Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3[/url] [quote] Saying he had no discretion under state law, a judge sentenced a Jacksonville, Florida, woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband. Marissa Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to derail the prosecution, but a jury in March convicted her of aggravated assault after just 12 minutes of deliberation. The case, which was prosecuted by the same state attorney who is handling the Trayvon Martin case, has gained the attention of civil rights leaders who say the African-American woman was persecuted because of her race. After the sentencing, Rep. Corrine Brown confronted State Attorney Angela Corey in the hallway, accusing her of being overzealous, according to video from CNN affiliate WJXT. "There is no justification for 20 years," Brown told Corey during an exchange frequently interrupted by onlookers. "All the community was asking for was mercy and justice," she said. Corey said she had offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life." 'Stand your ground' plea rejected The law mandates increased penalties for some felonies, including aggravated assault, in which a gun is carried or used. Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing. Alexander said she was attempting to flee her husband, Rico Gray, on August 1, 2010, when she picked up a handgun and fired a shot into a wall. She said her husband had read cell phone text messages that she had written to her ex-husband, got angry and tried to strangle her. She said she escaped and ran to the garage, intending to drive away. But, she said, she forgot her keys, so she picked up her gun and went back into the house. She said her husband threatened to kill her, so she fired one shot. "I believe when he threatened to kill me, that's what he was absolutely going to do," she said. "That's what he intended to do. Had I not discharged my weapon at that point, I would not be here." Alexander's attorneys tried to use the state law that allows people to use potentially deadly force anywhere they feel reasonably threatened with serious harm or death. But a previous judge in the case rejected the request, saying Alexander's decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety, according to the Florida Times Union newspaper. A jury convicted Alexander in March and Judge James Daniel denied her request for a new trial in April. Daniel handed down the sentence Friday after an emotional sentencing hearing during which Alexander's parents, 11-year-old daughter and pastor spoke on her behalf. Several people had to be escorted from the courtroom after breaking out singing and chanting about a perceived lack of justice in the case, but Daniel made a point to say that he had no choice under state law. "Under the state's 10-20-life law, a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has been discharged carries a minimum and maximum sentence of 20 years without regarding to any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that may be present, such as those in this case," Daniel said. Brown, the Jacksonville congresswoman, told reporters after the sentencing that the case was a product of "institutional racism." "She was overcharged by the prosecutor. Period," Brown said. "She never should have been charged." Brown has been more complimentary about Corey's work in the Trayvon Martin case, where her office filed second degree murder charges against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the February 26 death of the unarmed African-American teen-ager. That case provoked nationwide protests demanding Zimmerman's arrest after an initial police investigation released him under the "stand your ground" law. [/quote] Are you fucking kidding me? An abused wife gets 20 years for firing a warning shot? Does this judge have any clue how scary it is for a woman in an abusive marriage or relationship? Fuck this shit.

What the Fuck, Really, WARNING SHOT. Not assault

[quote]Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.[/quote] Make sure not to miss this tidbit, everyone.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;35932162]Make sure not to miss this tidbit, everyone.[/QUOTE] In a life or death situation people tend to panic and do what seems right. 20 years is bullshit, especially for [I]this[/I] little tidbit: [quote]"I believe when he threatened to kill me, that's what he was absolutely going to do," she said. "That's what he intended to do. Had I not discharged my weapon at that point, I would not be here."[/quote]

A fine example of American justice. A day-long lesson in gun safety would do more for the this woman than 20 years in prison.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;35932162]Make sure not to miss this tidbit, everyone.[/QUOTE] in the direction of doesn't mean at. in a violent confrontation it's easy to forget exactly where your children are, if only for a split second.

[QUOTE=iFail;35932203]in the direction of doesn't mean at. in a violent confrontation it's easy to forget exactly where your children are, if only for a split second.[/QUOTE] Yeah, in a panic you get pretty disoriented... [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The golden;35932207]We're not arguing that she should get off scot-free. We're arguing that 20 years is bullshit.[/QUOTE] Why should she be in jail for firing a warning shot at a man trying to kill her?

At the end of the day it's her fault for not taking the plea bargain, but the jury should have let her go, assuming the facts presented in the article are accurate. Unfortunately many jurors do not know that they have the right to disregard the law when determining guilt if they so choose, and they do not have to be informed of this right.

FYI there is no such thing as a "warning shot" in terms of law. At very least, not to my knowledge. If you fire a gun, it is automatically assumed you meant to kill someone. When you shoot a gun and intentionally miss, you put everyone in the vicinity within harm's way. You simply DO NOT fire a gun if you don't want whatever you're aiming at to be dead.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;35932237]At the end of the day it's her fault for not taking the plea bargain[/QUOTE] Heh, no.

[QUOTE=The golden;35932242]I'm not saying she should get jail. Even what Twitch said is a good solution. She obviously has no intent to harm anyone.[/QUOTE] Give her supervised probation. She had no intent to hurt anybody. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35932252]FYI there is no such thing as a "warning shot" in terms of law. At very least, not to my knowledge. If you fire a gun, it is automatically assumed you meant to kill someone. When you shoot a gun and intentionally miss, you put everyone in the vicinity within harm's way. You simply DO NOT fire a gun if you don't want whatever you're aiming at to be dead.[/QUOTE] She wasn't aiming at the guy you tool.

[QUOTE=faze;35932273]She wasn't aiming at the guy you tool.[/QUOTE] Exactly. She didn't know what the fuck she was aiming at. And bullets have a way of not stopping until they hit something. People get injured and killed for misfires all of the time. You don't fire a fucking "warning shot." You simply don't. You NEVER [I]intentionally[/I] miss. That means you have no fucking idea where that bullet is going or who/what it's going to hit. That is recklessness and negligence. This is the real world, not a video game. Every shot that doesn't hit its target is going to hit [I]something.[/I]

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932286]Exactly. She didn't know what the fuck she was aiming at. And bullets have a way of not stopping.[/QUOTE] She had no intent to hurt anybody. She shouldn't be in jail for 20 years. Imagine yourself a woman in a marriage where the guy was beating the fuck out of you. Only this time he wants to kill you. You panic and pull a gun to protect yourself, full in the confines of the law. You discharge it not in his direction as he comes at you, only to scare him off because you don't want to kill anybody. Then you get 20 years in prison, and your life is ruined. Fair? Nope. You seem to think it is.

[QUOTE=faze;35932308]She had no intent to hurt anybody. She shouldn't be in jail for 20 years. Imagine yourself a woman in a marriage where the guy was beating the fuck out of you. Only this time he wants to kill you. You panic and pull a gun to protect yourself, full in the confines of the law. You discharge it not in his direction as he comes at you, only to scare him off because you don't want to kill anybody. Then you get 20 years in prison, and your life is ruined. Fair? Nope. You seem to think it is.[/QUOTE] Not saying 20 years is necessary. Saying she does need to be convicted for putting everyone around her in harm's way.

Sounds like she would have been better off if she actually shot him.

Honestly it's sad but now a days your better off shooting to kill the person then shooting to scare or wound them. If you kill them it will be self defence, but if you shoot to wound it's just going to be a criminal charge and/or a lawsuit.

So she gets 20 years for a warning shot and the Zimmerman case had to be highlighted and called out for an arrest and trial to even take place. Land of the free, home of the brave.

[QUOTE=faze;35932308]She had no intent to hurt anybody. She shouldn't be in jail for 20 years. Imagine yourself a woman in a marriage where the guy was beating the fuck out of you. Only this time he wants to kill you. You panic and pull a gun to protect yourself, full in the confines of the law. You discharge it not in his direction as he comes at you, only to scare him off because you don't want to kill anybody. Then you get 20 years in prison, and your life is ruined. Fair? Nope. You seem to think it is.[/QUOTE] Not saying 20 years is necessary. Saying she does need to be convicted for putting everyone around her in harm's way. [I]Don't[/I] fire "warning shots." Ever. Period. It's unacceptable.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932252]FYI there is no such thing as a "warning shot" in terms of law. At very least, not to my knowledge. If you fire a gun, it is automatically assumed you meant to kill someone. When you shoot a gun and intentionally miss, you put everyone in the vicinity within harm's way. You simply DO NOT fire a gun if you don't want whatever you're aiming at to be dead.[/QUOTE] True, but I'd argue that if she killed him she should have got off anyway. It seems to be a fairly straightforward instance of self defense.

[QUOTE=The golden;35932338]She is supposed to think of this when she is potentially being confronted with a person who intends to kill her?[/QUOTE] You're supposed to think of this before you get a gun. It's not a toy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932315]Not saying 20 years is necessary. Saying she does need to be convicted for putting everyone around her in harm's way.[/QUOTE] She was a terrified woman in an abusive marriage. What the fuck is she supposed to do? If she killed him, she'd be in the same boat. The system failed and you know it. This proves she had no intent to kill, yet she got a higher sentence than most murderers.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932286]Exactly. She didn't know what the fuck she was aiming at. And bullets have a way of not stopping until they hit something. People get injured and killed for misfires all of the time. You don't fire a fucking "warning shot." You simply don't. You NEVER [I]intentionally[/I] miss. That means you have no fucking idea where that bullet is going or who/what it's going to hit. That is recklessness and negligence.[/quote] You really think this woman was thinking about that while she was trying to get away from a husband that said he was going to kill her? You really think she even knew about that? [quote]This is the real world, not a video game. Every shot that doesn't hit its target is going to hit [I]something.[/I][/QUOTE] Yeah! For example [I]a wall[/I] or maybe perhaps [I]the ground[/I]

The stand your ground law obviously doesn't apply here because she went back inside, but at the same time 20 years for a shot that wasn't aimed at him is outrageous. Hell she probably would have gotten 15 years for flat out killing him.

[QUOTE=faze;35932357]She was a terrified woman in an abusive marriage. What the fuck is she supposed to do?[/QUOTE] [I]Not[/I] fire randomly into the street.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932286]Exactly. She didn't know what the fuck she was aiming at. And bullets have a way of not stopping until they hit something. People get injured and killed for misfires all of the time. You don't fire a fucking "warning shot." You simply don't. You NEVER [I]intentionally[/I] miss. That means you have no fucking idea where that bullet is going or who/what it's going to hit. That is recklessness and negligence. This is the real world, not a video game. Every shot that doesn't hit its target is going to hit [I]something.[/I][/QUOTE] not the same. As dumb as warning shots are, it's still totally possible to aim them as much as any other shot. All it comes down to is changing your point of aim from a person to whatever might make a good backstop.

Wow, she would have been better off shooting him directly, at least then she could plead Self-Defense. This is absolutely ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Last or First;35932358]You really think this woman was thinking about that while she was trying to get away from a husband that said he was going to kill her? You really think she even knew about that? Yeah! For example [I]a wall[/I] or maybe perhaps [I]the ground[/I][/QUOTE] [url=http://www.news4jax.com/news/Boy-Shot-By-Police-Remains-Critical/-/475880/2010836/-/ibtk3vz/-/index.html]Or a two-year-old[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;35932379]Wow, she would have been better off shooting him directly, at least then she could plead Self-Defense. This is absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Yeah but she didn't want to kill the person trying to kill her, therefore she had no intent to kill anybody. Total bullshit indeed.

[QUOTE=iFail;35932378]not the same. As dumb as warning shots are, it's still totally possible to aim them as much as any other shot. All it comes down to is changing your point of aim from a person to whatever might make a good backstop.[/QUOTE] No. Always aim for the center of mass. There is a reason the law typically does not recognize wounding-shots or warning-shots. It has a way of treating EVERY shot as a lethal shot, because [I]every[/I] shot is potentially lethal. If you fire a gun, it had better be to kill. You don't fire at a limb or randomly as a "warning," you aim for the center of mass or you don't fire at all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35932407]No. Always aim for the center of mass. There is a reason the law typically does not recognize wounding-shots or warning-shots. It has a way of treating EVERY shot as a lethal shot, because [I]every[/I] shot is potentially lethal. If you fire a gun, it had better be to kill. You don't fire at a limb or randomly as a "warning," you aim for the center of mass or you don't fire at all.[/QUOTE] So she should have ended this man's life then?