Marissa Alexander's 20/yr sentence overturned

[RavenSky]

Provide evidence (not your assumption) that there was any other door besides the garage door (which was jammed/locked) and the front door (which her abuser was blocking)

Police found no evidence of the garage door being unable to open. Given Alexander's history of self-serving lies (see the later incident) and Grey's inconsistent testimony on this matter it is highly questionable that the door would not open.

Derec, your self-serving misogynistic bullshit is getting really old ok? It is crystal clear in your portrayal of Marissa as a liar while Rico was simply "inconsistent". I will say this though... A woman - a black woman at that - has forced you to defend a black man. That makes me laugh... a lot!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Good ruling. Why did it take so long?

Because our criminal justice system has nothing to do with justice. One of the gravest problems we have is prosecutorial misconduct. They only want to get convictions. That's how they get re-elected or elected to a higher office. Justice has nothing to do with this. Any 3rd grader would see this never should have been brought to court. They over charge. Charge people with 37 charges so they can't afford to defend themselves in court and the plead them out. What a disgrace....

Well there is justice in that the ruling was overturned but there are no perfect systems, hence appeals etc. I do agree about the zealousness caused by elected prosecutors but I think the real issue is the erosion of the common law system. That is to say our legal system developed since 1066 has allowed judges to review each case according to circumstances and not be dictated by circumstances. That is to say we have some separation from State an justice which also allows some degree of protection from political intervention. This case is an example where what one would regard as a frivolous prosecution is backed up in legislation.

If the state did not dictate the sentencing, the judge could, based on earlier cases (taking into account the reasoning behind them) and make a ruling, but taking into account that each case has its own circumstances.

 

[Derec]

Derec, your self-serving misogynistic bullshit is getting really old ok? It is crystal clear in your portrayal of Marissa as a liar while Rico was simply "inconsistent".

She is a liar. When she was arrested for attacking Grey while out on bail, she first lied about not being at Grey's house at all, then she lied about not attacking him. Also police officer who examined the garage door found nothing to indicate that the door was disabled in any way. Since the victims (Grey and his kids) fled the house immediately after the shooting it could not have been them who unlocked or unjammed the door.
As far as Grey, he either lied during his deposition or later. And he either told the truth either during the first deposition or later. In light of her attacking him later, I find his explanation that he initially lied to protect her more credible than the alternate explanation that he initially told the truth but then decided to lie. If he later lied to drop her into in and also protect himself, he would have done that from the beginning.

I will say this though... A woman - a black woman at that - has forced you to defend a black man. That makes me laugh... a lot!

You can also turn this around and say that a black woman is what it takes for you to not take the side of a black man. I guess she gets two PC points (female and black) to Grey's one (merely black). I wonder which side progressives would take if Alexander had been white .
Maybe their heads would explode.

 

[Sabine Grant]

She is a liar. When she was arrested for attacking Grey while out on bail, she first lied about not being at Grey's house at all, then she lied about not attacking him. Also police officer who examined the garage door found nothing to indicate that the door was disabled in any way. Since the victims (Grey and his kids) fled the house immediately after the shooting it could not have been them who unlocked or unjammed the door.
As far as Grey, he either lied during his deposition or later. And he either told the truth either during the first deposition or later. In light of her attacking him later, I find his explanation that he initially lied to protect her more credible than the alternate explanation that he initially told the truth but then decided to lie. If he later lied to drop her into in and also protect himself, he would have done that from the beginning.

I will say this though... A woman - a black woman at that - has forced you to defend a black man. That makes me laugh... a lot!

You can also turn this around and say that a black woman is what it takes for you to not take the side of a black man. I guess she gets two PC points (female and black) to Grey's one (merely black). I wonder which side progressives would take if Alexander had been white .
Maybe their heads would explode.

For starters as you have returned to invest your time and energy in this thread, I am not sure you have paid attention to my most recent post addressing some of your statements :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...tence-overturned&p=78974&viewfull=1#post78974

and how and why my challenging some of your claims regarding the Alexander case would fall under your dumping everyone under this " I wonder which side progressives would take if Alexander had been white . ". Considering that one needs not be a progressive or conservative to make the effort to inform themselves regarding what abuse consists of, how it manifests itself, whether injuries are a necessity to prove that one party attempted to block any party from leaving, whether it is common that abusers "truly love" their victims etc.... Because that is what my post linked to above was dealing with. Further, there is absolutely nothing in my post content reflecting any difference applied to Alexander or any victim of abuse based on their ethnicity.

Folks like me who have invested their time into counseling victims of various forms of abuse (to include sexual) by volunteering to be trained support groups mediators are race and gender blind. A victim is a victim. Period. And contrary to you, we are educated when it comes to distinguishing abusive behavior from non abusive behavior.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because our criminal justice system has nothing to do with justice. One of the gravest problems we have is prosecutorial misconduct. They only want to get convictions. That's how they get re-elected or elected to a higher office. Justice has nothing to do with this. Any 3rd grader would see this never should have been brought to court. They over charge. Charge people with 37 charges so they can't afford to defend themselves in court and the plead them out. What a disgrace....

Well there is justice in that the ruling was overturned but there are no perfect systems, hence appeals etc. I do agree about the zealousness caused by elected prosecutors but I think the real issue is the erosion of the common law system. That is to say our legal system developed since 1066 has allowed judges to review each case according to circumstances and not be dictated by circumstances. That is to say we have some separation from State an justice which also allows some degree of protection from political intervention. This case is an example where what one would regard as a frivolous prosecution is backed up in legislation.

If the state did not dictate the sentencing, the judge could, based on earlier cases (taking into account the reasoning behind them) and make a ruling, but taking into account that each case has its own circumstances.

I'm curious how you see this as a frivilous prosecution? Somebody pulled out a gun and shot near some one and near kids. Or is it the 20 years in jail?

It's interesting because the case first went to a judge for Stand Your Ground but it was dismissed by the judge.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Well there is justice in that the ruling was overturned but there are no perfect systems, hence appeals etc. I do agree about the zealousness caused by elected prosecutors but I think the real issue is the erosion of the common law system. That is to say our legal system developed since 1066 has allowed judges to review each case according to circumstances and not be dictated by circumstances. That is to say we have some separation from State an justice which also allows some degree of protection from political intervention. This case is an example where what one would regard as a frivolous prosecution is backed up in legislation.

If the state did not dictate the sentencing, the judge could, based on earlier cases (taking into account the reasoning behind them) and make a ruling, but taking into account that each case has its own circumstances.

I'm curious how you see this as a frivilous prosecution? Somebody pulled out a gun and shot near some one and near kids. Or is it the 20 years in jail?

It's interesting because the case first went to a judge for Stand Your Ground but it was dismissed by the judge.

Which should not be confused for being that meaningful considering how inconsistent Floridian Judges have been in their interpretation of the 2005 SYG Law. It is has a been a mind boggling experience for some of us Florida residents.

 

[maxparrish]

She drew on him without adequate reason. That's a lethal threat.

I still find it amazing, in a vile, disgusting sort of way, that the very same people who continue to defend Zimmerman and Dunn would dare to say that Marissa Alexander had "no adequate reason" to draw her gun.

Loren is not even saying she shouldn't have shot the gun... He is saying she shouldn't have even "DREW" the gun in self-defense against a KNOWN ABUSER WHO ADMITS TO ATTACKING HER THAT DAY.

I defended Zimmerman, I would not defend Dunn. When I first read about this case, I thought Alexander to be innocent of moral wrong-doing. It seemed that she was the victim of a loophole in the law that did not permit warning shots (i.e. under the Florida law it was better to kill your attacker rather than be humane and try to scare him/her off).

I did not keep up with the case so I revisited Legal Insurrection to see its current status. It seems that Alexander is not so innocent as I had assumed - recent evidentiary hearings suggest she did not fire a warning shot, but aimed at him, missing his head by inches. It also seems that she intentionally sought confrontation, rather than leaving via the garage.

While I hope that her next sentence will be much less brutal (after all, no one was hurt and Gray seems forgiving), its difficult to see how she can be found not-guilty for reasons of self-defense. (And given her own history of violence, the abuser 'defense' is not likely to be convincing).

Sad case.

See:http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...a-alexander-that-people-think-are-true//#more

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Police found no evidence of the garage door being unable to open. Given Alexander's history of self-serving lies (see the later incident) and Grey's inconsistent testimony on this matter it is highly questionable that the door would not open.

Derec, your self-serving misogynistic bullshit is getting really old ok? It is crystal clear in your portrayal of Marissa as a liar while Rico was simply "inconsistent". I will say this though... A woman - a black woman at that - has forced you to defend a black man. That makes me laugh... a lot!

Now that IS funny

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm curious how you see this as a frivilous prosecution? Somebody pulled out a gun and shot near some one and near kids. Or is it the 20 years in jail?

It's interesting because the case first went to a judge for Stand Your Ground but it was dismissed by the judge.

Which should not be confused for being that meaningful considering how inconsistent Floridian Judges have been in their interpretation of the 2005 SYG Law. It is has a been a mind boggling experience for some of us Florida residents.

Then the Legislature needs to revisit it to hammer down details.

 

[maxparrish]

Seems to me that the evidence is not on Alexander's side. A quick review of facts that cannot be avoided:

1. Marissa Alexander DID NOT Merely Fired a Warning Shot Into the Air

The forensics evidence shared with the public shows it was not fired in a harmless direction, nor deliberately away from a person. She retrieved her gun from the garage, returned to the kitchen, told her husband "I’ve got something for your ass,” ... she then chambered a round in her pistol, pointed it horizontally at Rico Gray and his two minor children (then 13 and 10) and fired the gun.

The bullet flew past Gray and the kids, within inches of his head and into the wall. Either she confidently fired for a very near miss, or she actually missed. In any event, it has none of the obvious characteristics of a warning shot, but does have the characteristics of attempted homicide.

2. She claimed she was in fear for her life and trying to get away from her husband, but said she could not get the garage doors open so as to drive away. That, she says, compelled her to retrieve her gun, return to the kitchen, and there she shot at her husband. (He then fled with the children, and he (not her) called 911).

But the appellate court who ordered a new trial did not buy it: "the garage door worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim that the doors could not open for her.” And police investigators function checked the doors after the shooting —they still worked normally.

The appellate court noted that “despite the Defendant’s claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed.”

Neither stand-your-ground law, nor self defense law, allows a person to retreat from a fight, retrieve a gun, and then return to that fight and shoot at the other party. Had she stayed in the garage with her gun, or left, the threat would have been neutralized. Had he followed her and threatened imminent grave harm she could have shot him.

According to the court in 2011 “[Alexander] intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life. After weighing the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, this Court finds that the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was justified in using deadly force in defense of self.”

3. Both her husband and her were previously arrested and convicted for domestic battery. His last in 2006 and hers in 2010 (she pled guilty). Her battery occurred after she violated a court order not to go near him. Neither party seems to be unwilling to engage in physical violence, although he finally learned in 2010 to take the injury and then call 911.

From a legal stand point it is difficult to find her "not guilty" - even if he threatened her in the Kitchen. From a moral stand-point...it depends.

 

[Toni]

Seems to me that the evidence is not on Alexander's side. A quick review of facts that cannot be avoided:

1. Marissa Alexander DID NOT Merely Fired a Warning Shot Into the Air

The forensics evidence shared with the public shows it was not fired in a harmless direction, nor deliberately away from a person. She retrieved her gun from the garage, returned to the kitchen, told her husband "I’ve got something for your ass,” ... she then chambered a round in her pistol, pointed it horizontally at Rico Gray and his two minor children (then 13 and 10) and fired the gun.

The bullet flew past Gray and the kids, within inches of his head and into the wall. Either she confidently fired for a very near miss, or she actually missed. In any event, it has none of the obvious characteristics of a warning shot, but does have the characteristics of attempted homicide.

2. She claimed she was in fear for her life and trying to get away from her husband, but said she could not get the garage doors open so as to drive away. That, she says, compelled her to retrieve her gun, return to the kitchen, and there she shot at her husband. (He then fled with the children, and he (not her) called 911).

But the appellate court who ordered a new trial did not buy it: "the garage door worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim that the doors could not open for her.” And police investigators function checked the doors after the shooting —they still worked normally.

The appellate court noted that “despite the Defendant’s claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed.”

Neither stand-your-ground law, nor self defense law, allows a person to retreat from a fight, retrieve a gun, and then return to that fight and shoot at the other party. Had she stayed in the garage with her gun, or left, the threat would have been neutralized. Had he followed her and threatened imminent grave harm she could have shot him.

According to the court in 2011 “[Alexander] intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life. After weighing the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, this Court finds that the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was justified in using deadly force in defense of self.”

3. Both her husband and her were previously arrested and convicted for domestic battery. His last in 2006 and hers in 2010 (she pled guilty). Her battery occurred after she violated a court order not to go near him. Neither party seems to be unwilling to engage in physical violence, although he finally learned in 2010 to take the injury and then call 911.

From a legal stand point it is difficult to find her "not guilty" - even if he threatened her in the Kitchen. From a moral stand-point...it depends.

Gray's 911 call stated that she did not fire at him and his son. In the call only one son was mentioned so either he forgot about the other or he lied later. Well we know he lied later under oath. One of his sons affirmed at trial that Gray did threaten to kill Alexander.

The 2010 assault by Alexander was after she was arrested for the shooting incident.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Seems to me that the evidence is not on Alexander's side. A quick review of facts that cannot be avoided:

1. Marissa Alexander DID NOT Merely Fired a Warning Shot Into the Air

The forensics evidence shared with the public shows it was not fired in a harmless direction, nor deliberately away from a person. She retrieved her gun from the garage, returned to the kitchen, told her husband "I’ve got something for your ass,” ... she then chambered a round in her pistol, pointed it horizontally at Rico Gray and his two minor children (then 13 and 10) and fired the gun.

The bullet flew past Gray and the kids, within inches of his head and into the wall. Either she confidently fired for a very near miss, or she actually missed. In any event, it has none of the obvious characteristics of a warning shot, but does have the characteristics of attempted homicide.

2. She claimed she was in fear for her life and trying to get away from her husband, but said she could not get the garage doors open so as to drive away. That, she says, compelled her to retrieve her gun, return to the kitchen, and there she shot at her husband. (He then fled with the children, and he (not her) called 911).

But the appellate court who ordered a new trial did not buy it: "the garage door worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim that the doors could not open for her.” And police investigators function checked the doors after the shooting —they still worked normally.

The appellate court noted that “despite the Defendant’s claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed.”

Neither stand-your-ground law, nor self defense law, allows a person to retreat from a fight, retrieve a gun, and then return to that fight and shoot at the other party. Had she stayed in the garage with her gun, or left, the threat would have been neutralized. Had he followed her and threatened imminent grave harm she could have shot him.

According to the court in 2011 “[Alexander] intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life. After weighing the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, this Court finds that the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was justified in using deadly force in defense of self.”

3. Both her husband and her were previously arrested and convicted for domestic battery. His last in 2006 and hers in 2010 (she pled guilty). Her battery occurred after she violated a court order not to go near him. Neither party seems to be unwilling to engage in physical violence, although he finally learned in 2010 to take the injury and then call 911.

From a legal stand point it is difficult to find her "not guilty" - even if he threatened her in the Kitchen. From a moral stand-point...it depends.

Gray's 911 call stated that she did not fire at him and his son. In the call only one son was mentioned so either he forgot about the other or he lied later. Well we know he lied later under oath.

He said sons later in the 9/11 call. After being shot near or at and calling 9/11 you think a person has time to think about every single s at the end of words. His first statement was that she aimed at him and fired and then he was like well she missed so maybe it was more of a scare tactic. But it wasn't, she shot up into the ceiling. But the question is, in a normal argument are you allowed to fire a gun to win an argument? If it was him that used a gun to scare her, would it be okay?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well there is justice in that the ruling was overturned but there are no perfect systems, hence appeals etc. I do agree about the zealousness caused by elected prosecutors but I think the real issue is the erosion of the common law system. That is to say our legal system developed since 1066 has allowed judges to review each case according to circumstances and not be dictated by circumstances. That is to say we have some separation from State an justice which also allows some degree of protection from political intervention. This case is an example where what one would regard as a frivolous prosecution is backed up in legislation.

If the state did not dictate the sentencing, the judge could, based on earlier cases (taking into account the reasoning behind them) and make a ruling, but taking into account that each case has its own circumstances.

I'm curious how you see this as a frivilous prosecution? Somebody pulled out a gun and shot near some one and near kids. Or is it the 20 years in jail?

It's interesting because the case first went to a judge for Stand Your Ground but it was dismissed by the judge.

If someone is threatened or perceivably so then they wouldn't always wait for everyone to leave. The gun caused no harm. Should a statute determine 20 years for this for something which common law says does not permit this. Further in a state which allows guns as defence, one could argue that firing a warning shot would be an act on restraint. Her partner's previous assaults may well be sufficient for her to honestly believe she was in danger. His past assaults and perceived threats may be sufficient to warrant this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Gray's 911 call stated that she did not fire at him and his son. In the call only one son was mentioned so either he forgot about the other or he lied later. Well we know he lied later under oath.

He said sons later in the 9/11 call. After being shot near or at and calling 9/11 you think a person has time to think about every single s at the end of words. His first statement was that she aimed at him and fired and then he was like well she missed so maybe it was more of a scare tactic. But it wasn't, she shot up into the ceiling. But the question is, in a normal argument are you allowed to fire a gun to win an argument? If it was him that used a gun to scare her, would it be okay?

Did she aim past him? When a person points a gun at you, you don't know if a bullet will hit you or miss whether it is intended to. At the end of the day no one was injured.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm curious how you see this as a frivilous prosecution? Somebody pulled out a gun and shot near some one and near kids. Or is it the 20 years in jail?

It's interesting because the case first went to a judge for Stand Your Ground but it was dismissed by the judge.

If someone is threatened or perceivably so then they wouldn't always wait for everyone to leave. The gun caused no harm. Should a statute determine 20 years for this for something which common law says does not permit this. Further in a state which allows guns as defence, one could argue that firing a warning shot would be an act on restraint. Her partner's previous assaults may well be sufficient for her to honestly believe she was in danger. His past assaults and perceived threats may be sufficient to warrant this.

As I said I don't think it should be 20 years. But the Fla government put that rule in there to be tough on guns and that you better mean it when you pull a gun out. I said it should have been a year and then probation. But I also don't know if there needs to be a distinction between a miss and a hit for punishment at times. He moves half a foot or a foot in one direction and based on luck it's now third degree murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seems to me that the evidence is not on Alexander's side. A quick review of facts that cannot be avoided:

1. Marissa Alexander DID NOT Merely Fired a Warning Shot Into the Air

The forensics evidence shared with the public shows it was not fired in a harmless direction, nor deliberately away from a person. She retrieved her gun from the garage, returned to the kitchen, told her husband "I’ve got something for your ass,” ... she then chambered a round in her pistol, pointed it horizontally at Rico Gray and his two minor children (then 13 and 10) and fired the gun.

The bullet flew past Gray and the kids, within inches of his head and into the wall. Either she confidently fired for a very near miss, or she actually missed. In any event, it has none of the obvious characteristics of a warning shot, but does have the characteristics of attempted homicide.

Yeah. If she were a SEAL I could call that a warning shot. For the average person, though...

The appellate court noted that “despite the Defendant’s claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed.”

Thank you--I have been questioning the issue of back doors as I've never seen a house without a back door. This confirms there was a back door--and it's pretty hard to block someone from leaving when they have a choice of routes.

Neither stand-your-ground law, nor self defense law, allows a person to retreat from a fight, retrieve a gun, and then return to that fight and shoot at the other party. Had she stayed in the garage with her gun, or left, the threat would have been neutralized. Had he followed her and threatened imminent grave harm she could have shot him.

Unless there is some other reason--you can go get a gun and return to rescue someone else in the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If someone is threatened or perceivably so then they wouldn't always wait for everyone to leave. The gun caused no harm. Should a statute determine 20 years for this for something which common law says does not permit this. Further in a state which allows guns as defence, one could argue that firing a warning shot would be an act on restraint. Her partner's previous assaults may well be sufficient for her to honestly believe she was in danger. His past assaults and perceived threats may be sufficient to warrant this.

As I said I don't think it should be 20 years. But the Fla government put that rule in there to be tough on guns and that you better mean it when you pull a gun out. I said it should have been a year and then probation. But I also don't know if there needs to be a distinction between a miss and a hit for punishment at times. He moves half a foot or a foot in one direction and based on luck it's now third degree murder.

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.

 

[maxparrish]

Gray's 911 call stated that she did not fire at him and his son. In the call only one son was mentioned so either he forgot about the other or he lied later. Well we know he lied later under oath.

He said sons later in the 9/11 call. After being shot near or at and calling 9/11 you think a person has time to think about every single s at the end of words. His first statement was that she aimed at him and fired and then he was like well she missed so maybe it was more of a scare tactic. But it wasn't, she shot up into the ceiling. But the question is, in a normal argument are you allowed to fire a gun to win an argument? If it was him that used a gun to scare her, would it be okay?

That seems to be one of the myths in this case. Forensics show she shot into the wall (the entry level looks to be at the height of a refrigerator). Because of the upward trajectory it ended up the ceiling of another room.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...-warning-shot-case-evidentiary-hearing//#more

 

[whichphilosophy]

Seems to me that the evidence is not on Alexander's side. A quick review of facts that cannot be avoided:

1. Marissa Alexander DID NOT Merely Fired a Warning Shot Into the Air

The forensics evidence shared with the public shows it was not fired in a harmless direction, nor deliberately away from a person. She retrieved her gun from the garage, returned to the kitchen, told her husband "I’ve got something for your ass,” ... she then chambered a round in her pistol, pointed it horizontally at Rico Gray and his two minor children (then 13 and 10) and fired the gun.

The bullet flew past Gray and the kids, within inches of his head and into the wall. Either she confidently fired for a very near miss, or she actually missed. In any event, it has none of the obvious characteristics of a warning shot, but does have the characteristics of attempted homicide.

2. She claimed she was in fear for her life and trying to get away from her husband, but said she could not get the garage doors open so as to drive away. That, she says, compelled her to retrieve her gun, return to the kitchen, and there she shot at her husband. (He then fled with the children, and he (not her) called 911).

But the appellate court who ordered a new trial did not buy it: "the garage door worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim that the doors could not open for her.” And police investigators function checked the doors after the shooting —they still worked normally.

The appellate court noted that “despite the Defendant’s claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed.”

Neither stand-your-ground law, nor self defense law, allows a person to retreat from a fight, retrieve a gun, and then return to that fight and shoot at the other party. Had she stayed in the garage with her gun, or left, the threat would have been neutralized. Had he followed her and threatened imminent grave harm she could have shot him.

According to the court in 2011 “[Alexander] intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life. After weighing the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, this Court finds that the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was justified in using deadly force in defense of self.”

3. Both her husband and her were previously arrested and convicted for domestic battery. His last in 2006 and hers in 2010 (she pled guilty). Her battery occurred after she violated a court order not to go near him. Neither party seems to be unwilling to engage in physical violence, although he finally learned in 2010 to take the injury and then call 911.

From a legal stand point it is difficult to find her "not guilty" - even if he threatened her in the Kitchen. From a moral stand-point...it depends.

The law says a person has emphasises the defender has no duty or other requirement to retreat. If the only way a person perceived they can stand their ground is to retreat and obtain a fire arm, I see no conflict with the intent of the law. This could imply even if she passed the alleged victims to do so.
1. Florida Statutes Title XLVI Chapter 776 determines Stand Your Ground", "Line in the Sand" or "No Duty to Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be

If she was threatened in the kitchen (hence her abode) she would be justified under this law. See references.
Forensics:
This must only be an opinion. A person can aim very close to a person or at least clearly in their direction as a warning shot.
Intent
Since there is no evidence to suggest she missed an intended shot instead of firing a warning, it means ‘beyond any shadow of doubt’ could not apply.
Though it seems their relationship was that of sparring partners nonetheless, based on his past record she could argue she was in fear of her life.
Looking for a gun in the garage or a knife in the kitchen etc could be sufficient evidence. I’m sure he was right about his fleeing, as this is quite a normal reaction when fired at.
The door.
I would have thought this is inapplicable given the definition of Stand Your Ground Law.

In my view such a law would imply if not express the right to enforce this with a firearm if a firearm is legal in Florida. However I have added some more information which shows the existing law was flawed where she should now be considered under expressed provisions, with less need to interpret the intent and meaning of legislation.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marissa-alexander-denied-new-stand-your-ground-hearing
QUOTE: In June, Governor Rick Scott signed into law the so-called “warning shot” revision to the self-defense statute, which clarified that it be applied to “threatening to use deadly force.” In his order Friday, Judge Daniel said Alexander could still argue that the law applies to her retroactively.
State attorney Angela Corey is now seeking a 60-year sentence for aggravated assault; triple what Alexander was originally sentenced. Corey told the Huffington Post in 2012 that Alexander was “not in fear,” but rather “was angry” when she fired her gun. UNQUOTE.
In reality is no evidence that the outcome would be different whether she fired in anger or fear and I would say that a person standing their ground has a right to be angry, in fear or both. Yet the state could jail her for 60 years if found guilty

See full text here of STAND YOUR GROUND LAW
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

 (3)A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).

 776.012Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
 (1)A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
 (2)A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The 2014 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter


 776.031Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
 (2)A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As I said I don't think it should be 20 years. But the Fla government put that rule in there to be tough on guns and that you better mean it when you pull a gun out. I said it should have been a year and then probation. But I also don't know if there needs to be a distinction between a miss and a hit for punishment at times. He moves half a foot or a foot in one direction and based on luck it's now third degree murder.

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.

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