Florida Mom imprisoned for "standing her ground" Is this fair?
Mel
2012/05/13 21:10:06
|
|
|||||
|
24 votes
|
|
83% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
3% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
10% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
3% | |||
New York News | New York Breaking News | NYC HeadlinesFlorida mom gets 20 years for firing warning shot at 'abusive' spouse
NewsCore
JACKSONVILLE,
Fla. -- A Florida woman has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for
firing a warning shot in the direction of her spouse, who she said was
physically abusive.
Marissa Alexander had claimed self-defense,
invoking Florida's now notorious "Stand Your Ground" law, saying she
fired the shot inside her home in 2010 to try and deter her husband.
Alexander, a mother-of-three, was convicted of
attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison
sentence, WETV reported.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, Alexander's spouse had a record of domestic violence.
In Friday's sentencing, the judge said he had no
choice under state law but to give Alexander the 20-year sentence -- the
minimum for a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has
been discharged, the Sentinel said.
"I didn't want to cry in court, but I just really
feel hurt. I don't think this should have been happening," Alexander's
11-year-old daughter told WETV.
A judge had rejected Alexander's "Stand Your
Ground" defense, saying she could have run away instead of firing the
gun, the newspaper said.
Under the law, a person can use deadly force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm without first attempting to retreat.
The law has been subject to much debate after
neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman claimed a "Stand Your
Ground" defense in his fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon
Martin.
Fla. -- A Florida woman has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for
firing a warning shot in the direction of her spouse, who she said was
physically abusive.
Marissa Alexander had claimed self-defense,
invoking Florida's now notorious "Stand Your Ground" law, saying she
fired the shot inside her home in 2010 to try and deter her husband.
Alexander, a mother-of-three, was convicted of
attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison
sentence, WETV reported.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, Alexander's spouse had a record of domestic violence.
In Friday's sentencing, the judge said he had no
choice under state law but to give Alexander the 20-year sentence -- the
minimum for a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has
been discharged, the Sentinel said.
"I didn't want to cry in court, but I just really
feel hurt. I don't think this should have been happening," Alexander's
11-year-old daughter told WETV.
A judge had rejected Alexander's "Stand Your
Ground" defense, saying she could have run away instead of firing the
gun, the newspaper said.
Under the law, a person can use deadly force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm without first attempting to retreat.
The law has been subject to much debate after
neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman claimed a "Stand Your
Ground" defense in his fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon
Martin.
Read More: Florida mom gets 20 years for firing warning shot at 'abusive' spouse
As far as I'm concerned any man beating a woman like that deserves to be shot
Top Opinion
-
Justice was NOT served here.
its so upsetting
The only time you can legally use deadly force is if your life is in danger.
Warning shots allow the prosecutor to ask this question, "If your life was really in danger why did you just fire a warning shot?"
Warning shots are never a good idea, and no competent firearms instructor teaches them.
I will admit to wondering why she'd fire a warning shot under those conditions.
If her life wasn't in danger, her shot was illegal.
I'd like nothing more than to see every abusive ass lined up against a wall and shot.
That said she broke the law. If your life isn't in immediate danger you CAN NOT SHOOT. It's the same area of the law that will convict Zimmerman if they can convince his jury he wasn't at risk.
There are no exemptions in the law for ignorance.
But I'll flat out say anyone that will shoot a gun towards their own children just to scare someone, deserves to be locked up.
If he was charging her to attack her, or beating her, the shot would be justified, and I'd say good for her for standing up and fighting back.
A warning shot isn't used in those situations, it's intimidation. It's reckless and stupid and gets people killed.
And there is no excuse for using one.
That isn't standing your ground.
I hope the mother appeals and gets a more just sentence. Then they both need anger management and parenting classes.
One Shot and three count indictment ?
Jacksonville woman sentenced to 20 years in prison in 'Stand Your Ground' controversy"
"Alexander, 31, was convicted in March of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in an August 2010 shooting. Alexander has maintained her innocence, saying she fired only a “warning shot” when confronted by her attacking, threatening husband, 36-year-old Rico Gray.
Jacksonville woman sentenced to 20 years in prison in 'Stand Your Ground' controversy"
http://m.jacksonville.com/new...
Legally it's the same as shooting at someone.
She left the house got a gun and went back inside before the shooting. I think she had valid reasons for those actions, but it looks bad.
Then She fired a warning shot. This one is a bit longer to explain, but warning shots are bad for several reasons.
No competent firearms instructor advocates warning shots, there's too much danger. Handgun Bullets can punch through several walls in a house and kill someone. Her warning shot could have hit someone walking their dog on he street outside.
Apart from the risk to others, warning shots hurt your case, and are easier to convict you on than actually shooting the person.
The reason for that is very simple, shooting a gun is deadly force. It doesn't matter if you put a round into the ground at your feet or into their heart. You used deadly force against them.
The only time you are legally justified to use deadly force is if your life is in immediate danger.
If you felt safe enough to just fire a warning shot instead of shooting them, your life really wasn't in immediate danger was it?
If the Jury hears the prosecutor ask that question, it's pretty much over for you.
Because if a self defense case goes to trial, innocent until proven guilty doesn't really apply. The defendant has to convince the Jury their actions were required to save their life.
She stated she attempted to leave , but , was locked by the garage and had to reenter the house to leave. He blocked her and threatened her.
She fired a shot to get past him . If she intended harm it would have been a simple matter to correct the aim and kill him.
Not condoning her actions ( nor his , whom seems complicit in creating the scene)
Not to say she shouldn't be facing some charges or punishment .
Just 20 years for Threatening him with the sound of a gun seems harsh.
I wonder if she had killed him outright , if Stand your ground would have allowed her to go free?
Certainly this will be appealed , not being a lawyer myself , see if you spot the same error I do with these sentences from the post above.
A judge had rejected Alexander's "Stand Your Ground" defense,
saying she could have run away instead of firing the gun, the newspaper said.
Under the law, a person can use deadly force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm without first attempting to retreat.
That's where her stand your ground claim fails, and why she had to retreat.
If she had fled back into the garage and he followed her, she has nowhere else to run and therefore could shoot.
Her 20 years were for endangering the lives of every person in the area including her kids, and any neighbors in nearby houses.
House walls don't stop bullets.
Police are forbidden to use warning shots because of the risk of the bullet hitting someone in many cases over a mile away.
Because of this risk, the Laws were written to make the requirements for firing the gun the same no matter what you intend by the shot.
A warning shot still requires immediate risk to your life.
It's well documented that ignorance of a law does not excuse your violating it.
Just cause you don't know the speed limit dropped doesn't mean you won't get a ticket.
You are responsible for learning the laws, and are guilty if you break them.
Really the part that pisses me off about this case the most is the idiot fired into the wall near her kids.
If the house was the standard drywall wood stud that most houses are made of, that bullet would easily pass through 4-5 walls even if it was just a 22.
Reckless actions like that have no place around guns.
The only time you pull a gun is if you need to use it right the heck now.
If you pull it you use it. (Barring them running away screaming at the sight of it or other change to the situation)
Warning Shots send the shooter to jail most of the time, and in worst cases get innocent bystanders killed.
The only time there is any justification for them is in remote areas with wild animals. And even then only with a suitable backstop, like a mountainside.
That's what convicted her.
19 years for a warning shot, doesn't make sense.
It doesn't matter if anyone died, she shot, and that is deadly force according to the law.
To use deadly force legally your life must be in danger. If her life wasn't in danger, that shot was illegal.
Warning shots hand a conviction to the prosecutor almost every time.
I mean if her life was really in danger she would have shot at him right?
Prosecution puts that thought in a Jury's heads, and it's pretty much over for the defense.
I get it though the jury didn't go for it, so she was found guilty. But In NY if she intended on Killing him and it didn't stick, she could be out of prison as early as 10 years.
One for the Husband, One for Child #1, and One for Child #2.
The idiot fired a gun into a wall near her kids...
If she was being beaten and her life was in danger, she should have put the bullet into the scum's chest.
Since she felt safe enough to fire a warning shot, I have doubts as to the risk her life was in at that moment.
If your life isn't in immediate danger, you can't shoot.
And chances are I would have been dumber and shot him dead.
But if it happened in Florida, I probably would've walked with nothing harsher than a fine.