General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbused wife "stands her ground", faces 20 years in prison
Abused Wife ‘Stands Her Ground,’ Faces 20 Year Prison Sentence
Apr 21, 2012
Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law has been at the center of the Trayvon Martin case because former neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, 28, claims that he acted in self-defense and, under the law, he had every right to meet force with force.
----------------
Unfortunately, “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t work nearly as well to protect abused Black women — just vigilante neighborhood watch captains with violent criminal records.
On August 1, 2010, Marissa Alexander was in the fight of her life against an abusive husband who, according to her, had every intention of killing her. Today, she awaits trail on three counts of of aggravated assault with no intent to harm, and faces a minimum 20 years in prison. The judge in the case dismissed Alexander’s motion to receive immunity under the “Stand Your Ground,” and she is struggling to get her story heard.
Hear from Marissa in her own words:
--------------------------------
Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been a vital support and champion for Trayvon Martin’s family, told Loop21.com in an interview that he would also be getting involved in Alexander’s case:
We’re definitely going to get involved in that, because I think she’s a glaring example of how they apply Stand Your Ground based on who you are, rather than what ground you’re standing.”
http://newsone.com/2003797/marissa-alexander-stand-your-ground/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
lilithsrevenge12
(136 posts)so obviously she doesn't qualify under the "Stand Your Ground" law.
That's how us hicks in Florida run our state, on sexism and racism.
Quixote1818
(31,154 posts)
polichick
(37,626 posts)Our beautiful Florida is now FloriDUH in so many ways.
dballance
(5,756 posts)In hickville FL any African-American is automatically guilty. I mean isn't that why the police let Zimmerman go after he pursued Trayvon despite the dispatcher telling him not to? Oh, and he shot a kid armed with only Skittles and Iced Tea?
Boy Trayvon was obviously a threat to the community.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)
Baitball Blogger
(52,287 posts)Look at the case that occurred in Seminole County where the guy shot his fiancee, thinking she was an intruder. Not even manslaughter.
dkf
(37,305 posts)This would seem to me the classic case of why this law is even on the books. I'm glad the NAACP is going to support her.
catchnrelease
(2,151 posts)In the article she states that while trying to defend herself she fired into the wall to scare off the husband, who was already under a restraining order due to prior abuse. Then the husband tells the police she shot at him and his sons and she's on trial. Wow.
Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)You don't need to kill someonoe to protect yourself.
saras
(6,670 posts)That means that I get to send anyone I want to jail for huge chunks of their life, by attacking them, threatening them, and provoking them to shoot, while hoping they're dumb enough to not just blow my head off. Cool. I LIKE that system.
Taylor Smite
(86 posts)"So you think she should go to jail for twenty years for it?"
All the post said was "the individual used the gun to scare off an attacker. She didnt kill the person, but she used the gun to protect herself." And, somehow, you consider that as saying she should be locked up for 20 years?
I am now frustrated from trying to make sense of your response.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)Warning shots are a bad idea. Period. A warning shot demonstrates you didn't feel your life was in enough danger to fire a shot to stop the threat. Warning shots are inherently dangerous because they are often poorly aimed and every shot fired has to be accounted for. Even in military operations where warning shots are expressly mentioned in force escalation there is controversy.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that bullet has to go somewhere and if you're aiming away from the bad guy that means he's safe and if it hits someone that's going to be an innocent bystander.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)advising people on topics that you are not knowledgeable in.
Thanks.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In many states, a felony.
I would personally like to see MORE of this, because at the end of the day, the (alleged) aggressor didn't get killed, and he has a chance to fix his shit. Problem is, the courts view this as automatic 'you weren't in fear for your life', and her life is thus ruined.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)20 year mandatory minimum.
If you are in fear for your life, you can shoot someone. The courts presume that you are not in fear for your life if you move the muzzle of your firearm in a 'safe direction' AWAY from the threat, and discharge it.
I don't have a complete list of states where this is the case, but New Hampshire is another. I think Washington State as well.
If you are in fear for your life, you shoot the threat, or you don't shoot at all. You'll not find a self defense instructor in this country that advocates otherwise.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)(No offense to native Mississippians though. I'm from a red state myself......Hint: It's west of Louisiana and south of Oklahoma and is best known for cowboys, twisters, and it's rather unique state capital. 
)
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)she hasn't been found guilty.
Moosepoop
(2,075 posts)That's why the NAACP is requesting not only the postponement of her sentencing date, but is requesting a new trial for her as well. The first part of the article stated that she's awaiting trial, but that is incorrect. Later in the article is a link to this:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/article/253769/3/Local-NAACP-Asks-Judge-to-Postpone-Marissa-Alexander-Sentencing
In a letter sent Friday, Branch President Isaiah Rumlin also asked Daniel to consider granting a new trial for Alexander.
A jury convicted Alexander of three counts of aggravated assault after she got into a scuffle with her abusive husband and fired a shot into their home's ceiling.
Now she's facing a minimum of 20 years in prison, but her family argues that Alexander should be covered by the Stand Your Ground statute.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)If it played out like the article said then any sort of penalty sounds ridiculous.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)State law does, and doesn't cover it in a favorable manner to the plaintiff.
It is considered, by the courts, to be evidence you are not in fear for your life. The trial outcome is, letter of the law, correct. It is also an incredible injustice, she should be pardoned by the governor, expunged, and a new law passed to add warning shots to SYG, or a new statute entirely.
It will have to be worded very tightly though, because warning shots can be incredibly risky, and can kill innocent bystanders.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Only the NRA and ALEC could come up with a law that makes it Ok to stalk and kill and unarmed teenager but leave an abused woman in prison for trying to protect herself from a man who had threatened to kill her.
I'm sure it makes sense to republicans.
polichick
(37,626 posts)
TBF
(36,561 posts)this woman - but I see that isn't happening.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
saras
(6,670 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Firearm self-defense classes universally teach students that firing a "warning shot" is almost always a bad idea, and this incident is just one of several ways that doing so can result in unpleasant legal consequences.
If you feel threatened enough to bring a firearm into play, you aim for center of mass and keep shooting your attacker until the attack stops.
hack89
(39,181 posts)you don't know where the bullet will land.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Justifiable use of force is proteced by law. Shooting at the ceiling to scare someone is not.
ETA Getting good training is important.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to reduce the chance of being prosecuted? She should have taken his life?
Had she killed him, I would not have blamed her, but she didnt and apparently didnt need to. To suggest she should have killed him just to make her life easier is beyond my comprehension.
The lack of respect for human life of some here is chilling.
Rittermeister
(170 posts)as I understand it, that if you're frightened enough for your life to bring a firearm into play, you ought to be frightened enough to shoot to kill. If the situation doesn't require lethal force, then bringing an inherently lethal weapon out is a no-no. You can't draw down on a guy because he shoved you. Same reason why people are advised not to shoot to wound. If you have time to make the decision to shoot to wound, you're supposedly not in a situation that requires use of a gun. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's basically how it works, at least in NC.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)using firearms when not needed. But some here are, after the fact, saying she should have killed him. I find that horribly chilling. In other words she made a mistake in bringing out the gun, but it would have been ok if she would have killed him.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...in self-defense. If that is the case your lack of clarity is understandable.
When a person uses deadly force in self-defense - including firearm, edged weapon, empty hand, or any other form - state of mind has a lot to do with whether or not the person who used force will be charged with a crime.
You don't ever want to have killing a person in mind, no matter what he or she has done or is threatening to do.
The purpose of deadly force is to protect yourself, to STOP an attack or to prevent one from happening.
After the fight, if you survive you are going to have to speak with the police or a prosecutor at some point. One of the worst things you could ever tell such a person is "I decided I had to kill the person." Never, ever say that. You used force to protect yourself. If the person died, that is an unfortunate consequence of bad choices that he or she made.
That is all.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:04 AM - Edit history (2)
You shoot to STOP a violent attack.
If you shoot to KILL someone you may be charged with an unlawful homicide.
The phrase "...with malice aforethought" is part of every state law definition of murder that I've ever read. If you didn't have killing in your mind, you did not have malice aforethought when you used deadly force, and therefore (at least theoretically) a charge of murder would not be supported.
I've learned a lot in self-defense training. The most important thing, I believe, is that you should do everything possible to avoid getting into a fight and having to use deadly force.
The philosophy I have learned with respect to using a firearm or edged weapon against a human is:
"Use deadly force only to protect something that you would be willing to die for."
That works, legally and morally, no matter what the law of the state you happen to be in says.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)demonstrates to me that she was frightened enough to do whatever it took to keep him from hurting her. Doesn't matter how she does it. Heck, even if she threated him with a frying pan, she had every right to do that- whatever works.
It doesn't matter whether he shoved her or not. He was not even supposed to be near her, let alone get close enough to shove her.
He was violating the order of protection. That is reason enough for a person to defend themselves.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...is not an acceptable mode of defence. In the dispassionate eyes of the law, if her threat is successful, it's proof she held the upper hand.
AND the threatened person is free to swear a complaint, with her as a star witness against herself.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Her choice. She chose to do something different.
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)It might be the reaction of a police trained or military person, but not your ordinary, average person who cares about life.
Personally, I would have an extremely hard time shooting at an intruder in my home. I would probably think twice about it, at which time it would most likely be too late. What can I say, I don't even like to catch a mouse in a trap.
But who knows? I'm usually the kind of person who reacts without thinking much first, but I don't know about applying that to shooting at someone. If that sounds conflicted - it is.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I use no-kill mouse traps whenever possible, or let my cats take care of the problem.
Crunchy Frog
(28,258 posts)you're in jail for 20 years. Who wrote these laws, Franz Kafka?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts) Crunchy Frog
(28,258 posts)Thanks for the clarification.
pnwmom
(110,254 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)them from testifying?
pnwmom
(110,254 posts)is to make sure your attacker is dead.
Rittermeister
(170 posts)They have a mantra they repeat like it's a freakin Hail Mary. "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
pnwmom
(110,254 posts)
Iris
(16,872 posts)If SYG is such a great law, it's time to go back and look at cases where battered women killed their abusers.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)to this OP, please take the time to sign the petition to free Marissa:
http://www.change.org/petitions/free-marissa-alexander
I have been an advocate for survivors of relationship violence for more than 30 years. Relationship violence is as ubiquitous today as when I began my advocacy. Sadly, I've watched as mediocre legislation fails to protect survivors, all the while providing a slap on the wrist for most abusers.
Of note, fully half of all women killed by their abusers are killed AFTER they leave the relationship.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)they defend Zimmerman. Will they stand outside of where her trail is and show their support? I doubt it, but maybe they will surprise me.
Taylor Smite
(86 posts)they say something about 'the liberal media' or something about liberals not being outraged at her....or whatever.
but what they really mean is 'she is black and because of that we dont care.'
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's the application of the law. I doubt we'll see the same people who want to repeal SYG laws advocating for this woman's imprisonment because "the law shouldn't exist" or "everybody deserves a fair trial", and I don't anticipating anybody calling her a vigilante
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There are people posting here that advocate killing because, like in the Trayvon Martin case (before the publicity forced action), you will get in less trouble. These people have very little regard for human life.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
juajen
(8,515 posts)It is typical that a woman would have a problem with killing someone. We are more tender hearted than the male of the species. I would find it very difficult to shoot to kill someone. She is even now in more danger from this man, who will blame her for his own idiocy, and again, attempt to kill her. Protective orders are famous for enraging the men they are taken out against. They should be called "enrage me more" orders. Honestly, why does anybody move to Florida?
look up the definition of the word VIGILANTE, would you?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Please tell the anti-gun regulars that opine that all people who own guns for self defense are vigilantes
Skittles
(171,537 posts)paranoid much?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Or keep one in the house for self-defense. Haven't you heard? We're all itching for a chance to legally kill a criminal non-white person. To feel the hammer of the gun against our body, and to see the enemy explode in a spray of blood and flesh. To crush the enemy, and to wear as a trophy the warm, coppery spray of vitality across your body, until you glisten as the ancient sword-wielding conquerors of old did after slaughtering their foes.
Or something like that.
Crunchy Frog
(28,258 posts)and she actually WAS in a life threatening situation. I don't think anyone on here would call someone a vigilante under those circumstances, but you're free to continue beating up that strawman if you like.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you're going to use a firearm defensively in Florida, you have to at least be trying to put lead in bad guys.
Fire a shot into a ceiling for 'attention' and you face a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence.
Warning shots are bad, bad, bad. Never ever. At the end of the day, a warning shot might save a life, but the life you save won't be your own, because the courts are going to fuck you hard.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I mean, domestic violence cases have their own laws, don't they? You aren't required to run and flee in a domestic argument, to begin with.
I guess I don't know enuf about that law.
TBF
(36,561 posts)but if you stalk a stranger on the street it's open season? I really don't understand these gun laws.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)because there were laws in some states requiring people confronted by others, to retreat to avoid a fight. If you didn't retreat, then self defense would be harder to prove.
I don't know that there are any laws requiring a domestic partner to retreat, when being beaten up by spouse. Or even just confronted. So stand your ground wouldn't be necessary.
It's pretty confusing.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)It is specified that if you feel that your life is threatened you can protect it using deadly force. That doesn't necessarily omit domestic violence. Not to mention she had a protective order against the man if I remember correctly. Her actions seem justified.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Laws were made and enforced by men. White men.
Things are changing but it's so damn slow.
Will be nice when there're more women (of whatever color) in judicial and gov't positions (and men of colors other than white)
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)time to test this law. This woman had just given birth to a preemie 9 days old and had a protective order in place. You don't get those just for the heck of it. Violence has to be proven. Hope this gets some media coverage, but I'm not holding my breath.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)is not perfectly clear I can't see why she is being charged and held in jail. She was obviously terrified and feared for her life. She didn't even shoot him, just a warning shot. Hopefully after a review of all the evidence she will be released with no charges filed.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I was also once married to an abusive man.
Whatever happened to equal protection? Or did we ever have it really?
shimonitanegi
(114 posts)she had to punch her nose and scratch her head to bleed.
by George
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)this is the type of person that SYG should be able to protect. This woman killed her abuser because of the abuse he had caused her over the years.
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)by a black teenager walking while black.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)r life.
Florida has a mandatory minimum statute for discharging a firearm that probably applies in this case (20 years). You are either justified in shooting some threat, or you are not justified in firing your weapon at all.
Several states vary on this, Texas probably allows it, New Hampshire it's a felony.
Warning shots look great on TV, and in a perfect world, might allow situations to be de-escalated where the aggressor's mind can be changed by a show of force, and nobody really needs to die, and that's great, but in the real world, warning shots mean you were not in fear for your life, because you moved the muzzle of your weapon away from the threat, AND fired it.
It's a pretty shit situation she's in, but you'd be hard pressed to find a self-defense or firearm instructor anywhere in the nation that will advocate a warning shot for precisely this reason.
At the end of the day, you might leave a human life intact by doing it, but the courts are going to screw you.