Guy Fires Warning Shot, Gets 20 Years

Status
Not open for further replies.

McAngus

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
40
You all know this, but reminders are never a bad idea.

Guy Fires Warning Shot, Gets 20 Years
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/10/guy-fires-warning-shot-gets-20-years.html

FLORIDA MAN SAYS HE WAS PROTECTING HIS FAMILY

A man who fired a warning shot at his daughter's troubled boyfriend and told him "the next one's between your eyes" got 20 years for doing it—and by law has to serve every day of the sentence, CBS News reports. "And I was just like, 'What?'" says Florida resident Lee Wollard, who insists he was defending his family. "You know, the blood just drained out of my head. I almost passed out." But the charges against Wollard were serious: child endangerment, aggravated assault, and shooting into a building with a firearm. He was also swept up in a US legal movement known as mandatory minimum sentencing, which appeared in the late 1980s as a way to lock up drug dealers and customers, including first offenders, in America's "war on drugs."

Activists say it has led to prison overcrowding and cases that strike some as extreme—like the music producer with no criminal record who got 55 years for selling marijuana to cops while carrying a firearm, or a 19-year-old in Texas who may face 20 years over a tray of hash brownies. But supporters argue that the threat of harsh sentences enables prosecutors to persuade suspects to plea bargain rather than enter costly, time-consuming trials. The debate is ongoing, as Maine Gov. Paul LePage argues for mandatory sentencing in domestic violence cases, the Bangor Daily News reports, and California quietly nixes a mandatory 90-day jail term for those under the influence of narcotics, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. Even Florida ended its current penalty for firing warning shots, but too late for Wollard. "Everything, everything is gone," he says.
 
That is one of the most ridiculous convictions/sentences I have ever heard of.

Absolutely asinine. It boggles the mind.


---------
I did a quick search on that guy's name.

The media is such a freaking joke

From a CBS article:

"So I grabbed my .357 and loaded it with shells," said Wollard.

"That's a large gun," said Moriarty.

"It's a heck of a gun, yes," said Wollard. "You even wing someone with a .357, they're in deep trouble.""
 
I would like to hear the whole story.

Got a time machine?

There was a trial, lots of information out there. Do what I did, Google the guy's name and a keyword or two, there are multiple articles from major outlets, including quotes from the judge saying he didn't want to do it, or whatever, but the oath he took required him to.
 
Many years ago, a fellow was on I5, headed south, when a Corvette mistook him for a car that had cut him off, and started playing freeway chicken with him. The fellow being harassed pulled over, and the guy driving the Corvette got out of the car and started to approach him. So the guy being harassed hauled out his 45 and put a warning shot into the dirt. Corvette driver hauled out of there in a big hurry. After only a few more miles, the state police pulled the guy being harassed over, and arrested him. He now has a felony record.

Do not draw a weapon unless you have reason to believe your life is in danger. Do not fire a warning shot. Do not fire a shot to just protect property. If you do, you have a very good chance of going to jail for a long time, and it's not in just a few jurisdictions.
 
If you can fire a warning shot, you weren't that afraid in the first place is the way I see it. I can see why honest and good people might do it but in today's world, it's just a way to get yourself in trouble. Either you have to plug someone in the heart or head, or you don't.
 
I have fired a warning shot in defense of another person. At the time it seemed like the best option (and it did stop a woman getting stabbed) but having thought about it afterwards and discussing it on the forums, there was a better option than what I did.
The trouble is, the option didn't materialise in my head at the time, such were the unexpected circumstances...

(It happened in South Africa in a shopping mall)
 
He was also swept up in a US legal movement known as mandatory minimum sentencing, which appeared in the late 1980s as a way to lock up drug dealers and customers, including first offenders, in America's "war on drugs."
. . .
Even Florida ended its current penalty for firing warning shots, but too late for Wollard.
This is absolutely insane. There's gotta be some sort of appeal he can make. Based on the quotes the judge made, it sounds like even he essentially acknowledged that Wollard was a victim of the system.

Twenty years mandatory imprisonment for a law the state abolishes a couple years after your conviction, but you still have to finish your sentence?? TWENTY YEARS?! What an atrocity, to rip a man's life away from him based on a technicality!

Why isn't this in legal? Be nice to have Frank chime in on this.
 
The best is to scream at the top of your voice, You better leave now!!
 
How about yelling Bang Bang bang followed by A stern warning like I have 12 shots left you better run . Warning shots are just a bad idea all around . I had a friend do this same thing years ago . The cop that responded to shots fired call was a friend of his so he got a slap on the wrist and held in the car to make all the nabours think he was being charged .
 
Wow. I wonder about the "at". He fired warning shots at the dude? That aint a warning shot IMO.
 
I saw the interview with the guy. He was offered probation if he took a plea and refused since he thought he did nothing wrong. Hopefully the Governor will step in and at least commute his sentence.
 
Years ago, I sat through a seminar by Bill Jordan in which he specifically stated that warning shots were a no no!
Dan
 
His insistance that he did nothing wrong shows his lack understanding of gun laws and failure to get training and education.
Like so many he bought a gun, some shells, and that was it.

Didn't take any training or classes. Even reading our S&T would have helped him see it was a bad idea.

Not that I agree with mandatory sentencing, but he could have avoided the whole thing with education. Failing that he was offered probation in plea bargain.
His bad decisons are all on him.

Just a secondary point, who lets their 16 y/o daughters older boyfriend move in ? Another bad decision.
Just my .02
 
The mandatory sentence is bogus,
but I agree. This is on him and is a product of his own ignorance. Definitely a reminder of why you should be intimately familiar with the laws regarding self defense in your area if you take self defense seriously.
 
A corrupt system claims another. Aside from being responsible for where that round goes there should be no penalty if he genuinely had reason.

And to the 'if you fired a warning shot you weren't in danger' folks, I disagree. It's like the saying 'if you draw you better shoot'. If by drawing or by a warning shot (aside from the danger of where that would go) you deescalate the situation without having to take a life that should be a big thumbs up in my book.
If a bad guy sees a gun and runs off or is stubborn enough to wait until he sees a round pumped into the dirt off to the side and stops his attack, that is better for him and all involved in today's world of red tape.

Just my opinion.

Edit: I wouldn't ever fire a warning shot, I just think you can't make a blanket law for every possible encounter that could happen. Besides, why leave someone left that could sue you :)
 
Last edited:
"If you can fire a warning shot, you weren't that afraid in the first place is the way I see it. "

I know that is the way prosecutors and case law in many jurisdictions see it. I also know that is how a lot of police training puts it. No warning shots ever.

If I were to fire a warning shot, it would be because I was afraid for my life or limb but did not want to wait til the situation became kill-or-be-killed-only. That's the way I see it, and suspect local grand jury members may see it.

The "no warning shots ever" means shoot to kill only, which might work with urban police, but would not sit well with grand jurors drawn from a pool of rural civilians who accept lethal force as a last resort, and then only in the most dire circumstances.

I remember seeing ads for blank firing or tear gas pistols sold as "alarm guns" as late as 1968 whose only self-defense potential was warning shots that would attract attention and calls to the police which supposedly would scare off attackers.
 
A corrupt system claims another. Aside from being responsible for where that round goes there should be no penalty if he genuinely had reason.

And to the 'if you fired a warning shot you weren't in danger' folks, I disagree. It's like the saying 'if you draw you better shoot'. If by drawing or by a warning shot (aside from the danger of where that would go) you deescalate the situation without having to take a life that should be a big thumbs up in my book.
If a bad guy sees a gun and runs off or is stubborn enough to wait until he sees a round pumped into the dirt off to the side and stops his attack, that is better for him and all involved in today's world of red tape.

Just my opinion.

Edit: I wouldn't ever fire a warning shot, I just think you can't make a blanket law for every possible encounter that could happen. Besides, why leave someone left that could sue you :)

Well said.

There was a case of a woman firing a warning shot in KS not long ago that I think made sense. A group of men was attacking/beating her husband in a parking lot. One of them had brass knuckles another was reported to have flashed a gun in his waistband. I can totally see how a woman standing there yelling at them wouldn't get them to stop, how she wouldn't want to take the time/risk associated with running into the group, and how a warning shot that hits nobody (it didn't hit anybody) is less dangerous than shooting into a group of men that includes your husband. And it worked, she fired a warning shot and the reaction provided her husband the opportunity to escape the group of attackers.

Absolute, blanket statements are rarely the way to go
 
Being stupid is never a good excuse and a big part of it is that bullet has to go somewhere. Dim bulbs like Mr 357 will blow your arm off if your hit in the pinky here and shotgun Joe are the reason why we have shannons law here in az
 
No is the correct answer,but

I was an LEO and saw more than a few officers fire warning shots.

I 'might' be guilty of that too :evil:.

Was it the best idea = hell no,did it help the matter ----- maybe.

But there was NO report about any of the incidents so there were no repercussions.

Until your in "THAT MOMENT" ,you would not understand why a warning shot seemed like a good idea.

As long as there is NO danger to bystanders ANYWHERE,I see it as a possible waste of ammunition.

AND a possible means to avoid a shooting [ playing the advocate ].
 
Wait... didn't Florida just pass a warning shot law this summer?
How are they going to pass a law allowing for warning shots, then prosecute a guy for firing a warning shot? Seems like a set up, since they charged him with a litany of other crimes and not attempted murder or whatever.
 
The "no warning shots ever" means shoot to kill only, which might work with urban police, but would not sit well with grand jurors drawn from a pool of rural civilians who accept lethal force as a last resort, and then only in the most dire circumstances.
I was trained "shoot to stop," not "shoot to kill." The point is that you may be justified shooting to STOP an attack, but not shooting because you fear you MIGHT be attacked. I can't shoot somebody who has the ability and the opportunity to harm me; that person must also be putting me in jeopardy. That's why "warning shots" are almost always non-starters.

Warp, would what the woman in your story did be called a "warning shot?" The attack was already underway and she shot to stop it. I am not a lawyer, but I think she used justifiable lethal force (that was not lethal in this instance) to stop an attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top