Another Concealed Carry Story

[coopercdrkey]

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120614/ARTICLES/120619789/1002/news01?Title=Due-to-mandatory-minimum-Keystone-veteran-gets-a-sentence-that-a-judge-calls-a-crime-">http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120614/ARTICLES/120619789/1002/news01?Title=Due-to-mandatory-minimum-Keystone-veteran-gets-a-sentence-that-a-judge-calls-a-crime-

   

   In Florida, again....

[ArmedPatriot]

Holy crap. What moron came up with a TWENTY year sentence for discharging a firearm to begin with ?

   

   I am all for minimum sentences and absolutes in the law but for REAL criminals. INTENT HAS to be taken into account. Did the man INTEND to break the law or was there a very good reason to.

   

   ANY time a gun is fired in defense of innocent life it simply MUST overrule whatever law is in place.

[louiethelump]

Gunpacker:

   

   There is not a twenty year sentence for discharging a firearm.  There is a minimum sentence for AGGRAVATED ASSAULT with a firearm, and it is enhanced to 20 if the firearm is FIRED in the process of the aggravated assault with that firearm.  (envision Mr. Gangbanger pointing his "piece" at your face and then firing it at you and missing, and you have what the law was written for)

   

   Are you familiar enough with FL law to know what aggravated assault is in Florida?  (no sarcasm intended, but it varies from state to state)  There HAD to be more to the case than shown in the article, or else it would have been a misdemeanor reckless display, and NOT an aggravated assault.

   

   I am GUESSING he probably pointed the gun at the 4 kids and then fired it into the ground.  Aggravated Assault would have required the gun be pointed at the kids, not just the ground.  I am further GUESSING that he probably fired into the ground near their feet which would have been a clear aggravated assault with a firearm.  You cannot take out guns and wave them about at people in your yard, much less someone else's yard.  Firearms are deadly weapons and should be used for deadly force and in deadly force situations.  NOT for chasing kids including the grandson of the home owner out of the yard.

   

   Summaries of cases often do not tell the whole story.

   

   The MORONS who came up with the minimum mandatory sentences in FL that have dramatically reduced the gun related crime in this state were the members of the FL legislature, supported by the voters of this state, tired of liberal judges letting armed robbers using firearms go free with just a few months of jail or no jail at all and just probation for ARMED ROBBERY.

   

   When you take the training for a CWP in FL you are both taught and you sign that you have read and understand the law pertaining to what you can and can not do with that firearm in this state.  This man did NOT go by what he claimed he knew and understood when he applied for and got his concealed weapon permit.  He went to property that was not his, and confronted family of the owner of the property with a firearm and then fired that firearm; not to  defend as required; but to frighten.

   

   The gun WAS NOT used in defense of innocent life, but to intimidate some kids to leave, instead of calling the police like he should have.  If they kicked down the door and were attacking the grandmother and he shot THEM, he would be home today.

[ArmedPatriot]

Well, its good to know....

   However the judge's thoughts are a bit confusing if what you say is accurate. Why would a judge feel that way about the sentence if the sentence were justified?

[louiethelump]

I would suspect that the totality of the situation does not warrant 20 years.  I notice that 3 years was offered, and declined.  They (all parties other than the offender) seem to feel that the felony charge and jail time was appropriate, and there had to be more than discharging a firearm for that to be the case.  When a deal is offered and turned down flat, forcing a trial in the face of a case that is open and shut for guilt, there is little tolerance on the part of the jury, the State Attorney, or the judge.  When the deal is turned down, you are rolling the dice and gambling, and gambles do not always pay off.

   

   This prosecutor is the head of the office that prosecuted the mother of my grandson for killing him.  She was offered by the office a 5 to 7 year sentence that we as the family would have accepted and the State Attorney was ok with or they would not have offered it.  Her attorney advised her to take it, but she refused and went to trial, insisting that she had done nothing wrong.  She was convicted by a jury in less than two hours and was sentenced to 15 years.

   

   This prosecutor is an aggressive prosecutor, and when your family is the victim, you want and like that.  The jury in both my grandson's case and in the case we are discussing today, felt there was a felony or they would have acquitted.  It is a jury of regular people and they will also have the say on the Martin/Zimmerman case.  They can acquit or find a lesser included if they choose.

   

   My years of law enforcement taught me to trust juries.  They sometimes go too easy on a defendant for one reason or another, but don't generally go harder than appropriate.  They don't like being dragged in for jury duty to hear a case that is clearly guilty and a defendant that is playing games and refusing to accept any responsibility for his/her actions.

   

   My advice would be to take the best deal you can get if you are guilty under the law, and go to trial only when you are not.

   

   Louie

[RogueTS1]

I don't know all the facts but a twenty year felony seems more than a bit severe to me. I would hazard that had it been a police officer firing a warning shot, I know it is not authorized but it still happens from time to time, the ending would have been very different.

[heyjoe]

can you cite the source of that assertion Roguets? i dont personally know of any police officers firing a warning shot.

[louiethelump]

A police officer firing a warning shot would get him fired, but not prosecuted as he was not committing a felony by doing it.  The mandatory sentences are for specific violent FELONIES, when a firearm is used (10 years for USING THE FIREARM), and when FIRING that firearm in the commission of that felony (20 years) and if the firing of the firearm hits the victim.  (Life)

   

   10-20-Life is how it advertised, and since introduced and ENFORECED in FL, violent crime with firearms is WAY down.

   

   I had a burglary at my house.  They took a big screen TV, and my prescription meds (heard medications) and left numerous guns untouched.  Investigating deputy told me this has become common as it is not worth the enhanced penalty for when you become an "armed burglar" by stealing a gun, as the 10-20-life kicks in, and you are guaranteed a 10 year prison term where the TV and other valuables burglary get you only probation or minimal jail time.  It should have been a violent felony anyway, as they kicked Geroge the Basset hound in the face causing him to go deaf, but they don't count dogs.

[RogueTS1]

Nope; but I have seen and heard cases of such over the years from around the country including here at home. Officer usually gets in trouble but he does not get twenty years in prison.

[louiethelump]

And he would not in FL either.  The law is for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.  NOT for firing a warning shot!

   

   If the threat with the firearm was a LEGAL threat, the warning shot would not get 20 years either.

   

   The FELONY was the aggravated assault.

   

   Assault in FL is:  An UNLAWFUL threat to do harm along with an action creating a well founded fear that the threat is imminently going to be carried out.  (this is a misdemeanor)

   

   And AGGRAVATED ASSAULT is:  An assault where a deadly weapon is used.  (this is a 3rd degree felony; 5 years MAX)

   

   If the deadly weapon used is a firearm, the 10-20-life kicks in.

   

   For him to be convicted of that he had to have fired at the 4 kids or in their viscinity to the point that they had a well founded fear he was going to shoot them.

   

   You cannot shoot people in Florida for trespassing, so the threat with the weapon was not justified, or so the jury was made to believe anyway.  Otherwise it would not have found him guilty of aggravated assault.  The 10-20-life thing are penalty enhancements and come in at sentencing.  You have to prove the named felony and get a conviction before the 10-20-life enhances the penalty.

   

   So, the jury found that this was NOT a justified use of force and they are probably right.  

   

   The message should be to be careful when waving a gun around in FL and YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.

   

   IF they were your teens you would want it that way.

[ArmedPatriot]

"Assault in FL is: An UNLAWFUL threat to do harm along with an action creating a well founded fear that the threat is imminently going to be carried out. (this is a misdemeanor)

   

   And AGGRAVATED ASSAULT is: An assault where a deadly weapon is used. (this is a 3rd degree felony; 5 years MAX)

   

   If the deadly weapon used is a firearm, the 10-20-life kicks in. "

   =======================================================

   

   I see.

   What this makes me think, however, is that FL is still as antigun as it gets.

   So someone could threaten my life with a machete and get off with 5 years and most likely less, but if a gun is used its 10 to life?

   

   That doesnt sound like a state that wants to prosecute criminals, but instead wants to tell us just how evil guns are.

[22man]

Louie is 100% on this subject imo.

   an initial reaction to such a topic for me would be to side with the elderly shooter;;;;

   upon closer review however there is no indication that the teenagers threatened the elderly folks with imminent bodily harm or death.  

   IF.....IF......the teenager (while yelling in their faces) had said something like "Let me in or I'm going to break your neck!"....the justification for use of force starts to swing back towards self-defense or defense of other.  

   BUT,,,,,it doesn't appear to be a use of deadly force to prevent a felony,,,,,,,unless trespassing is a felony,,,,,,which I'm sure it's not.  

   Warning shots or shots fired to scare someone off are never good imo. It would be better to use pepper spray or a cane to scare someone off.  

   

   Shame about his situation. He probably meant well and was scared for himself or the old lady. If the teenager was being a jerk, though, that's not justification for shooting near him or threatening him with a gun.

   some points to consider:

   1-Ronald is almost blind now,,,,was his vision impaired back in 2009? Just wondering cuz I'd be nervous around a vision-impaired person firing warning shots.

   2-Ronald has shown poor judgement in the past when he chose to drink and drive(which can kill other innocent drivers on the road).  

   I hope his health improves, a new trial gets him out on time served, and he learns from these hard lessons. I wish his family well also and appreciate his prior service. I suspect that the 3 teenagers have probably aged just enough to be more dangerous and had other encounters with LE.

[louiethelump]

Gunpacker:

   

   If you want to believe that a law to put criminals who use guns to victimize behind bars is anti-gun, then I guess you and I just don't see eye to eye on what being a gun owner means.

   

   That is OK.  I don't see eye to eye with a lot of people.  If you are wanting to protect people who use guns to commit violent felonies and to offer them light sentences, then please stay out of Florida, and whatever you do, don't become a resident.  We have too many liberals here as it is.  And while you probably don't consider yourself a liberal, being soft on crime and desiring shorter sentences for violent crminals so they can spend less time in prison is one of the primary traits of the liberal philosophy.

   

   Florida was one of the first states with "shall issue" concealed weapon permits, and is a state that will allow even you to get a Florida permit that is good in (I think) 34 states now.  If someone here threatens you with a machete I suggest when he gets close enough to you to use it, you shoot him.  You will be fine.  If that is anti-gun, then I guess you don't really know what anti-gun means.

[coopercdrkey]

One thing to take from this story, whether we feel sorry for the old guy or not, (I sort of do....), is that even though you have a concealed carry permit, once you draw that weapon, you are now nothing but a guy with a gun.  

   

   You may claim the Castle Doctrine or the "Stand Your Ground" legislation as justification for your actions.  

   

   Get ready for a life-changing ordeal.

   

   Oh yeah, bring money....

[louiethelump]

EXACTLY!

   

   If it is not me or mine, my philosophy is to call 911 and be a good witness.  I don't carry a weapon to go out and stop robberies or save the world.

   

   I would not be a bit surprised to find if you checked, that the grandmother of the kid he was trying to protect her from testified AGAINST him in court with things like, "he is my grandson, he would not hurt me",  "I did not ask him to pull a gun on my GRANDSON!", Etc.  In fact I would make a small bet with someone if they wanted to research it that she did.  THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE DO.

[RogueTS1]

Louie has a very good point!

[dracothered]

After reading the article and only based on what was said in it. The man that went and got his gun and fired off the two shots was in the wrong. I base this on that there was nothing saying that the young men had any type of weapons threatening the people at the house. Though I think the sentence of 20 years is crazy. I am sure they felt threatened and getting the gun I believe was ok to do, but the shots fired went beyond what was taking place.  

   

   Now if the young men displayed intent and flash a weapon I can see bring the weapon to bear, but only shooting if you have to. Now of course every thing I just said could change if I found out other info that changed what happened during the incident.

[ArmedPatriot]

"The man that went and got his gun and fired off the two shots was in the wrong. I base this on that there was nothing saying that the young men had any type of weapons threatening the people at the house. "

   ======================================================

   

   Florida law must be really different from Ohio law here.

   We only really have to show that we felt in danger of death or 'serious bodily harm'...which two guys with fists can easy cause.

[coopercdrkey]

Ohio......

   

   Man,  they made me live in Columbus for three years !!!

   

   I don't care what their gun laws are- Probably very liberal so that OSU fans can be shot on sight- I'm just glad to be back on the shore of the world.  When the Olentangy River is the only water in sight, I get really claustrophobic.