Florida State Attorney Corey Seeks 60-Year Sentence for Marissa Alexander

[RandySF]

Jacksonville, FL - Florida State Attorney Angela Corey announced on March 1, 2014, that her office is seeking a maximum 60-year sentence in the retrial of Marissa Alexander, beginning in late July.

Marissa Alexander, the 33-year-old African American mother who fired a non-lethal warning shot to fend off her abusive husband, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 2012. State Attorney Corey, who personally prosecuted the case, sought the maximum sentence of 20 years under Florida's mandatory sentencing laws, despite no injuries or deaths. The jury deliberated for 12 minutes before returning a guilty verdict. The judge ordered Alexander's 20-year sentences for the three charges to be served concurrently--at the same time.

However, in 2013, a 1st District Court of Appeals judge overturned Alexander’s conviction and called for a new trial. Corey's latest demand is for the judge to order consecutive sentences, meaning Alexander may serve three 20-year sentences, sixty years, if convicted again.

A statement from the Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign called the move by Corey, "A stunning abuse of power." The statement continues, "As a consequence of winning the appeal to hopefully secure a more fair trial, Alexander now faces the alarming prospect that the original devastating sentence could be tripled in the new trial."


http://www.fightbacknews.org/2014/3/2/florida-state-attorney-corey-seeks-60-year-sentence-marissa-alexander

[Demoiselle]

1. This is absolutely obscene. A WARNING shot for god's sake! And meanwhile, Zimmerman walks.

[brush]

49. This is racist Corey telling a black person to not ever challenge me

She knew exactly the outcome she wanted when she overcharged in the zimmerman case dunne case — they would not be found guilty of the murders they committed.

This woman is out of control. Hope the DOJ is watching this incredible act of abuse of power.

[kelliekat44]

138. If she loses, this is one case that Obama should pardon immediately. nt

[smokey775]

140. President Obama has no power to pardon her,

this is a state case, not a federal case.

Only the FL. governor has the power to pardon her.

[ManiacJoe]

67. They were not warning shots.

The two(?) shots fired were at head level in the wall beside where her ex-husband was standing. She just happen to miss her intended target.

[wildbilln864]

79. was she charged...

with atempted murder? are you assuming she's a bad shot?

[ManiacJoe]

91. I am assuming nothing. The evidence speaks for itself.

The CSI photos are available on the web.

[wildbilln864]

93. the evidence shows she did not kill him! n/t

[ManiacJoe]

94. Who is claiming that she did kill him?

All I did was point out that the so-called warning shots were not that.

[wildbilln864]

95. no one...

how do you know she didn't miss deliberately?

[ManiacJoe]

97. To do so is illegal and illogical.

And would result in you going to jail assuming you are so convicted.

[wildbilln864]

98. your opinion then...

thank you.

[ManiacJoe]

99. Just stating the facts. You're welcome.

[wildbilln864]

100. someone once said....

there are no facts. Only interpretations. Have a good night.

[rhett o rick]

107. What was your point in presenting the "facts". Are you trying to justify her

sentence?

[ManiacJoe]

121. Just clarifying the misconceptions.

Her sentence seems way out of line.

[brush]

145. Isn't that an opinion?

I mean, c'mon, if she had wanted to hit him with a shot at that close a proximity she could have. They were both in the same room.

[ManiacJoe]

149. It would depend on how good a shot she was, which we don't know.

Most folks want to believe that she is Annie Oakley and purposely missed her ex-husband's head by a couple feet because she was trying to scare him away. When firing warning shots, folks normally fire in a direction other than at their target. The more logical belief is that she was actually shooting at her ex-husband and missed due to being a bad shot.

Yes, that is an opinion, but it is one based on experience.

[Nictuku]

2. Un-fricking-believable

[jmowreader]

5. You're only allowed to stand your ground if you're white

[RandySF]

6. +1

[immoderate]

9. Maybe it's that warning shots indicate she was not significantly "in fear..."

If you don't kill the person, you're not really "standing your ground."

--imm

[hack89]

22. The shots barely missed his head.

It was not like she deliberately shot away from him.

[hack89]

27. She had several opportunities to escape

She choose to get a gun and return to confront him. And even then she was offered a three year plea deal which she refused. She would be a free women now if she had taken the state's offer.

[hack89]

32. Who knows. Bad legal advice perhaps. Nt

[spin]

102. Currently in Florida you can run into problems if you even display your legally concealed ...

handgun in order to stop a mugger or an attacker. Firing a warning shot can land you in prison. The authorities often frown on you if the person you threatened contacts the authorities before you do.

A law passed in the last few years allowed a person who had a carry permit to inadvertently flash their concealed weapon. That can happen if the individual was walking through a parking lot and the wind caught their jacket and revealed they had a holstered handgun on their side or if he reaches up for an item on a high shelve in a store.

I remember a concealed weapons instructor in the Tampa Bay Area that told his class that if they ever have to pull their weapon it "better come out smoking."

Florida is considering rewriting the self defense laws to allow a person to stop an attack by displaying his weapon or even to fire a warning shot. I an quite hesitant to recommend firing a warning shot but often an attack can be stopped when the victim simply shows that he is armed.

Florida Might Revamp the State's 'Stand Your Ground' Law
MIKE RIGGSJAN 14

***snip***

Last week, the Florida state senate's Criminal Justice Committee unanimously approved the Threatened Use of Force Act, which would expand the circumstances under which someone could use Stand Your Ground as a defense.

As written, Florida's Stand Your Ground law allows someone to use deadly force to protect himself, without the responsibility to retreat, if he believes his life is in danger. The Threatened Use of Force Act would extend that protection to someone who, under similar circumstances, only brandished a gun or fired a warning shot.

"The point is to prevent prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense, but don't actually shoot or kill an attacker," says Greg Newburn, the Florida director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "Prosecutors routinely argue that a warning is itself evidence that a person wasn't sufficiently afraid to pull a firearm. ('If he was really afraid he'd have shot him.') This bill corrects that problem."

The Threatened Use of Force Act has an obvious poster child in Marissa Alexander. In 2010, Alexander fired a warning shot during an argument with her abusive husband. Because her children were present, Alexander was found guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm, and was sentenced to 20 years under Florida's draconian 10-20-Life law. In brief, that law says brandishing a firearm gets you 10 years, firing it gets you 20 years, shooting someone gets you 25 years-to-life.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2014/01/florida-legislature-might-be-changing-states-stand-your-ground-law/8093/

I remember several examples where the display of a firearm stopped an attack.

One occurred years ago in downtown Tampa. Two co-workers of mine on a chilly winter Sunday morning were using magnetic detectors to find old coins or other valuables in a lot where an old building has just been torn down. A man approached them and pulled a large butcher knife. He demanded they turn over their wallets.

One of my co-workers was licensed to carry and he pulled back his jacket enough to show that he had a .45 auto in a shoulder holster. The mugger turned and walked off swearing to himself.

[therehegoes]

33. Not true, I'm a white guy that stood his ground, see what happened to me. Evidence is here

www.friscopaul.blogspot.com

What happens when cops discover they made mistakes? They ALTER THE EVIDENCE.

[jmowreader]

39. Not all white guys who stand their ground get acquitted, that's true

It is far easier to make the SYG defense work if you're white.

[hack89]

111. It works pretty well for black shooters too.

SYG favors the shooters

[Merlot]

34. You're only allowed to stand your ground if you're white...and male.

[ReRe]

44. And male. n/t

[840high]

62. BS

[hack89]

17. It wasn't self defense

1. She was in the bedroom.
2. She left the bedroom and walked by her ex on the way to the garage, muttering " I have something for your ass."
3. She walked by the front door on the way to the garage - she could have escaped
4. She entered the garage, got her gun from her car.
5. She took that gun and went back into the house to confront her ex
6. She shoot just over his head into the ceiling. Her kids were standing next to the ex

[JJChambers]

20. Facts have no place in this discussion.

[MiniMe]

28. This is the state that couldn't find that guy guilty of murder

when he was shooting up that car for playing their music too loud. He could have escaped too, but instead he killed a teenager boy.

[hack89]

31. And he is going to prison for a long time

And the state is going to retry him on the murder charges. All goods things, right?

[MiniMe]

37. They may or may not retry him on the murder charge.

They couldn't even get the jury to agree on 2nd degree murder because a few of the jurors wouldn't convict Dunn. How can you be guilty of attempted murder on the other 3 boys, and not be guilty of murdering the 4th?

[hack89]

43. I have no idea. It was clear to me that he was guilty as hell. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

109. they are re-trying him on the murder charge

They said so at the press conference after the verdict. Why wouldn't they re-try him? That case had more evidence than most I've seen.

How you can be guilty of attempted murder on the three other boys and HUNG on the killing of the first one is because of the obvious circumstances of the case. The last two of the three volleys of shots were randomly into the car as it was retreating and at people who at no time threatened him in any way - they just happened to be in the same car.

For some reason three people believed that he was in fear of his life from the one boy that he had words with and killed. Unfortunately, since the SYG law went into effect it has been written into the basic self-defense laws meaning that no longer is it that a person can be legitimately afraid for their life or great bodily harm to themselves according to the "reasonable person" standard, it has been changed to whether or not the defendant actually believed they were in fear or their life or great bodily harm regardless of whether it was reasonable according to the "reasonable person" standard. Therefore, really paranoid easily frightened people can legally get away with claiming self-defense that isn't and be found not guilty for it because the jurors are required to follow the law. How these three jurors could believe that he was in fear of his life by the boy he had words with and killed with all the piles of evidence that show otherwise along with all his conflicting stories of what occurred and what he did and did NOT do after he left the scene is beyond me.

[Merlot]

35. Punishment needs to fit the crime.

No one is saying she's innocent.

[hack89]

36. Agree - that is why the state initially offered a three year plea deal

She rejected it.

Just so we are clear - I think miminum mandatory sentences are and abomination. She should not be in prison for that long. But this is an unintended consequence of laws designed to severely punish the use of guns while committing crimes.

[Stonepounder]

47. Do you have a cite for this info? Thanks. n/t

[hack89]

48. It is from court documents

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

[840high]

66. ty

[brush]

54. You seem to want her convicted.

If she wanted to shoot him she could've easily. It's so obvious that she only wanted to scare him.

If she was a white woman we all know a SYG defense would have been allowed.

[hack89]

59. I wish she had taken the three year plea deal

I do not want her to go to prison for 60 years - I think mandatory minimum sentences are an abomination. I hope she is offered another plea deal.

How can anyone look at the facts and call it self defense? She had ample opportunities to escape. She went to a safe place (after walking by both her ex and the front door) to get a gun. She then returned to shoot at her husband, barely missing his head.

[X_Digger]

73. No, warning shots are illegal. If you admit that you intended to warn a person away..

.. you're admitting that the threat isn't imminent.

Therefore discharging a firearm becomes unjustified use of lethal force.

[brush]

105. Craziness. You're better off shooting someone then. Utter craziness in Florida. nt

[X_Digger]

112. Not just Florida. Warning shots are a hollywood myth. They'll get your ass in jail everywhere. n/t

[COLGATE4]

148. "It's so obvious that she only wanted to scare him"

What facts are you using to support this assertion? The fact that she missed his head by a relatively small distance is much more indicative of a person who is not expert with a firearm and whose adrenaline is surging simply missing the target than of deliberately missing in an attempt to scare.

[brush]

152. And what facts are you using . . .

to state this:

"The fact that she missed his head by a relatively small distance is much more indicative of a person who is not expert with a firearm and whose adrenaline is surging simply missing the target than of deliberately missing in an attempt to scare."

That's opinion not fact.

[COLGATE4]

155. Trained police officers in shoot outs tend to

wildly miss their target much more often than hitting it due to the stress/adrenaline of the situation. If that's the case with people who are trained (tested and retested periodically) in the use of a firearm, it's even more likely to be the case with a person who doesn't have the experience.

[brush]

157. What you posted is still not fact

"it's even more likely" is not fact.

C'mon.

[COLGATE4]

166. Not fact because you don't want to

believe it? After 25+ years as an attorney who saw a whole lot of cops do all kinds of things I can assure you that this is absolutely often true. But by all means go on believing that an average housewife with no particular expertise in shooting and who is thrust into the middle of a highly charged, emotional situation can cooly play Annie Oakley and 'warn' her husband with a couple of well=placed shots close to his head.

[The Wielding Truth]

68. Could she really have escaped if he was defying a Restraining Order?

What does it take for her to live in safety especially if arguments triggered his abuse? Would warning shots do it? hmmm...

[hack89]

74. She had not lived in that house for months - she went to see him.

it was his house.

Btw - while she was awaiting trial, she was arrested for domestic abuse for violating bail conditions, visiting her ex again, and assaulting him.

[The Wielding Truth]

76. This case is a mess. Still 20 years seems unjust when he was so abusive to her for years.

Let alone 60 years.

[hack89]

77. Mandatory minimum sentences are fucked up and should be abolished. nt

[NutmegYankee]

58. From reading about the case, I believe SYG didn't apply because she left then returned w/ the gun.

SYG means you have no duty to retreat and can meet force with force if attacked. However, from court documents, it appears she left the house, retrieved the gun, and then reentered and fired the shot through a wall. It's hard to argue that that is acceptable. I believe her sentence was overly harsh, a tragic outcome of Florida's 10-20-life sentencing laws. I would have given her leniency given the abuse from the husband.

[AverageJoe90]

4. This stopped making sense a while ago.

Okay, so she managed to get a prosecution in the Dunn case; good for her. Still doesn't quite make up for the bungling of the Zimmerman trial and now she's going to prosecute Marissa Alexander for *triple* the original term she had to face?

This whole saga is honestly sounding like a poorly scripted B movie now.....yeah, it's that nonsensical.

[cpwm17]

7. Angela Corey: what a disgrace

She's engaging in another malicious prosecution.

[LisaL]

10. She just doesn't give up, does she?

[bluestateguy]

11. I'm assuming the NRA is rushing to her defense as a stand your ground case, right?

Right?

RIGHT?

[Hoyt]

15. Yep, the gun crowd is conspicuously silent on this one.

[freshwest]

50. Ain't it though? Defending the homestead doesn't count if you're black. Corey is despicable! n/t

[NaturalHigh]

52. She wasn't "defending the homestead."

She was in HIS house, left, and came back with a gun. Big difference there.

[LisaL]

56. None of which is a problem under FL SYG law.

It doesn't have to be your own home and you don't have to flee.

[NaturalHigh]

57. Can you be in someone else's home...

and firing a warning shot to scare the owner? I just don't think this is a cut and dried as the headlines make it out to be.

[JoeyT]

118. I'm not sure if I count as part of the gun crowd.

I'm more pro-gun than a lot of DU, but drastically less pro-gun than most of the US, for what good that is.

I think this case, as the with Dunn case so far*, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. "If you shoot at someone, make sure you don't miss" is just about one of the worst things you could hope to codify into law. It's a bit less dangerous than "Shoot anyone that annoys you, no matter what lengths you have to go to to justify it.", but that's a hard bar to clear.

What's really confusing me is the defense of the charges. Either warning shots mean the threat wasn't imminent, and the law is blatantly fucked up, because it encourages immediate escalation to deadly force in a threatening situation, even if you have to reload and chase them through the streets to get there, or she meant to hit him, the threat WAS imminent, and the threat isn't being considered imminent because she wasn't a white guy. Which means the law is blatantly fucked up, and being enforced by racist idiots. There's really no direction this can go in that makes the self-defense laws in Florida look good.

*Which is why it's very important to convict Dunn of murder. As it stands right now, his crime appears to be missing when shooting at African Americans.

[hack89]

18. Why - it was not self defense.

1. She was in the bedroom.
2. She left the bedroom and walked by her ex on the way to the garage, muttering " I have something for your ass."
3. She walked by the front door on the way to the garage - she could have escaped
4. She entered the garage, got her gun from her car.
5. She took that gun and went back into the house to confront her ex
6. She shoot just over his head into the ceiling. Her kids were standing next to the ex

[Trajan]

40. what bugs me about your post

A known Gungeonite plugging for an extreme sentence, for a woman of color, for firing a warning shot that happened to harm no one ...

What is up with a gun 'expert' of DU promoting extreme prison sentences for people of color who have done little to no real harm to anyone ...

Something stinks here ....

[hack89]

45. I have said more than once that mandatory minimum sentences are an abomination

I thought she should have taken the state's three year plea offer.

I have never said the sentence is just. I have consistently said it was not self defense.

Beside - I thought that anti-gunners wanted people that used guns in the commision of a crime to be severely punished. Do you think she was a "responsible gun owner" or someone that used a gun in an illegal manner? Do you think she should have had a gun in the first place?

[joeglow3]

115. What bugs me about your post is the lies upon lies

I have been reading down this thread and never ONCE has this person said what you claim. In fact, they have stated the complete opposite MULTIPLE times. The bigger question is why do you feel the need to lie and how can you possibly think people won't see the lie when the evidence is right here?

[brush]

146. But you don't know what was done or said in the room when she came back

Or were you there?

There could have been threatening moves or words towards her to have caused her to shoot. The boyfriend had been physically abusive to her many times in the past. Hell, he even said himself that he "beat all his women" to keep them in line.

If she wanted to shoot him she could have. They were both in the same room.

[hack89]

150. Read the court documents

Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)

She never brought up such a scenario in her own defense.

If she was so fearful that she felt she needed a gun, why didn't she simply stay in the bedroom? Or walk out the front door when she walked by it? Or stay in the garage? She choose to get her gun and return to confront him.

Btw, are you aware that while she was waiting trial, she was arrested for domestic violence for violating bail, returning to his house, and punching him out? It sounds like a mutually violent relationship.

[brush]

151. Sometimes abuse victims reach their limit . . .

and decide to fight back. This seems like one those cases. In other jurisdictions in similar circumstances, actually when the women have killed their abuser, they've gotten off.

Seems she should've killed him for Corey to show any sympathy like she did with zimmerman and dunn (guess you have to be a killer for her to show some mercy).

IMO even the 3-year deal was too much since the guy was an admitted serial abuser.

[hack89]

153. She had ample opportunities to escape plus she could have simply stayed away from him.

let's remember that she didn't even live in that house.

Is being abused a license to kill when you are not in imminent danger? And what about the kids - you think endangering them by firing in their direction is justified?

[brush]

158. Okay, I see where you're coming from

You favor Corey's abusive prosecution.

[hack89]

160. No. I think the sentence is unjust

but that she committed a crime. It was not self defense. If you shoot at people you should be punished.

The real issue in this case is the horrible minimum sentencing laws. She should have taken the state's three year plea offer.

[CanonRay]

12. The defendant is clearly the wrong color

Naw, Angela Corey isn't racist...

[Beachwood]

14. Yes, we know that black women, (and men), should not handle guns and

must be severely punished if they ever do, even if they harm no person. It's an American tradition.

[Cha]

13. Angela Corey wants it known in case there was any doubt..

just what an attention seeking racist asshole she is.

[freshwest]

80. Likely run for Governor next, huh? n/t

[stillcool]

16. wow...that's a gut-punch..

Makes me want to puke.

[etherealtruth]

21. I absolutely despise guns

... but, thought 20 years was excessive .... much less 60 years.

I do not think her actions were the best for the given situation (it is always "easy" to judge the situation from outside the situation), but for Pete's sake ... no one was hurt.

What could Angela Corey's possible motivation be?

[brentspeak]

23. Textbook prosecutorial misconduct and overreach n/t

[flvegan]

24. It's her job. She already got a 60 year sentence for her

but she's seeking consecutive (as opposed to concurrent) 20 year sentences. I seriously doubt she will ever get handed that.

She campaigned on being tough on gun crime. For those screaming "racism" because they're still emotional about the Trayvon Martin case: Ronald Thompson and Michael Dunn. Matter of fact, the Thompson case is a bit like Alexander's IIRC.

While I believe that 60 years as a sentence is completely ridiculous in this case, I also think Alexander is a complete idiot. Idiocy shouldn't be criminal, but the acts you commit as one oftentimes can be. That said, if it was her attorney that suggested trying "stand your ground" he or she is an even bigger idiot.

I dislike Corey for her politics and her friends. If I recall, she offered Alexander a relatively light plea deal. Alexander refused and chose to go to trial against multiple counts of aggravated assault involving a firearm, admittedly having fired a shot into a wall. The jury came back in like half an hour. Not taking the deal was dumb, sorry.

Granted, this is all based simply on what I've read and heard and is just opinion. I wasn't in the courtroom nor was I a witness to what happened. If Alexander was truly in fear for her life or the life of her child, and her mistake is shooting a wall instead of plugging the offender, then I hope she gets a better lawyer who can and will successfully argue that for her and win.

[brettdale]

26. so is the nra

and Fox news, and right wing commentators getting behind this woman?

[Trajan]

42. If the comments of known Gungeonites in DU are any indication

They will not defend this minority gun user ...

[Jenoch]

84. She used her gun illegally

Why should anyone defend the illegal use of a handgun?

[freshwest]

53. Nope. Why not clear their names by doing so? Get that black female vote? Who's kidding who?

Yes, they really are racists and they really are misogynists and they really, really don't believe in freedom and justice for all. What the hell good are they?

[Chan790]

29. Jesus fucking Christ...when do we get rid of Angela Corey?

First, the Cristian Fernandez case in 2009. (Where she charged a 12-year old with murder as an adult, later pled to manslaughter. Afterwards, it came out that she had ordered him held in solitary confinement for months in the state prison; when this was reported in a Jacksonville newspaper, she threatened the reporter who broke the story in a one-page single-space letter on official stationary with a libel suit and (specious) criminal charges.)

Then, the first Marissa Alexander case.

Then, the Ronald Thompson miscarriage of justice. (She sought a 20-year sentence against a retired disabled 65-year-old Army veteran for firing two warning shots into ground during an attempted home invasion in 2009. When a superior court judge threw out the 20-year sentencing guideline as "a miscarriage of justice" and unconstitutional, she appealed, got the sentence reinstated back to 20 years. After that was thrown out in 2012 due to improper conduct by the presiding judge in the original case, she again sought 20 years before accepting a plea deal for time-served + 2 years...a total of 5 years.)

Then, the Trayvon Martin murder.

Then, the Jordan Davis murder.

Now, this witch-hunt against Alexander in the second case because she's pissy the court threw out her ill-obtained conviction.

I can't wait for Crist to beat the snot out of Scott so he can fire this woman and at-least undo some of the harm by commuting Alexander's sentence. By that time, Thompson will be out or nearly so, having served his full-term. (Edit: It turns out she's elected. We're going to be stuck with her forever.)

[blackspade]

38. Angela Corey is a menace to the justice system

Lesson: Shot to kill always. Otherwise you will do more time than for murder.

How do simpletons like Corey even make it through law school?

[Cheese4TheRat]

41. Does stand your ground expressly forbid warning shots?

On the other hand, the loud music clown was convicted of not killing the other teens in the car, but was acquitted of killing the one teen in the car.

So, yeah, I guess stand your ground is only permissible when you kill, and that guarantees your innocence.

[ManiacJoe]

69. Warning shots are illegal in most jurisdictions.

The logic goes something like this:
If you are not shooting to stop/kill, then you do not actually fear for you life. Since you do not fear for your life, no lethal force is allowed. The use of guns is always lethal force.

[Cheese4TheRat]

82. As i responded to a post above, there are Rhodes who might fear for their lives

But can't bring themselves to actually kill another human being when the moment presents. I consider that the difference between being human and being an animal. Those who shoot to kill are animals in my book.

[X_Digger]

75. Warning shots are illegal, SYG or no.

By admitting that you intentionally missed in order to deter someone, you've tacitly admitted that you were not in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

That makes discharging a firearm unjustifiable.

[Cheese4TheRat]

81. You know, there are those who might feel in iminiment danger

And can't bring themselves to kill people. I guess that's the difference between human and animals. Gun owners who shoot to kill are animals.

[X_Digger]

83. Then they shouldn't use lethal force.

Discharging a weapon over the head of your spouse and his kids is lethal force.

A warning shot demonstrates that you don't think the threat is imminent.

[Cheese4TheRat]

86. Because those who are conned, or choose, to buy weapons

To protect themselves from attacks that will never occur, THINK they have it in them to kill fellow human beings, only to discover they themselves are humane.

The shoot to kill with no problem crowd? They have no humanity within them.

[X_Digger]

87. States have a vested interest in regulating the discharge of firearms. If you can't see that..

.. using a firearm to win an verbal argument is a bad idea, then I suggest you steer clear of firearms altogether.

If you use lethal force, you shoot to stop the attack. Not 'shoot to kill'. You don't fire over the head of your spouse and his kids.

You're demonstrating your ignorance again.

[Cheese4TheRat]

89. Well, I am stupid.

And if states have a vested interest in anything regarding firearms, it should occur during the procurement of them, not during the discharging of them.

And they certainly would pass legislation permitting them in bars. But then, like you said I'm ignorant.

And what you were politely saying is I'm stupid.

I'm crying now cause you hurt my feelings.

[X_Digger]

90. "not during the discharging of them" ?!? Are you fucking serious?

I can't imagine you are (serious that is).

[Cheese4TheRat]

92. I am serious. Once the gun has left the shop,

There truly is no control under which can be fired. Stand Your Ground laws a clear examples. Shoot, and simply say you were scared.

Shoot a family member, and it accidentally discharged. Shoot a sibling, and the kids were playing with a loaded gun in the open.

In all those examples, no consequence for murdering a human is ever visited upon the perpetrator.

Just call me Gump. I'm not a very smart man.

[X_Digger]

96. Let me remind you what you said..

And if states have a vested interest in anything regarding firearms, it should occur during the procurement of them, not during the discharging of them.

The state has no vested interest in regulating the discharge of firearms?!? How utterly moronic a statement.

There truly is no control under which can be fired. Stand Your Ground laws a clear examples. Shoot, and simply say you were scared.

More ignorance. It's not about whether you were 'scared'- if I were a psychotic who is terrified of bic pens, that doesn't mean I can shoot the guy on the bus with a pocket protector full of them and expect to get away with it. A reasonable person, given the same circumstances would have to feel that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

In all those examples, no consequence for murdering a human is ever visited upon the perpetrator.

Except that's not actually true, even in Florida. See Justin Campos, William Siskos, Trevor Dooley, Reginald Etienne, Walter Bishop Harvey, Jason Clair, Jerome Jones, Kevin Hallman, Jimmy Lee Cruz, Shawn Aaron Penn, Luis Javier Farias-Mendoza, etc etc etc. All those were found guilty or took a plea.

You might actually want to check with reality once in a while, it helps make your claims more credible.

[Cheese4TheRat]

106. I am tired of your abusive tone.

I don't know what your agenda is, and I don't care. Do not respond any further.

[X_Digger]

114. Stop saying silly things, and I'll stop calling you on them.

Discharging a firearm is using lethal force. You only do that in the direst circumstance. Warning shots can kill a bystander, a child in the next apartment, or if you fire in the air, a person a long distance away.

It's an irresponsible thing to do.

[Cheese4TheRat]

119. Smoke some reefer and chill out.

Not only are you annoying, you are also an asshat.

[X_Digger]

120. I'm perfectly chill. I also don't advocate using deadly force for less than deadly threats.

There's potential jail time and lawsuits attached to every bullet that leaves the barrel of a firearm. Knowing the responsible use of firearms is a duty every owner has.

[druidity33]

133. What if...

you are standing on your lawn and shoot into the dirt? I live in the "woods" and my neighbors use their firearms often enough. Yeah it's unnerving, but i've talked to both of them and seen where their targets are. What i'm trying to say is that i think there must be a "responsible way" of firing a warning shot...

[X_Digger]

141. Who's to say that a rock in the dirt won't cause a ricochet?

A poor home range design will get you a reckless endangerment charge if something goes wrong, possibly even negligent homicide should someone die as a result. (There have been charges and lawsuits over both. Something to remind your neighbors of next time you see them!)

Using a firearm in a confrontation is using deadly force. The circumstances where that is justified are slim (as they should be.) Using a firearm to warn is not justified.

[Vattel]

101. A warning shot doesn't always demonstrate that you don't think the threat is imminent.

It sometimes demonstrates that you think that you might be able to address an imminent threat with a warning shot. The law may disagree but then the law is crazy.

[X_Digger]

103. "might be able to address an imminent threat" means that it isn't truly imminent.

If there is a chance that the attack may not happen, it isn't imminent.

Warning shots are illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

[Vattel]

110. That is just plainly incorrect.

Suppose, for example, that someone says "Prepare to meet your maker" and then approaches me aggressively with a baseball bat or a knife. Suppose further that before he reaches me I fire a warning shot which causes him to change his mind and so stop the attack. How could that not be justified self-defense?

[X_Digger]

113. If you think that you can cause the person to not attack you, attack isn't imminent.

Prosecutors love 'warning shot' cases- they're almost always open and shut.

[Vattel]

123. you realize, of course, that the law is stupid

if it would allow me to shoot at the person coming at me with a knife but not use a warning shot instead. The fact that I use a warning shot doesn't make the attack any less of an attack or the threat any less imminent.

[X_Digger]

125. By definition, it certainly does make the attack not imminent.

If you think the potential attacker can be dissuaded, then it isn't imminent.

And shooting into the air?!? Bullets come down with lethal force.

*sigh*

[Vattel]

131. I am not sure you know what the word "imminent" means.

Let me change the example to help you see your error. Someone is strangling me in an attempt to take my life. I shoot a warning shot into a tree. (No one is around except me and my attacker. So I don't endanger innocent bystanders.) It works. He backs off and I escape with my life. On your view there was no imminent threat to my life and my act of self-defense is unjustified. That is just silly.

[X_Digger]

132. imminent adjective 1. about to happen. -- if it might not be 'about to happen', it isn't imminent.

By definition.

Re your moved goal post situation- you would be currently under attack. However, you'd likely still face a reckless discharge charge.

When you're under attack, your adrenaline spikes, increasing your pulse and blood pressure, you get tunnel vision, your fine motor skills deteriorate, your sense of hearing is impaired. How sure are you that nobody else is around to be injured by your shot? How can you know that the shot won't ricochet? If it does richochet and strikes and kills someone, is that negligent homicide? Or are you going to say, "But officer, I didn't mean to kill that person, I was only trying to make this other person let go!"

[Vattel]

135. I would face a reckless discharge charge only if the prosecutor were an idiot.

If I can justifiably shoot at an aggressor in self-defense, then under relevantly similar circumstances I can justifiably shoot at, say, a tree as a warning shot to scare off an aggressor. There needn't be any more danger to innocent bystanders in the one case than in the other. All of the things you say about adrenaline spiking and shots possibly ricocheting, etc., apply to shooting an aggressor in self-defense no less than to shooting a warning shot in self-defense. Both have risks. But both are sometimes justified to address unjust aggression.


You say that I move the goalpost, but even in my original case (someone coming at me with a knife after announcing that he would kill me) I described a scenario in which shooting the aggressor in self-defense can be justified and so firing a warning shot in self-defense can also be justified. Probably your mistake is due to the fact that in real life most warning shots are not really a response to an actual attack, but rather are intended to discourage someone from attacking or from some other wrongdoing. In those cases there would be no self-defense justification for the warning shot and criminal charges would be likely. Maybe that is the sort of case you have been talking about all along and so we have merely been miscommunicating.

[X_Digger]

137. You mean cases like Marissa Alexander? Where she admits she wasn't being attacked, and the kids..

.. say that she left and came back with the gun, and shot over their heads from across the room?

[brush]

147. Maybe not being attack but maybe she felt threaten

I mean the guy had beat her many times.

It doesn't take much to scare someone that you've been beating whenever you felt like it. Just a look, or words. She could very easily felt threatened.

I don't get at all why Corey didn't let her plead SYG. Being a woman and all you'd think she would be sympathetic to an abuse victim.

Guess you'd have to be a white woman though for Corey to relate.

[X_Digger]

161. That doesn't rise to the level of justifying shooting someone.

Would a reasonable person fear imminent death or grave bodily harm? A warning shot demonstrates that whatever one feels, it isn't imminent.

[brush]

162. Why else would you warn them then?

[X_Digger]

163. Apparently, to win an argument, in this case.

According to her spouse and his kids, she said, "I've got something for your ass.", left the room where they were arguing, went to the garage to retrieve her firearm, came back in, and fired the shots into the wall above her spouse and kids' heads.

[Vattel]

164. exactly. her warning shots were clearly unjustified

I was certainly not attempting to defend her.

[msanthrope]

116. Then I arrest you for attempted murder. You can use lethal force to meet a lethal attack/attempt.

What you cannot do is attempt to stop what you perceive to be a non-lethal attack with lethal force---which ALL GUN SHOTS ARE.

Let me repeat--ALL GUN SHOTS ARE lethal force. No strays, warnings, ricochets, or accidents. You use a gun, you are using lethal force.

Your argument reminds of armed robbers who try to claim that the only reason they brought a loaded gun into a 7-11 was to scare the clerk. No--you brought a lethal weapon in to effect an armed robbery. That's how the law sees it when your bullet 'accidentally' hits the clerk.

[Vattel]

122. If someone is coming at me with a knife after saying "Prepare to meet your maker"

that is a potentially lethal attack and shooting him would be justified self-defense under the law. So how could it become unjustified just because I shoot into the air instead of at the person trying to knife me?

[JVS]

156. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "warning shot" in law.

In fact, I'd be interested in seeing how the line between "warning shots" and "attempted homicide" is drawn.

[Cheese4TheRat]

159. It looks like Florida will "lead" the way, I guess.

Sixty years to warn, freedumb to kill.

[NaturalHigh]

46. It was a warning shot in HIS house...

after she left his house and came back. She also had a restraining order against him, which begs the question of why she was in his house with him in the first place.

It's not like this guy was in her home and she fired a shot over his head. I don't think there would be a question of whether it was self defense in that case. If someone came in my house and fired a shot, I would want them prosecuted too.

She should have taken the three-year deal.

[brush]

63. Didn't she live there too?

First time I heard she didn't live there.

[NaturalHigh]

71. She had a restraining order against him...

so I don't see how they could be living in the same house.

[smokey775]

88. No, she hadn't lived there in months.

[Lifelong Protester]

51. Talk about utter prejudiced nonsense!

Free Marissa NOW!

[LisaL]

55. She is free right now.

Corey wants to retry her.

[Lifelong Protester]

60. There's free, and then there's free

[joeglow3]

117. What about her behavior was acceptable and not criminal?

[napkinz]

61. share with others ...

[mtasselin]

64. impeach

I think this prosecutor should be recalled or impeached. She has not shown herself to be very effective at what she does and doesn't do, what kind of message is she trying to get across to people, if it is that she is not a clear thinker and she thinks she is some kind of God, fine OK she wins.

[azureblue]

65. Question

Can the defense bring up the disparity in charging, as evidence of prosecutorial bias towards blacks? Can the defense also bring up the fact that Corey would not allow Alexander a SYG defense?

[X_Digger]

70. You can thank the brady bunch for the mandatory minimum (for crimes with guns).

And the real lesson learned here?

Warning shots are illegal. If you're not in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, you don't use lethal force (which is what a warning shot is.)

[indepat]

78. Surely 60 years would seem right to no one but right-wing fuc*tards

[ecstatic]

85. This confirms my suspicions about Corey

She's not incompetent--she's quite good with carrying out her racist agenda. She could barely contain her glee after failing both Trayvon and Jordan. Thanks to social media and the Internet, there's a bright spotlight shining on her ass and I hope she's removed from office soon.

[Dawson Leery]

104. Certainly she is a racist.

[3catwoman3]

130. Her $h!t-eating grin...

...during the interview after the verdict was creepy and surreal.

[Cheese4TheRat]

108. Four cowardly jurists and two with integrity.

I will be sure to include moronic and ignorant in all posts to, you know, toughen up. As for the language barriar, it's probably because I'm ignorant and the tough guy poster is tough.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:45 AM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter needs to toughen up. It almost seems like there's some language barrier here? I really don't understand this exchange.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The rude tone is inappropriate for this forum.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

[sabrina 1]

124. Can they start a recall of this guy? Definitely an abuse of power by someone who doesn't

belong in that position.

[smokey775]

139. Angela Cory is a woman, not a guy.

[sabrina 1]

142. I wouldn't know, I am not familiar with every prosecutor in the country, hard to keep up with

those right here in NY.

Same question, can a prosecutor be recalled for abuse of power?

[smokey775]

143. They're elected to office so I would imagine they could be.

[sabrina 1]

144. Thank you ... n/t

[diabeticman]

126. My wife is completely sick about this whole situation. The woman should have NEVER been convicted

[Jenoch]

127. She used a hangun illegally.

The problem is not with the law she violated, the problem is the mandatory sentencing.

[diabeticman]

128. She was standing her ground ONLY she gave her aggressor a warning. Had she blown her head off she

would have been convicted of murder. It is all because of her skin color. It is self-defense

[Jenoch]

129. She violated a restraining order.

She left her ex's home to get the gun and returned. She fired the gun. She violated several laws. It was not self-defense or SYG.

[madville]

134. And while she was out on bail for the warning shots

She returned to his home again, violated the restraining order and got arrested for assaulting him.

The sentence was harsh, and tripling it even harsher. With the known facts and not knowing her entire criminal history I would say the 3 year plea deal offered was fair. 1-3 years sounds appropriate if she is convicted again. The problem here is the minimum sentencing guidelines for gun crimes in Florida.

[Jenoch]

136. Do you know if the Florida legislature is going

to address these sentencing laws? I recal a legislator saying the law was intended for situations where somebody uses a gun to rob a liquor store. I suppose we might not have learned about the Florda gun sentencing if she had accepted the original plea bargqin offered to her. She did not believe she did anything wrong and she may have gotten bad legal advice.

[MoonRiver]

154. Corey needs to GO!

She's obviously a racist scum, who tries to throw trials when the defendant is white, and accused of killing blacks. BUT, when the defendant is black, she throws the book plus kitchen sink at her.

[Blue_Tires]

165. If ONLY she put this much effort in the Zimmerman case...