The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-woman-jailed-firing-warning-shot-husband-wins-171151549.html

I thought I would post an update on this story (it had been mentioned during our Zimmerman discussions). For those who do not know, Marissa Alexander is the black woman who was convicted of firing a warning shot but had claimed self defense. Warning shots are technically illegal (you only shoot if you plan to injure) and she fell victim to the 10-20-life law in Florida. The rub on her conviction, she left the house to get her gun and then came back.

The reason the appeal court granted a new trial is something we also discussed in regards to Zimmerman. The judge instructed the jury that Alexander's claim to self defense needed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt (which we know is not Florida law).

I'll be interested to see how this plays out. Did the agression of her husband continue after she got her gun? We know Florida law says she has no responsibility to retreat but does that cover returning after you did retreat?

Based on what little I know, she's probably still guilty.  But she's not "20 years in prison" guilty.  Mandatory minimums are so dumb.

My opinion based on the facts as I know them:

I agree with the appellate  decision to give her a new trial, the instructions were wrong.

I agree with the trial judge that her leaving and getting a gun means that she does deserve to win a "stand your ground hearing" because she went to get a gun and came back.

She doesn't have a valid self defense claim even under the correct jury instructions, because she left and then came back.

But if she had a sincere and reasonable belief that her children were in danger from her husband than she as a valid "defense of other claim."  If I was her defense atty, I would have made that part of her defense. 

private industry in charge of building and running prisons is the worst thing to ever happen to the application of justice at all levels in the history of this country.

The ramifications of companies like the GEO group existing pose a greater harm to the american people and economy than every war the US has ever fought combined.

Stand Your Ground is written specifically to exclude domestic violence; you cannot apply it if the shooting victim resides in the home in which they were shot, nor can children apply it to their parents.  She's not going to make much headway there.

She should have a self-defense argument, though.

I agree.  If she thought her life, or health/well being was in danger as a result of the aggressor, then she does have a valid argument for self defense.  Especially if she fired a warning shot with no intent of actually hurting the victim. 

The biggest problem I have with this case is that she got 20 years. I know it was a mandatory sentence, but 20 years for firing a warning shot? That is absolutely ridiculous and we really need to rethink some things here.

With that said, I'll be watching closely to see what happens. I do think she could make a case for self-defense. She absolutely had reason to believe that her husband could/would harm her and the children. Even if she is found guilty again I hope they reconsider that 20 years. That blows my mind.

She has an argument, however, very very weak.  

She left, got a gun, came back, than shot.  She was out of danger once she left.  She should not have returned.

While she was out on bail she went to his house and punched him.  There is absolutely no evidence that he ever harmed her.  The cited incident of domestic assault against him was with his brother, not her.  One of the reasons Zimmerman was able to get off was he had injuries that presumably came from Martin hitting him, and Martin didn't have any injuries (other than being shot) suggesting Martin was the one who initiated the physical conflict.    

The sentence is out of whack, even if you take the facts in the light least favorable to the defendant.  

A more reasonable sentence would be:  

1) loss of gun licenses and all guns she owns -- for life.
2) ordered to undergo anger management classes/treatment
3) permanent order to avoid contact with Gray and his children
4) probation
5) community service/fine
6) suspended jail sentence of 30-90 days.  

You should be a judge.  A good judge is able to link sentences with what the defendants did.  This sentence sounds very reasonable.

I agree with Dave.  Mandatory minimum sentences are dumb.  Sentences should be left at the judge's discrection

Odd that they pushed forward w/ this originally. Given the facts, I would think that they would've plead her to something that doesn't have a mandatory minimum and build up her record for the next stupid thing she does so as to get some real time on her ... unless her record is already absolutely terrible. If she's a bad person, then, perhaps go ahead on the trial b/c this is not someone who needs to be out in society and has burned through all of her chances.

I don't know the facts though. Very strange at first glance, however.

One thing I think is funny: Person A gets one sentence in County 1 in State Q.  Person B gets another type sentence in County 2 in State Q. The media picks up on this (when they want to) and acts like it's the most horrendous thing in the world. "How dare justice be so inequitable!" Have they ever lived in the real world? People in one county, because of their background and sense of justice, may convict on something that people in another county may not... it's a crapshoot, based on counties and the people who inhabit them.

I do not think this applies to Florida law. She tried Stand Your Ground but was not granted the hearing. The reason had nothing to do with what you state, but was because she had already retreated once and returned.

She was offered a plea that she rejected.

I have mixed feeling.  For every example were mandatory mins were the problem, I can find you an example were leaving it up to the judge was a problem, particularly in the South.

e.g.  A white judge who sentences black defendants with with victims very harshly and white defendants with black victims very lightly.

Or a judge who gives a very light sentence to a rapist b/c victim was wearing a short skirt. 

^ I agree that this is an issue, but I think you err on the side of not throwing people in jail for too long.  Overpunishment is worse, in my opinion.

I agree with most of your "judgement", except that she shouldn't lose her guns or license for life. Not if you're giving out a misdemeanor sentence of a suspended 30-90 days.
The part that lost it for me, was the fact that she came back. Its a felony to unlawfully fire a weapon, so what about 3-5 yrs, with credit for time served?

I am giving out  a misdemeanor sentence on a charge of illegally using a firearm.  And a significant reason for the lightness is the fact the victim doesn't want a harsh sentence.  But, this lady should not have a concealed carry permit.  She has proven BRD that she is not a responsible gun owner. 

OTOH, I would no revoke someone's gun permit for committing the felony of vehicular homicide (DUI) or felony fraud.  Even thought there are some people who say all felons should be barred from owning a gun, b/c their crimes had nothing to do with violence.

She lost her self defense claim the moment she went into another part of the house, armed herself, and upon seeing she was not in immediate danger, returned to confront her unarmed husband.
He may have been the biggest dick in the world, but it still does not justify her actions. How do we know it was an actual warning shot? It could have been bad aim.

Just a thought:

Let's say a husband that was having an argument, let the room, got a gun, returned, fired it at his wife (the gun was not fired into the ground or into the air, but at the same height and direction as the victim) in front of her two children.

He claims he did it in self-defense, yet he has no injuries.  And we only have his word that she threatened him verbally.  And we have strong evidence he lied about other parts of the encounter to the police. 

While out on bail he goes to his wife's home where he is not living and punches her.  Once again no injuries on him.

Would anyone be outraged if he got 20 years in jail?  Would the question be why wasn't he charged with attempted murder?

Yes, I just played the gender card.