Woman shoots at "ceiling", gets 20 years - the actual story.

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

So, you know this story, right? The one about this woman who shot at the ceiling as a warning shot while standing her ground against her abusive husband who got convicted to spend 20 years in prison because of it. Turns out there's been a lot of lies and misinformation. Surfing the web I came across the court documents and the difference between what people say and the facts are staggering, here is is:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss



To save you some time and sum it up, it turns out she didn't shoot at the ceiling but at the mans head, while he was together with his two children. She missed him, the bullet traveled upward through the wall and got stuck in the ceiling of the next room. The man ran away and called the police while she just remained in the house and never called the police like someone fearing for their life enough to shoot at a dude would.

On a later date, while she was on parole for this incident, she visited him at his own house and assaulted him for testifying against her. This was part of the reason for her conviction, it was a conviction on breaking the parole and assault as WELL as related issues regarding the shooting.


There's just this air of supposed unfairness going on about this case and nobody actually knows the whole story, it's ridiculous how far away the truth is from what the media tells us.

 

[Dirge Eterna]

The truth doesn't sell enough for them to tell it.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

And this is because the media is free to say what ever it wants, in what way it wants... great isn't it! <3 Freedom of speech... Free Julian Assange... etc

Seriously though. If you read a report, and it sounds oddly unfair or like something is amiss... it probably is! Never take anything from the media as read... Like the whole Nigella Lawson thing... a snap shot that made her husband look like he was strangling her, when in fact he wasn't doing that at all... he was trying to look at her, because the horiffic white powder sniffer had just returned from the bathroom off her head on drugs.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

The media selectively omitting the facts in a story? Say it aint so!

Well done to you for trying to rectify that though, I'm too lazy to try.

 

[LetalisK]

I find this apropo considering how this case was used as a racial bludgeon during the George Zimmerman trial.

Anyway, I'm hardly surprised. Chasing the almighty dollar is more important than being right. I don't place all the blame at the media's feet, though. I consider them a reflection of society's tendencies at large.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Funnily enough, that's how I came across this. It was a video related to zimmerman case videos that lead to this discovery.

 

[Wickatricka]

Huh well I didn't know about this case and don't really care for cases that are publicized. Why does it need attention? What is the point?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Huh well I didn't know about this case and don't really care for cases that are publicized. Why does it need attention? What is the point?

It was a big thing during the Zimmerman case. People were saying how stupid American gun laws are because Zimmerman was getting off scot-free for shooting and killing a kid while this woman was getting 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot into the air and not even hurting anyone.

Obviously these were people who didn't follow either of the cases, and didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Right, that's pretty much the exact reason.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Well, this is an example of why guns need to be regulated a lot more in America. I hope all the parties were not harmed.

 

[shadowuser10141]

The media also misled people about Trayvon/Zimmerman.

 

[lacktheknack]

Does the media even try to be accurate anymore? I set up my personal "If the media says that the courts made a stupid, stupid decision, it's because they're lying" rule a long time ago.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

People who had already made up their minds about what the George Zimmerman verdict "should" be saw this story and immediately saw it as a chance to prove their point, and didn't bother to actually do any research.

People see something that vindicates their worldview, they jump on it full of bias without bothering to check the facts. We may as well talk about how water is wet.

It's also important to understand that there really isn't a concept of a "warning shot" as it applies to self-defense. If you shoot near someone, even if you intentionally miss, it's still considered assault with a deadly weapon, regardless of whether you hit the cupboard or someone's sternum.

 

[irishda]

Turns out you still get more time for not shooting someone than for shooting and killing them.

 

[MagunBFP]

Turns out you still get more time for not shooting someone than for shooting and killing them.

That would be a great headline... except its more a case of you get more time for missing the head that you're trying to shoot then for shooting and killing your husband.

Not shooting =/= missing

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Turns out you still get more time for not shooting someone than for shooting and killing them.

That would be a great headline... except its more a case of you get more time for missing the head that you're trying to shoot then for shooting and killing your husband.

Not shooting =/= missing

Turns out you still get more time for not shooting someone than for shooting and killing them.

People, read the first post better! XD


The time she got was due to a combination of charges in adition to the shooting. She got 20 years due to breaking parole and assaulting the man on the later date as well as due to the actual shooting incident. Also, the man was together with his two kids so they two are considered harmed parties and she also had charges regarding endangering minors and stuff added to the mix.

 

[Queen Michael]

And this is why I never believe any story that's about how one person is awful.

 

[irishda]

Turns out you still get more time for not shooting someone than for shooting and killing them.

That would be a great headline... except its more a case of you get more time for missing the head that you're trying to shoot then for shooting and killing your husband.

Not shooting =/= missing

My mistake. You get more time for being a worse shot than being a better one.

 

[Cecilo]

Turns out you still get more time for not shooting someone than for shooting and killing them.

That would be a great headline... except its more a case of you get more time for missing the head that you're trying to shoot then for shooting and killing your husband.

Not shooting =/= missing

My mistake. You get more time for being a worse shot than being a better one.

No. You get more time for breaking your parole, assaulting your former husband while on said parole, and for endangering your children while trying to shoot your husband.