Judge delays ruling on 'stand your ground' hearing
Source: Associated Press
Judge delays ruling on 'stand your ground' hearing
By DEREK KINNER, Associated Press | June 10, 2014 | Updated: June 10, 2014 12:53pm
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) A Florida judge on Tuesday postponed a decision on whether to hold an unprecedented second "stand your ground" hearing for a woman who received a lengthy prison sentence for firing a gun.
The Jacksonville judge on Tuesday set a hearing for August 1 on whether Marissa Alexander should be granted a second stand your ground self-defense hearing. Circuit Judge James Daniel also set a new tentative date of Dec. 1 for Alexander's second trial on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charges.
Alexander, 33, was convicted in May 2012 of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 20 years in prison under the state's minimum mandatory requirements, sparking an uproar from several observers and domestic violence activist groups.
Alexander says she acted in self-defense after her estranged husband beat her. The warning shots were fired near her husband and his two children.
The verdict was thrown out on appeal and a new trial was scheduled for July 28, but Alexander's attorneys requested she get a second stand your ground hearing ahead of the trial. Her attorneys also asked the judge to take into consideration new state legislation that would allow a person to fire warning shots if threatened. The legislation will become law if Gov. Rick Scott signs the bill.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Judge-delays-ruling-on-stand-your-ground-hearing-5542048.php
hack89
(39,171 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)jail...that is for sure
hack89
(39,171 posts)(who was standing with her kids) barely missing his head.
Go read the trial transcripts. It cannot be stand your ground if you leave a dangerous situation and return with a gun.
randys1
(16,286 posts)so if it isnt stand your ground then what is it, remember, she has Black skin so the rules are different for her in our justice system
hack89
(39,171 posts)if she was protecting her kids, why did she shoot in their direction.
Read the transcripts. It was assault.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The shots were at head level in the wall right beside the husband, according to the crime scene photos posted online. It would appear that she was just a bad shot.
randys1
(16,286 posts)5'2" 120 lb wife I sure can identify with her and will come to a quick judgment of guilt...
actually my wife wouldnt hurt a flea
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)but can you make something legal that was illegal at the time it occurred? IIRC correctly, warning shots were not a legal form of self defense at the time of the incident. As you have noted here and on other threads, this situation in no way met the definition of self-defense based on the facts in evidence at the time. The sentence was ridiculous.
hack89
(39,171 posts)she left the house, got her gun, returned to the house and shot at her ex, barely missing his head.
She returned to confront him so how could it be a warning shot?
randys1
(16,286 posts)who has said that which I have heard, maybe someone else has said that but I never heard it and I am on the net and listening to radio all day every day
hack89
(39,171 posts)when she, while out on bail awaiting trial for the shooting, violated a restraining order and went to her ex's house to physically assault him?
Judi Lynn
(160,215 posts)You are absolutely not alone. I've not heard it, either. Not surprised, however! It's not even sensible.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)with the facts presented at trial.
Frankly, Alexander has a high probability of getting re-convicted.
hack89
(39,171 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)As I understand the case, both were equally unlawful at the time of the incident. As you have noted, her actions seem to preclude a legitimate self-defense argument as there was no evidence of reasonable fear of bodily harm. I was just curious if it was possible to make the behavior that was illegal at the time now legal. I know you can't go the other way (ex-post facto) and make criminalize behavior that was legal at the time the incident occurred. Just curious.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)I was on her side especially after all the white folks were getting off for killing people & she gets 20yrs for simply being a bad shot. That was until I read the court testimony & then I was forced to switch to guilty...
However, there is clear evidence she was in a long abusive relationship where here partner was convicted of beating her while pregnant! So, Although, I do think legally she is guilty of AA I get a bit sick at my stomach thinking she is doing 20yrs when he did little to no jail time...As most domestic abusers do. SAD!!
hack89
(39,171 posts)She refused it and was convicted in 12 minutes.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)But it is hard knowing the history of her abuse to not feel sorry for her. 20yrs!! WOW!!
Judi Lynn
(160,215 posts)Marissa Alexander Now Faces 60 Years in Prison for Firing a Warning Shot in Self Defense
Steven Hsieh on March 3, 2014 - 5:10 PM ET
Florida State Attorney Angela Corey will seek to triple Marissa Alexanders original prison sentence from twenty to sixty years, effectively a life sentence for the 33-year-old woman, when her case is retried this July, The Florida Times-Union reports.
Alexander was convicted on three charges of aggravated assault in 2012 for firing warning shots in the direction of Rico Gray, her estranged husband, and his two children. No one was hurt. Alexanders attorneys argued that she had the right to self-defense after Gray physically assaulted and threatned to kill her the day of the shooting. In a deposition, Gray confessed to a history of abusing women, including Alexander.
In September of 2013 a District Appeals court threw out the conviction on grounds that Circuit Judge James Daniel erroneously placed the burden on Alexander to prove she acted in self-defense, when she only had to meet a reasonable doubt concerning self-defense.
Judge Daniel originally slapped Alexander with three twenty-year prison sentences, but ordered that they be served concurrently. If Alexander is convicted a second time in July, State Attorney Angela Corey will seek consecutive sentences, adding up to sixty years in prison.
More:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178641/marissa-alexander-now-faces-60-years-prison-firing-warning-shot-self-defense
[center]~ ~ ~[/center]
March 4 2014 12:37 PM
Prosecutors Now Seeking a 60-Year Sentence for Marissa Alexander's Alleged Warning Shot
By Amanda Marcotte
Marissa Alexander, the black woman who was sentenced in Florida to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at a husband who was allegedly abusing her, starts her retrial in July. Except now she may be facing up to 60 years in prison if convicted again. The prosecutor announced this week that she would be seeking the maximum sentence of 20 years for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weaponone for her husband and two for his children who were in the room at the timeto be served consecutively. These are the same charges she was found guilty of the first time, but the judge in that case ruled that she should serve the sentences concurrently.
Alexander's case drew a lot of attention last year because of its unsettling contrast to a different Florida shooting trial, that of George Zimmerman, in which Zimmerman successfully argued that he had to shoot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager who was running a quick errand on foot, because he felt Martin was a danger to him. Zimmerman actually killed Martin but did not get convicted, whereas Alexander did not kill anyone and has argued convincingly that she was being chased and abused by her husband in the house. Alexander is a black woman, however, and Zimmerman is notthough his victim was also blackand critics of the two cases are suggesting those race and gender differences might be carrying more weight than the actual evidence and severity of the respective crimes.
In Alexander's original trial, the jury was instructed that she had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her husband, Rico Gray, had battered her. That's why her original conviction was thrown out, as Gray wasn't actually the person on trial and Alexander wasn't actually prosecuting him but defending herself. As I wrote last year, Judge James H. Daniel ordered a retrial, arguing that Alexander had been held to too high a standard to prove self-defense. Hopefully, the jury will get better instructions this time around, but there's still reason for Alexander's supporters to be very concerned. One of the most aggravating aspects of these kinds of self-defense cases is that not killing someone can often put you in a worse position in front of a jury. Zimmerman killed the sole eyewitness to his crime, making it far easier for him to tell his story without any fear of contradiction. In his original deposition, Gray basically told the same story as Alexander: He was chasing her around the house, that he knew she couldn't escape through the garage, and that he was approaching her and refusing to leave when she shot the gun in the air. But his story has changed a number of times before and since then, making it easier for prosecutor Angela Corey (also the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case) to paint Alexander as the aggressor in this incident.
Corey's office also prosecuted Michael Dunn, who, like Zimmerman, shot an unarmed black teenager after an encounter that he provoked. Dunn was found guilty of multiple charges of attempted murder for unloading his gun at a carful of teenagers after confronting them about playing their music loudly while they stopped at a convenience store, but Corey's office didn't successfully obtain a conviction for the murder of Jordan Davis, the one teenager who was killed in the incident. As with George Zimmerman, the jurors were convinced that Dunn felt afraid enough of Davis that he had to kill him, though apparently not the rest of the kids. It's hard for outsiders not to notice a pattern here, where not shooting someone seems to get you in more trouble in the state of Florida than shooting to kill.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/04/marissa_alexander_now_faces_up_to_60_years_in_prison_for_her_alleged_warning.html
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but the more I dug into the story, my views on what happened changed drastically. I still think the 20 years (or 60 depending on the outcome of the second trial) is too long and I think the husband is scum, but her actions that night were not self defense.
1. The husband was living in the house, not her, so she had no real right to be there.
2. The husband had the kids that night
3. She went to the house and parked her car in the garage and then claimed later then she couldn't leave because the garage door wouldn't open, something I find questionable.
4. She went into the garage, allegedly saying "I've got something for you" and then came back in with the gun and fired shots in the general direction of the husband and children.
5. It was the husband who dialed 911
I would be surprised if anyone who does some real research into the case doesn't come to the conclusion that it was not self defense