1) The garage had two exits: a jammed car door and the door back into the house
2) The point of stand-your-ground is that you have no duty to attempt to flee
Her husband threatened to kill her.
Stand-your-ground does not require illegal entry. It applies in public places, for example.
You haven't mentioned anything to indicate otherwise. Keep digging, though. It's fun watching you try to justify this.
I'm glad you're having fun. Smart *** jerk comments like that make you so much more persuasive. As smart as you might be, you're a real jackass weather I agree or disagree with you.
Stand your ground has a requirement, you must feel that you life is in imminent danger. I haven't read FL stand your ground law, I'm basing this on my general understanding of these types of laws.
First, stand your ground doesn't require you to attempt to flee, thus the name. You can stay where you rightfully exist and defend yourself if attacked. However, stand your ground doesn't allow you to use a firearm for intimidation so that your husband gets out of your way. It doesn't allow for warning shots.
So, clearly, stand your ground doesn't apply in this case. She wasn't trying to protect herself from an attack that was taking place, she was trying to gain the upper hand in a fight with her husband in which she says he threatened to kill her.
She made the case against herself. She didn't fire at a man attempting to harm her, she fired at a wall near where he and HER CHILDREN were. Again, the children were standing with the husband and she fired an un-aimed shot in their general direction when no physical harm was taking place. He was not lunging at her. He was not holding a knife. He was standing next to the children. She wanted him to leave. You cannot fire shots to get people to leave. Nor can you shot in someone's general direction if a few minutes earlier they verbally threatened to kill you. How was he going to kill her? Did he have a weapon? Did he do anything that indicated his killing of her was about to begin? No? Ok then, shooting at the husband and their children was not justified. Shooting at a wall violates one of the basic rules of firearm safety, Know your target and what lies beyond your target. She's taking pot shots at walls. What's on the other side of the wall? More kids, innocent neighbors, who? She doesn't know and she doesn't care, she's taking shots in the house with her kids around.
I know she claims he was abusive, but her actions are considered domestic violence. You cannot use threats and intimidation to get your way in a domestic dispute. That includes throwing things, breaking things, punching or kicking walls and doors and in this case firing random shots at the wall. She went over the line. She put her children's lives at risk.
She would have been fine if she would have returned with the gun and told him to get out. Then if he doesn't get out she can call the police. If at any time he starts to physically threaten her she can shot him. Not the wall. Him. Not his pinky toe, him.
You don't think the Zimmerman shooting was justified despite Zimmerman suffering injuries. He was being physically attacked. I'm not saying he didn't aggravate the situation, but by being a prick who harasses young black kids one doesn't relinquish the right to defend them-self from a life threatening attack. Unfortunately it will be too hard to say if the attack was instigated by Zimmerman or Trayvon, which means that Zimmerman will almost certainly not be convicted. Does that mean I'm convinced Zimmerman didn't initiate the physical altercation and then shoot Trayvon when he (Trayvon) was actually the one defending himself? No, just not sure enough to say. On the other hand I'm guessing you'd still have something to say if there was video showing that Trayvon was the first one to get physical.
