Stand Your Ground law didn't work for Marissa Alexander

Seems as if Florida's Stand Your Ground Law is extremely confusing to interpret and depending on which judge rules or jurisdiction handles each case, the outcome appears drastically different for each case.

Marissa Alexander is facing 20 years mandatory time in jail for firing off a weapon in her house to scare off her crazed husband as he threatened to kill her. She never aimed the weapon at him and only fired off 1 shot before he left her house. Her plea for Stand Your Ground was denied.

Marissa Alexander faces 20 years in prison for Standing Her Ground. Her husband beat her while she was pregnant. After yet another beating, Alexander fired a warning shot into the ceiling. That shot saved her life. Prosecutor Angela Corey did not take into account that Marissa Alexander: Had a court injunction against her crazed husband,Had Given Birth 9 Days Earlier,Was trained to use a weapon and earned a concealed weapons permit.

The law has worked for others but for other individuals, it has failed miserably. this has prompted a retrial request for her on grounds of the recent development of the Trayvon Martin case.

Is Marissa Alexander being treated unfairly?

There are numerous threads about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin but this case with Marissa Alexander has many parallels to the Zimmerman case YET it appears, based on the evidence, she is being treated unfairly for whatever reasons.

reply to post by Jaellma


This wont fly
If she had a valid and in effect injunction against him it also forbids him from coming to her residence. A warning shot was fired. She did not shoot him. I think they are just puffing their chests in light of the Zimmerman/Martin incident. It should all go away shortly.

"Warning" shots and actions like "brandishing" are dangerous grey areas to be in.

I dont think stand your ground permits such actions. I know in NH we have a specific brandishing clause that was written into the self defense law because one man who got sentenced to prison for brandishing to get a psycho off his property. His sentence was eventually commuted (not pardoned) and the law was amended.

It's counter intuitive for any non-psychotic human being but if you're scared enough to pull a gun you're better off shooting to kill/stop than you are to warn. Both for legal reasons and protection reasons.

The fact that this woman can be railroaded due to either or both the letter of the law and the popular motion of the "outrage of the day" is testament to how little faith anyone should have in the system.

It's little more than a crap shoot that can destroy anyone and everyone on a whim while simultaneously being some righteous entity above man and beast that nations are supposedly founded on. Complete bull#.

To further illustrate the grand stupidity of law:

Alexander rejected a plea deal, went to trial and was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon with no intent to harm.

Assault with no intent to harm? Isnt that just a hug? What the hell kind of charge is that?

And the joy of "mandatory minimums" pokes it's ugly head in:

In Florida, the mandatory minimum for firing a gun while committing a crime is 20 years.

This whole case is wonderful fodder for serious reform proponents.

reply to post by Jaellma


It is all or nothing sadly.. There is nothing in the law that allows for a warning shot. Another way to think about this is where is the threat?

If a person pulls a gun its because they feel their life is in imminent danger / possibility of death. If that person pulls a gun and gives a warning shot, how does one establish they felt their life was in imminent danger / possibility of death?

I know to some the above is not going to make sense and thats fine. Its one of the more difficult concepts for people to understand when it comes to understanding the individual laws and how they apply. The other thing a person needs to understand is how domestic violence laws work. If a guy walks up to his girlfriend and punches her in the mouth, and she responds by breaking his legs and arms, she can actually be the one who is charged.

The term is called primary physical aggressor. It doesnt matter who started it, it matters who did the most damage in the end. The other issue is prosecution of domestic violence. Domestic violence laws do NOT need the cooperation of a victim in order to prosecute. That change came from the victims being intimidated / threatened / harassed into not pressing charges / not showing up in court. The fix was to allow the state to prosecute, even over the objections of the victim, in order to move the threat off the victim and back to the state.

Its along the same lines as Law Enforcement being prohibited from giving a person a warning shot or even shooting to "wound". Pointing a loaded weapon at a person / near a person and discharging a round does not support an argument of self defense,

In for a penny in for a pound...
Do or do not, there is no try...

reply to post by Xcathdra

I am trying my darndest to stay away from the Zimmerman/Martin case but if what you say is true...

The term is called primary physical aggressor. It doesnt matter who started it, it matters who did the most damage in the end.

then why wasn't Zimmerman arrested on the spot when he shot Trayvon?

In any case, this woman, Alexander, said her husband threatened to kill her and blocked her exit so she felt threatened and fired off the shot. I guess she would fall into the "primary physical aggressor" label, as you described it but where do we draw the line? At what point should a person be able to defend himself/herself and still stay within the law and at the same time avoid death or physical harm?

How sad.

She was probably reluctant to kill the abusive husband who was, unfortunately, also the father of her children. Ironic that she would have been better off killing him.

20 years for firing a gun while committing a crime? But what crime? Being an abused wife?

Plus her kids are more at risk for getting caught up in crime, violence and welfare if she is in prison.

Mandatory minimums do not serve justice and they do not deter crime.

reply to post by kosmicjack
I am starting to follow this story and a recent account indicated she has 3 children (1 recently born and 2 stepsons). The stepsons are her husband's biological children. I also understand it wasn't her husband who called the cops when she fired the shot, it was one of her stepsons. Not really clear on this so I will have to follow up some more to determine the validity of this.

In any case, this is a classic case of a battered woman who stayed with her husband even though reports say he has physically and verbally abused her over the years until she finally snapped.

In order to successfully use the "make my day" law in Colorado you shoot to kill.The only story is yours.I have heard that from police.
Besides, if I actually use a gun that would be the inevitable outcome.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Under Florida law (can't speak to any other state) Stand your ground does in effect give you this right. The wording says :"If someone is threatenening, you have the right to forcibley remove them from doing so" This means you have the right to remove them from harming you by whatever means you get the job done, even if it's beating the piss out of someone or firing a gun into the air. The Judge needs to go back to law school.

Perhaps what you need is a "common sense" law.
Is this woman a danger to society? Is locking her up going to benefit anyone? Come now, lets be logical.

Cases like this happen all the time, and in Canada, you're not even allowed a weapon or a spray, like mace, to defend yourself.

And women are usually sent off to jail. They had a show years ago, where most murders were conducted by males, 96% roughly, and of the 4%, half of those in a conservative estimate where battered wife syndrome.

Now in this American case, she DID seem to be in immediate self defense, and even if she wasn't, there was no evidence to prove she wasn't, you are innocent until proven guilty, however, the system is massively corrupt, and lucifereans run it, so they LIKE TO MISCARRY JUSTICE AND PUNISH THE INNOCENT. They get turned on by doing that.

It will take groups of citizens and organizations to really look at the records of those involved in her case and put some fire under them and demanding her release, and public efforts have worked to release people in different situations, so I hope that is going to occur in her case.

We need to stand up for each other.

I can still remember years ago, due to Canadian unbalance that they were talking about changing the self defense laws, so that battered wife syndrome, would be also self defense because most women who are being attacked, would be thrown down the stairs or even end up dead if they tried to defend themselves at the time, like most men do. When she hits him over the head with a frying pan while he's sleeping, after several boughts in the womens shelter, several times reporting death threats against her family if she doesnt return and the police saying they cannot do anythign about it until he acts, but by then its too late. So a woman's self defense could often be an offensive act, when he's sleeping.

Equality is equalizing unequal situations. That is what is worded in our constitution and the meanign of SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY.

In this situation, it seems very odd, because it was self defense in the moment, and guns are legal in the US, and she didn't even fire at him.

How could they have done this to her?

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Perhaps what you need is a "common sense" law.
Is this woman a danger to society? Is locking her up going to benefit anyone? Come now, lets be logical.

That criteria would empty the prisons and have 90% of the written laws shredded.

Cant have that. The last thing we want in a "free society" in a "free country" is to be living under the assumption of liberty.

Now how #ed up is that?

reply to post by Jaellma


She should be given a medal and become the spokesperson for responsible gun owners.

She didn't have to kill to protect herself.

She left a living witness.....I think that is the problem.

It really does make you wonder why this woman...who killed no one, hurt no one....is now facing 20 years.....

reply to post by fbluth
You are spot on. Why 20 years for trying to protect herself, in her home, against a crazed husband. Even after invoking Stand Your Ground, she faces serious time unless they grant a fair retrial.

Originally posted by Jaellma
I am trying my darndest to stay away from the Zimmerman/Martin case but if what you say is true...

The term is called primary physical aggressor. It doesnt matter who started it, it matters who did the most damage in the end.

then why wasn't Zimmerman arrested on the spot when he shot Trayvon?

The Zimmerman - Martin fiasco does not fall under domestic violence laws. In that instance a gun was discharged resulting in a death.

Originally posted by Jaellma
In any case, this woman, Alexander, said her husband threatened to kill her and blocked her exit so she felt threatened and fired off the shot. I guess she would fall into the "primary physical aggressor" label, as you described it but where do we draw the line? At what point should a person be able to defend himself/herself and still stay within the law and at the same time avoid death or physical harm?

In this particular case the problem was the warning shot. If a person feels they are in danger dont you think they would take the target out instead of trying to scare them away?

Had she shot and killed instead of wounding I doubt she would be in the pickle she is in now.

reply to post by ldyserenity


The Judge in this case is correct.

Her situation is not covered by SYG laws.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Perhaps what you need is a "common sense" law.
Is this woman a danger to society? Is locking her up going to benefit anyone? Come now, lets be logical.

That criteria would empty the prisons and have 90% of the written laws shredded.

Cant have that. The last thing we want in a "free society" in a "free country" is to be living under the assumption of liberty.

Now how #ed up is that?

Bingo! That's why no steps are taken to get rid of the ridiculous mandatory minimum sentencing rules, because it would impact the private prison business greatly. The prisons are already overflowing with non-violent people guilty of such heinous crimes as selling a bit of weed, but who fall foul of the mandatory minimum sentencing. They are not a threat to society and have basically harmed nobody, but the "law" says they need to be locked up for years! No wonder the US has the largest prison population in the world.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by fbluth

 

You are spot on. Why 20 years for trying to protect herself, in her home, against a crazed husband. Even after invoking Stand Your Ground, she faces serious time unless they grant a fair retrial.

The SYG law does not apply to her. As I stated its a Domestic violence issue. She committed a crime when she discharged the weapon in the manner she did.

Contrary to popular belief if a person points a gun at someone else (not shoot, but point) they have committed a crime. If you were the person the gun was being pointed at would you be in fear? A person does not have to discharge a firearm in order to be charged.

Its like a a motor vehicle accident - 2 scenarios (in general to demonstrate)

2 cars are driving down a 4 lane road (2 each direction). One of the cars changes lanes and accidentally cuts the other driver off resulting in a very minor fender bender. Cops show up, reports taken, driver who failed to see the vehicle is cited, both go on their way.

Same scenario above except now the car that was cut off has a irate driver. The offending car pulls over down the road. The irate driver, instead of stopping he intentionally floors the gas pedal, purposely slamming into the other persons car. The driver who stopped barely escapes with no injuries.
The driver irate driver is not guilty of causing an accident. Depending on criteria he could be charged with 1st degree assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder etc etc etc.

Point - by changing one variable a person can go from being innocent to being in violation of the law. By changing one variable a person can go from a misdemeanor to a felony. By changing one variable a person can go from being free to 20 years in prison.

reply to post by Xcathdra
I see what you are saying but to me the law is not entirely inclusive.

The Zimmerman - Martin fiasco does not fall under domestic violence laws. In that instance a gun was discharged resulting in a death.

If the Stand Your Ground law was more thorough and inclusive, it should have used some aspect of domestic violence laws as a subset of the SYG law. Why? It just makes sense. Domestic violence is violence and as such there needs to be an overarching law that dictates how and when to treat each possible aspect of it.

In this particular case the problem was the warning shot. If a person feels they are in danger dont you think they would take the target out instead of trying to scare them away?

Not necessarily. She indicated it was a warning shot and that was corroborated by both her husband and her sons who witnessed it.

reply to post by Jaellma


There is the problem....a lot of these people think that shooting to kill is a much more acceptable answer than to scare away the threat.......

In this particular case the problem was the warning shot. If a person feels they are in danger dont you think they would take the target out instead of trying to scare them away?

See what I mean? Some of these people don't understand that just because someone owns a gun for protection doesn't mean they have a desire to kill.....most people will do everything in their power NOT to kill someone else....so to scare a threat away is a worse crime to a lot of people around here than killing a person is....no matter what the circumstance....