[Sniper03]

Ben,

Thanks to you and DOC for looking into this issue further! As we all know we usually only hear part of the story in these cases. I do not believe for one minute in this case it was a warning shot. Since she evidently was violating more than one court order by even being there. And she then left, went to her car and returned to the house and fired the weapon in the direction of the man! She just missed! Sounds like it was only a matter of time for her before someone got seriously hurt or killed. And in my opinion the B got what she deserves. The news media also has a unique way of twisting a story to get press stirred up so they can make a buck! And DOC you are right on the money!

03

[galapogos]

Do we know if the man represented any kind of threat to the children and whose children they were?

I haven't read the entire thread yet. But if for example the courts (and they have condemned many children to death through ignorant decisions) placed the children in danger and she knew it and it turns out she feared for their safety, I could understand her returning if that's where the children were. I would not give up on my children easily if a scenario like that was happening.

This may not be the case here at all.

Just saying.

[Doc3402]

Originally Posted by galapogos

Do we know if the man represented any kind of threat to the children and whose children they were?

I haven't read the entire thread yet. But if for example the courts (and they have condemned many children to death through ignorant decisions) placed the children in danger and she knew it and it turns out she feared for their safety, I could understand her returning if that's where the children were. I would not give up on my children easily if a scenario like that was happening.

This may not be the case here at all.

Just saying.

According to every story I have read, the two children present during the incident were his, not hers. They did have an infant girl as a couple, but I can't find anything specific about her location at the time.

One thing many people seem to have missed is the fact that it took the jury a whole 12 minutes to reach a verdict, and they had all the facts.

Another thing not pointed out is the high degree of bias US Rep Corrine Brown is known for, and the fact that she is a major driving force behind the media uproar in both this case and Treyvon Martin. She actually confronted Angela Corey in the halls of the courthouse following sentencing. Naturally there were TV cameras present. Is this an election year? <grin>

[Doc3402]

Originally Posted by Sniper03

Ben,

Thanks to you and DOC for looking into this issue further! As we all know we usually only hear part of the story in these cases. I do not believe for one minute in this case it was a warning shot. Since she evidently was violating more than one court order by even being there. And she then left, went to her car and returned to the house and fired the weapon in the direction of the man! She just missed! Sounds like it was only a matter of time for her before someone got seriously hurt or killed. And in my opinion the B got what she deserves. The news media also has a unique way of twisting a story to get press stirred up so they can make a buck! And DOC you are right on the money!

03

To the best of my knowledge, she was not under any kind of court order at the time of the shooting. If I misled you I apologize. The court order came in later when she battered him a few weeks after bailing out of jail on the shooting charge. The keep-away order was a condition of bail.

On the other hand, it is reported that he was under a restraining order to stay away from her at the time of the shooting. She states she thought he was out, so she went over to his house to recover personal property.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by Doc3402

To the best of my knowledge, she was not under any kind of court order at the time of the shooting. If I misled you I apologize. The court order came in later when she battered him a few weeks after bailing out of jail on the shooting charge. The keep-away order was a condition of bail.

On the other hand, it is reported that he was under a restraining order to stay away from her at the time of the shooting. She states she thought he was out, so she went over to his house to recover personal property.

if she was under the impression he was gone, and when she discovered he was home, she should have just left. but she left and came back with a pistol. that put the burden on her IMO. so her claiming self defence just doesn't seem to work for me either. i think the jury reached the correct verdict on this case.

[Doc3402]

Originally Posted by axxe55

if she was under the impression he was gone, and when she discovered he was home, she should have just left. but she left and came back with a pistol. that put the burden on her IMO. so her claiming self defence just doesn't seem to work for me either. i think the jury reached the correct verdict on this case.

My opinion also supports the jury verdict. No matter which way you turn things, she screwed up. She had every opportunity to avoid taking things to the point where she fired the shot. Does she deserve 20 years for it? Let's look at it by Statute.

FS 784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

FS 784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree

To this point we have an assault, and the use of the firearm in this assault makes it a felony. Please note that the law does not require her to lay hands on the person or actually fire the weapon to make this a third degree felony. So now we have a woman firing a weapon during the commission of the felony of Aggravated Assault

FS 775.087 

2. Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” as defined in s. 790.001 shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years.

So did she deserve 20 years? In my opinion the judge cut her a break. She wasn't sentenced on the aggravated assault charge. If she had been, the 20 years would have had to run consecutively to the sentence for the aggravated assault. She could have had up to an extra 5 years for the third degree felony.

[axxe55]

Doc3402, she was also given a plea deal of three years and decided she wanted to take her chances with a self defence plea instead. sounds like she is just plain stupid and deserves the deal she got. just plain stupid!