Talk:10-20-Life

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Question

What if the felon uses an imitation gun to commit a crime in Florida? Will he or she still get 10 years in the slammer, or less? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

> no, the enhancements only apply to actual possession of a real firearm. Note that this means both actual possession (as opposed to constructive) and a real firearm (as opposed to something that appears to be a firearm).

> note that some courts have decided that a toy gun can still support a conviction for a crime that requires use of a firearm or deadly weapon. If the victim is fooled, the jury can convict. So you could get 15 years in prison for agg battery with a deadly weapon but not get the 10 year mandatory minimum from 10-20-Life. In the below case, the guy had a BB gun that had no gas in it and was broken. He swung the pistol and hit his wife in the face with it. His conviction was upheld.

"There is clear proof that Mr. Mitchell used a BB pistol during all of these offenses. With both words and actions, he implied that the gun was loaded and operable. Nothing visible to any victim in this case would lead any rational person to conclude that the BB gun was not a loaded and operable, deadly or dangerous weapon. In light of the reasoning in Depasquale, and influenced by the treatment of verbal threats in both Shelby and Butler, we conclude that this evidence is sufficient to support these convictions. We cannot deny that our reasoning assesses the likelihood of injury from a reasonable victim's perspective and not from the perspective of the defendant, who knows his weapon is unloaded or inoperable. We simply conclude that, under these circumstances, this limited reliance upon a victim's perspective is a correct application of the law.

Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) approved, 703 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1997)"

>> incidentally, what the fuck is Prison Releasee Reoffender doing in 10-20-Life. it's a completely separate portion of the sentencing code that deals with different factual scenarios. you can be subject to 10-20-Life, PRR or both at the same time depending on the facts of the case and your criminal record. 207.203.239.2 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The penalties are the same. Minimum of 10 yrs. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon Technicalities

What actually constitutes a "high capacity box magazine"? And should that be in the article? Furthermore, isn't, as far as handguns are concerned, "semi-automatic weapon with a box magazine" equivalent to "any handgun that isn't a revolver" ? 93.205.216.192 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update

Law has been reformed and subsequently appealed. Helpful sources:

Will integrate more detailed information when I have the time. Swarm ♠ 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done some research and I can see the headlines loudly proclaiming that this law is gone. Apart from headlines, however, the articles fail to explain what that technically means. So I read the actual bill that "repealed" this law, and it literally just removed aggravated assault from the list of crimes it applied to. Apart from deleting the words "aggravated assault", the law remains exactly the same. The intent of this was to restore judicial discretion in relatively minor cases of "aggravated assault" in which no one was hurt, such as firing a warning shot at someone. Swarm ♠ 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why must Wikipedia minimize the obvious success of this law?

Wikipedia seems to go out of its way to find other reasons for the drastic decline in violent crime since the passage of this law, even going as far as positing unsubstantiated hypotheticals by a leftist professor. Can't you just say that these laws work? Look at the other extreme; California and other leftist hellholes have explicitly gutted criminal laws as well as anything resembling effective bail and criminals literally run the streets. 2603:8001:C200:1637:116F:FFFC:8A89:26F0 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]