Posted on 06/12/2018 3:30:30 PM PDT by CedarDave
Bull. My dog is family.
...unless you're a cop, of course.
No New Mexico jury will convict her. New York (City), maybe. The prosecutor should drop these ridiculous and excessive charges. This woman used appropriate force and did her best to not endanger anybody...
Balderdash. At least if you're saying firing a shot into the ground for her stated purpose is "unreasonable". Most "reasonable" men would not fault this woman for shooting at the ground to scare away attacking animals.
Like I said, while technically what this woman did might be "not allowed", there ain't no New Mexico jury that will ever convict her. The prosecutor should use his discretion and drop the charge, or he's going to look like an idiot...
Correct. And it shouldn't be...
Very common law in many states. Even here in gun friendly Nevada you can only legally discharge a firearm within most municipalities in defense of human life. In a weird quirk you can kill dogs, with firearms, that are molesting livestock.
This lady should of said that she believed the dogs were going after the kid.
Correct, as I said.
Yet most "reasonable" men would patently disagree with such a law, because it's too dogmatic. The law should be more about whether anyone was put in unreasonable danger than some blanket ban on certain actions with a firearm or weapon.
There are certainly cases where firing a warning shot—especially into the ground—is safe enough. It's certainly safer than what cops sometimes do, as evidenced by that unlucky person (those unlucky people?) in California who just happened to be driving the wrong color truck, and who got shot to Hell because the police didn't bother to identify who they were shooting at!
"Shoot first and ask questions later", I guess—at least for the police...
Never talk to cops.
You don't decide what the law is.
“To fire any kind of warning shot is for the most part an act of negligent discharge. Oh and brandishing a weapons (i.e. pulling it to intimidate without shooting) is also a crime.”
Seems like legally it’s considered better for a woman to be found raped and strangled to death than to have to explain how she scared off her attacker with a warning shot or by showing her weapon. (”Ain’t everybody got it in ‘em to pop a cap on somebody” (Some gang banger in a documentary).)
And in regard to “brandishing”, anybody who carries better practice their quick draw.
And yet, it would have been fine if the cops decided to shoot her non-aggressive puppy - can’t make this crap up...
Fair enough.. that is why I said ‘in text’ thank you.
What most folks don’t understand is that the “reasonable man” test has been defined in most places based on previous court cases and it may not be all that “reasonable.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.