Author Topic: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense  (Read 2349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wrightway

  • Guest
Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« on: September 26, 2013, 09:53:48 pm »
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-woman-jailed-firing-warning-shot-husband-wins-171151549.html

Quote
A woman sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a "warning shot" during an argument with her abusive husband won a new trial on Thursday in a case under Florida's controversial self-defense law.

A state appeals court ruled that Marissa Alexander, 32, deserved a new trial because the judge failed to properly instruct the jury regarding her claim of self-defense.

No one was injured in the shooting but because Alexander fired a gun in the incident, Florida's mandatory-minimum sentencing guidelines required the judge to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

The only thing good to come out of Zimmerman's actions may be this.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2013, 09:59:55 pm »
There's no guarantee, though.

However, if the state decides to let the sentence stand, at least we'll know that Florida's law is hypocritical and applied unfairly.

Which we already know anyways.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline Sleepy

  • Fuck Yes Sunshine In a Bag
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • Gender: Female
  • Danger zone
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2013, 10:06:39 pm »
Those minimum-sentencing guidelines really need to be reviewed.
Guys, this is getting creepy. Can we talk about cannibalism instead?

If a clown eats salmon on Tuesday, how much does a triangle weigh on Jupiter? Ask Mr. Wiggins for 10% off of your next dry cleaning bill. -Hades

Offline kefkaownsall

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3253
  • Gender: Male
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2013, 11:13:41 pm »
5 bucks nothing changes  :'(

Offline Dakota Bob

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Gender: Male
  • UGLY BAG OF MOSTLY WATER
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2013, 01:36:09 am »
You would think this is the most obvious case of somebody standing their ground, but we'll see.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2013, 02:04:26 am »
I remember a discussion on self defense (Sometimes when I'm bored I type "9mm vs 45" or something like that into a search engine and go look at the flame wars. It's even more fun than arguments over which superhero would win a fight, with as much facts behind claims as well.) where it was said that if you pull out a gun to scare off an attacker and DON'T kill him then you go to jail in USA. The argument was that you are only allowed to use a gun in self defense in a life and death situation. If you pull out the gun and disarm the situation without killing the attacker then it obviously wasn't that dangerous situation and you go to jail for "brandishing."

Did the criminal just surrender? Sucks to be him because these experts on law, ballistics and medicine recommend that you shoot him in cold blood. I assume they also suggest chasing and killing any fleeing criminals as well. No word on what to do with witnesses. (Like I said, about as many facts as a Batman vs Iron man argument.)
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Damen

  • That's COMMODORE SPLATMASTER Damen, Briber of Mods
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • Gender: Male
  • The Dark Sex God
    • John Damen's Photography
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2013, 02:27:02 am »
-snip-

Mmm...yes and no. It really depends on the self-defense laws in your state. The general rule of thumb is that if you are being attacked, you have the legal right to fight back until the attack stops, even if it results in the death of the attacker. Now, if he turns and runs, then it may not be so clear cut. Again, this varies by state. what is generally advised is that if you do feel the need to draw a firearm on a would-be attacker and he then runs off, you should still report it to the police.

Here's an example of differing laws: my home state of Oklahoma has both the Castle Doctrine as well as Stand-Your-Ground. This basically means that if I am in a place where I have a legal right to be and I am attacked I can use force to make the attack stop. Now contrast this with a state such as Illinois, which has neither a Castle Doctrine nor Stand-Your-Ground. There, it is up to the local prosecutors on whether or not to bring charges against people who use force in a self-defense situation because there is no law set in place covering it. This has led to quite a few people being displeased with the status quo.

So, basically, it helps to know your local laws since there is no real federal regulations on the subject at this point in time but to say "X is the way it is for the whole nation" is just flat wrong.

Now, that said, Ironman would totally stomp all over Batman. I mean, come on! Batman can't even fly!

...granted Ironman can't fly sober, so I guess it evens out.
"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

'Till Next Time,
~John Damen

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2013, 12:21:42 pm »
There are a few general rules of thumb that you can use in any state/city that allows for firearms to be carried and used for self-defense:

1. Don't draw your gun unless you plan on using it. Along with it being rather stupid to carelessly wave a weapon around in the first place, you can clear yourself of a lot of legal gray area if you only pull the gun when the situation has devolved to where you would not be escalating the conflict by bringing a deadly weapon into it. A major part of the controversy around Zimmerman's actions was that it's difficult to justify (even in Florida, which is a very free state when it comes to guns) pulling a gun and shooting an unarmed attacker. Of course, he had a whole mess of stupid decisions beyond just choosing to shoot someone who was punching him in the face, but that's a very important thing to remember: don't pull a gun out unless you're prepared to kill (not injure, kill) the person in front of you.

2. If it's a situation where you have a gun but don't want to just pull it out and start screaming and blasting away, loudly and plainly inform the guy who's acting threateningly that you have a gun and you're not afraid to use it. If you're in an empty parking lot and someone continues approaching you after you tell them to back off AND after you tell them that you're armed, you can probably guess that they're up to no good. Probably the kind of "no good" that means that they're not afraid of getting shot. Maybe because they plan on keeping you from shooting them in the first place.

3. Never "shoot to wound." Ballistics is an inexact science, and guns tend to do weird things when they hit people. There was a case a while back of a man who was shot at point blank range by a cop with a .40 S&W handgun and the bullets, for literally no verifiable reason, stopped barely an inch into his body without expanding. Likewise, Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination was done with a .22 pistol and several people (including Reagan) very nearly died from a single bullet and Brady was infamously left permanently crippled and trying to keep people from getting their hands on guns for the rest of his life. "Shooting to wound" is almost impossible; even a shot to the leg or arm can tear up blood vessels and result in someone bleeding to death before they can be saved by paramedics, especially somewhere where emergency services can't show up in 2 minutes or less. Going hand in hand with #1, you don't use a gun unless you're ready to take a life.

In the case of the Florida woman, I'd definitely argue that she could have reasonably believed that her life was in danger. But you actually don't want to fire "warning shots" for a few reasons: along with trying to use a deadly weapon against someone without killing them (which, again, you really shouldn't try to do), firing a gun in any direction except at the target means that there's now a bullet flying somewhere that it shouldn't be flying. Even .22 rifles can send a bullet traveling with potentially lethal energy for a mile, to say nothing of virtually every other gun that has higher power.

That's one of the reasons I hated Biden's spiel about home defense with shotguns, where he talks about firing shots into the air to scare the burglars/attackers away and even something as stupid as shooting through a door or wall at the target. If you fire both barrels of your shotgun into the air, not only are you now holding an empty gun against people who may want to kill you (especially since you just showed up with a shotgun), but there's quite a few pellets flying through the air ready to land who-knows-where. Potentially on a neighbor's car. Or a neighbor.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 12:26:21 pm by chitoryu12 »
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2013, 12:50:40 pm »
Ms. Alexander's case is especially egregious. Because of how it was manipulated, charged and argued, she got completely screwed. Even her ex-husband begged the court to exonerate her, saying he was in a rage, that she clearly did not aim anywhere near him, but fired the gun to shock him out of his rage, and that it worked.

The CL and SYG technicalities of pulling out and firing a weapon only to shoot the assailant don't seen to allow for a situation like what Alexander found herself in; trying to protect her life...while NOT endangering the life of her assailant, the father of her children and former love and husband, who was a in a temporary state of rage. He had a terrible history of beating, stalking and terrorizing her, but she simply did not want to endanger him, regardless. A clause for mercy for a personally known and valued assailant should be part of the code in that statute, and for that matter, mercy for any assailant should be an option to cite with it's framework in court.

If a mentally disturbed person, a senile person, or a child comes at me to attack me with a deadly weapon of some sort, I should have the option of Not trying to shoot him dead. I should have the option to fire into the ground to underscore that I will use the weapon if they don't halt, or just to shock the person out of their aggressive state.
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Offline SimSim

  • Lover of Good Beer and Bad Movies
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a cunning plan
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2013, 03:53:55 pm »
Those minimum-sentencing guidelines really need to be reviewed.
Attorney General Holder is trying to make it so that judges can ignore minimum sentences depending on the situations.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2013, 04:14:14 pm »
Those minimum-sentencing guidelines really need to be reviewed.
Attorney General Holder is trying to make it so that judges can ignore minimum sentences depending on the situations.

<right-winger>But then why have minimum sentences in the first place if judges can ignore them?</right-winger>


Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2013, 05:00:15 pm »
I actually kind of agree with that reasoning.

Offline SimSim

  • Lover of Good Beer and Bad Movies
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a cunning plan
Re: Florida woman getting new trial on stand your ground defense
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2013, 05:00:59 pm »
That palm tree creeps me the fuck out.

And I'm sure some right wingers would argue that. Which is sad because context is very important, and something a judge should be able to take in to account.