Marissa Alexander's 20/yr sentence overturned

[whichphilosophy]

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.

That is the normal path of a bullet when not aimed at anyone. When someone aims at someone it will be usually be eye level. When someone fires a warning shot it can be at eye level. Since it was fired below eye level there is more than reasonable doubt there was no intent to kill. What was the harm? Nil.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

If she didn't aim the gun properly then one has to consider reckless disregard for safety for a gun that didn't hit anything. Now the confusion is did she aim and miss?If she did she would be a lousy shot. Nonetheless there is no proof beyond doubt either way presented by the prosecution in the last case since the burden was incorrectly applied to the defence. The appeal court should have acquitted her on the grounds she was not guilty by way of lack of evidence. Instead it decided to try the case again and impose house arrest.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Thank you for admitting you have no basis for your claim about intent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

Thank you for admitting you have no basis for your claim about intent.

Nor in my view did the prosecution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That is the normal path of a bullet when not aimed at anyone. When someone aims at someone it will be usually be eye level. When someone fires a warning shot it can be at eye level. Since it was fired below eye level there is more than reasonable doubt there was no intent to kill. What was the harm? Nil.

You misunderstand.

I'm saying that given the situation she did not have the ability to aim to hit or to aim to miss. It was a matter of chance. The fact that no harm was done doesn't change the fact that it was aggravated assault.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That is the normal path of a bullet when not aimed at anyone. When someone aims at someone it will be usually be eye level. When someone fires a warning shot it can be at eye level. Since it was fired below eye level there is more than reasonable doubt there was no intent to kill. What was the harm? Nil.

You misunderstand.

I'm saying that given the situation she did not have the ability to aim to hit or to aim to miss. It was a matter of chance. The fact that no harm was done doesn't change the fact that it was aggravated assault.

If she did not have the ability to hit aim or miss, then it is even more difficult to establish whether she intended to hit aim or miss.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You misunderstand.

I'm saying that given the situation she did not have the ability to aim to hit or to aim to miss. It was a matter of chance. The fact that no harm was done doesn't change the fact that it was aggravated assault.

If she did not have the ability to hit aim or miss, then it is even more difficult to establish whether she intended to hit aim or miss.

I don't really think it matters--she fired in a reckless fashion with provably innocent people downrange.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, the law exists in order to ensure heavy sentences for those who use a gun to commit a crime. My memory of the law is:

Carry a gun in a crime, 5 years. (This applies even to a non-violent crime where you're only carrying a gun as protection against fellow criminals.)

Draw a gun in a crime, 10 years.

Fire a gun in a crime, 20 years.

Does it become a crime after the fact, because a gun was involved? In that case, the law seems tautological.

- - - Updated - - -

If she has a gun licence and is not a criminal firing against another criminal how does this apply?

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.

What crime was she in the act of committing, which she fired the gun during? She would need to still be committing that same crime if the gun were removed from the scenario for this to make any sort of sense.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Does it become a crime after the fact, because a gun was involved? In that case, the law seems tautological.

- - - Updated - - -

If she has a gun licence and is not a criminal firing against another criminal how does this apply?

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.

What crime was she in the act of committing, which she fired the gun during? She would need to still be committing that same crime if the gun were removed from the scenario for this to make any sort of sense.

She was charged for assault in this case, so in this case it is a little because her assault was threatening someone with a gun, and then she fired it. If the prosecution could prove she tried to shoot him then she would have been charged with attempted murder. They can't prove that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If she did not have the ability to hit aim or miss, then it is even more difficult to establish whether she intended to hit aim or miss.

I don't really think it matters--she fired in a reckless fashion with provably innocent people downrange.

If there is no means of determining she was reckless where you described a different scenario (involving restricted space) there is no means to convict her. The restriction in space is not a barrier to self defence.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If she did not have the ability to hit aim or miss, then it is even more difficult to establish whether she intended to hit aim or miss.

I don't really think it matters--she fired in a reckless fashion with provably innocent people downrange.

Reckless is an assumption.

 

[laughing dog]

If she did not have the ability to hit aim or miss, then it is even more difficult to establish whether she intended to hit aim or miss.

I don't really think it matters--she fired in a reckless fashion with provably innocent people downrange.

You misunderstand the meaning of the term "reckless". It is not consistent with "intent".

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't really think it matters--she fired in a reckless fashion with provably innocent people downrange.

You misunderstand the meaning of the term "reckless". It is not consistent with "intent".

...and of course + both are assumptions on the part of Loren.

 

[Derec]

I don't really think it matters--she fired in a reckless fashion with provably innocent people downrange.

You misunderstand the meaning of the term "reckless". It is not consistent with "intent".

And you are misunderstanding the difference between "aggravated assault" and "attempted murder".

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, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 5, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2400; GS 3226; RGS 5059; CGL 7161; s. 1, ch. 70-88; s. 729, ch 71-136; s. 17, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 75-298; s. 171, ch. 91-224.
Note.—Former s. 784.02.
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, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 2, ch. 3275, 1881; RS 2402; GS 3228; RGS 5061; CGL 7163; s. 1, ch. 29709, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-345; s. 731, ch. 71-136; s. 18, ch. 74-383; s. 8, ch. 75-298.
Note.—Former s. 784.04.

 

[laughing dog]

You misunderstand the meaning of the term "reckless". It is not consistent with "intent".

And you are misunderstanding the difference between "aggravated assault" and "attempted murder".

Unless you are claiming that reckless and intent are consistent notions, I fail to see the relevance of your response.

 

[Toni]

You misunderstand the meaning of the term "reckless". It is not consistent with "intent".

And you are misunderstanding the difference between "aggravated assault" and "attempted murder".

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, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 5, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2400; GS 3226; RGS 5059; CGL 7161; s. 1, ch. 70-88; s. 729, ch 71-136; s. 17, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 75-298; s. 171, ch. 91-224.
Note.—Former s. 784.02.
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, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 2, ch. 3275, 1881; RS 2402; GS 3228; RGS 5061; CGL 7163; s. 1, ch. 29709, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-345; s. 731, ch. 71-136; s. 18, ch. 74-383; s. 8, ch. 75-298.
Note.—Former s. 784.04.

So why wasn't Rico Gray charged with assaulting Alexander? Even his own kid testified that he threatened to kill her.

 

[RavenSky]

You misunderstand the meaning of the term "reckless". It is not consistent with "intent".

And you are misunderstanding the difference between "aggravated assault" and "attempted murder".

And you continue to ignore the term "self-defense".

Rico Grey fully admits to threatening her and beating her previously. His own child, who was a witness, said he threatened her.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does it become a crime after the fact, because a gun was involved? In that case, the law seems tautological.

No, unless the crime is the improper use of the gun in the first place. (Which is the case here--the conditions of self-defense aren't met, thus the shot is illegal.)

What crime was she in the act of committing, which she fired the gun during? She would need to still be committing that same crime if the gun were removed from the scenario for this to make any sort of sense.

Firing a gun at people is a crime unless you're doing it in self defense.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, unless the crime is the improper use of the gun in the first place. (Which is the case here--the conditions of self-defense aren't met, thus the shot is illegal.)

What crime was she in the act of committing, which she fired the gun during? She would need to still be committing that same crime if the gun were removed from the scenario for this to make any sort of sense.

Firing a gun at people is a crime unless you're doing it in self defense.

There is no proof she actually fired the gun at someone, where there is ample reason to assume she would with to warn her violent husband.
Further, an important fact is the onus of proof was placed on the defendant not the prosecution. This is why there is a retrial, though really show should have been released. However the prosecutor has spent a lot of time giving press conferences and even trying to influence lawmakers who were debating an amendment to this bill.

 

[ZiprHead]

That is the normal path of a bullet when not aimed at anyone. When someone aims at someone it will be usually be eye level. When someone fires a warning shot it can be at eye level. Since it was fired below eye level there is more than reasonable doubt there was no intent to kill. What was the harm? Nil.

You misunderstand.

I'm saying that given the situation she did not have the ability to aim to hit or to aim to miss. It was a matter of chance. The fact that no harm was done doesn't change the fact that it was aggravated assault.

I hope no one ever gives you a pistol to shoot if you can't reasonably hit a 6 foot tall man from across a small room without eye-level aiming. You would be an incompetent shooter and giving you a gun would be negligence on the part of the giver.