FL Mom gets 20 years for warning shots - Zimmerman Walks...

I am sure it was already posted that this article is dated May 2012.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

That IS relevant to the disparity. Zimmerman was able to show doubt, and that he may have actually been defending himself. She tried to use the same law, claiming she was in fear of her life, but by leaving and going back, she proved that she was able to get away from him, and wasn't afraid for her life.

Under Florida law, there was no choice in the matter. Florida passed a 10, 20, life law where if you brandish a gun and are convicted, it's an automatic 10 year sentence. If you fire a shot, it's 20 years, and if anyone dies, it's life. The judge said that she probably didn't deserve 20 years, but there was no choice under the law, which he had to follow.

edit on 7/14/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

This is just one case that goes to show just how ridiculous most (if not all) "mandatory minimum" sentencing laws are. Judges should absolutely have leeway in sentencing, as all cases are not made alike, nor do they follow a particular formula.

She's definitely guilty of something, but 20 years is very extreme. I think 3 years may be slightly on the heavy side as well-- which is probably what she thought and why she didn't take the plea. Some people do 3 years or less for far more serious offenses.


Another thing I want to comment on here is all the talk against "warning shots," and how they should not be used. I couldn't possibly disagree more. Most decent people are reluctant to take a human life, if it is not 100% necessary. This could be both for moral reasons (hence my use of the word "decent") as well as for legal reasons. As we've seen time and again (and just recently) sometimes people face criminal charges simply for defending themselves.

In my opinion, if you are in a life-threatening situation, you should have every right to use force to defend yourself, up to and including lethal force. However, I could potentially envision a situation where you're certain you are in danger, and believe that it could turn into a lethal situation, but you're not 100% convinced that the other person is going to act in such a manner. In a situation like that, firing a "warning shot" seems like a happy medium-- as it allows the other person to know that you're serious enough to pull the trigger, and that they're close to crossing a line they need to back way from, if they don't want to end up deceased.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

reply to post by iwilliam


This entire case may have gone differently, except that she left the house. She was able to somehow get her car into the garage, which then after she was in there, it somehow jammed, and get her gun.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


It really does not add up at. What stands out to me is "She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order."

If a protective order was in fact in place. It was already proven she had reason to worry if this guy got even remotely close. I just dont see how they can do this with a protective order in place.

It is really scary when you compare the 2 but i'm sure there is a lot that is really unknown in this one. Makes me think anymore only reason for a government badge is the get out of jail free card. Just never realized it went all the way down to a security guard.

reply to post by St0mP121


Read all the facts, not just the one article. They both had restraining orders against the other. She went back to the house thinking he was gone, and he wasn't. He confronted her about a text to her ex, at which point she said she had something for him, went out to her car (which was trapped in the garage that suddenly jammed after she got her car in), got her gun, went back in, and fired through a wall at head height.

There were two children in that room with him, and there was no evidence that she had been abused, or was in danger on that particular day.

Originally posted by ThreeBears

Originally posted by Mutant
reply to post by Fromabove

 

There was a restraining order.. so Yes, I'd have to say she had reason to fear for her life..

Oops... the restraining order was on HER!.. so I guess SHE was in the wrong

edit on 14-7-2013 by Mutant because: Oops...

Um, no...there was a restraining order against Him who had TWO prior arrests for DV against OTHER women, he did not even HIDE his violence.

As for the Minimizing of Domestic Violence done by a few on this thread...he not only beat this woman he BEAT HER WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT. So much for caring about fetuses...hmmmm

www.miamiherald.com...

In his OWN words...puts his hands on all five of his babies mommas. Yep, that's Quite a VICTIM alright,

Yes sir indeedy.

You are entirely wrong actually. I originally posted my comments here. in another thread altogether. In deconstructing disinformation.

CNN is lying to you.

Yes her boyfriend was charged for abuse in the past and she had a restraining order in the past. But when the event in question happened:

She was on bail for attacking her boyfriend and there was a restraining order against her.

Don't believe everything you read.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by St0mP121

 

Read all the facts, not just the one article. They both had restraining orders against the other. She went back to the house thinking he was gone, and he wasn't. He confronted her about a text to her ex, at which point she said she had something for him, went out to her car (which was trapped in the garage that suddenly jammed after she got her car in), got her gun, went back in, and fired through a wall at head height.

There were two children in that room with him, and there was no evidence that she had been abused, or was in danger on that particular day.

That's HIS version of what happened. For all the "deny ignorance" on this site we're certainly very willing to accept one side of a story as truth, while ignoring the other side, so long as it suits our purposes.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Again, court testimony says she shot upward, and never aimed the firearm at a person.

Courtroom testimony by who? Her? Read my posts on the subject. She shot at head-level height and the bullet ricocheted at hit the ceiling.

There was a restraining order on her, she went where she was supposed to be. (She was on bail for attacking her bf) and when they got into an argument, she went to her car, got a gun, aimed in his direction and fired.

She was offered a 3 year sentence but didn't take it.

These are all her actions here.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by St0mP121

 

Read all the facts, not just the one article. They both had restraining orders against the other. She went back to the house thinking he was gone, and he wasn't. He confronted her about a text to her ex, at which point she said she had something for him, went out to her car (which was trapped in the garage that suddenly jammed after she got her car in), got her gun, went back in, and fired through a wall at head height.

There were two children in that room with him, and there was no evidence that she had been abused, or was in danger on that particular day.

That's HIS version of what happened. For all the "deny ignorance" on this site we're certainly very willing to accept one side of a story as truth, while ignoring the other side, so long as it suits our purposes.

Please read the entirety of these three posts.

And the source articles. It is clear CNN and other outlets are not representing the facts in this case. I admit, the boyfriend is no prize, and should probably be in jail too. But on the day in question, the woman was out of line.

She was on bail for attacking the boyfriend, ignored a restraining order against her and fired a gun at her bf.

reply to post by iwilliam

This is just one case that goes to show just how ridiculous most (if not all) "mandatory minimum" sentencing laws are. Judges should absolutely have leeway in sentencing, as all cases are not made alike, nor do they follow a particular formula.

She's definitely guilty of something, but 20 years is very extreme. I think 3 years may be slightly on the heavy side as well-- which is probably what she thought and why she didn't take the plea. Some people do 3 years or less for far more serious offenses.

She was offered 3 years but thought the jury would side with her because she played the "battered housewife" angle. Even though on the day there was a restraining order against her, and she was not allowed to be there, and she went to retrieve a gun to shoot at her boyfriend.

Just because a woman was abuse X number of years ago, does not give them a hunting license to kill their ex boyfriends. Sorry.

They offered her a 3 year scapegoat sentence, she didn't take it. She got minimum mandatory. She is lucky she didn't get attempt murder x3.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


I've read both sides of the case. There was no evidence that she was abused on that day, or that she was in danger. She left the house, returned with the gun, and the physical evidence shows the bullet went through the wall into the room where he was, with two children, at head height, and ricocheted into the ceiling. She didn't "shoot up", or fire a warning shot, unless shooting at head height into a room with children in it is considered a warning shot to you.

You should take your own advice about denying ignorance, and read both sides, and not just hers.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

I've read both sides of the case. There was no evidence that she was abused on that day, or that she was in danger. She left the house, returned with the gun, and the physical evidence shows the bullet went through the wall into the room where he was, with two children, at head height, and ricocheted into the ceiling. She didn't "shoot up", or fire a warning shot, unless shooting at head height into a room with children in it is considered a warning shot to you.

You should take your own advice about denying ignorance, and read both sides, and not just hers.

edit on 7/14/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

I have read both sides, and the only people claiming that she shot TOWARD or AT anyone is the prosecution. Again, even the husband admitted that his original 911 call was not accurate, and she at no point aimed the gun at anyone in the house. She did not aim and fire toward any person.

The charges REFLECT THAT THIS IS THE CASE as she is charged with three counts of "aggravated assault with no intent to kill."

I'm not defending this woman's actions. I don't think she made a wise decision in bringing a firearm to an argument then eventually discharging it. This thread is about the gross inconsistency in Florida State Law.

Why does Zimmerman walk and Alexander gets 20 years? It's obvious Zimmerman's conduct had a much more devastating effect on so many more people, yet he's a free man.

Now, I'm really tired of attempting to redirect this thread back on topic. In my opinion mods should delete about 1/2 of the posts here.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Which, the ones that show how wrong she was? There is forensic evidence from the police that the bullet went through a wall and then up into the ceiling. You brought the case up, therefore we are on topic discussing the merits of it, and whether she was right or wrong. It took 12 people 13 minutes to convict her, so obviously they felt there was evidence she was in the wrong.

And yet again Zimmerman didn't leave the scene to get a weapon and then go back. He actually could use the stand your ground defense. Twelve jurors decided that he followed the law and didn't break the law, even if he was stupid that night.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
So Zimmerman follows, somehow gets in a confrontation with, and eventually kills Trayvon Martin. He is aquitted and will be a free man.

In the same state, just two days ago, a woman fired WARNING shots against her physically abusive husband. She didn't hit or kill anyone, but will be spending the next 20 years in prison.

www.cbsnews.com...

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.

Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong.

So I guess the moral of the story is that if you're going to fire a gun, make sure you kill anyone that might be nearby and then claim self-defense.

How the hell does this make sense to any thinking individual?


I guess having a ton of money to spend on your defense, thanks to donations from major organizations, really pays off.

edit on 13-7-2013 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/13/2013 by kosmicjack because: staff consensus to edit title to source in order to avoid thread topic confusion.

edit on 13-7-2013 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

actually the moral of the story is don't get into nor stay in an abusive relationship where you feel you need to fire warning shots. what if the warning shots would have hit someone not even involved in the dispute?? what if it had been treyvon who got hit by one of those stray bullets who would you be defending then??

the moral of the story in the zimmerman case is if break the law by assaulting someone... it could cost you your life...

that is a good lesson... to respect others and not attack them

he did not have to attack zimmerman but he did and it cost him his life.

When Alexander retreated into the bathroom, Gray tried to break the door. She ran into the garage, but couldn’t leave because it was locked. She came back, he said, with a registered gun, which she legally owned, and yelled at him to leave. Gray recalls, “I told her… I ain’t going nowhere, and so I started walking toward her…I was cursing and all that… and she shot in the air.” Even Gray understands why Alexander fired the warning shot: “If my kids wouldn’t have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her. Probably hit her. I got five baby mommas and I put my hands on every last one of them, except for one …. I honestly think she just didn’t want me to put my hands on her anymore so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn’t get hurt, you know. You know, she did what she had to do.” And Gray admits Alexander was acting in self-defense, intending to scare and stop but not harm him: “The gun was never actually pointed at me… The fact is, you know . . . she never been violent toward me. I was always the one starting it.” Ultimately nobody was hurt. Nobody died. On May 12, 2012, it took a jury 12 minutes to find Alexander guilty of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Alternet

reply to post by Kali74


Your story leaves out half of the incident. Also leaves out the fact that Marissa Alexander was on bail for assaulting Rico Gray.

Yes, Gray was an abusive ___hole, but on that day he was trying to get his kids to leave once she pulled the gun, and she was not supposed to be there in the first place. Just because he abused her in the past doesn't give her a pass to shoot him dead for the rest of her life. There was no evidence that she was touched physically either on that day, and you can check the booking photos.

Domestic case testimony is hard to trust too, which should be remembered, because one moment they might be trying to throw the hammer at one another, and the next they will take the fall for each other.

Physical evidence shows she shot only inches away from his head, and she had no signs of being hurt in any way.

Check the booking photo and the bullet hole. It wasn't into the ceiling, it ricocheted after into the ceiling. And was close enough to where he was it could have been meant for him and just poor aim.

December 2010 – Alexander is arrested while out on bail for the August incident, after police say she went to Gray’s home and attacked him.

Alexander has said she feared for her life, and that’s why she grabbed her gun. But State Attorney Angela Corey says there’s no sign of physical abuse on Alexander’s booking photo, seen here.

”[Gray] told his boys, ‘get your clothes, we’re out of here.’ And she and went in the garage and into the glove compartment, got out a gun, got it in a ‘ready to fire’ position — it’s a semiautomatic and it had the safety off, and she had a round in the chamber,” Corey said. “And she walked back into the kitchen and fired the gun at him. He was standing the living room and it went through the wall at about adult head height, and ricocheted off the roof or the wall. And thank God it didn’t hit one of the kids.”

“the idea that she fired a warning shot is absolutely not what the physical evidence showed.” Police retrieved a shell casing from the kitchen floor, the weapon, which was lying on the living room table, and they observed the bullet hole, which had gone through the kitchen wall and lodged in the ceiling.

Link

Originally posted by jam321
Do you have more info on the case? Sounds like her defense didn't use stand your ground defense.

Peace

And neither did Zimmerman's because they didn't think he could 'pass' a 'stand your ground' hearing. It was strickly a 'self-defense' defense. But in the 'great' state of Florida (and a few others) one is not required to 'leave a confrontation if they can' before using deadly force. Great law.... just love those 'kill em all and let god sort them out" types.

reply to post by Kali74


It sounds like once he realized she was going to be doing jail time for this, he portrayed himself as the bad guy in his deposition. You have to take into account that he also says he was "on the streets" so part of that, is being labelled a snitch, for giving testimony that would lead to someone doing time.

On the 911 call, he is that one that is heard saying "We're getting out of here" to his kids. The two boys at first corroborated the whole thing, and later him and one recanted. It sounds more like they were trying to protect her from prosecution.


I can't even begin to describe how frustrating it is to only see one side of this story being spammed across the internet right now. And everyone just eats it up.

People want to be fed complete BS it seems. So long as they can lash out at someone...

“A person’s propensity for violence is only one factor that would have allowed her to use ‘Stand Your Ground’ at the moment when she fired,” Corey said of Alexander. “If that’s what you’re saying, she can walk into a room and just see him and shoot. And what does it say about her fear of Rico Gray that she disobeyed a sitting judge and went over to confront him four months after the incident — one that led Alexander to plead no contest to a domestic battery charge of her own.” In that case, Corey said, Gray called 911 again, after Alexander “gave him a black eye.”

“I just don’t understand where just the one-sided story has come out.”

Corey divulged other details as well; most importantly, that Alexander did not fire the weapon into the ceiling as she claimed, but into the wall behind Gray:

“[Gray] told his boys, ‘get your clothes, we’re out of here.’ And she and went in the garage and into the glove compartment, got out a gun, got it in a ‘ready to fire’ position — it’s a semiautomatic and it had the safety off, and she had a round in the chamber,” Corey said. “And she walked back into the kitchen and fired the gun at him. He was standing the living room and it went through the wall at about adult head height, and ricocheted off the roof or the wall. And thank God it didn’t hit one of the kids.”

Corey says that he sounded frightened on a 911 call and that “you can clearly hear the distress in [his] voice.” During the call, according to Corey, the estranged couple can be heard arguing when Gray says, “I’m outta here,” and Alexander responds, “I’ve got something for you.” Rico Gray, however, tells a somewhat different story.

www.clutchmagonline.com...

Originally posted by St0mP121
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

It really does not add up at. What stands out to me is "She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order."

If a protective order was in fact in place. It was already proven she had reason to worry if this guy got even remotely close. I just dont see how they can do this with a protective order in place.

At the time she was on bail for assaulting him and went to his residence because she thought he wouldn't be there. She was offered a 3 year deal so she didn't have to get 20 years but she fought it because she probably thought she could win.

Both their testimonies are complete crap. You can't trust two sparring lovers. One minute they want to kill each other, next minute they are in love again.

The prosecution went by physical evidence which shows she shot at the level of her estranged lover's head, she had no marks or bruising on her and the whole thing transpired somewhere where the judge ordered her not to go, because she was on bail for attacking him. (Which there is pictures of his physical injuries-that happened months prior)

I think this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself. If you guys want to blindly follow every media lie and omission even though stories don't make sense, it's your ignorance. Unfortunately, that sometimes affects the rest of us sadly, but to try and talk sense into every misled person is a daunting task.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
So I guess the moral of the story is that if you're going to fire a gun, make sure you kill anyone that might be nearby and then claim self-defense.

How the hell does this make sense to any thinking individual?

No, that is not the moral of the story. What kind of idiotic statement is that?

Do you believe yourself to be a thinking individual? Because you're not. In the United States we have this little thing called innocent until proven guilty. There must be sufficient evidence to prove one's guilt. I guess you read absolutely nothing at all about the evidence in the Zimmerman trial, now did you?