Case Study #2 Part Two: The Shocking Clarification Follow Up Post!
Since it seems appropriate, I thought I'd mention that the law forbidding the discharge of warning shots as a means of self defense is intended to protect innocent bystanders that may be standing in the path of stray bullets. I can not disagree with that logic one bit.
The law of unintended consequences has never been more relevant. There are many laws put in place in our society to prevent credible danger. Making a vocal or written threat of violence does not physically hurt anyone, but it escalates the potential for danger, and thus, is considered illegal.
I have no problem restricting unintended, negative consequences.
Case Study #2 has a twin, with the same result, but the circumstances leading up to the mandatory twenty-year sentence vary considerably.
Again, Our Hero is a woman. It was a dark and stormy night when Our Hero's husband, full of piss and vinegar, decided it might be fun to pick a fight with his spouse. A disagreement led to an argument led to yelling led to physical abuse. Bloodied and fearing for her life, Our Hero escapes the home with full intention to flee by car (according to her testimony).
Alas, she has forgotten her keys.
Our Hero retrieves a handgun that was stored in the glove compartment box of the vehicle and proceeds to go back into the house where she is once again confronted by the husband, a.k.a. Our Villain.
A warning shot was fired over Our Villain's head to scare the piss and vinegar out of him, whether it worked or not is a matter of conjecture. This case study concludes with a jury taking less than eight minutes to return with a guilty conviction that carries the twenty-year mandatory sentence.
In the eyes of the law, Our Hero did two very bad things, making her Our Criminal on that dark and stormy night. She left the danger, found her pistol and then returned. She fired a warning shot inside of a house that had her two young children in it, potentially putting them in the path of a deadly, stray bullet.
The prosecution successfully persuaded the jury that there is absolutely zero evidence that Our Hero intended to leave the scene at all, that her return to the house was calculated and her keys were never really part of the equation.
Our Criminal pursued danger, not only placing her and her husband's life in jeopardy, but also compromised the safety of two innocent children. Serve those twenty years, I say.
My point is that the two cases involving the warning shots are not the same at all. While both bullets had the potential to harm an unintended target, one had a known element (two children) nearby, the other did not. Today's case finds Our Hero intentionally returning to a pre-existing, dangerous situation, escalating the matter, while yesterday's case found Our Hero merely attempting to escape the imminent danger. Neither hero responded well to adversity, I'll give you that, but to judge them on the same merit is reckless.
To conclude: Mandatory sentences are absurd.
Our third case is postponed for one day as you probably noticed. Fear not, we'll get there. Like stray bullets, loose ends never lead to anything good.
I thoroughly examined both of my jazzing hands independently today. While on the surface it seemed as though they were doing the exact same thing, I assure you that the variances were considerable. Some of those differences were miniscule and barely noticeable. Some of them were criminally obvious.
Day one-hundred and twenty-one complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment