Amazon.com Widgets

Is firing a warning shot into the air worse than shooting someone dead after provoking a physical altercation?

  • Loaded Question, Deserves a Loaded Response

    If you're going to ask loaded questions without any of the facts, please do so elsewhere. In the case of the "warning shot" the woman was told NOT TO GO NEAR HER BELLIGERENT HUSBAND. Instead she drove over WITH A GUN intending to start trouble. Zimmerman who was ACQUITTED in court was found to be INNOCENT because he was ambushed by being attacked by Trayvon after he jumped out of a bush and tackled him. Ignorance ladies and gentlemen at it's finest. But who can expect anything else from the hit and run Opinions section of this site...

  • Not worse but less legal (apparently)

    I am no expert in FL law (thank God) but they way I understand it, unless you are in imminent physical danger, the (ridiculous) stand your ground law does not apply. By Florida logic, I guess she should have waited until she was actually being physically attacked and then aimed for the head - more legal, and better outcome her. Thank God I passed up that job in Florida.

  • People, she didn't shoot into the sky! She shot at her husband!

    DID YOU KNOW THAT THE BULLET WENT THROUGH THE WALL AND HIT THE CEILING IN THE NEXT ROOM? She shot in the direction of the kids and her husband. So, what if she shot one of the children instead her husband? The bullet nearly missed her husband's head and almost hit ONE OF THE KIDS!

    LOOK AT THE COURT DOCUMENTS YOURSELF
    http://www.Scribd.Com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

  • Common sense people

    No. Simply put no. Firing a warning shot to stop someone from hurting you or prevent you from having to shoot them at all is ten times better than shooting someone dead after stalking them and provoking a fist fight with them. This is quite simply common sense. One prevents harm and murder. The other results in harm and murder. However, one was acquitted and one was sentenced (after only 12 minutes of deliberation I might add). Can someone explain to me how this is fair? Both of these things occurred in the same state

  • Never fire a warning shot

    Regardless of comments by Vice President Joe Biden, one should never fire a warning shot.

    "The ONLY time you should fire your weapon is in self defense when you feel your life is in danger.

    The “warning shot” myth that so many people think is ok, could be that one wrong move you make that could land you in prison for the rest of your life.

    Responsibly armed citizens should NEVER have to face prison time for taking up arms against an attacker"

    http://personalandhomedefense.Com/uncategorized/legal-self-defense-should-your-fire-a-warning-shot/

  • What kind of a question is this?

    Of course it isn't worse than shooting someone dead, I have a gun to protect myself, I don't want to have to kill someone, I just want sufficient means of protecting myself, if scaring them off was a way of doing that WITHOUT having to kill them, I would do that, the only reason I would ever shoot someone is if it was the only way I could protect myself

  • Isn't it obvious?

    Do I really have to sit here and point out that firing a warning shot into the air is completely harmless as compared to shooting and killing someone? Or is this just common sense and I can call it a day and rest my case? Come on people, is this a serious question?

  • It would be absurd to think so

    A warning shot is not harming anyone at all. On the other hand i am pretty sure murder is harming someone. Both cases make me sick because it does show racism in the world. There is no way in the world the court thought that firing a warning shot was a criminal act. Im just appalled.

  • This case shows the problem in this country-Irrationalism and Emotionalism!

    Looking at the case the most she should have gotten was reckless endangerment and even then look at the evidence. How can you look at the evidence in this case and NOT see reasonable doubt? And how can you feel all reasonable doubt is cleared after only 11 minutes!

    It's obvious to me that in this case the jury voted on emotion. It is simply not possible that they thought it through and arrived at a rational decision based on a careful consideration of the evidence and following the rule "beyond a reasonable doubt". I hope she is acquitted.

    I am not saying we should not have emotions. In fact we should get emotional--about people making too many decisions on instant emotion and impulse and not thinking things through! That isn't right. We should shame people who make decisions without rationally thinking them through even if it works out we should emphasize how it could've went wrong.

    Confidence needs to be deemphasized. The amount that confidence is emphasized in this country is ridiculous. People say things like "beliefs/thoughts determine reality". Um, no sorry but just no. Reality is reality and rational people deal with it! This mindset leads people to just go with their gut on everything and feel completely justified. Look at the mess this has made. Look at what it did to the housing market, Wall Street, to unemployed workers victims of this irrational emotion-driven "free market is always best" ideology (not saying we should have pure socialism either, we should rationally consider economic policy on a case-by-case basis instead of clinging to ideologies). This problem has been with us for far too long. Look at what it did to cannabis consumers, to Chagossians, to Iraqis, to the Tutsis in Rwanda who waited for help when none came.

    The Vulcans are right! We must go the way of logic, control our emotions, and make more carefully considered decisions.

    Only then can humanity live long and prosper.

  • No one is hurt

    You're showing that your armed and and dangerous and people should back off, past the point of showing the gun but showing the power of the gun in defense.It says that not only do you have a gun a but it is armed, dangerous and you are willing to use it if you reach the point of life threatening danger.It is used as a deterrent in a case like this.No one life was ended.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Ragnar says2013-07-19T19:26:55.957
A warning shot into the ground is better (into the air you don't know where it will go).