New York man who saved woman from subway mugging by scaring off would-be robber with warning shot arrested Abortion and marijuana are going to have an impact on voter turn out, no doubt. But, is this type of State Action (remember the Marine charged in NY subway incident), coupled with the immigration fiasco going to be the driving force to unite a majority of voters for those candidates who run on a law & order platform? Common sense safety issue. I think it is. I think the suburban moms, like they did with Youngkin, are going to vote on this issue overwhelmingly. You can’t prosecute the Good Samaritans and let the criminals go.
Isn’t firing a “warning shot” illegal even in FL? If that’s the law I don’t see the issue with charging the guy. I also wouldn’t have an issue looking the other way. Edit: looks like FL changed to allow for “warning shots” as part of stand your ground. So it’s only recently become legal. Not a fan, though as I said in certain circumstances i could see prosecutorial discretion. If you stop an active crime with a warning shot that seems like a better option vs going straight for lethal force.
From a quick search on the topic, seems like a “warning shot” is only technically legal in very few states. Only recently in FL. Guess our meme brained lawyer thought it was some radical NY policy. Where it’s illegal that’s because it’s considered “deadly force”, so to authorize a warning shot you have to be facing imminent threat. Which mostly makes sense to me considering stray bullets can and do kill random people. If deadly force is justified, you can either fire a warning shot or shoot the perp center mass. For non-deadly force situations, seems undesirable to have people popping off “warning shots”. How many people do we want to have getting killed by stray bullets? This guy did his shoot in the subway. All kinds of ways that could go wrong. Was this a deadly force situation? Eh… as I said I have no issue if the prosecutor wanted to write it off. But I wouldn’t argue it passionately either way.
The answer is no. Some jackass getting arrested because he fired a gun in a subway station is not going to impact the election.
Ok, ….you are probably the same dude that also proclaimed a school board meetings in Virginia would have no impact on the Governor election. How did that turn out. It amazes me that some on the posters on this forum, on both sides of the spectrum, jump to a partisan position without actually reading the post. I used the linked story as a single example, not as the triggering point. I referenced a similar story as well. If you don’t think crime and punishment (broadly including immigration) is going to be a voting motivator…..well …good luck with that.
No doubt that crime/law and order will be a campaign theme/party plank in the election by some - it always is - state, local, and national- always. Fear is an effective political issue.
Crime is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure the extent to which people think about it as a federal issue or not. As an example, DeSantis has been touting certain crime stats in Florida. Presumably, if state and local officials get the bulk of credit or blame for crime and violence, then presidents will get less? Obviously, the vast majority of criminal cases are state and not Federal.
Question I’ve thought about for a long time. Using Florida as an example since I live here. What would happen if every person arrested asked for a jury trial? Isn’t that a constitutional right? Wouldn’t that clog the system and how would the right to a speedy trial affect that?
I've always heard that if everyone requested a jury trail, and plea bargains weren't a thing, that entire justice system would grind to a halt.
Not an issue I have personally dealt with or studied. Nearly all defendants who don't plead guilty right away ask for a jury trial since they don't want a judge trial. The question is how long the lawyers are willing to play that game of chicken. Defense attorneys who convince their client to actually try the case instead of accepting a plea offer should be careful about that given the "trial penalty" in sentencing and the fact that most of their clients are guilty of at least one of the charges. They really shouldn't be putting their clients at unnecessary risk to prove a point. I recall speedy trial issues coming up during Covid. My recollection is that the Florida Supreme Court essentially suspended or halted the right to speedy trial on public health grounds. I imagine they'd find a way to implement some other emergency power if it came down to letting a bunch of accused murderers walk free because they couldn't get a trial done in time.
Interesting about Florida. I've always had the understanding that warning shots are considered a really bad idea - much like trying to shoot someone in the leg or shoot out a tire. I've never heard of anyone training with warning shots in mind. That said, the details will matter to me. I haven't watched the video, but if the shooter was really trying to thwart a violent robbery, I wouldn't really want to see the book thrown at him either. Moreover, if actually shooting an attacker would otherwise be justified in a given situation, I suppose shooters in jurisdictions that do not allow warning shots could take the position that they tried to hit the attacker and missed or simply misfired. Ultimately, probably another good example of why it almost never helps to talk to cops if they're investigating you.
