Marissa Alexander Now Faces 60 Years in Florida Prison for Firing a Warning Shot in Self Defense

What say you?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178641/marissa-alexander-now-faces-60-years-prison-firing-warning-shot-self-defense#

Bob wrote:What say you?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178641/marissa-alexander-now-faces-60-years-prison-firing-warning-shot-self-defense#

The shot was fired into the wall above the heads of children.....not into the ceiling. She had the oppurtunity to leave the home.......but after all is considered... 60 years is ridiculus.

WTF why isn't the stand your ground law applicable ? There is no justice in our smelly corrupt 'justice" system...

Sal wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:WTF why isn't the stand your ground law applicable ? 

Because she's not white. 

Or maybe because she left her husband's home, unobstructed, went into the garage, retrieved her gun from her car, re-entered the home, walked to the area where her husband and his two children were standing, and shot towards them, and hit the wall next to their heads.

Sometimes facts do matter.

This guy broke down the bathroom door and assaulted her.He said he was going to kill her. He had previously put her in the hospital. The garage door would not open so should she have taken the chance of getting beaten just because the kids were there? I don't think so.

Dreamsglore wrote:This guy broke down the bathroom door and assaulted her.He said he was going to kill her. He had previously put her in the hospital. The garage door would not open so should she have taken the chance of getting beaten just because the kids were there? I don't think so.

After the shooting, her husband and kids fled and called 911.  She stayed in the house and never called 911. After this incident, she was ordered by the Court to stay away from her husband's home, to which she repeatedly returned. Doesn't sound too scared to me.  

The police investigated her claims that the garage door was broken, and found no evidence it was broken.

Edit: She had previously been prosecuted for domestic violence against her husband too.

I don't know about repeatedly returned. It states she went over to get a birth certificate signed. They were about to cut off her insurance and the baby she just had was a preemie in the hospital. The husband admits in a deposition the garage was locked and she couldn't get out and he would have put his hands on her if she didn't have the gun. She told him to get out and he kept walking towards her. She fired a warning shot. I don't think that deserves 20 yrs.let alone 60.

It was his home not hers.
He had a restraining order against her.....she was not suppose to be near or in his home.
She went to the garage and obtained her gun without obstruction.
She could have easiky walked out of the front or back door.
The warning shot was fired inches above the victims head not into the ceiling. The children were standing with their father. His kids not hers.


Why did she park in the garage and close door?
Why didn't she call the police?
Why was she there?

If I were in fear for my life, I wouldn't have to think twice about backing my car through a closed garage door.

Since the inception of "stand your ground" blacks have benefitted from it at the rate of 2 to 1 more than whites. Easy information for the resident race baiter to look up if he chose to.

Gunz wrote:Since the inception of "stand your ground"  blacks have benefitted from it at the rate of 2 to 1 more than whites.   Easy information for the resident race baiter to look up if he chose to.

Can you elaborate on this?

Fox News did a story which made this statement...

"Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense."

It appears they based that on a study done by "The U.S. Civil Rights Commission".
But I can't be sure because it's unclear.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/31/what-liberal-media-wont-tell-blacks-benefit-most-from-stand-your-ground-laws/

Joanimaroni wrote:It was his home not hers.
He had a restraining order against her.....she was not suppose to be near or in his home.
She went to the garage and obtained her gun without obstruction.
She could have easiky walked out of the front or back door.
The warning shot was fired inches above the victims head not into the ceiling. The children were standing with their father. His kids not hers.


Why did she park in the garage and close door?
Why didn't she call the police?
Why was she there?

If I were in fear for my life, I wouldn't have to think twice about backing my car through a closed garage door.

It was both their house. They were married in May 2010 and she had been staying w/ her mother 2 months prior. She was there to get a BC signed for the insurance. She says she told him to leave and he was advancing toward her and she fired a warning shot. She lied about several things in the past also. She probably didn't call the police because she wasn't supposed to be there but does the stand your ground law not apply in you feel your life was in danger? From what I read she ran out to the car and didn't have her keys and got the gun and went back in to get the keys. I think we need to find out what the real facts of the case were. I take issue w/ Angela Corey saying her past injuries were minor. Her husband a had 3 previous domestic violence charges against him.

Bob wrote:Fox News did a story which made this statement...

"Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense."

It appears they based that on a study done by "The U.S. Civil Rights Commission".
But I can't be sure because it's unclear.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/31/what-liberal-media-wont-tell-blacks-benefit-most-from-stand-your-ground-laws/

From the article...

And they seem to have some evidence of this, now that the Tampa Bay Times has reviewed Florida's court cases to find “defendants claiming ‘stand your ground’ are more likely to prevail if the victim is black.”

How can anyone read this and come to the conclusion "Black people benefit the most!", unless of course they completely ignore the people who are getting killed in these cases?

Long but interesting.....

Facts of the case.........
FACTS OF THE ALEXANDER CASE

According to court documents, on July 31, 2010, Alexander left her newborn child in the hospital days after giving birth to visit the home of Rico Gray, her husband. Although Gray and Alexander had just been married in May of 2010, Alexander had not lived in Gray’s home for the two months prior to the shooting. When Alexander arrived at the home, Gray was not there. She parked her car in the garage, spent the night in the home, but did not see Gray until he returned home the next morning with his two sons.

When Gray returned, the family ate breakfast together without incident. The trouble began when Alexander gave her phone to Gray so he could see pictures of their newborn, who was still in the hospital. After giving the phone to Gray, Alexander went to use the bathroom in the home’s master bedroom. While looking at the pictures, Gray noticed text messages between Alexander and her ex-husband, Lincoln Alexander, which prompted Gray to confront Alexander about whether the baby was his or Lincoln Alexander’s.

An argument then ensued between Gray and Alexander, and Gray initially prevented Alexander from leaving the bathroom during the altercation. Alexander eventually managed to get around Gray to exit the bathroom.

Alexander’s actions following that moment are what differentiate her case from that of George Zimmerman.

After Alexander exited the bathroom and re-entered the master bedroom, Gray left the bedroom and headed to the living room where his sons were located. At that point, Alexander left the master bedroom, passing Gray, his two children, and the unobstructed front and back doors of the house on her way to the garage. Once in the garage, she retrieved a handgun from her vehicle’s glove box and then went back into the kitchen, where she “pointed it in the direction of all three [v]ictims.” Although Gray put his hands in the air, Alexander fired the gun, “nearly missing [Gray's] head” and sending a bullet “through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room.”

Gray and his sons fled the home and immediately called 911. Alexander stayed in the home and never called 911.

Many of Alexander’s defenders correctly note that Gray had a long history of abusing Alexander and multiple other women. He had previously been charged with domestic battery on at least three separate occasions, including charges in 1994, 2006, and 2009. The 2009 incident against Alexander sent her to the hospital with head injuries after he shoved her into a bathtub.

Court Record of Gray's 2009 Domestic Battery Arrest
Court Record of Gray’s 2009 Domestic Battery Arrest
Alexander’s defenders also point to Gray’s eventual deposition as proof of Alexander’s claim of self defense. In that deposition, Gray said he had all but threatened to kill Alexander, that he knew she could not leave the home through the garage because it was broken, and that she never pointed the gun at him or his children. The problems with Gray’s testimony during his deposition, however, are two-fold.

PROBLEMS WITH RICO GRAY’S DEPOSITION

First, his deposition severely conflicted with the account that he originally gave police. Second, and more important, after swearing to the court that she would have no contact with Gray, Alexander continued to have contact with him. In her order dismissing Alexander’s request to avoid a trial entirely based on the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law, Judge Elizabeth A. Senterfitt noted that Alexander and Gray “discussed what [Gray] should say during [his] deposition” on November 22, 2010.

Gray later admitted to lying in his deposition to protect Alexander.

“Gray said he lied during his deposition after conspiring with his wife in an effort to protect her,” CNN wrote in 2012 after Alexander was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. “At the hearing [on Alexander's motion for a retrial], [Gray] denied threatening to kill his wife, adding, ‘I begged and pleaded for my life when she had the gun.’”

ALEXANDER’S DOMESTIC BATTERY ARREST MONTHS AFTER THE SHOOTING

Further complicating matters for Alexander, she was arrested for domestic battery against Gray on December 30, 2010, while she was out on bail and still awaiting trial on the aggravated assault charges stemming from the August incident.

“The victim [Gray] stated that his estranged wife [Alexander] had come to his residence to drop off their child,” the incident report prepared by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office noted. “[Gray] stated that an argument ensued when he would not allow her to stay overnight at his residence.” The police report noted that Gray’s left eye appeared swollen and bloodied. Alexander fled the scene before police arrived.

police arrived.

When the responding officer met with Alexander approximately an hour after the incident, she initially claimed that “she did not know what this was about and that she had an alibi.” Throughout the course of her conversation with the officer, Alexander changed her story and eventually claimed that while she had been at Gray’s house, he had attacked her first with his fists after she wouldn’t stay for the night. The officer wrote that Alexander had “no visible injuries.”

Alexander was arrested and bond was revoked on her prior charges of aggravated assault against Gray and his children. She entered a plea of no contest to the domestic battery charges on March 27, 2012.

Marissa Alexander's December 2010 Arrest Report
Marissa Alexander’s December 2010 Arrest Report
Unlike the Zimmerman case, in which he could clearly demonstrate a reasonable fear that his life had been in danger based on the multiple bruises and lacerations on his head and face, Alexander had no visible injuries. While Florida law requires only a reasonable fear of severe bodily harm rather than proof of actual physical harm, Alexander’s actions immediately before and after she discharged her firearm call into question her claim that she had no choice but to fire at Gray.

ALEXANDER’S DUBIOUS CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE

First, although she had ample opportunity to exercise non-lethal options when she claimed to believe her life was at risk — exiting through the front door, back door, or garage — Alexander chose to remain in the home. She later claimed that the garage door was broken, eliminating her ability to leave when she initially entered the garage, but officers found no evidence to suggest that it was not working.

Second, Alexander’s claim that she fired only a warning shot, as opposed to firing at Gray and merely missing, also rings somewhat hollow. Her claim that she fired a warning shot, instead of a shot at center mass to stop the aggressor’s attack, suggests that she did not believe that deadly force was actually necessary.

Third, the fact that Alexander never called the police after the incident also suggests that she did not reasonably fear for her life. A victim of a near fatal attack would almost certainly alert authorities so that they might apprehend the attacker.

Fourth, the fact that Alexander voluntarily returned to Gray’s home repeatedly after the incident — against explicit court orders which Alexander promised to obey — also suggests that she may not have actually feared for her life when she fired at Gray.

Fifth, and finally, Alexander’s behavior before and after her arrest in December of 2010 — while she was still awaiting trial for the previous incident — also calls into question whether she actually believed the use of deadly force was necessary to defend herself from Gray in August of 2010. Alexander never called police (in both the August and December encounters, it was Gray or his children who contacted the police) and initially lied about even being present at Gray’s home.

Given Alexander’s behavior and interactions with Gray in the months following her initial arrest, it is not difficult to see why both a judge and a jury may have been skeptical of her claim that the use of deadly force was reasonable and that no other options were available.

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Nonetheless, prominent African Americans including Holder and “Ebony and Ivory” singer Stevie Wonder, who has vowed not to perform in the Sunshine State until the law is revoked, have made “Stand Your Ground” a central part of the Trayvon Martin controversy.



Holder, who was pressured by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other progressive groups to open a civil rights case against acquitted neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Martin, criticized Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law in a speech Tuesday before the NAACP.

The law was not invoked by Zimmerman’s defense team but was included in instructions to the jury.

“We must confront the underlying attitudes, the mistaken beliefs and the unfortunate stereotypes that serve too often as the basis for police action and private judgments. Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhood,” Holder said to applause in his speech before the NAACP Tuesday.

“These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the ‘if’ is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety,” Holder said.

“The list of resulting tragedies is long and, unfortunately, has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation; we must stand OUR ground to ensure — (cheers, applause, music) — we must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent,” Holder said.



But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/#ixzz2vDuRpmGv

And to be fair, here is some info on what boards was posting about. In states with stand-your-ground laws, the shooting of a black person by a white person is found justifiable 17 percent of the time, while the shooting of a white person by a black person is deemed justifiable just over 1 percent of the time, according to the study. In states without stand-your-ground laws, white-on-black shootings are found justified just over 9 percent of the time.

Such findings "show that it's just harder for black defendants to assert stand-your-ground defense if the victim is white, and easier for whites to raise a stand-your-ground defense if the victims are black," says Darren Hutchinson, a law professor and civil rights law expert at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "The bottom line is that it's really easy for juries to accept that whites had to defend themselves against persons of color."

The potential reasons behind this are multilayered.

On one hand, young black men are disproportionately involved in violent crime. While blacks represent 12 percent of the US population, they make up 55 percent of its homicide victims, the vast majority of those perpetrated by other blacks.

Gun control has yet to have a clear effect on the situation. Violent turf wars in Chicago have sent the murder rate soaring even though the city has some of the strictest gun controls in the entire country.

An investigative report by the Tampa Bay Times last year added more nuance to the issue of stand your ground. It analyzed 200 stand-your-ground cases in Florida and found that defendants who killed a black person were found not guilty 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person were found not guilty 59 percent of the time.

The paper noted that the discrepancy was due in part to the fact that black shooting victims were more likely to be armed and in the process of committing a crime when shot. In the 11 cases that involved whites killing blacks or blacks killing whites, no discrepancy in conviction rates was apparent – four of five blacks who shot and killed a white person escaped punishment while five of six whites who killed a black person escaped punishment.
t.

It was the same article I read amongst others. So what is your point? The home belonged to both of them ,they were just separated. She was bringing the child to him when he started his shit. You are in effect saying she should have just retreated when the law says she didn't have to. So again what is your point?

Dreamsglore wrote:It was the same article I read amongst others. So what is your point? The home belonged to both of them ,they were just separated. She was bringing the child to him when he started his shit. You are in effect saying she should have just retreated when the law says she didn't have to. So again what is your point?

If she had not lived in the house for two months and indeed had a restraining order on her then stand your ground would not cover her anyway. The law reads in part, that you have to be doing legal activities and where legally allowed to be. Oh well, good try for her.

Dreamsglore wrote:It was the same article I read amongst others. So what is your point? The home belonged to both of them ,they were just separated. She was bringing the child to him when he started his shit. You are in effect saying she should have just retreated when the law says she didn't have to. So again what is your point?

The point is.....she had not lived in the home for 2 months and there was a restraining order in place. She also conspired with her ex to alter his testimony...that's tampering and it's illegal. She should have taken the deal but her idea was typical, I can keep doing what I want...it took a jury less than 15 minutes to convict her.

Sal wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:WTF why isn't the stand your ground law applicable ? 

Because she's not white. 

Is the hubby white?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:WTF why isn't the stand your ground law applicable ? There is no justice in our smelly corrupt 'justice" system...

Read the law Teo. She had a restraining order against her

Yella wrote:

Sal wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:WTF why isn't the stand your ground law applicable ? 

Because she's not white. 

Is the hubby white?

No.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Yella wrote:

Sal wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:WTF why isn't the stand your ground law applicable ? 

Because she's not white. 

Is the hubby white?

No.

Well... we're not sure what the color of sal's skin is either. The color of skin is the driver of facts, findings and observations.

An article from a Communist website which advocates violence in our streets and, typically does not include all the facts as has been pointed out in various posts.

The reason it is in the news today is that she is getting a NEW TRIAL.

She escaped to the garage where she got a gun out of the car. She could have left then and there and called for help. She RE-ENTERED the house and shot in the direction of the man and two kids. THAT is the reason the stand your ground law has no part in this incident.

She was offered a plea bargain of THREE YEARS which she refused and went to trial. Florida has very strict laws concerning the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime. She went back in the house with the gun which seems to me to be premeditation. Was it a legal gun in the car and did she have a permit if it was concealed?

Yep, 60 years is a LONG time so don't use a gun in the commission of a crime in Florida.