Stand Your Ground law didn't work for Marissa Alexander

reply to post by Xcathdra

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

This is where I have a huge beef with the law. Human nature does not provide us enough time, reaction and planning to sort out x, y, and z scenarios before making a split second decision. Hell, sometimes you can't even remember what you did. What the law should allow is a reasonable reaction given said such circumstance and not weigh the action as a determining factor for every case.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

I was in Special Operations for 17 years in the Army. Personally, I have participated in covert and clandestine operations against drug cartels, terror organizations and my identity is known to some members of these organizations. I have personally interrogated many a hard case - and I wasn't limited to the field manual if you understand.... They know my face and likely my name. These people would make your average disgruntled citizen look like Bugs Bunny in comparison.

While I concede most are dead or locked away and from mostly overseas organizations the fact remains that I directly participated in the death/detention and or interrogation of many of their members. I suppose they can find me pretty easy if they want. I trust my covers but over time everything leaks. Google yourself see what comes up. As a former PI from NC it's not hard to find someone.

So why then because I happen to not be a DA, Judge etc can't I carry my firearm when conducting State business as an employee of the Department of Health and Human Services. Job is Investigator III - I investigate crimes against geriatric patients. Sick people who misstreat and financially exploit old people - pretty pathetic really. Mostly white collar admitiedly but they certainly have a lot to loose when confronted. I am actually considering resigning for this reason. If my dairy was doing better I would.

Why can't I carry BTW because the State agency says even though I have the license I can't carry while at work or even in a state owned vehicle in between places. Am I somehow magically no longer at risk behind the government license plate?

I don't sit behind a bench with metal detectors and guards at the courthouse like the DA and Judge. The courthouse is the safest place they can be. It’s for their convenience they can carry in the courthouse so they don't have to lock it in their car while at work like everyone else.

It has nothing to do with risk. They can carry anywhere I can when not working that's fair. However, they are never more protected than in the courthouse. Just my opinion.

Same with he legislators - how much more safe do they need to be behind layers of Capitol Police and scanners? It’s just for their convenience so they can carry on the walk to and from their car. What about us average citizens? If I were tailing someone for a hit and I knew they carried I’d wait for them to go to a place where they can’t and have to leave it in the car – and then hit them on the walk in or from the building. It

IMO either you can or can't - no special preference. I do have to concede also that at least here the same training requirements are necessary for everyone – unlike some places where Judges, DA’s and legislator’s are exempt.

Now if you are an LEO sure whatever you have some special status but it doesn't come from the risk you face , rather it comes with the requirements of your office. You are in effect always "on duty" when it comes to enforcing the law. Much like I will (even though retired) still always be an Officer in the Army. I can't just turn it off - # I'm subject to involuntary recall till age 65. I can still issue the oaths for enlistment, preside at official functions as an officer etc.

I did read that they are changing the law so that any State employees who work at the Capitol building can also (like the legislators) now carry while at work in the building if they have a permit.

That at least seems more fair. Also, I think that if you work at the court house as a clerk or say in the assessor’s office you can with permission of the presiding judge also carry concealed in the courthouse. Personally, I think it’s none of the Judges business – the person having already been cleared by the Sherriff. Just as I have permission from the Sherriff to carry concealed in his office. He extended that to me for my convenience more than anything. Don't have to disarm and leave it in the car to pop in for a visit.

That said - if you can carry you should be able to do so at your place of employment if it’s for the government. They have in effect already vetted you during the application process.

For private companies - (I own a dairy and have employees) it’s the owners call. I let mine carry - I even paid for my live in manager’s classes. So he can have a firearm say if we are transporting some cows and he gets in an accident.

She got 20 years!
www.youtube.com...

This is insanity. Her defense did a poor job convincing the Jury that her life was in danger. On the surface, I would have hung that jury but I wasn't there. 20 years is beyond contempt IMO. If she fired in the general direction of children and her attacker wasn't advancing on her I can see some time involved because she did come back into the home, but 20 years?

Murders, Child Molesters and all around bad people spend less time than that. I feel sorry for this woman. Pure injustice.

Here in Michigan, we are going to be allowed to start carrying tasers. I am on the fence on that one. On one hand it would be nice to stop an attack without killing someone. On the other hand you have the potential of getting sued by the perp.

The only way around that is to leave the scene in a hurry if you do have to use a taser. Don't stick around for the cops I guess? I still like the idea of not having to kill someone...

Originally posted by TruckDriver69
Here in Michigan, we are going to be allowed to start carrying tasers. I am on the fence on that one. On one hand it would be nice to stop an attack without killing someone. On the other hand you have the potential of getting sued by the perp.

The only way around that is to leave the scene in a hurry if you do have to use a taser. Don't stick around for the cops I guess? I still like the idea of not having to kill someone...

If I remember right I think the law only applies to the civilian version and not the law enforcement variety. The civilian tasers are single use and instead of it cycling for 5 seconds I think its in the realm of 15 to 20. The thought process is, since Michigan is a duty to retreat state, is for a person to dishcarge the Taser into the individual and then immediately flee to get help. I think their law is more in line with what Indiana had going on.

Originally posted by TruckDriver69
This is insanity. Her defense did a poor job convincing the Jury that her life was in danger. On the surface, I would have hung that jury but I wasn't there. 20 years is beyond contempt IMO. If she fired in the general direction of children and her attacker wasn't advancing on her I can see some time involved because she did come back into the home, but 20 years?

Murders, Child Molesters and all around bad people spend less time than that. I feel sorry for this woman. Pure injustice.

Here is the problem and she created it herself.

A person cannot make the argument their life was in imminent danger while giving a warning shot. The SYG / Self defense law does not allow warning shots. When she discharged the weapon she did so in a reckless manner.

People need to understand the legalities of a warning shot and how the law applies in those cases. The use of a firearm is viewed as a deadly force encounter. The crteria is a person / 3rd party must be in imminent danger of serious physical injury / death. Secondly according to the info coming out the direction she discharged her gun was in the vicinity of where the ex was as well as her kids (child endangerment).

What she should have done was to refrain from using the term warning shot and go with the "I was targeting him but my shooting skills sucked so bad I missed.

If you are going to intentionally give a warning shot, then you cant claim your life was in imminent danger.

With that said I get where you guys are coming from... I am just pointing out the legal side of it.

Yep, she was probably better off shooting and killing him. Does Fla have a Castle Doctrine? As tightly wound as New York State is with crazy, non-sensical gun laws, the State does recognize the individual's right to be safe in a residence or vehicle. Also, what does the state say about the use of Deadly Force. Most states allow a person to meet and exceed that force by one, if the husband didn't have a gun or knife this may be why the judge ruled as he did? Regardless, it sounds like bull! What a crap ruling!

reply to post by TruckDriver69


None of us are overjoyed at killing,but the given rules require it.Progressive pressures have swung far left it the legal profession.The ACLU once a body of freedom from oppression is now a liberal dogmatic ball and chain.Where are they for this woman?Silenced by a political gag.

reply to post by Golf66

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

You are absolutely correct, sir. This is the philosophy you have to have. You're right...dead men tell no tales.

reply to post by Cosmic911


Florida has 2 separate laws that deal with use of deadly force.

The first is a stand alone self defense law that is pretty much the same from state to state. Essentially it says if a person attacks you, you can use force to defend yourself or others. The level of forced use must be proportionate and that use of force must stop when the threat subsides (IE you are attacked, you defend yourself and end up knocking your attacker out. Instead of stopping you continue to pummel him. That action will transition your from the victim to being an agressor yourself).

** - Before taking the above as doctrine check your state laws. Some states require a person under attack to remove themselves from the situation. If the ability to escape is present and the person opts to go after the attacker, they are not covered under the self defense laws - ** Check your state law for specifics.


The second is the Stand Your Ground Law (SYG) which is the main focus for the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman fiasco. That law is the law most states have adopted with one extremely large exception. The law allows a person to use deadly force to defend themsleves when a person breaks into their home / attempts a car jacking / defense of another person.

The cluster is the section dealing with an aggressors use of force. Under FL SYG law a person can be the aggressor and attack a person. If the person they attack begins the kick the crap out of the agressor, and the aggressor now feels his life is in iminent danger, the aggressor can use deadly force on the victim to defend themselves.

That section is so jacked up its not even funny. The SYG law, while being too broad in that area, does a 180 when it comes to justification. In the case of Zimmerman his story to the police coupled with the evidence on scene at the time coroborated Zimmermans account. Because of that SAnford Police, under the SYG law, were legally prohibited from making an arrest.

The part of the law moves verification of the facts from the police and hands it over to the individual who used the force. So long as their story fits, and there is no other blatantly obvious evidence that does not support the story, they cant make an arrest.

I would imagine since Zimmermans incident the law is being reviewed and will be clarified. That portion of the SYG law is the exception in other states. Other states defense / syg / castle doctrine states make no exceptions for an aggressor who finds themselves on the losing end of the fight.

Some comparisons -

Missouri - No duty to retreat - restricted on aggressor (Castle Doctrine)
Revised Statutes of Missouri - RSMo Defense of Justification

Florida - No duty to retreat - no restriction on aggressor (Stand your ground)
Statutes of the State of Florida - Chapter 776 - Justifiable use of Force
* - 776.041 is the portion of Florida law that allows the aggressor to use deadly force to defend himself.

Michigan - Duty to retreat - Castle Doctrine (exception is home invasion - no duty to retreat).
Statute State of Michigan 780.951 - Justifiable use of force


Gives people an idea of the differences and how those differences come down to changing one or 2 words. As always, dont take the above as absolute. Check with your State government for updated statutes / case law refinements.

reply to post by Xcathdra
As much as you defend the law and state the justification based on the crime, there is a clear unjust in the sentence term for the crime she committed.

I usually don't get involved or back up causes where groups like the NAACP are involved but I gotta tell you, I feel they have a case here and they are taking it to the next level

A member of the U.S. House of Representatives, the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and an advocacy group opposed to minimum prison sentencing guidelines have all rallied behind Alexander, calling her sentence harsh.

Stand Your Ground Defense fails

I think most would agree the jail term does not fit the crime.