For example, when United States Army veteran Ronald Thompson fired two warning shots into the ground, he intended to scare off his friend’s grandson, who was attempting to enter her home after she denied him entry. He never imagined his actions would leave him facing decades in prison.
So, `stand your ground` only kicks in when the purported assailant is shot dead? Words fail.
Firing a gun constitutes lethal force. Even brandishing a gun might constitute lethal force. Lethal force is only acceptable to prevent death or grievous bodily harm.
If you believe you're safe enough to have time for a 'warning shot,' then shooting at all is wrong. If you shoot in self-defense, you must shoot to stop a threat, and shooting must be a proportionate response to that threat.
The implementation seems a little weird, when you're sentencing guys for warning shots and not for questionable self-defense shootings in which the attacker dies, but it's grounded in sensible reasoning.
I think the Pashtuns we fired warning shots at my disagree with you. When they got to close to us and didn't stop despite loud verbal warnings we fired warning shots, they knew that meant stay away or get shot. Life's dangerous, it's all fine and dandy to pretend to quote the book, but its not that simple and when it's down a second before you have to shoot someone because they might be a walking bomb and you instead fire a warning shot, you just saved two lives. Say what you want about what the text book says, a warning shot isn't lethal.
Remember that the person that I replied to replied to a post that said:
"Firing a gun constitutes lethal force. Even brandishing a gun might constitute lethal force. Lethal force is only acceptable to prevent death or grievous bodily harm. ... If you shoot in self-defense, you must shoot to stop a threat, and shooting must be a proportionate response to that threat."
Legally and practically (if you're an armed member of a foreign army, you're far more likely to encounter armed opposition than some random guy in Nowheresville, UT), things are very different in a war zone. This is why threats of deadly force are often acceptable in a war zone, but unacceptable in times of peace.
There is a perverse logic to it: using a gun is considered lethal force, using a gun as warning is using lethal force in a situation where you don't need it (since you shot a warning) and self-defence protections thus don't kick in.
As a result, you should shoot to kill, not to warn, whatever the situation is. It's completely bonkers and it ignores that warning shots are a separate and higher-impact deterrent than many other options (especially for "lightweight" such as most women), but that's the general case law. IIRC there was some hubbub in FL about "fixing" this (aka making warning shots non-felonious in a self-defence situation) but I don't know if that passed. And that's just for FL anyway.
"Stand your ground" was never used in the Zimmy case. It was straightforward self-defense, a natural right. Someone beats your head in the ground, you can shoot them. Deal.
So, just to clarify, not speaking to the specifics of the Trayvon Martin tragedy, but I can start a fight with someone (maybe verbally? maybe physically? a few insults and a few shoves) and when they punch me and I get scared I can pull out a gun and shoot them?
Yes, you can. Then you would be put against the jury of your peers and would have to convince them that you a) actually did not start the fight and b) reasonably had a reason to fear for your life. If you succeed at that (all while paying through the nose for a lawyer, unless you're a millionaire say bye-bye to your savings, and btw your job too - they won't keep your place while you're being arrested and judged) - you get to walk. Not my idea of a good time, though.
"Stand your ground" isn't magic, it's a legal defense like any other. Everything hinges on what the jury finds, and in this case it seems as though the prosecutor was persuasive.
Also, if you mean to draw a comparison to the Trayvon Martin case, "stand your ground" wasn't relevant to that case.
The Stand Your Ground laws are highly relevant to the Trayvon Martin case, since they provided cover for local law enforcement to initially decide they wouldn't be pursuing any charges against Zimmerman. Which led to the outrage and the public court trial.
In general, firing into the ground is very rarely a good idea. In most places, the only permissible reason to use lethal weapon is when you feel you are threatened by force that is very likely to cause you grave harm. If you are feeling thus threatened, why would you shoot the ground? You should be shooting whoever is threatening you! If you didn't, the police would assume you did not genuinely feel threatened but instead wanted to show off or intimidate or make a statement and such. And in most places, using a lethal weapon such as firearm for any of these is a crime (unless, of course, you are a policeman, police plays by completely different rules and regular law does not apply to them).
There's the quality of the laws, but then also the quality of the judges and the quality of the defense attorneys... there are many points of failure for a justice system.
> There's the quality of the laws, but then also the quality of the judges and the quality of the defense attorneys... there are many points of failure for a justice system.
An alternative way of looking at it: there are many safeguards.
The SYG statutes I'm familiar with only apply if you would be legally justified in using deadly force. Warning shots generally don't meet that standard.
EDIT:
Which is to say, the bar is usually something like reasonable belief that your life or the life of someone present is in imminent danger.
Quite so. Warning shots are never a good idea. The 20 year prison term was nevertheless not warranted. Had he been a gang banger convicted of an actual homicide he would, on average, have gotten a lighter sentence.
Agreed on all counts. It's one of those things that's made its way into popular culture that's almost always a terrible idea from a legal standpoint.
There's also the infamous case of the FL woman who initially received a 20 year sentence for firing warning shots at her estranged husband. She won a new trial on appeal, so we'll see how that turns out.
It's definitely unfortunate that it works out like that, but using a firearm in any sort of aggressive manner is deadly force legally, and you better be well and sure you're justified in doing so or you're going to be in a world of hurt with your local prosecutor.
How can anybody still defend the justice system in USA. The "justice" part from "justice system" is missing. I'm currently living in EU (Germany, natively Croatian) and everything looks completely broken from here. So much that I often think that someone is joking. How can Americans consider this norm?
I'm losing any desire to go to USA. Not just working, even visiting. Even if the chances of events such as this happening are relatively low (?), why risk it? I do not like idea of being raped by police and doctors and getting the bill [1].
I'm just wondering how can this be real. Where's the punchline?
So, `stand your ground` only kicks in when the purported assailant is shot dead? Words fail.