollow point ammo. Â So, he's in jail now.
Really, your only option is to let someone beat the shit out of you and hope they don't kill you. Â Because if you defend yourself, there's a high probability that YOU will end up being the one in jail.
Edited by Cakedaddy on May 15 2012,10:14
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
thibodeaux
RAG
Group: Privateers
Posts: 6494
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: May 15 2012,10:49 |
|
|
Depends on the state and the jury. In NC, in concealed carry training, they covered a case where a guy shot some people IN THE BACK, and was not convicted. Of course, the point was not "it's ok to shoot people in the back," the point was "you better not do this, because you WILL most likely go to jail."
Nowadays, I hate to say it, but the biggest factor is probably race, especially if the race of the defendant doesn't match the race of most of the jurors. Except for liberal white people; they will do the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
