In regard to the assault with a deadly weapon incident.
I would argue that had she shot her husband she would not have been charged, regardless of whether he died or was wounded.
My previous experience in law enforcement, granted not in Florida, had similar rules for those of who who carried firearms. Basically, if we sighted in on someone we had an obligation to shoot because to sight in on someone was, and is, considered the point of no return in Alaska. I know that different jurisdictions have different rules, like in NY, especially the city, law enforcement are allowed to sight in, or aim, their weapons at people they are arresting. If a law enforcement officer (city police, Troopers, COs, Court Officers, etc.) sights in on someone and they do not have just cause for doing so they can be charged with attempted murder. Just cause includes anything relating to the defense of life, self defense, etc. The Alaskan rules stipulate that just pointing the gun at someone is use of deadly force because the threat of deadly force exists in sighting the gun in.
I'm not quite sure why I gave all that background. I'm tired. However, I do remember my point, thankfully.
The assault she is charged with is not (one would hope) against her husband but against the public at large. When you discharge a firearm you, the shooter, is responsible for that bullet. You are also responsible for ensuring that the gun is fired in a safe direction, or in a necessary direction. By firing into the ceiling she was assaulting the public. She has no control of that bullet once she pulls the trigger. If she pulled it on purpose to frighten her husband it IS a crime because she needlessly placed the public at risk. Had she shot into the ground, provided she was on the first floor, there would not have been a crime.
I could be wrong on the state but I believe it was in New Jersey sometime between 1995-2005 but at a New Year's party a police officer fired his weapon into the air celebrating. The bullet traveled across a lake, through a window, and killed a sleeping child. The officer was understandably fired and charged with murder. This is a similar situation. Guns are not toys and if one decides to shoot one MUST (has a legal responsibility in most jurisdictions) have reasonable knowledge of where that bullet is going and what it is going to do.
The woman in the assault case had a legal right to shoot her husband if she so desired. She, same as everyone, always, did not have a right to recklessly fire in an unsafe direction where she had no knowledge of where that bullet was going to go or what is was going to do.
She was properly charged. Unfortunately, I wish hunters would be charged like this. There are no such thing as accidental shootings, only negligent shootings. A gun is a responsibility that one voluntarily undertakes. Hunters need to be held to the same standard that this woman was.