Marissa Alexander's 20/yr sentence overturned

[Loren Pechtel]

A gun license has no bearing on the situation at all. If you legally use an illegal gun they can bust you for the illegal gun but they can't bust you for using it in a crime.

What this comes down to is whether her shot was legal. If her shot was not legal it's firing a gun in a crime, an automatic 20 year sentence unless the crime carried a worse penalty. Since there were three targets, 3 crimes x 20 years = 60 years. I would be very surprised if she got consecutive sentences, though.

Nothing was suggested otherwise for not having a gun licence. There is no evidence to say anyone was targeted let alone 3 with one shot and there is no sense to jail one person 20 years for a harmless shot.

She couldn't count on missing given how she was shooting. This was attempted murder, not a warning shot.

I wouldn't go much lighter on her for missing than if her aim had been true.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not from the hip, it's from below the chest (implying also above the hip). Is 20-60 years rational for a shot that harmed no one.

"shooting from the hip" doesn't necessarily mean exactly at the hip, but in general it's referring to a shot from low down where accurate aiming is impossible.

She simply missed. Attempted murder.

How do you know she missed? How do you know she intended to kill?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nothing was suggested otherwise for not having a gun licence. There is no evidence to say anyone was targeted let alone 3 with one shot and there is no sense to jail one person 20 years for a harmless shot.

She couldn't count on missing given how she was shooting. This was attempted murder, not a warning shot.

I wouldn't go much lighter on her for missing than if her aim had been true.

The error for want of a better word is where the court placed the burden of proof on the defendant. There is actually insufficient evidence that she intended to hit anything unless she was a really lousy shot. In the retrial, the prosecution will have the burden of proof to prove its case.

 

[Derec]

The error for want of a better word is where the court placed the burden of proof on the defendant. There is actually insufficient evidence that she intended to hit anything unless she was a really lousy shot. In the retrial, the prosecution will have the burden of proof to prove its case.

They do not have to prove she was intending to hit anything for the aggravated assault charges.

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree,

Note the "without intent to kill". Otherwise it's attempted murder and she wasn't charged with that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

They do not have to prove she was intending to hit anything for the aggravated assault charges.

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree,

Note the "without intent to kill". Otherwise it's attempted murder and she wasn't charged with that.

If you quote it like that it would seem to be the case. There are factors as shown earlier such as whether the person reasonably feared for their safety and my point where even when standing one's ground it will not always happen throughout a confrontation.

Here is another case in Corries history of career building through unconstitutional laws that violate basic rights if the individual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Corey

onald Thompson case[edit]
In 2009, Ronald Thompson, a 65-year old army veteran fired two shots into the ground to scare off teenagers who were demanding entry into his friend's house in Keystone Heights, Florida.[48] Corey prosecuted Thompson for aggravated assault, and after he refused a plea agreement with a three-year prison sentence, won a conviction that would carry a mandatory 20-year sentence under Florida's 10-20-Life statute. The trial judge, Fourth Circuit Judge John Skinner called the 20-year sentence "a crime in itself" and declared the 10-20-Life statute unconstitutional. Skinner gave Thompson three years instead.[48]

Corey appealed the 3-year sentence and won, sending Thompson to prison for 20 years.[48]

In June 2012, Fourth Circuit Judge Don Lester granted Thompson a new trial, ruling that the jury instructions had been flawed in his original trial regarding the justifiable use of deadly or non-deadly force given the circumstances of the case.[49] While awaiting his new trial, Mr. Thompson was offered a plea deal for five years in prison with credit for time served. He reported back to prison on October 31, 2013, where he is serving the remaining two years.[50]


At least we have a judge who recognizes these laws for what they are - unconstitutional. In the UK no parliament would dare to pass such legislation. I believe the judge would have given a nil sentence if he had the choice but did not.

Also electing prosecutors introduces politics into the justice system. There are more cases under Corrie who has found a neat way to further her career, which includes well publicized press briefings with her witnesses.

I would say this law is so bad I would that Sharia Law would be a more just system. If the parties forgive each other, no one will even be arrested, let alone charged.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"shooting from the hip" doesn't necessarily mean exactly at the hip, but in general it's referring to a shot from low down where accurate aiming is impossible.

She simply missed. Attempted murder.

How do you know she missed? How do you know she intended to kill?

Under the conditions she could not trust that her round would miss. Thus she was either aiming for him or didn't care if she hit him or not.

- - - Updated - - -

She couldn't count on missing given how she was shooting. This was attempted murder, not a warning shot.

I wouldn't go much lighter on her for missing than if her aim had been true.

The error for want of a better word is where the court placed the burden of proof on the defendant. There is actually insufficient evidence that she intended to hit anything unless she was a really lousy shot. In the retrial, the prosecution will have the burden of proof to prove its case.

Given the situation she simply didn't have the accuracy to choose whether she hit or not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How do you know she missed? How do you know she intended to kill?

Under the conditions she could not trust that her round would miss. Thus she was either aiming for him or didn't care if she hit him or not.

- - - Updated - - -

She couldn't count on missing given how she was shooting. This was attempted murder, not a warning shot.

I wouldn't go much lighter on her for missing than if her aim had been true.

The error for want of a better word is where the court placed the burden of proof on the defendant. There is actually insufficient evidence that she intended to hit anything unless she was a really lousy shot. In the retrial, the prosecution will have the burden of proof to prove its case.

Given the situation she simply didn't have the accuracy to choose whether she hit or not.

She is also allowed in law to act if she reasonably believed that she was in danger. In the new trial the burden of proof will be with the prosecution and not the defence. Do you seriously think 20 years befitting sentence when someone can get 15 years for murder? I believe that judges do have the right of discretion as indicated earlier.

 

[Nexus]

Do you seriously think 20 years befitting sentence when someone can get 15 years for murder? I believe that judges do have the right of discretion as indicated earlier.

I think everyone in this thread in the anti-Marissa camp said they are against the mandatory minimum sentencing. Yet every page we have pro-Marissa posters bringing it up in response to other anti-Marissa arguments.

 

[laughing dog]

How do you know she missed? How do you know she intended to kill?

Under the conditions she could not trust that her round would miss.

And you know that how?

Thus she was either aiming for him or didn't care if she hit him or not.

Thank you for admitting you are simply assuming your conclusion.

[

 

[Arctish]

How do you know she missed? How do you know she intended to kill?

Under the conditions she could not trust that her round would miss. Thus she was either aiming for him or didn't care if she hit him or not.

... or she cared so much about not hitting him she fired a warning shot so she wouldn't have to kill him.

- - - Updated - - -

She couldn't count on missing given how she was shooting. This was attempted murder, not a warning shot.

I wouldn't go much lighter on her for missing than if her aim had been true.

The error for want of a better word is where the court placed the burden of proof on the defendant. There is actually insufficient evidence that she intended to hit anything unless she was a really lousy shot. In the retrial, the prosecution will have the burden of proof to prove its case.

Given the situation she simply didn't have the accuracy to choose whether she hit or not.

You don't know how she positioned herself when firing the gun. You don't know how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun as she pulled the trigger. You are merely speculating that the shot fired at an upward angle into the wall at refrigerator height was a miss and not a deliberately aimed up-and-away warning shot.

The burden of proof is on the Prosecution, but unfortunately even warning shots get you 20 year sentences under Florida law. So the question is, would Marissa Alexander be better off if she'd shot Gray in the head and claimed she was standing her ground? I'm not saying this would have been a better outcome. I firmly believe an outcome where everybody lives is better, but Florida law punishes those who show mercy and rewards stone cold killers. So would Alexander be better off if she was a murderer? Would she be able to walk away without being prosecuted, or be facing a lesser sentence if she was?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Do you seriously think 20 years befitting sentence when someone can get 15 years for murder? I believe that judges do have the right of discretion as indicated earlier.

I think everyone in this thread in the anti-Marissa camp said they are against the mandatory minimum sentencing. Yet every page we have pro-Marissa posters bringing it up in response to other anti-Marissa arguments.

I do not recall my detailed replies to several posters in this thread whose argumentation was dismissive of the history of abuse on Rico's part to be based on mandatory sentencing. However, since you bring up mandatory sentencing, it is rather puzzling that we have seen in Florida cases where the victim is harmed and the defendant will receive a sentence lower than 20 years. Some of us as Florida residents are repulsed by the thought that Defendant Marissa Alexander could receive a 60 year sentence in her upcoming re trial. We are even more repulsed by a Justice system where a Prosecutor would push for such sentencing with a taint of schadenfreude about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Under the conditions she could not trust that her round would miss. Thus she was either aiming for him or didn't care if she hit him or not.

- - - Updated - - -

She couldn't count on missing given how she was shooting. This was attempted murder, not a warning shot.

I wouldn't go much lighter on her for missing than if her aim had been true.

The error for want of a better word is where the court placed the burden of proof on the defendant. There is actually insufficient evidence that she intended to hit anything unless she was a really lousy shot. In the retrial, the prosecution will have the burden of proof to prove its case.

Given the situation she simply didn't have the accuracy to choose whether she hit or not.

She is also allowed in law to act if she reasonably believed that she was in danger. In the new trial the burden of proof will be with the prosecution and not the defence. Do you seriously think 20 years befitting sentence when someone can get 15 years for murder? I believe that judges do have the right of discretion as indicated earlier.

Whether 20 years is right or not has nothing to do with whether her actions are legal or not.

She claims to have fired a warning shot. What I'm saying is that her actions do not constitute a warning shot, but either a miss or reckless endangerment of three people. When she pulled that trigger she had no way of knowing where the bullet would end up--even an expert can't aim well in that situation and she's certainly no expert (as evidenced by the fact she fired in that situation with her kids nearby.)

- - - Updated - - -

Under the conditions she could not trust that her round would miss.

And you know that how?

Thus she was either aiming for him or didn't care if she hit him or not.

Thank you for admitting you are simply assuming your conclusion.

[

The point is nobody can aim reasonably how she was holding the gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't know how she positioned herself when firing the gun. You don't know how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun as she pulled the trigger. You are merely speculating that the shot fired at an upward angle into the wall at refrigerator height was a miss and not a deliberately aimed up-and-away warning shot.

I don't need to know. We know what we need to know--she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun. Nobody can aim that way unless they have laser sights.

- - - Updated - - -

I think everyone in this thread in the anti-Marissa camp said they are against the mandatory minimum sentencing. Yet every page we have pro-Marissa posters bringing it up in response to other anti-Marissa arguments.

I do not recall my detailed replies to several posters in this thread whose argumentation was dismissive of the history of abuse on Rico's part to be based on mandatory sentencing. However, since you bring up mandatory sentencing, it is rather puzzling that we have seen in Florida cases where the victim is harmed and the defendant will receive a sentence lower than 20 years. Some of us as Florida residents are repulsed by the thought that Defendant Marissa Alexander could receive a 60 year sentence in her upcoming re trial. We are even more repulsed by a Justice system where a Prosecutor would push for such sentencing with a taint of schadenfreude about it.

The prosecutors push for heavy sentences to get people to take plea bargains.

 

[Arctish]

You don't know how she positioned herself when firing the gun. You don't know how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun as she pulled the trigger. You are merely speculating that the shot fired at an upward angle into the wall at refrigerator height was a miss and not a deliberately aimed up-and-away warning shot.

I don't need to know. We know what we need to know--she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun. Nobody can aim that way unless they have laser sights.

If you don't know how she positioned herself, or how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun, how can you know she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't need to know. We know what we need to know--she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun. Nobody can aim that way unless they have laser sights.

If you don't know how she positioned herself, or how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun, how can you know she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun?

Exactly; in the last trial the burden of proof was incorrectly given to the defence. Hopefully this will not be the case in the new trial, where I would question why a new one was required in the first place under a series of laws that achieve little more than subvert the American constitution.

Before such acts were passed the judges were able to judge each case on its own circumstances. Statutes tend to be rigid and take this less into consideration.
Common law may one day be all but extinct.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Tampa Bay Times but here is an article of interest

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

 

[maxparrish]

If you don't know how she positioned herself, or how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun, how can you know she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun?

Exactly; in the last trial the burden of proof was incorrectly given to the defence. Hopefully this will not be the case in the new trial, where I would question why a new one was required in the first place under a series of laws that achieve little more than subvert the American constitution.

Before such acts were passed the judges were able to judge each case on its own circumstances. Statutes tend to be rigid and take this less into consideration.

Common law may one day be all but extinct.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Tampa Bay Times but here is an article of interest

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

I hope no one thinks I am in the anti-Alexander camp. Quite aside from the law which does not seem to be on Ms. Alexander's side, this raises many troubling moral and cultural issues. For the moment, what IF WE IGNORED THE LAW, what might be folks moral feelings on these WHAT IF situations.

WHAT IF there were no children in the house and Gray initiated a fight and slapped and punched her several times in the Living room. Suppose she ran past the exit door, got a loaded gun, and returned in anger to the living room to scare the crap out of him with an intentional near miss. Would this be morally right or wrong of Ms. Alexander? How about if she shot him?

SUPPOSE Alexander initiated a physical fight in the same circumstances, and he got a gun and shot near her to scare the shit out of her? What if he did it to "sober her up", so as to avoid using his fists to fend her off?

SUPPOSE some rowdy and thuggish drunk men refuse to leave the front and back yards of your cabin - why can't you frighten them off with warning shots into the ground? Why would it be an "assault" to defend your property through fright?

Here is what I find troubling.

First, many or most men are larger and stronger than their female partners, so much so it you might consider a man's fists to be a "deadly weapon". A gun in a woman's hand reverses that disadvantage and using it to frighten off an impending male aggressor might be very appropriate.

Second, we are raised in an historic and a contemporary ideology of the individual right and duty to fight for "justice", for the individual to redress wrongs done to him or his family, town, etc.. And just about every Western or Gangster movie is about some individuals violently transgressing, and some individual 'doing good' by using a gun (or gun threat) to end that transgression (with or without a badge).

'Warning Shots', shots to disarm, shots to wound (rather than kill), shots to frighten off ARE ALL a part of our Western cultural lore - from the plainswoman with a shotgun in front of her cabin, to the John Wayne trail boss ...using a gun is considered a moral tool for those in the right. AND using a gun to warn is considered what 'law abiding' innocents do (as opposed to killing).

Last, our legal culture does not seem to recognize our nature. To be wrongly frightened, robbed, or attacked is deeply offensive - most people feel "raped". The desire to fight back, and seek to punish the aggressor is natural. It seems moral, to me, for anyone to seek just proportionate revenge...even violent revenge. Victims have a right to fight back.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't need to know. We know what we need to know--she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun. Nobody can aim that way unless they have laser sights.

If you don't know how she positioned herself, or how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun, how can you know she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun?

Because of the path the bullet too. It started well below eye level and headed up. Nobody has said she was crouched down when firing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you don't know how she positioned herself, or how deliberately or carelessly she aimed the gun, how can you know she was not even remotely looking along the barrel of the gun?

Exactly; in the last trial the burden of proof was incorrectly given to the defence. Hopefully this will not be the case in the new trial, where I would question why a new one was required in the first place under a series of laws that achieve little more than subvert the American constitution.

Before such acts were passed the judges were able to judge each case on its own circumstances. Statutes tend to be rigid and take this less into consideration.
Common law may one day be all but extinct.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Tampa Bay Times but here is an article of interest

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Self defense is an affirmative defense. A certain amount of the burden of proof extends to the defendant when they are presenting an affirmative defense. It's not like a typical case where in rare situations it's possible to present no defense at all and simply say "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution has not proved my client's guilt."

 

[whichphilosophy]

Exactly; in the last trial the burden of proof was incorrectly given to the defence. Hopefully this will not be the case in the new trial, where I would question why a new one was required in the first place under a series of laws that achieve little more than subvert the American constitution.

Before such acts were passed the judges were able to judge each case on its own circumstances. Statutes tend to be rigid and take this less into consideration.

Common law may one day be all but extinct.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Tampa Bay Times but here is an article of interest

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

I hope no one thinks I am in the anti-Alexander camp. Quite aside from the law which does not seem to be on Ms. Alexander's side, this raises many troubling moral and cultural issues. For the moment, what IF WE IGNORED THE LAW, what might be folks moral feelings on these WHAT IF situations.

WHAT IF there were no children in the house and Gray initiated a fight and slapped and punched her several times in the Living room. Suppose she ran past the exit door, got a loaded gun, and returned in anger to the living room to scare the crap out of him with an intentional near miss. Would this be morally right or wrong of Ms. Alexander? How about if she shot him?

SUPPOSE Alexander initiated a physical fight in the same circumstances, and he got a gun and shot near her to scare the shit out of her? What if he did it to "sober her up", so as to avoid using his fists to fend her off?

SUPPOSE some rowdy and thuggish drunk men refuse to leave the front and back yards of your cabin - why can't you frighten them off with warning shots into the ground? Why would it be an "assault" to defend your property through fright?

Here is what I find troubling.

First, many or most men are larger and stronger than their female partners, so much so it you might consider a man's fists to be a "deadly weapon". A gun in a woman's hand reverses that disadvantage and using it to frighten off an impending male aggressor might be very appropriate.

Second, we are raised in an historic and a contemporary ideology of the individual right and duty to fight for "justice", for the individual to redress wrongs done to him or his family, town, etc.. And just about every Western or Gangster movie is about some individuals violently transgressing, and some individual 'doing good' by using a gun (or gun threat) to end that transgression (with or without a badge).

'Warning Shots', shots to disarm, shots to wound (rather than kill), shots to frighten off ARE ALL a part of our Western cultural lore - from the plainswoman with a shotgun in front of her cabin, to the John Wayne trail boss ...using a gun is considered a moral tool for those in the right. AND using a gun to warn is considered what 'law abiding' innocents do (as opposed to killing).

Last, our legal culture does not seem to recognize our nature. To be wrongly frightened, robbed, or attacked is deeply offensive - most people feel "raped". The desire to fight back, and seek to punish the aggressor is natural. It seems moral, to me, for anyone to seek just proportionate revenge...even violent revenge. Victims have a right to fight back.

The problem is that the law is is idiotic and sloppily compiled. It did not resolve what it wanted to achieve and is in fact an affront to the rights of individuals under common law. There are a lot of problems with this where I have already quoted. This law actually hinders the judges in making assessments based on the individual circumstances of the case. It has also put the sentencing in the hands of the prosecution. This particular case was a travesty where the onus of proof was placed on the defence thus turning the clock back to around 1200.Alan Dershowitz a law professor at Harvard has called for the prosecution of the Prosecutor. This is something I suggested could be possible. He has criticized her handling of other cases where she has exploited this law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...secutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.html
This video relates to another case (Zimmerman)

MIKE HUCKABEE: You have said that you thought the prosecutor ought to be disbarred, that's a pretty serious type of violation to get a person disbarred. It is that serious to you?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Right, it is. She submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. She, by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She's known for overcharging, she's known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn't going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I've seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I've seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor, [Angela] Cory. (Huckabee, July 14, 2013)

In a few posts up I listed a lot of problems with the particular laws in discussion.
See this article. I cannot guarantee the full validity of the particular publication but I think it is sufficient to show the problems with the current laws:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

 

[whichphilosophy]

Exactly; in the last trial the burden of proof was incorrectly given to the defence. Hopefully this will not be the case in the new trial, where I would question why a new one was required in the first place under a series of laws that achieve little more than subvert the American constitution.

Before such acts were passed the judges were able to judge each case on its own circumstances. Statutes tend to be rigid and take this less into consideration.
Common law may one day be all but extinct.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Tampa Bay Times but here is an article of interest

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Self defense is an affirmative defense. A certain amount of the burden of proof extends to the defendant when they are presenting an affirmative defense. It's not like a typical case where in rare situations it's possible to present no defense at all and simply say "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution has not proved my client's guilt."

If there is reasonable doubt it was not self defence the prosecution will fail. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Your last sentence is 'Directed Verdict' which is similar to NO CASE TO ANSWER in English Law.