Mother arrested for defending children

77zach said:

In your Amerika everyone asks the government for help for everything. Some choose to be more responsible for themselves. No one was harmed in the incident. The "law" may have been broken but the law certainly was not. We are aware that some do not understand such a distinction and we're paying for it, dearly.

Click to expand...

No, in FL where the statutes do restrict the Right, whether we agree with the statutes or not. I disagree with her chosen course of action. I also disagree with the response, AND with the statutes that allow the response to stand.


There was no immediate danger, she had no actual need to act as she did. And, her choice was outside of the law, no matter how much any of us disagree with the laws that are in place.

wittmeba said:

Why couldn't this be treated as "I felt threatened for my life"? Then any rights to self defense should be applied. All she would need to indicate is it lunged at her and she shot it. Simple.

Click to expand...

Simple, because that is not the metric. It would not be 'reasonable' to feel threatened in a case where the danger is quite well known, AND quite simple to avoid.

If not on private land this would not likely be in the news. Shooting a deadly snake in ones backyard is not against the law, or would be excused as a justified discharge of a firearm. But, that ain't what happened. Hope she is shown leniency. Plead down to a misdemeanor and get probation.

Nightmare said:

So much for a jury of peers.

Click to expand...

Jury of public opinion.

In the pre computer days local news unless it was huge crime.

Now a couple of clicks and for years later it can pop up.

transam86 said:

im all for guns everywhere thats my opinion but killing an animal reptile when it shows no threat? whats the reason for that? An over zealous show off killing something that didnt need to be killed!! my opinion STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Cottonmouths are disgusting snakes, and are highly venomous. I agree about the stupidity though.

wrightme said:

Simple, because that is not the metric. It would not be 'reasonable' to feel threatened in a case where the danger is quite well known, AND quite simple to avoid.

Click to expand...

Isn't Florida a stand your ground state? We should fight for our right to stand up to these evil serpents!

The Truth said:

Isn't Florida a stand your ground state? We should fight for our right to stand up to these evil serpents!

Click to expand...

Yes, with the 'reasonable person fear of death and/or gbi.'


This was not such a case.

wrightme said:

yes, with the 'reasonable person fear of death and/or gbi.'


this was not such a case.

Click to expand...

iyo

The Truth said:

iyo

Click to expand...

No, in a 'reasonable person' view.

Maybe in the opinion of the shooter, there was reason to believe that the snake may bite someone, which would cause GBI or death. Is not a situation like this to be taken into account from the perspective of the shooter, not your personal perspective of what could be considered reasonable?

The Truth said:

Maybe in the opinion of the shooter, there was reason to believe that the snake may bite someone, which would cause GBI or death. Is not a situation like this to be taken into account from the perspective of the shooter, not your personal perspective of what could be considered reasonable?

Click to expand...

That does not meet the 'reasonable person' metric defined in statute.

It isn't whether the shooter 'reasonably believes' that the snake may bite someone, it is whether a 'reasonable person' would believe that the use of deadly force is needed in the situation. In this case, a 'reasonable person fear' does not exist, as the reptile was identified, and everyone apparently knew it was there; for sufficient time for the woman to borrow a firearm from someone else to go back to the snake and shoot it.

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Click to expand...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

If circumstances were such that the snake was actually an imminent threat to others who could NOT easily avoid it, then I would fully agree that the 'reasonable person' test is met. In this case, I do not see that deadly force was necessary under the test. (continuing under the hypothetical view of this being equivalent to the syg statute regarding the use of deadly force against a person).

http://www.newsherald.com/news/crime-public-safety/woman-shoots-at-snake-and-lands-in-jail-1.387442


I just see now that not only did the woman who shot at the snake get arrested, so did the one who had the permit and handgun.

April Dawn DeMarco, 30, was arrested for discharging a .380-caliber handgun on the practice football field of Bay High School, 300 E. 15th St., during practice last week for the local Pop Warner football team. Demarco apparently borrowed the pistol from Miren Gregory, 31, to protect nearby children after a group of parents found a water moccasin on the field, police reported.

Click to expand...

State law also prohibits people with concealed weapons permits from bringing weapons on a school campus during any event not related to those weapons. Gregory was arrested Tuesday on charges of carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a firearm on school property.

Click to expand...

I'm actually not disagreeing with you on this one. I think it was pretty stupid to shoot at a snake in such a manner.

That being said, to quote the very same line of statute that you quoted:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary

Click to expand...

This proves my point exactly. It says nothing of a "reasonable person" or any test for such a thing, but does specifically name the person shooting as the one whose perspective matters legally.

Now, it would be pretty tough for her to prove that she was trying to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another," but it's that part of the statute that would need to be scrutinized and proven in court. I think it is somewhat reasonable to believe that the snake was a danger to the kids and others, but I still agree that this is really pushing the limit and she would have been smarter to use a shovel to decapitate it like a normal person would.

wrightme said:

http://www.newsherald.com/news/crime-public-safety/woman-shoots-at-snake-and-lands-in-jail-1.387442


I just see now that not only did the woman who shot at the snake get arrested, so did the one who had the permit and handgun.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my comments are really moot in regards to the actual story because it was at a school function, just trying to make productive conversation really.

The Truth said:

I'm actually not disagreeing with you on this one. I think it was pretty stupid to shoot at a snake in such a manner.

That being said, to quote the very same line of statute that you quoted:



This proves my point exactly. It says nothing of a "reasonable person" or any test for such a thing, but does specifically name the person shooting as the one whose perspective matters legally.

Now, it would be pretty tough for her to prove that she was trying to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another," but it's that part of the statute that would need to be scrutinized and proven in court. I think it is somewhat reasonable to believe that the snake was a danger to the kids and others, but I still agree that this is really pushing the limit and she would have been smarter to use a shovel to decapitate it like a normal person would.

Click to expand...

That's not the way any of it works at all. [/Esurance commercial lady voice]

The test is to determine if the belief of the person now sitting in the seat labled "Defendant" was reasonable or not. It's not sufficient for them to say "I thought it was necessary" - they need to demonstrate, via the "reasonable person test" that any other reasonable person in that situation would also believe that using that level of force was necessary. Not what your frightened snake-phobic, or your I-just-hate-snakes-because-of-what-they-did-in-the-Garden-of-Eden or even your snakes=icky person would believe.

This comes about because the law really is not what the legislature wrote and passed and the Governor signed and is published in the books of laws (as much as most folks think it is) but is in fact what judges tell us it means in spite of what the legislature wrote and passed or what the governor signed. If you do not track the case law you will wind up on the side of the road with your axel broken and your wheel spokes shattered, along with your sense of right and wrong.

stay safe.

What if replaced by until... I love examples in irony...

skidmark said:

That's not the way any of it works at all. [/Esurance commercial lady voice]

The test is to determine if the belief of the person now sitting in the seat labled "Defendant" was reasonable or not. It's not sufficient for them to say "I thought it was necessary" - they need to demonstrate, via the "reasonable person test" that any other reasonable person in that situation would also believe that using that level of force was necessary. Not what your frightened snake-phobic, or your I-just-hate-snakes-because-of-what-they-did-in-the-Garden-of-Eden or even your snakes=icky person would believe.

This comes about because the law really is not what the legislature wrote and passed and the Governor signed and is published in the books of laws (as much as most folks think it is) but is in fact what judges tell us it means in spite of what the legislature wrote and passed or what the governor signed. If you do not track the case law you will wind up on the side of the road with your axel broken and your wheel spokes shattered, along with your sense of right and wrong.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Actually in Florida, it's a little different. Once you claim self-defense or defense of others, the State must prove your actions did not meet the 'reasonable person test', beyond a reasonable doubt.

Her actions, obviously fail that test, without question.

notalawyer said:

Actually in Florida, it's a little different. Once you claim self-defense or defense of others, the State must prove your actions did not meet the 'reasonable person test', beyond a reasonable doubt.

Her actions, obviously fail that test, without question.

Click to expand...

You even have to claim self defense?

davidmcbeth said:

You even have to claim self defense?

Click to expand...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

76.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Click to expand...

It does not look like you have to claim self defense. At least the immunity statute does not explicitly define it that way. It may be implicit in the 'as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031.' IOW, if a person does NOT claim that the use or threat was in defense of 1) person, 2) home, or 3) property, immunity has not been invoked.

wrightme said:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html



It does not look like you have to claim self defense. At least the immunity statute does not explicitly define it that way. It may be implicit in the 'as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031.' IOW, if a person does NOT claim that the use or threat was in defense of 1) person, 2) home, or 3) property, immunity has not been invoked.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, you kinda do.....it's a crime, shooting firearms in public, that is...

If you don't make any statement, you're going to get arrested and go to prison; if you come up with some completely unreasonable statement "others were 20-50 yards away, so I had to shoot at it" (and miss), you're going to get arrested and possibly go to prison. Only if there is evidence that provides the LEO with PC to believe you did not act in reasonable self defense/defense of others, will you not be arrested. Like Zimmerman - before all the race baiters and politicians got involved.

In Florida, an individual must make a prima facie claim of self defense, then and only then does the burden of proof shift to the state. The idiot in this case did so, now the burden of proof that she did not act within the "reasonable person standard" shifts to the state.

Self defense/defense of others is simply an affirmative defense to any charges.

She was properly arrested based on the article. She committed a few crimes and her claim of defense of others fails miserably. It is clear that there was no imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone.

She discharged a firearm while in the commission of a felony - possession of a firearm on the property of a school (by a non-CWFL holder) so the 10-20-Life laws comes into play. She could get a 20 year minimum mandatory without parole - If she gets an SA with an agenda. A first year law student could get a conviction here, that is, if the jury is not composed of a bunch of emotional idiots.



ETA: Just to be clear that I think the possession on school property law is stupid. I'm just explaining what this dumb-ass has in store.

notalawyer said:

Well, yeah, you kinda do.....it's a crime, shooting firearms in public, that is...

If you don't make any statement, you're going to get arrested and go to prison

Click to expand...

Huh? That does not compute.


If you don't make any statement, it still requires an investigation, charges, AND a trial prior to any convictions (if any).