Stand Your Ground, Unless . . .

[iLander]

Here's an article in the Atlantic Wire that ticked me off . . .

Why Couldn't Marissa Alexander Stand Her Ground in Florida?

What happened to Marissa Alexander sure sounds a lot like 'standing your ground': her abusive husband came after her, choked her, and when she finally broke free, she grabbed a gun fired a single warning shot into ceiling ... so why is she set to serve 20 years in jail?

Well, we imagine her prosecutor Angela Corey, who's also charging George Zimmerman, has the unfulfilling answers. The Florida Times Union's Charles Broward reported on April 21, "A judge denied [Alexander] immunity in a Stand Your Ground hearing. And after a jury found her guilty, she faces a mandatory term of 20 years in prison." Yes, there's the rage-inducing fact that Zimmerman who allegedly pursued and killed Trayvon Martin was allowed to walk free that night while Alexander is going to spend 20 years of her life in prison for a single warning shot. But it's also complex in that, those seeking justice for Trayvon Martin may have to side with a prosecutor who give denies Alexander's (and the NAACP's) plea for a "stand your ground" ruling, like the one that was initially afforded to Zimmerman.

"There's a double standard with stand your ground," says Isaiah Rumlin, president of the Jacksonville Chapter of the NAACP. "The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases." As Time's Touré points out, "there is one last sliver of hope left for Alexander: the court will soon hear arguments for a retrial." Jacksonville's News 4 added yesterday, "Judge James Daniel set a post-trial motions hearing for 8:30 a.m. Thursday. Daniel said if the motions are denied, she could be sentenced as soon as next week."

So, let's see if I can get this straight; a lady shoots a warning shot, does not hit, and certainly does not kill, her abusive husband, and she's in jail for 20 years? I guess he didn't "act suspicious" enough? WTH?

Am I the only one that sees a flaw here?

 

[partgypsy]

I find the way the law is interpreted regarding women defending themselves after sustaining long term physical abuse from a spouse infuriating, to say the least. Basically the only two options coming out the other side appear to be prison (from defending oneself), or being dead.

 

[TooPatient]

I wonder if they are charging her for NOT hitting her husband?

In the area I'm in, it is illegal to threaten with a gun (so showing the person you have it) or discharge like this woman did (if it was in "self defense" it would be treated differently than just "discharge") -- so basically what it comes down to here is that you NEVER introduce a gun to the situation unless you intend to actually shoot the person (and if you shoot the person, you better be able to justify that it was self defense -- you truly feared for your life and there wasn't an alternative)


FWIW, I'm NOT saying I agree with them pressing charges. It sounds like she had every reason to fear. (and I can see how someone would hope that simply firing a shot would be enough to convince the person that you WILL shoot them if you have to -- taking a life should be the last option and this woman may have hoped to protect herself without having to take a life)

 

[Snicklefritz]

[quote
Am I the only one that sees a flaw here? [/quote]


Certainly blows my mind

 

[Imdanny]

I don't trust anyone in that state.

 

[iLander]

I don't trust anyone in that state.

Except me, right?

Actually, that prosecutor scares me, she doesn't seem to have her head on straight.

 

[iLander]

I find the way the law is interpreted regarding women defending themselves after sustaining long term physical abuse from a spouse infuriating, to say the least. Basically the only two options coming out the other side appear to be prison (from defending oneself), or being dead.

I know, it's ridiculous, isn't it?!!

 

[iLander]

I wonder if they are charging her for NOT hitting her husband?

In the area I'm in, it is illegal to threaten with a gun (so showing the person you have it) or discharge like this woman did (if it was in "self defense" it would be treated differently than just "discharge") -- so basically what it comes down to here is that you NEVER introduce a gun to the situation unless you intend to actually shoot the person (and if you shoot the person, you better be able to justify that it was self defense -- you truly feared for your life and there wasn't an alternative)


FWIW, I'm NOT saying I agree with them pressing charges. It sounds like she had every reason to fear. (and I can see how someone would hope that simply firing a shot would be enough to convince the person that you WILL shoot them if you have to -- taking a life should be the last option and this woman may have hoped to protect herself without having to take a life)

I understand exactly what you're saying, and you're right. That's how it works.

This goes with my basic belief that there is no place for justice in a court of law.

 

[ame]

In mo you have to kill the intended target in your home for it to be castle law. I know I'm over simplifying but I know here shoot to kill makes a big diff.

 

[movie zombie]

apparently marriage to the perp trying to kill you nullifies the right to self-defense.....

 

[Karl_K]

There is not enough facts from a legal standpoint to say 100% what is going on for sure

But in general:
Anytime you discharge a firearm in someones direction particularly in a domestic situation it is considered to be an attempt to kill someone under the law.
There is no such thing under the law as a warning shot in any jurisdiction I know of.
Then it comes down to was she at the moment she pulled the trigger justified in using deadly force?
Both a Judge and a jury found she was not justified.
Mainly because she said it was a warning shot and if she was not in enough danger to fire a shot into him then she was not justified to fire at all.
She should have shut up until she had a very good lawyer.
Likely at the scene one of the first words she said was I fired a warning shot and from that point on she was in deep legal trouble.
Before mandatory sentence laws the judge might have let her off lightly given the circumstances but his hands are tied.
There is no justice in the criminal system, just the law for good or bad.

 

[Karl_K]

In mo you have to kill the intended target in your home for it to be castle law. I know I'm over simplifying but I know here shoot to kill makes a big diff.

Castle law would not apply in this case either unless she had a restraining order or if he kicked in the door to gain entry then it might.
But she would still have the issue of justification to work on.
It would not be easy.
The best hope would be a plea bargain to lesser charge.

 

[lulu]

I wonder if they are charging her for NOT hitting her husband?

In the area I'm in, it is illegal to threaten with a gun (so showing the person you have it) or discharge like this woman did (if it was in "self defense" it would be treated differently than just "discharge") -- so basically what it comes down to here is that you NEVER introduce a gun to the situation unless you intend to actually shoot the person (and if you shoot the person, you better be able to justify that it was self defense -- you truly feared for your life and there wasn't an alternative)


FWIW, I'm NOT saying I agree with them pressing charges. It sounds like she had every reason to fear. (and I can see how someone would hope that simply firing a shot would be enough to convince the person that you WILL shoot them if you have to -- taking a life should be the last option and this woman may have hoped to protect herself without having to take a life)

I understand exactly what you're saying, and you're right. That's how it works.

This goes with my basic belief that there is no place for justice in a court of law.

And there are no trustworthy people in the State of Florida? Do you folks just say this stuff. Or do you really believe it? No justice in a court of law, ever?

 

[Karl_K]

No justice in a court of law, ever?

That is correct, justice is not considered in any court of law only the law.
It is not a court of justice.
What little justice was ever in the law has been removed and replaced by procedure and case law.

 

[Karl_K]

I believe this case would have turned out the same in any court in any state in the US.
Some places may have offered a plea some even with no jail time, but if it is not taken it would end up the same way unless the jury nullification was used by the jury.
Juries are not told of their right to nullification and those that are most likely to apply it would not make the jury in the first place.

 

[Imdanny]

I don't trust anyone in that state.

Except me, right?

Actually, that prosecutor scares me, she doesn't seem to have her head on straight.

LOL!

This law was written by ALEC. Anyone trying to rationalize it as some kind of just, sane thing is going to be spending their time tying themselves in knots.

 

[lulu]

I've spent way more time in court than most. I've seen a lot of justice happen.