It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stand Your Ground law didn't work for Marissa Alexander

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

You said:

The Judge in this case is correct.

Her situation is not covered by SYG laws.


Please address these points:

1. The judge presiding over the Jacksonville case dismissed the defense's attempt to argue self-defense.

2. The dismissal of the self-defense claim was based on the judge's perception that the defendant had an opportunity to leave the situation before the shot was fired. [Which, according to the defendant, is not true since she felt she did not have an opportunity to leave due to her not having the keys to exit the garage and the only way out was to go back past her husband who reportedly had just threatened to kill her]

3. As you can see, there is quite a bit of ambiguity concerning the Stand Your Ground law, especially in Florida.

According to Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, section 2 is key,

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013...The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person
.

The problem here is there was a previous restraining order against her husband so clearly the Stand Your Ground law should have been honored.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Having had a concealed carry permit in several different States (except Maryland - funny story actually see below) over the years one thing rings true regardless of where or who conducted the training (if required) - dead men can tell no tales.

That's what I told my wife before she finally got her permit. I asked her if she can really do it - pull the trigger and end a life. I think she would/could. I have done so in combat but thankfully never had to in a self defense situation. I hope to never have to - but I am armed just in case.

It's all or nothing. Do not warn, shout, point or delay - pull and shoot. Preferably twice.

Peoples Democratic Republic of Maryland (don't live there ever)

I was a Special Forces Officer 18A and an 18C/97B/11B as enlisted and participated in numerous combat operations with them and spent countless hours at the range and in the shoot-house doing CQB training and shoot/no-shoot scenarios.

Yet, while assigned to the DC area and living in Maryland I couldn't get a concealed carry permit. I put as my reason for wanting one that I had participated in covert operations overseas and my identity was known to several terror and criminal agencies (this worked everywhere else) which might make me and my family a potential target.

Maryland is (at least was at the time) a "may issue" State and the local Sherriff decided that while my background was clean; my reasons and training were not sufficient to justify a permit.

Ironically, in Maryland every elected legislator, judge, DA and prosecutor in the State can carry a concealed weapon with no screening, no permit required nor any training verification.

Awsome, way to make laws restricting weapons but exempt yourself....

All Animals are created equal - but some are more equal than others – Animal Farm G. Orwell.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 
I live in Maryland and yeah, the gun laws are screwed up here.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Completely appalling.

"Mandatory minimum of 20 years."

Really think about that for a moment. Let it sink in. I'll be 27 fairly soon, and it makes me physically ill to think someone could spend "my entire coherent life" in a federal prison for something so trivial.

Where are all these people that served "mandatory minimums" and got railroaded. What do they do when they get out? How are courthouses not being firebombed and why are judges not being dragged onto the street and bloodied?

This isn't a plea for violence, it's an observation of the absurd. Something that should have happened by now on a rather large scale. Are we living in a fictional construct, where this sort of "unruly" stuff gets deleted, or is the water contamination really worse than anyone is letting on.

---

Also, this:

Originally posted by Golf66
Ironically, in Maryland every elected legislator, judge, DA and prosecutor in the State can carry a concealed weapon with no screening, no permit required nor any training verification.


Gee whiz, one wonders what's really going on here.
They keep this up and they'll be needing to schedule for training courses really fast.

(To reiterate here, I'm not calling for violence on federal or state officials. It just seems to me, that the level of unfairness in law would cause violence and chaos unto itself on a larger scale, just as a matter of fact, but we're not just not seeing it, at all. It's bizarre.)
edit on 2-5-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
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.

I agree Domestic violence is violence however the 2 situations are different in the eyes of the law. Hypothetically speaking if we allowed SYG to apply to this case she would still be facing charges simply because the law does not provide for warning shots.

The SYG law is overly broad in terms of justification for the use of deadly force however its specific in terms of when it can apply and when it does not. As an example if 2 people are going through a divorce, resulting in say the husband moving out of the house during the process, does not preclude him from going back to the residence to stay (This is where Domestic Violence laws apply over the SYG). If the wife decides to change the locks on the doors to prevent him from entering, he has every legal right to kick down the front doors to enter since it is still his official residence / name on title etc.

If the couple were not married she would be justified in shooting and killing him.
Since they are married, she cannot use deadly force on him since he has every legal right to be present in the house.

Its that action, the warning shot, that screwed her. In the eyes of the law, which is the standard being used, a gun constitutes the presence of a potential deadly force encounter. If a person is in that much fear, where they arm themselves with deadly force abilities, how can a warning shot be justified?

Also, I understand the problem and I agree I dont think she should have been charged, however my personal belief and what the laws allow dont always jive together.



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

I can go get drunk, get in my car and drive down the road while honking my horn and warning everyone around me im intoxicated in order to warn.

However, DWI laws do not recognize that action as a mitigating circumstance to avoid criminal charges.

She could have taken ads out in the New York Times and run commercials on cable tv - it would not matter. The discharging of a weapon in the manner she did is illegal, regardless of who / how people were warned.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by fbluth
 


I love it when you decide to drag issues from other threads into this one. So let me explain to you how you are not only wrong, but you have no clue how gun laws, self defense and what constitutes armed criminal action.

Discharging a gun at / near / in the direction of another party, is not relevant if its a warning. Discharging a weapon in that situation requires her to be in imminent fear of her life or not. If she discharges the gun, its because she is in fear of her life. A warning shot does not support the argument she was in fear and thats the part you are failing to understand.

Please learn the law before making snide comments at me.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Maybe she should have threatened to "sit down and write a letter" instead of firing off the weapon designed to do what it accomplished


At least here in TX we can shoot first, ask questions later

edit on 2-5-2012 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
Please address these points:

1. The judge presiding over the Jacksonville case dismissed the defense's attempt to argue self-defense.

Claiming self defense means the individual has to have the mindset of imminent danger for their / others lives. The fact she gave a warning shot does not support that position under the law. The law states if you are going to discharge a weapon at someone, it must be for very specific reasons and it must be justified in the end.

That justification is fear of death by the other persons actions. A person cannot use more force than whats being used towards them, meaning if he showed up and was yelling at her, and doing nothing else, its almost impossible to argue fear of death / injury / bodily harm. Secondly, because its a Domestic violence situation, it does not matter who started what. The focus of that incident will on the primary physical aggressor, which in this case, would be her, for discharging a gun in his direction.



Originally posted by Jaellma
2. The dismissal of the self-defense claim was based on the judge's perception that the defendant had an opportunity to leave the situation before the shot was fired. [Which, according to the defendant, is not true since she felt she did not have an opportunity to leave due to her not having the keys to exit the garage and the only way out was to go back past her husband who reportedly had just threatened to kill her]

Again I refer you back to Domestic Violence and not SYG laws. If he showed up, his presence alone does not meet criteria to use deadly force. Even if the guy is yelling and ranting and nothing else it would not meet it.

The reason for the leave clause is along the same lines as law enforcement and vehicles coming at them. If we are in the middle of the road and a car load of suspects are coming at us we have 2 options -
* - If we have absolutely no possible way to get out of the way - we can shoot to end the threat.
* - If we have an avenue to get out of the way, we are required to take it.

In her situation his presence was not keeping her there. She had the ability to leave, go to a neighbors etc etc etc. By failing to do that and by using the gun, she created forced the situation and actually escalated the situation. If she had time and presence of mind to give a warning shot, it means his presence was not life threatening in the eyes of the law.



Originally posted by Jaellma
3. As you can see, there is quite a bit of ambiguity concerning the Stand Your Ground law, especially in Florida.

According to Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, section 2 is key,

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013...The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person
.

The problem here is there was a previous restraining order against her husband so clearly the Stand Your Ground law should have been honored.

Again no - Because its a Domestic Violence issue, there are going to be overriding criteria. Even if they are not married, if they lived together, he still gets mail their, has clothes etc he has whats called established residency.
That means he has equal access to the property along with her, regardless of whose name is on the title. Because of that the criteria in the SYG laws it will not apply since he has a legal right to be present at and on the property.

This brings us back to the violation of the protection order. Violation alone does not allow deadly force and their past history, while it can be taken into account, cannot support her actions for that one incident.

In order to justify self defense, he would of had to perform an action towards her / son / others present that would leave no ambiguity in terms of his intentions.

Dont get me wrong, I dont agree with the charge / result. However my personal opinion means nothing compared to what the laws of Florida say.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Always shoot to kill never to scare!!! If someone is in your home you better kill them period. And if you don't want to go to prison you better be doing mouth to mouth when the police show up. No jury in the world will convict you if every witness says you were trying to save the person you shot.

A friendly tip from a insider


Dead men can't be witnesses.......and the last thing you want is the person you shot telling a jury his/her side.

edit on 2-5-2012 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Its that action, the warning shot, that screwed her. In the eyes of the law, which is the standard being used, a gun constitutes the presence of a potential deadly force encounter. If a person is in that much fear, where they arm themselves with deadly force abilities, how can a warning shot be justified?


The LAW IS AN AS$??????

First of all, married or not, everyone has the right to self defense.

And many people do not kill, they would warn first. I would! I would never ever shoot to kill but show I meant business and do what she did.

That makes it 100% clear that the evil LUCIFERAN CREEPS PUNISHED HER FOR BEING LOVE AND LIGHT!

I hope there is a huge out cry and people get her out and those guys into the hot seat where they belong.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by Golf66
Ironically, in Maryland every elected legislator, judge, DA and prosecutor in the State can carry a concealed weapon with no screening, no permit required nor any training verification.


Gee whiz, one wonders what's really going on here.
They keep this up and they'll be needing to schedule for training courses really fast.

(To reiterate here, I'm not calling for violence on federal or state officials. It just seems to me, that the level of unfairness in law would cause violence and chaos unto itself on a larger scale, just as a matter of fact, but we're not just not seeing it, at all. It's bizarre.)


Check your State - I bet legislators and DA's and judges are also exempt from any licencing or training to carry concealed. It's pretty common that they leave themselves free from thier own laws. Here in MO a legislator can even carry concealed on the floor of the Statehouse in the Captitol building, a Judge in a courthouse but if I am a State employee I can't concealed carry at my place of employment unless I am an LEO. Neato.

I guess they think we should just consider ourselves lucky they let us carry at all...while they can do as they please. Becasue I'm sure the fact you can get ellected is a guarantee you must be a stand up kinda person. I mean look at Obama - wouldn't pass the screening for a Top Secret clearance in a million years - yet hes got access to POTUS eyes only because he's cool and people think he is neat. Scary.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jaellma
 


I like Pennsylvania's Laws on this matter. A kind of cross between Good Samaritan Law's and Stand Your Ground Law's. In Pennsylvania, your allowed to use responsible force to defend yourself or to defend another person that you think is in visible danger. Notice the word I used(it is also used in the official wording of the law) REASONABLE. The problem with stand your ground law's is that they encourage people to put themselves into unreasonable situations that lead to unreasonable actions.

She is black. It may not be a pretty thing to talk about, but use some freaking common sense. Before 1964-65 the Democrats where huge segregationist's. Then right after the Civil Rights Act passed the Democrats did a complete turn around and started to "help" African American's. Unfortunately that "help" was worse then what the Democrats did under the banner of segregation, and coincidentally enough it lead directly to social conditions that transformed the Democratic Parties old hate rhetoric in regards to African American's(Segregationist Justifications), into a near reality.

As an individual I believe in coincidences, they happen each and every moment; but in order to believe this is all coincidence, one must not only suppress any sense of disbelief but basic common sense as well.

Something is going on, and I suggest people brush up on their history(but make sure the books your reading are accurate). Because those who do not strive to learn from history, will most certainty be run over by the force of history.


edit on 2-5-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 
You noticed I left her race out of this whole discussion? But yes, she is African American. Good observation and this may play a vital role in the retrial.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
There is a protest scheduled for Saturday.

We really need to review a LARGE number of the laws on the books and either complete them or toss them out.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Maybe we should look at this SYG law and others in a different way. Most training teaches that you NEVER pull, aim, or discharge your weapon unless you fear you are in imminent danger of losing your own life, or the life of an innocent third party is in imminent danger. PERIOD.

IF we as a society allow laws to be written with exceptions such as or to scare someone away by brandishing that firearm, or firing a warning shot into the air (what goes up must come down somewhere), a whole new can of worms has been opened. How often do you think we or our children would be faced with seeing someone brandish a weapon or fire a warning shot into the air?

If you pull a weapon, you better be ready to shoot to kill. If you just pull it out, or fire a warning shot, you are not in imminent danger of losing your life.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I can't predict what someone will do next.If they cross my thresh hold without permission and fail to appropriately identify them selves,their lives are forfeit.This completely illustrates why.We are absolutely cornered by a legal system that has little bearing on justice. Usually something like this:
The poor,foreign national, MS13 gang member unfamiliar with American law was shot at by by a vicious 85 year old grand mother who will face charges of illegal use of a firearm,after the father of 4 kicked in her door to get food for his family.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 
Our gun laws are ridiculous and depending on how you interpret it could land you in jail for 10 - 30 years or more.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
The LAW IS AN AS$??????


Uhmmm.. ok


Originally posted by Unity_99
First of all, married or not, everyone has the right to self defense.

agreed


Originally posted by Unity_99
And many people do not kill, they would warn first. I would! I would never ever shoot to kill but show I meant business and do what she did.

Which is why people should understand and know the law before taking an action that will get them in trouble with the law.



Originally posted by Unity_99
That makes it 100% clear that the evil LUCIFERAN CREEPS PUNISHED HER FOR BEING LOVE AND LIGHT!

uhm.... oook



Originally posted by Unity_99
I hope there is a huge out cry and people get her out and those guys into the hot seat where they belong.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Yeah by all means lets let a person who violated the law go free while demanding the very same laws send the other half of this mess to prison...

This is not a difficult concept to understand... If you are going to discharge a firearm, you better damn well be prepared to explain why and have a good reason that is within the law. If you don't, guess what, your in violation of the law.

She did not discharge her gun to defend herself. The simple fact she discharged the gun as a "warning" clearly establishes that fact.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I am also in Missouri and here is my question -

As a state employee does your job place you into a position of intentionally confronting individuals, on a daily basis, judging their behavior, finding them innocent or guilty, being the person whose name is on the legislation that just sent joe schmoe to jail for life?

I have had people ive arrested / testified against / parents of children ive had to seize threaten to come kill me.

While I understand the irritation and the perceived double standard, there are specific reasons why those specific entities were allowed to carry. Judges / PA's are subject to the same criteria as civilians are with the exception of being able to concealed carry in courts / government buildings like the State Capital.

Aside from those 2 exceptions they are prohibited from taking there weapons into restricted places, like bars / movie theaters etc. - RSMo Chapter 571.
edit on 4-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by retiredTxn
 

If you pull a weapon, you better be ready to shoot to kill. If you just pull it out, or fire a warning shot, you are not in imminent danger of losing your life.

Again, it's easy for you, me and others behind our key boards to say the defendant should have done this and that but the bottom line is she was a scared, hurt and terrified battered wife who had enough. She spent years dealing with an idiot husband and when he came after her saying "b***h, I am going to kill you now...", she snapped.

You nor I are qualified enough to determine how she should have reacted in that instance. Who knows, she might have shot him if he were closer. As it turns out, she was only able to fire off a warning shot.

The laws are screwed up yes but let's see how the retrial goes in the wake of this crazy situation.



new topics




 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join