PDA

View Full Version : Woman fires warning shot to scare off abusive husband; may get 20 years in prison.




Nirvikalpa
05-02-2012, 09:02 AM
Searched the forums, couldn't find this posted anywhere.

:mad:

-------


"I got five baby mammas, and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one," Rico Gray confessed during a November 2010 deposition. "The way I was with women…they had to walk on eggshells around me." He recalled punching women in the face, shoving them, choking them, and tossing them out the door.

Yet somehow, after one of those women fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her Jacksonville, Florida, home to scare him away during yet another violent outburst, prosecutors managed to convince a jury that Gray was the victim. As a result, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, faces 20 years in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband.

More here: http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/02/20-years-for-standing-her-ground

There are just no words.

brandon
05-02-2012, 09:07 AM
Should it be legal to fire guns in a residential area as a warning? I don't think so. Though 20 years sounds excessive. Probation would probably do is she doesn't have any priors.

jkr
05-02-2012, 09:08 AM
should have killed him

SHE'D BE OUT IN 7...

Philosophy_of_Politics
05-02-2012, 09:20 AM
I do not believe firing a gun as a warning shot (even in a residential area), should require any sentencing, when no one is hurt in the process. Why? For one, criminal justice does teach about something called "in the heat of the moment." Secondly, pre-crime is an aspect we're suppose to reject, because pre-crime is antithetical to Liberty.

azxd
05-02-2012, 09:25 AM
She doesn't stand to face

20 years in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband.
Those are the words of some idiot who wants to tie this to the "Stand You Ground" statute in Florida ... Treyvon, Treyvon.



When Alexander managed to get by, she ran through the kitchen to the garage, where she says (http://justiceformarissa.blogspot.com/2012/04/lincoln-b.html) she realized she did not have the keys to her car, could not call for help because she had left her cellphone behind, and could not escape because the garage door was not working. Instead she grabbed her handgun from her car and headed back through the kitchen, where Gray confronted her again.


Florida's self-defense law (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html) says "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat" if "he or she reasonably believes" it is necessary to prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm" or "the imminent commission of a forcible felony." In 1999, furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court ruled (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1037815.html)that a woman attacked by her husband in the home they share has no duty to flee.
On March 16, after deliberating (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/27/stand-your-ground-plea-rejected-in-florida/?hpt=ac_t2) for 12 minutes, a jury convicted (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-04-21/story/naacp-weighs-what-they-say-stand-your-ground-case-against-jacksonville-0) Alexander on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although she injured no one, she faces a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence unless she can win (http://www.news4jax.com/news/As-supporters-rally-woman-asks-for-new-trial/-/475880/12222912/-/oduf1x/-/index.html) a new trial.

If he was enough of a threat that she felt justified to discharge a firearm within her home, she should have shot to stop the threat.

Laws are very clear on what constitutes the defensive use of a firearm, and she screwed up.

Also,
Based on his history,
She might have been charged, but ultimately released with all charges dropped.

Woman is an idiot !!!
That shot could have easily hit someone who was not the threat (richochet, her own kid or a neighbor), and that probably makes me as mad as the OP ... She just gave the anti-gun crowd some free ammo :mad:

Reason magazine, by title choice, is showing their colors.

Nirvikalpa
05-02-2012, 09:51 AM
She doesn't stand to face
Those are the words of some idiot who wants to tie this to the "Stand You Ground" statute in Florida ... Treyvon, Treyvon.



If he was enough of a threat that she felt justified to discharge a firearm within her home, she should have shot to stop the threat.

Laws are very clear on what constitutes the defensive use of a firearm, and she screwed up.

Also,
Based on his history,
She might have been charged, but ultimately released with all charges dropped.

Woman is an idiot !!!
That shot could have easily hit someone who was not the threat (richochet, her own kid or a neighbor), and that probably makes me as mad as the OP ... She just gave the anti-gun crowd some free ammo :mad:

Reason magazine, by title choice, is showing their colors.

Uhm, how? No one was hurt. Your basis of "could have" is as bad as most liberal's line of thinking. If someone runs a stop sign, yet doesn't kill or hurt anyone, is punishment justified because they could have? What's the crime?

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 09:55 AM
Uhm, how? No one was hurt. Your basis of "could have" is as bad as most liberal's line of thinking. If someone runs a stop sign, yet doesn't kill or hurt anyone, is punishment justified because they could have? What's the crime?

Reckless endangerment. Even if no one is hurt, reckless behavior which could have caused someone or someone's property harm is a crime.

Philosophy_of_Politics
05-02-2012, 09:59 AM
Reckless endangerment. Even if no one is hurt, reckless behavior which could have caused someone or someone's property harm is a crime.

Those types of crimes are only used to benefit the pockets of the state. An accident, without anyone being hurt, should require no punishment.

angelatc
05-02-2012, 09:59 AM
Reckless endangerment. Even if no one is hurt, reckless behavior which could have caused someone or someone's property harm is a crime.

Shouldn't be.

So, if she had shot him she'd be in the clear, but because she warned his sorry ass, she's going to jail. Yeah, that totally makes sense.

RickyJ
05-02-2012, 10:17 AM
This a travesty of justice. The case should have been thrown out. On a side note, what kind of women want to be with a man like that? 5 women with this fool? Amazing!

The Free Hornet
05-02-2012, 10:33 AM
should have killed him

SHE'D BE OUT IN 7...


If he was enough of a threat that she felt justified to discharge a firearm within her home, she should have shot to stop the threat.

Laws are very clear on what constitutes the defensive use of a firearm, and she screwed up.

If it's legal to shoot someone, it should be legal to intentionally miss (warning shot). She should be commended. We might try the same with police if ever they get over their fear of grandmas, butter knives, and puppies.

It would seem police are specifically trained not to ever use a warning shot:


... police can never fire warning shots.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QuAA9Td8A-kC&lpg=PA218&ots=6A52u3phjg&dq=police%20can't%20use%20warning%20shots&pg=PA218#v=onepage&q=police%20can't%20use%20warning%20shots&f=false


This link gives some good advice on how to legally survive a defensive shooting:


Okay, Rule Number One after surviving a defensive shooting: STFU[1]. As my first permit class instructor (who was a prosecutor for 12 years and a defense attorney for the past 30 or so) said, the only thing you should say to the cops after a DGU is "I was in fear for my life. I wish to speak to my attorney. I do not consent to any search." The only thing your (the shooter's) spouse and kids should say to the cops after a DGU is "I wish to speak to an attorney. I do not consent to any search."

... if you fired a warning shot then your first shot did miss, but let him be the one to tell the cops that. After all, the difference between a warning shot and a kill shot is the shooter's intention. Since your lawyer is not psychic he can't know whether you fired for warning or effect, so he is not lying to the police. Remember, they didn't get Martha Stewart for insider trading, they got her for lying to the police.

http://www.freelibertywriters.com/bruce-krafft/2012/2/23/the-counter-intuitive-nature-of-warning-shots.html

azxd
05-02-2012, 10:34 AM
Uhm, how? No one was hurt. Your basis of "could have" is as bad as most liberal's line of thinking. If someone runs a stop sign, yet doesn't kill or hurt anyone, is punishment justified because they could have?What's the crime?Discharing a firearm within city limits ... It's on the books, and IT IS a public safety issue.

In many places is is a class 6 felony ... Google it !!

azxd
05-02-2012, 10:35 AM
Reckless endangerment. Even if no one is hurt, reckless behavior which could have caused someone or someone's property harm is a crime.An additional charge ... Good point, and thanks for the reminder !!!

azxd
05-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Shouldn't be.

So, if she had shot him she'd be in the clear, but because she warned his sorry ass, she's going to jail. Yeah, that totally makes sense.NO !!

What makes sense is understanding firearms laws, IF you're going to possess one.

IDIOTS like her threaten my right to possess such a device, by giving the anti-gun crowd ammunition to use against those of us who act responsibly.

azxd
05-02-2012, 10:41 AM
If it's legal to shoot someone, it should be legal to intentionally miss (warning shot). She should be commended. We might try the same with police if ever they get over their fear of grandmas, butter knives, and puppies.

It would seem police are specifically trained not to ever use a warning shot:


... police can never fire warning shots.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QuA...0shots&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=QuAA9Td8A-kC&lpg=PA218&ots=6A52u3phjg&dq=police can't use warning shots&pg=PA218#v=onepage&q=police can't use warning shots&f=false)




This link gives some good advice on how to legally survive a defensive shooting:

Okay, Rule Number One after surviving a defensive shooting: STFU[1]. As my first permit class instructor (who was a prosecutor for 12 years and a defense attorney for the past 30 or so) said, the only thing you should say to the cops after a DGU is "I was in fear for my life. I wish to speak to my attorney. I do not consent to any search." The only thing your (the shooter's) spouse and kids should say to the cops after a DGU is "I wish to speak to an attorney. I do not consent to any search."

... if you fired a warning shot then your first shot did miss, but let him be the one to tell the cops that. After all, the difference between a warning shot and a kill shot is the shooter's intention. Since your lawyer is not psychic he can't know whether you fired for warning or effect, so he is not lying to the police. Remember, they didn't get Martha Stewart for insider trading, they got her for lying to the police.

http://www.freelibertywriters.com/br...ing-shots.html (http://www.freelibertywriters.com/bruce-krafft/2012/2/23/the-counter-intuitive-nature-of-warning-shots.html)
I take it you don't comprehend what you just quoted about "how to legally survive a defensive shooting" ?

TheTexan
05-02-2012, 10:45 AM
An additional charge ... Good point, and thanks for the reminder !!!

I believe the loud gun shot violated the statutory noise/nuisance clause of the property's tenancy agreement, we can add that one as well!!

RickyJ
05-02-2012, 10:49 AM
I believe the loud gun shot violated the statutory noise/nuisance clause of the property's tenancy agreement, we can add that one as well!!

Are you people nuts? Who's to say it was a warning shot? Maybe she just really sucks at shooting and really missed by a lot. Her next shot obviously would have been closer if he kept advancing toward her. Damn, she was in fear for her life, give the woman a break!

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 10:50 AM
If it's legal to shoot someone, it should be legal to intentionally miss (warning shot).

Umm, not exactly... If you're intentionally missing, then once can assume you're not fearing for your life, or you would have shot him... That's how the law is likely to view it anyway.

By intentionally missing, however, you're, again intentionally, putting a bullet out where it could hurt another person, again, in a case where it was not yet a matter of life and death, but rather a preventative action, which is not justified to discharge a firearm for.... If you said that she was in the right because she wanted to prevent a violent confrontation, then you're opening up quite a dangerous Bush-like view of "pre-emptive strike".

Plain and simple, if she feared for her safety and had no other recourse, she should have shot at him, not out into space where the bullet could end up hitting another person instead... Though I guess the police could use discretion in this case, assuming the roof was thick enough to stop the bullet, and knowing that she was dealing with abuse... But under normal circumstances, it's still not at all safe or justified to fire a weapon into the air in a remotely populated area. People can be badly injured that way.

To be fair here, I still side with the woman, but you have to understand how the law views it. They necessarily have protocol to follow about what's justified with a firearm, and so discretion may be tough.

TheTexan
05-02-2012, 10:53 AM
Are you people nuts? Who's to say it was a warning shot? Maybe she just really sucks at shooting and really missed by a lot. Her next shot obviously would have been closer if he kept advancing toward her. Damn, she was in fear for her life, give the woman a break!

No sir, if there is a law on the books that makes it illegal we need to make sure she gets punished for it!!! /azxd

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 11:08 AM
An additional charge ... Good point, and thanks for the reminder !!!


I believe the loud gun shot violated the statutory noise/nuisance clause of the property's tenancy agreement, we can add that one as well!!

You can add aggravated assault with a deadly weapon to the list of charges.


A aggravated assault occurs when somebody does something, by word or act, to put another person in fear of imminent danger, and in doing so displays a deadly weapon. An example of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon would be holding a knife at somebody and threatening to cut them.


Edit: that's actually what she was charged with. Honestly, I think the jury should feel ashamed for convicting her, even though what she did technically is exactly what the law classifies as aggravated assault.

azxd
05-02-2012, 11:09 AM
Are you people nuts? Who's to say it was a warning shot? Maybe she just really sucks at shooting and really missed by a lot. Her next shot obviously would have been closer if he kept advancing toward her. Damn, she was in fear for her life, give the woman a break!From a link in the article, read and learn - http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763177/Notice-of-Filing-for-Determination-of-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

She retrieved a gun, and went back into the house (from the garage) ... If she felt so threatened as to need a gun for defense, she should have stayed in the garage and waited for the man to approach her.

Her own words caused the conviction, and her lawyer sucks because he put this in writing.


Fearing great bodily injury and/or her life, Ms. Alexander then retrieved a registered gunfor protection and went back into her home.

She might have been OK, if the safety of the children had been mentioned ... ETA: But they were outside in the car.

azxd
05-02-2012, 11:11 AM
No sir, if there is a law on the books that makes it illegal we need to make sure she gets punished for it!!! /azxdSee post #21

She acted stupidly, and so did her unqualified to take the case, lawyer.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 11:15 AM
See post #21

She acted stupidly, and so did her unqualified to take the case, lawyer.

I agree. She fired a weapon recklessly with no imminent danger to herself or her children present.

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 11:16 AM
Twenty year mandatory minimum sentence? Add that to the long list of reasons to never go to Florida. I want to know how/why she was charged with 3 counts of aggravated assault.

TheTexan
05-02-2012, 11:16 AM
See post #21

She acted stupidly, and so did her unqualified to take the case, lawyer.

It's her home. She has no obligation to wait in the garage.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 11:20 AM
It's her home. She has no obligation to wait in the garage.

She also has no lawful right to fire her gun unless there is an imminent threat to her life present. That said, 20 years for this is unbelievably ridiculous.

dannno
05-02-2012, 11:21 AM
I agree. She fired a weapon recklessly with no imminent danger to herself or her children present.

Uhh, if she fired the gun I doubt she didn't feel like there was any eminent danger :rolleyes:

tod evans
05-02-2012, 11:21 AM
should have killed him

SHE'D BE OUT IN 7...

Much truth here......

Less time for manslaughter than most drug charges.

TheTexan
05-02-2012, 11:22 AM
She also has no lawful right to fire her gun unless there is an imminent threat to her life present. That said, 20 years for this is unbelievably ridiculous.

If it's a crime, then who is the victim?

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 11:24 AM
Uhh, if she fired the gun I doubt she didn't feel like there was any eminent danger :rolleyes:

If there was imminent (not eminent, that means something else) danger to her life she would have shot to kill.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 11:27 AM
Uhh, if she fired the gun I doubt she didn't feel like there was any eminent danger :rolleyes:
Do you not see the difference between going to get a gun and coming back inside with a gun to scare someone off when you had other recourses, and firing a shot to defend yourself?

Because that's how the law views it. Particularly with the fact that her children were in the house, and she did not simply stand her ground, but actually went and got the gun and returned to the situation instead of fleeing or hiding, and then fired the shot purposely not at him to where it went through walls and could have hurt/killed an innocent person, yeah, unless she has a good lawyer, that's quite a lot of things she should have done differently before discharging a deadly weapon.

Just liek whole Trayvon thing, the crux here is whether she has other recourses than to confront the man (the court found that she could have gone out the front or back door instead for help). As soon as she decided to get the gun instead of flee, she screwed up.... I don't blame her, but she didn't follow the lawful requirements to discharge a firearm indiscriminately in a home.

dannno
05-02-2012, 11:28 AM
If there was imminent (not eminent, that means something else) danger to her life she would have shot to kill.

How do you know?

dannno
05-02-2012, 11:29 AM
Do you not see the difference between going back inside with a gun to scare someone off when you had other recourses, and firing a shot to defend yourself?

Because that's how the law views it. Particularly with the fact that her children were in the house, and she did not simply stand her ground, but actually went and got the gun and returned to the situation instead of fleeing or hiding, and then fired the shot purposely not at him to where it went through walls and could have hurt/killed an innocent person, yeah, unless she has a good lawyer, that's quite a lot of things she should have done differently before discharging a deadly weapon.

I think she watches too much TV and wanted this frightening dude out of her house away from her children.

Probably not the best decision, and she should be punished if somebody was hurt, but I don't see any reason to punish her since there is no victim.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 11:30 AM
How do you know?

Because she fled, retrieved a firearm and returned to confront him. If she had feared for her life she would have either not gone back or shot to kill. You don't shoot a warning shot if you fear for your life.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 11:31 AM
Probably not the best decision, and she should be punished if somebody was hurt, but I don't see any reason to punish her since there is no victim.

I guess you believe assault shouldn't be a crime then?

kuckfeynes
05-02-2012, 11:34 AM
Don't pull the thang out, unless you plan to bang
(Bombs over Baghdad)
Don't even bang unless you plan to hit something
(Bombs over Baghdad)

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 11:35 AM
I think she watches too much TV and wanted this frightening dude out of her house away from her children.

Probably not the best decision, and she should be punished if somebody was hurt, but I don't see any reason to punish her since there is no victim.
I agree they could use discretion here, but I'm sorry, I hate that argument that jsut becuase no one was hurt, it's no harm no foul...

No violenece, just the threat of harm is need for assault charges. Attempted murder is still a crime. Maybe they overcharged her here perhaps, but it was at very least reckless, negligent, and not justified to not flee, but to go get a firearm and return to the situation when you had other recourses, and fire it off indiscriminately, not even at the person. That makes it incredibly difficult to say that she was in imminent harm to justify it.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 11:35 AM
duplicate

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2012, 11:42 AM
Forum hiccup.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2012, 11:42 AM
Nothing like a great romance story...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH4OFXlvzKA

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 11:45 AM
I guess you believe assault shouldn't be a crime then?
So she agg assaulted her kids? No matter how you look at it, This is not justice. Now you might find me agreeing with a charge of unlawfully discharging a firearm within city limits.. with maybe a count of wreckless endangerment. But how and the hell can you support three charges of aggravated assault?

Aggravated assault is the crime of physically attacking another person which results in serious bodily harm and/or is committed with a deadly or dangerous weapon such as a gun, knife, sword, ax or blunt instrument.

azxd
05-02-2012, 11:46 AM
If there was imminent (not eminent, that means something else) danger to her life she would have shot to kill stop the threat.Fixed it for you.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 11:48 AM
So she agg assaulted her kids? No matter how you look at it This is not justice. Now you might find me agreeing with a charge of unlawfully discharging a firearm within city limits.. with maybe a count of wreckless endangerment. But how and the hell can you support three charges of aggravated assault?

Aggravated assault is the crime of physically attacking another person which results in serious bodily harm and/or is committed with a deadly or dangerous weapon such as a gun, knife, sword, ax or blunt instrument.

I wasn't talking about this case.

Assault does not involve any violence or anyone getting hurt. So by dannno's reasoning, assault should not be a crime because there is no victim.

Your definition is wrong. That's battery, not assault.

In law, assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 12:01 PM
I wasn't talking about this case.

Assault does not involve any violence or anyone getting hurt. So by dannno's reasoning, assault should not be a crime because there is no victim.

Your definition is wrong. That's battery, not assault.
What is felonious assault? In my state assault equates violence. We have other charges of menacing etc. for what you and other states propose as assault. If you shoot someone, for example, and the wound is nonlife-threatening you are charged with felonious assault. We have simple assault, aggravated assault, felonious assault and probably a few more, but in all cases it stems from an act of violence.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 12:04 PM
What is felonious assault? In my state assault equates violence. We have other charges of menacing etc. for what you and other states propose as assault. If you shoot someone, for example, and the wound is nonlife-threatening you are charged with felonious assault. We have simple assault, aggravated assault, felonious assault and probably a few more, but in all cases it stems from an act of violence.

In common law assault is the threat of violence but does not involve any physical violence. Battery is physical violence.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 12:10 PM
What is felonious assault? In my state assault equates violence. We have other charges of menacing etc. for what you propose as assault. If you shoot someone, for example, and the wound is nonlife-threatening you are charged with felonious assault. We have simple assault, aggravated assault, felonious assault and probably a few more, but in all cases it stems from an act of violence.
Ummm, go google aggravated assault if you don't believe him, but I've taken law classes, and he's absolutely correct. Battery means violence whereas assault only requires threat of harm, while aggravated in this case = by use of a deadly weapon.

It is absolutely not correct that assault = violence. It is the threat of violence.

In fact, it is a requirement in many states that you feel imminently threatened for your safety or your family (assaulted) by a burglar to have recourse to shoot them. Kind of silly and easy to justify if someone's breaking into your home, but if you say "na, I wasn't scared, I jsut wasn't going to let that robber take my stuff", or shot him when he was fleeing, and/or even had other recourse, then you could be facing manslaughter or assault charges yourself.

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 12:11 PM
In common law assault is the threat of violence but does not involve any physical violence. Battery is physical violence.
You are correct. Here, however, they would charge you with menacing. Depending on the severity of the threats it could be either a felony or misdemeanor. You could also very well get a charge of making terroristic threats along with the menacing.

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Ummm, go google aggravated assault if you don't believe him, but I've taken law classes, and he's absolutely correct. Battery means violence whereas assault only requires threat of harm, while aggravated in this case = by use of a deadly weapon.

It is absolutely not correct that assault = violence. It is the threat of violence.

I understand he is correct. They do not charge you with assault for making threats in Ohio. No matter what the legal definition is, if you threaten someone out here, you are charged with menacing, or aggravated menacing, or making terroristic threats. If you punch someone, you will be charged with simple assault. If you hit someone with a hammer, you will be charged with felonious assault. So while I know he is technically correct, my state does things a little differently.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 12:17 PM
Discharing a firearm within city limits ... It's on the books, and IT IS a public safety issue.

In many places is is a class 6 felony ... Google it !!


Stupid law prevents me from shooting pests unless I get a specific permit and jump through some hoops.

Edit: I also think it is funny how azxd stands up for the guy who shoots an unarmed person in self defense but the woman who fired warning shot at her disgusting abusive husband? "Nope. She deserves to go to jail. How dare she stand up for herself!"

brushfire
05-02-2012, 12:19 PM
Lethal force is lethal force...

0:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_xaTf5oqI

If that trigger is pulled, you better have justification to use lethal force <period>

azxd
05-02-2012, 12:21 PM
Stupid law prevents me from shooting pests unless I get a specific permit.Working within the system :cool:
Well ... That is ... If our definitions of a "pest" are the same :eek:

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 12:22 PM
Stupid law prevents me from shooting pests unless I get a specific permit and jump through some hoops.

Edit: I also think it is funny how azxd stands up for the guy who shoots an unarmed person in self defense but the woman who fired warning shot at her disgusting abusive husband? "Nope. She deserves to go to jail. How dare she stand up for herself!"
You can thank assholes on the Fourth of July for that. And me too. Seems only cops can shoot people in az's eyes.

The Free Hornet
05-02-2012, 12:37 PM
I take it you don't comprehend what you just quoted about "how to legally survive a defensive shooting" ?

What is your point? Please assume I am daft and be clear and precise. You may have to explain the explanation just so I get it through my thick skull. Thanks.

To be fair, these were MY points:

1) cops are trained to not use warning shots

2) if a civilian make a warning shot or lethal shot, they should follow the generally good advice of saying as little as possible (use a good lawyer)

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 12:40 PM
1) cops are trained to not use warning shots

Is anyone?

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 12:48 PM
I have a question. Was the warning shot effective? Did her husband leave her alone? If so then why not use one? I'd rather fire a warning shot than murder someone because they're being an aggressive idiot.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 12:52 PM
Is anyone?
He didn't say "they're not trained to", he said "they're trained to not".

I agree that she should have said as little as possible, because once she opened her mouth, she confirmed several things:

1) that she went to get the firearm and returned, when she had other recourse of exiting from the front or back door, and also to not engage him.

2) That she did not shoot to kill in an imminently dangerous situation, but rather shot an indiscriminate and potentially dangerous warning shot, implying that she was not yet in imminent danger, and further, that she was not shooting in self-defense but to "scare", potentially at the injury of someone else.

If she had left it up to the lawyers, she would have had a much better chance of not being charged or convicted.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 12:52 PM
I have a question. Was the warning shot effective? Did her husband leave her alone? If so then why not use one? I'd rather fire a warning shot than murder someone because they're being an aggressive idiot.

If you don't fear for you life then you should never fire a weapon. If you do fear for your life, then you shoot to eliminate the threat.

Warning shots are stupid. Not only do they not neutralize the threat, but they give your attacker time to respond to your escalation of the situation and can be used as a defense when they do kill you.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 12:53 PM
I have a question. Was the warning shot effective? Did her husband leave her alone? If so then why not use one? I'd rather fire a warning shot than murder someone because they're being an aggressive idiot.
It doesn't matter. The law doesn't cover whether shooting is "effective" or not (and it's still dangerous and a matter of public safety regardless). It covers what instances and in what manner it's justified to use one. Again I don't necessarily blame her and they could/should certainly take mercy on her mistake, but she nonetheless made several mistakes here.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 12:54 PM
He didn't say "they're not trained to", he said "they're trained to not".

I agree that she should have said as little as possible, because once she opened her mouth, she confirmed several things:

1) that she went to get the firearm and returned, when she had other recourse of exiting from the front or back door, and also to not engage him.

2) That she did not shoot to kill in an imminently dangerous situation, but rather shot an indiscriminate and potentially dangerous warning shot, implying that she was not yet in imminent danger, and further, that she was not shooting in self-defense but to "scare", potentially at the injury of someone else.

If she had left it up to the lawyers, she would have had a much better chance of not being charged or convicted.

I know what he said. I was asking if anyone is ever trained to use warning shots. I've never heard of anyone being trained to do that. I've been trained that if I feel there is a need to use a weapon it's because there is a grave and imminent threat and that you only use your firearm to eliminate the threat, not as a warning.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 12:59 PM
I know what he said. I was asking if anyone is ever trained to use warning shots. I've never heard of anyone being trained to do that.
I was just clarifying, but no, you're right, it wouldn't even make sense to train someone to fire a warning shot, because you can't be certain where it's going to end up. Thus is why it's considered negligent and even assault, whether intentional or not, as a threat to other innocent bystander's safety with a deadly weapon.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:07 PM
I was just clarifying, but no, you're right, it wouldn't even make sense to train someone to fire a warning shot, because you can't be certain where it's going to end up. Thus is why it's considered negligent and even assault, whether intentional or not, as a threat to other innocent bystander's safety with a deadly weapon.
What if I shot it at the ground? Wouldn't the bullet get lodged in the dirt?


If you don't fear for you life then you should never fire a weapon. If you do fear for your life, then you shoot to eliminate the threat.

Warning shots are stupid. Not only do they not neutralize the threat, but they give your attacker time to respond to your escalation of the situation and can be used as a defense when they do kill you.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would willingly approach a person with a firearm who has just fired a warning shot at them.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:09 PM
What if I shot it at the ground? Wouldn't the bullet get lodged in the dirt?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would willingly approach a person with a firearm who has just fired a warning shot at them.

Another person with a firearm who now has the advantage?

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:13 PM
Edit: I also think it is funny how azxd stands up for the guy who shoots an unarmed person in self defense but the woman who fired warning shot at her disgusting abusive husband? "Nope. She deserves to go to jail. How dare she stand up for herself!"Nice edit ... When you start understanding how the law works, and perhaps own a firearm, then you might understand.

CaptainAmerica
05-02-2012, 01:13 PM
Should it be legal to fire guns in a residential area as a warning? I don't think so. Though 20 years sounds excessive. Probation would probably do is she doesn't have any priors.

I think there should be exceptions to the "law". A jury could nullify such a law anyway if they felt it was a stupid law.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:13 PM
What if I shot it at the ground? Wouldn't the bullet get lodged in the dirt?

Yes, assuming you didn't hit a rock, I've shot at targets on many a dirt pile... Would certainly help to not get nailed to the wall for it, but particularly in a populated area with kids around, it doesn't change that you should only shoot to kill, and not to scare.

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:14 PM
You can thank assholes on the Fourth of July for that. And me too. Seems only cops can shoot people in az's eyes.You are either extremely wrong in your perception, or haven't been following my posts.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:15 PM
Yes, assuming you didn't hit a rock, I've shot at targets on many a dirt pile... Would certianly help judtify it, but particularly in a populated area with kids around, it doesn't change that you should only shoot to kill, and not to scare.

Had she not fired the gun in the home couldn't he have beaten her to death? He has a history of abusing women and violence. Knowing this wouldn't it be reasonable to say that she thought he would kill her?


Nice edit ... When you start understanding how the law works, and perhaps own a firearm, then you might understand.

I laughed at this post.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:17 PM
Had she not fired the gun in the home couldn't he have beaten her to death? He has a history of abusing women and violence. Knowing this wouldn't it be reasonable to say that she thought he would kill her?

If she had feared he was going to beat her to death she would have either not come back inside the house or shot him.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:17 PM
Had she not fired the gun in the home couldn't he have beaten her to death? He has a history of abusing women and violence. Knowing this wouldn't it be reasonable to say that she thought he would kill her?
Then shoot him, if you think you're in extreme danger. Don't fire off a shot indiscriminately in a populated area though.

Further, deadly force is only justified when you have no other recourse, not to go out and get your gun and return to the dangerous situation. Did you learn nothing from the Tayvon Martin sensationalism?

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:18 PM
What is your point? Please assume I am daft and be clear and precise. You may have to explain the explanation just so I get it through my thick skull. Thanks.

To be fair, these were MY points:

1) cops are trained to not use warning shots

2) if a civilian make a warning shot or lethal shot, they should follow the generally good advice of saying as little as possible (use a good lawyer)And your points are valid, and have been written by me, on this forum ... But I think you might have skimmed over part of your quote, or just not understood what was being said.

... if you fired a warning shot then your first shot did miss, but let him be the one to tell the cops that. After all, the difference between a warning shot and a kill shot is the shooter's intention. Since your lawyer is not psychic he can't know whether you fired for warning or effect, so he is not lying to the police.
"Him" is a reference to a lawyer ;)

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:19 PM
Then shoot him, if you think you're in extreme danger. Don't fire off a shot indiscriminately in a populated area though.

Further, deadly force is only justified when you have no other recourse, not to go out and get your gun and return to the dangerous situation. Did you learn nothing from the Tayvon Martin sensationalism?

She didn't have her keys right? It also said that the garage door wouldn't work and she left her cell behind. She had no way of fleeing. So she had to return to the dangerous situation either way. Would you do it unarmed or armed?

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:19 PM
I have a question. Was the warning shot effective? Did her husband leave her alone? If so then why not use one? I'd rather fire a warning shot than murder someone because they're being an aggressive idiot.A defensive shooting is NOT murder.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:21 PM
She didn't have her keys right? So she had to return to the dangerous situation either way. Would you do it unarmed or armed?

No she didn't. She could have left the house instead of going into the garage to grab a gun and going back into the house.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:22 PM
A defensive shooting is NOT murder.

To me, even if I shoot someone in self defense, I just murdered a human being. Iced, wasted, killed, whatever you want to call it. It's taking someone's life through violence.

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:24 PM
Yes, assuming you didn't hit a rock, I've shot at targets on many a dirt pile... Would certainly help to not get nailed to the wall for it, but particularly in a populated area with kids around, it doesn't change that you should only shoot to kill stop the threat, and not to scare.Fixed it for you ... And I thought you had it all together, until you used that word.

You NEVER shoot to do more than stop a threat.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:24 PM
No she didn't. She could have left the house instead of going into the garage to grab a gun and going back into the house.


When Alexander managed to get by, she ran through the kitchen to the garage, where she says she realized she did not have the keys to her car, could not call for help because she had left her cellphone behind, and could not escape because the garage door was not working. Instead she grabbed her handgun from her car and headed back through the kitchen, where Gray confronted her again.

The only way out was to go back through the kitchen and get out the front and by doing so she would have ran into him again. All I'm trying to say is that this woman doesn't even deserve to be in jail for something like this. She really had no other choice than to threaten him with physical violence by use of a warning shot and he backed down.

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:26 PM
To me, even if I shoot someone in self defense, I just murdered a human being. Iced, wasted, killed, whatever you want to call it. It's taking someone's life through violence.If you ever do, you will have to deal with your own conscious ... But your conscious has nothing to do with how laws are interpreted.

ETA: Nor does it (your conscious) have anything to do with what you perceive defense and offense to be.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:26 PM
The only way out was to go back through the kitchen and get out the front and by doing so she would have ran into him again.

She did not have to go into the garage and grab a gun. She could have just left the house. But anyway, that's not the point here. The point is she should not have fired a "warning shot". If you feel like you're in grave danger you shoot to eliminate the threat or flee. You don't shoot a warning shot.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:28 PM
She did not have to go into the garage and grab a gun. She could have just left the house. But anyway, that's not the point here. The point is she should not have fired a "warning shot". If you feel like you're in grave danger you shoot to eliminate the threat or flee. You don't shoot a warning shot.

She didn't go to get the gun. She went to the garage to flee and the realized she didn't have her keys and the garage door wouldn't open. In the heat of the moment she ran to the garage which ended up being a bad decision. Not everyone (especially the battered woman standing up to her abusive husband) has the will to shoot someone. Are you honestly saying you disagree with what she did or that she should have aimed a little lower?

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:29 PM
The only way out was to go back through the kitchen and get out the front and by doing so she would have ran into him again. All I'm trying to say is that this woman doesn't even deserve to be in jail for something like this. She really had no other choice than to threaten him with physical violence by use of a warning shot and he backed down.BS ... As I already stated ... She could have stayed in the garage, and waited ... But she didn't.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:29 PM
Not everyone (especially the battered woman standing up to her abusive husband) has the will to shoot someone. Are you honestly saying you disagree with what she did or that she should have aimed a little lower?

I'm saying that if she felt her life was in danger she should have shot him, otherwise discharging a firearm inside a house in a populated area is reckless, foolish and plain stupid.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:31 PM
I'm saying that if she felt her life was in danger she should have shot him, otherwise discharging a firearm inside a house in a populated area is reckless, foolish and plain stupid.

Even soldiers whose lives were in danger during WW1 didn't fire their weapons.


BS ... As I already stated ... She could have stayed in the garage, and waited ... But she didn't.

What's to stop him from entering the garage and continuing the assault while she waits?

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:33 PM
The only way out was to go back through the kitchen and get out the front and by doing so she would have ran into him again. All I'm trying to say is that this woman doesn't even deserve to be in jail for something like this. She really had no other choice than to threaten him with physical violence by use of a warning shot and he backed down.
That is not what the judge determined:

"Circuit Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt rejected Alexander's motion to dismiss, saying she could have escaped through the front or back door instead of going to the garage."

The situation is actually completely similar to the Trayvon case, except we know what happened here. She had other recourses than confronting him with a weapon, but she did so, and not in a self-defense manner, but in an indiscriminate manner that could have gotten someone hurt or killed by her intentionally missing him.

Again, if she left it up to the lawyers, she'd probably be far better off. Her final mistake was most likely being too forthcoming with how it all went down.

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:33 PM
Even soldiers whose lives were in danger during WW1 didn't fire their weapons.



What's to stop him front entering the garage?First comment has nothing to do with the thread, but to divert.

Second comment ... A woman with a gun who felt threatened that her life was in danger.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:34 PM
What's to stop him from entering the garage and continuing the assault while she waits?

If her life was in danger then she should shoot to end that threat. What part of that don't you understand?

Firing a warning shot in a house in a crowded neighbourhood is not the right thing to do.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:34 PM
What's to stop him from entering the garage and continuing the assault while she waits?
Then he'd be confronting her, and she'd be well within her rights to cap him if she felt threatened. That's far different than going and getting a weapon and then returning and then firing indiscriminately, when she had other recourses that didn't endanger inncoent bystanders or require deadly force.

It's really that simple, and you're really grapsing for straws here.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:34 PM
That is not what the judge determined:

"Circuit Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt rejected Alexander's motion to dismiss, saying she could have escaped through the front or back door instead of going to the garage."

The situation is actually completely similar to the Trayvon case, except we know what happened here. She had other recourses than confronting him with a weapon, but she did so, and not in a self-defense manner, but in an indiscriminate manner that could have gotten someone hurt or killed by her intentionally missing him.

Again, if she left it up to the lawyers, she'd probably be far better off. Her final mistake was most likely being too forthcoming with how it all went down.

You could have done this, you should have done that, it doesn't mean anything in the heat of the moment. People make foolish decisions and mistakes.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:35 PM
You could have done this, you should have done that, it doesn't mean anything in the heat of the moment. People make foolish decisions and mistakes.

And people pay for their foolish decisions and mistakes.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:35 PM
First comment has nothing to do with the thread, but to divert.

Second comment ... A woman with a gun who felt threatened that her life was in danger.

A woman who couldn't even shoot him.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:39 PM
You could have done this, you should have done that, it doesn't mean anything in the heat of the moment. People make foolish decisions and mistakes.
Foolish decisions and mistakes are not tolerated when it comes to whether you can use deadly force or fire indiscriminately (and nearly any criminal or innocent person who gets arrested surely views it as a "foolsih decision or mistake". It changes nothing). Of course the juge or jury can still take mercy on you, but they're certainly not required to when it comes to firing a weapon indiscriminately and unneccesarily.

The Free Hornet
05-02-2012, 01:43 PM
And your points are valid, and have been written by me, on this forum ... But I think you might have skimmed over part of your quote, or just not understood what was being said.
"Him" is a reference to a lawyer ;)

I asked if you could be precise in your explanation of this comment: "I take it you don't comprehend what you just quoted about 'how to legally survive a defensive shooting'?" Instead you give a winky face and state the obvious (that "him" references the lawyer, but I made no comments after that quote to suggest I understood or misunderstood the pronoun).

That same post, I wrote 5 sentences (quotes omitted):

1) If it's legal to shoot someone, it should be legal to intentionally miss (warning shot).

2) She should be commended.

3) We might try the same with police if ever they get over their fear of grandmas, butter knives, and puppies.

4) It would seem police are specifically trained not to ever use a warning shot:

5) This link gives some good advice on how to legally survive a defensive shooting:

What in the 5 five sentences written prior to the quote could possibly suggest that I do not understand the quote or to what the pronoun "him" refers? I made no comment on the quote other than to call it "good advice" (summarized as: STFU, get a lawyer).

tttppp
05-02-2012, 01:44 PM
Reckless endangerment. Even if no one is hurt, reckless behavior which could have caused someone or someone's property harm is a crime.

Isn't the boyfriend the one responsible for the reckless endangerment? She only fired the gun in self defense. The boyfriend should be responsible for whatever she hit.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:47 PM
Isn't the boyfriend the one responsible for the reckless endangerment? She only fired the gun in self defense. The boyfriend should be responsible for whatever she hit.

The one responsible for reckless endangerment is whoever gave a woman a gun!

But no, she would be responsible because shooting indiscriminately is foolish and reckless. If you truly fear for your life you don't shoot a random warning shot, you shoot to eliminate the threat. To shoot a gun randomly in a house, in a populated area is reckless not only in that it could hurt someone else, but that it escalates the situation and puts you into a more vulnerable position if there is a real threat.

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:47 PM
First comment has nothing to do with the thread, but to divert.

Second comment ... A woman with a gun who felt threatened that her life was in danger.


A woman who couldn't even shoot him.Because she wasn't feeling that her life was in danger ... You are absolutely correct.


Alexander, however, said she did not aim the gun at her husband. She said she fired into the air intending to scare him away and Gray quickly left the house with his two children. No one was hurt in the incident, but Alexander sits in jail facing a 20-year sentence on three charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

GUILTY

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:48 PM
From what I understand the people who think she acted wrongly only think so because she didn't kill him.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:49 PM
Because she wasn't feeling that her life was in danger ... You are absolutely correct.

GUILTY

Yep. Throw her in jail and throw away the key. Your posts get more and more idiotic as time goes on. Settling disputes without sending someone to the morgue? Pffft, no thanks. Give her 20 years for not shooting him.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:49 PM
1) If it's legal to shoot someone, it should be legal to intentionally miss (warning shot).

I'm with you on the other stuff, but no, it absolutely should not be legal to intentionally miss...

As you said, if she'd kept her mouth shut, then how were they to prove that she did or didn't intentionally miss? However, that does not change the fact that the only time you're justified to fire your weapon is to try to eliminate the imminent threat of harm, not to be used indiscriminately as a pre-emptive scare tactic that could get an innocent bystander hurt or killed because of that intentional action.

Further, going to get a weapon rather than fleeing, and then returning to confront him with it, only makes that intentionally negligent action all that more damning.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:51 PM
From what I understand the people who think she acted wrongly only think so because she didn't kill him.

No. I think she acted wrongly because she recklessly discharged a firearm. You only shoot if you believe there is a grave and imminent threat to your or someone else's life. She obviously did not fear for her life, but fired off a shot anyway. It was foolish and reckless.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:52 PM
From what I understand the people who think she acted wrongly only think so because she didn't kill him.

Then you're completely hopeless to try to reason with... THsi has nothing to do with opinion (I actually side with her, other than her negligence). It ONLY has to do with what is legally justified to use deadly force (and only deadly force, not a shot to scare someone that could injure/kill an innocent bystander).

Why do you not care about what her actions could have resulted in? Someone could have gotten killed, when she had recourses that would have resulted in no shots fired at all, or only at the threatening party.

Anyways, I'm done arguing with you... You seem to want to be right so badly that you're completely willnig to overlook what the law says and what responsible gun ownership requires.

tttppp
05-02-2012, 01:53 PM
The one responsible for reckless endangerment is whoever gave a woman a gun!

But no, she would be responsible because shooting indiscriminately is foolish and reckless. If you truly fear for your life you don't shoot a random warning shot, you shoot to eliminate the threat. To shoot a gun randomly in a house, in a populated area is reckless not only in that it could hurt someone else, but that it escalates the situation and puts you into a more vulnerable position if there is a real threat.

What is she suppose to be an expert in firearms or something? She grabbed a gun to save her life. She's not some dumb fuck who just randomly fired shots for the hell of it.

Also, if the self defense argument does not work, what about temporary insanity? I think the fact that she felt her life was in danger made her do something she wouldn't ordinarily do.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:53 PM
No. I think she acted wrongly because she recklessly discharged a firearm. You only shoot if you believe there is a grave and imminent threat to your or someone else's life. She obviously did not fear for her life, but fired off a shot anyway. It was foolish and reckless.

// whatever

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:55 PM
Then you're completely hopeless to try to reason with... THsi has nothing to do with opinion (I actually side with her, other than her negligence). It ONLY has to do with what is legally justified to use deadly force (and only deadly force, not a shot to scare someone that could injure/kill an innocent bystander).

Why do you not care about what her actions could have resulted in? Someone could have gotten killed, when she had recourses that would have resulted in no shots fired at all, or only at the threatening party.

Anyways, I'm done arguing with you... You seem to want to be right so badly that you're completely willnig to overlook what the law says and what responsible gun ownership requires.

// whatever

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:55 PM
What is she suppose to be an expert in firearms or something? She grabbed a gun to save her life. She's not some dumb fuck who just randomly fired shots for the hell of it.

Also, if the self defense argument does not work, what about temporary insanity? I think the fact that she felt her life was in danger made her do something she wouldn't ordinarily do.

If you have a firearm you should know how to use it. Only an idiot buys a firearm and doesn't get the proper training and knowledge of the law. She may have grabbed the gun to save her life, but her warning shot was not to save her life, it was to scare her husband. You don't shoot to scare, it's stupid and reckless. It can accidentally hit an innocent bystander or escalate the situation.

If your life is in danger you shoot to end that threat. If you don't feel your life is threatened you don't shoot. Simple as that.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 01:56 PM
So...exactly what I said right? You think that if she believed that her life was in danger she shouldn't have fired the warning shot. She should have just shot him? Right?

Yes, if your life is in imminent danger you don't fire a warning shot. That's just stupid.


I'm not even arguing with you over anything. I simply think that what she did is fine and she shouldn't go to jail for it.

Who said anything about killing? Eliminating the threat doesn't mean killing.

Are you purposely being so obtuse?

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 01:57 PM
Responsible gun ownership says I can't shoot someone unless I plan on killing them and I can't shoot at someone to warn them? No thanks then.
Yes, obviuosly you've never taken a hutners or gun safety course. You do not fire, let alone point at anything unless you're prepared to kill whoever is (or might be) on the other end. Period.

There are consequences to firing indiscriminately, and it's a public safety issue. I assuem you'd feel differently if he bullet had come in your window and into your kids' room

azxd
05-02-2012, 01:58 PM
I asked if you could be precise in your explanation of this comment: "I take it you don't comprehend what you just quoted about 'how to legally survive a defensive shooting'?" Instead you give a winky face and state the obvious (that "him" references the lawyer, but I made no comments after that quote to suggest I understood or misunderstood the pronoun).

That same post, I wrote 5 sentences (quotes omitted):

1) If it's legal to shoot someone, it should be legal to intentionally miss (warning shot).

2) She should be commended.

3) We might try the same with police if ever they get over their fear of grandmas, butter knives, and puppies.

4) It would seem police are specifically trained not to ever use a warning shot:

5) This link gives some good advice on how to legally survive a defensive shooting:

What in the 5 five sentences written prior to the quote could possibly suggest that I do not understand the quote or to what the pronoun "him" refers? I made no comment on the quote other than to call it "good advice" (summarized as: STFU, get a lawyer).Lets review, shall we..............




If he was enough of a threat that she felt justified to discharge a firearm within her home, she should have shot to stop the threat.

Laws are very clear on what constitutes the defensive use of a firearm, and she screwed up.


If it's legal to shoot someone, it should be legal to intentionally miss (warning shot). She should be commended.
That right there indicated you only think you know what you're talking about, and didn't comprehend what you quoted.

The quote is obvioulsy stating that if you fired a warning shot, your lawyer should tell LE that you missed.

And if you haven't figured it out yet, based on the comments of myself and others ... Your assumption about legal warning shots is totally wrong.

She shouldn't be commended ... She should have the book thrown at her.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 01:59 PM
Yes, have you ever taken a gun safety course? You do not fire, let alone point at anything unless you're prepared to kill whoever is (or might be) on the other end. Period.

There are consequences to firing indiscriminately, and it's a public safety issue. I assuem you'd feel differently if he bullet had come in your window and into your kids' room

Are you saying it's physically impossible to fire a warning shot in a residential area without some innocent bystander being killed?

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:00 PM
Well...wouldn't a responsible gun owner know how to fire a weapon so that it doesn't magically veer into my neighbors window?

That just goes to show how clueless you are. You either shoot the person threatening you or you don't shoot at all. You never know what the bullet might hit and ricochet off of or if it will go through a wall or ceiling.

tod evans
05-02-2012, 02:01 PM
If you don't feel your life is threatened you don't shoot. Simple as that.


But....but........I got my young ass peppered with rock salt for fishing in the wrong pond back in the '70's..:cool:

azxd
05-02-2012, 02:02 PM
From what I understand the people who think she acted wrongly only think so because she didn't kill him.Your ASSumptions are outstanding, but wrong.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:02 PM
That just goes to show how clueless you are. You either shoot the person threatening you or you don't shoot at all. You never know what the bullet might hit and ricochet off of or if it will go through a wall or ceiling.

Nope. Warning shots can be fired without magically killing people with ricochet.

tttppp
05-02-2012, 02:02 PM
If you have a firearm you should know how to use it. Only an idiot buys a firearm and doesn't get the proper training and knowledge of the law. She may have grabbed the gun to save her life, but her warning shot was not to save her life, it was to scare her husband. You don't shoot to scare, it's stupid and reckless. It can accidentally hit an innocent bystander or escalate the situation.

If your life is in danger you shoot to end that threat. If you don't feel your life is threatened you don't shoot. Simple as that.

Have you ever shot and killed someone? My guess is that a lot of people are not capable of doing that. She probably felt that not killing someone was the best option. But that still doesn't address the point that the boyfriend is the one who caused all of this. He should be held responsible for his actions. You are acting like this woman made a conscious decision to fuck up. She didn't cause this, the boyfriend did.

azxd
05-02-2012, 02:04 PM
Yep. Throw her in jail and throw away the key. Your posts get more and more idiotic as time goes on. Settling disputes without sending someone to the morgue? Pffft, no thanks. Give her 20 years for not shooting him.All I see from you is emotion ... Try using a bit of logic and legal defense for a change.

It might save you from using words like "idiotic" to describe those you attempt to debate.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:04 PM
But....but........I got my young ass peppered with rock salt for fishing in the wrong pond back in the '70's..:cool:

That's different. No one shot a bullet at you. No one shot a bullet in a populated area. Rock salt shells are non-lethal.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:04 PM
Have you ever shot and killed someone? My guess is that a lot of people are not capable of doing that. She probably felt that not killing someone was the best option. But that still doesn't address the point that the boyfriend is the one who caused all of this. He should be held responsible for his actions. You are acting like this woman made a conscious decision to fuck up. She didn't cause this, the boyfriend did.

+rep

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:04 PM
All I see from you is emotion ... Try using a bit of logic and legal defense for a change.

It might save you from using words like "idiotic" to describe those you attempt to debate.


If only you had followed your own advice so long ago.

By the way: the law isn't always right.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:06 PM
Have you ever shot and killed someone? My guess is that a lot of people are not capable of doing that. She probably felt that not killing someone was the best option. But that still doesn't address the point that the boyfriend is the one who caused all of this. He should be held responsible for his actions. You are acting like this woman made a conscious decision to fuck up. She didn't cause this, the boyfriend did.

I've never said he shouldn't be held accountable for being abusive and that's not what we're talking about here. And no, I've never killed anyone but I have shot at someone breaking in.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:07 PM
I've never said he shouldn't be held accountable for being abusive and that's not what we're talking about here. And no, I've never killed anyone but I have shot at someone breaking in.

Shot at?

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 02:07 PM
Are you saying it's physically impossible to fire a warning shot in a residential area without some innocent bystander being killed?
It went through 1 wall before ending up in a ceiling (stud probably), and bullets can richochet or pass easily. There is no way she could have known for certain it was a safe shot, not knowing exactly what was on the other side of that wall to either pass through, ricochet or stop it. If it's nothing but sheetrock, particle board or a window, that bullet could go a ways.

If she'd just shot it straight up to the roof, she might have a slightly better case, knowing it had a roof to get through too with probably little momentum left after that, but according to the article, she shot high right through the wall, so obviously a fairly horizontal shot.

azxd
05-02-2012, 02:07 PM
Nope. Warning shots can be fired without magically killing people with ricochet.I think you should prove your theory, and let us know how the trial ends :p

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:08 PM
Shot at?

Yes shot at. I didn't kill.

tttppp
05-02-2012, 02:09 PM
I've never said he shouldn't be held accountable for being abusive and that's not what we're talking about here. And no, I've never killed anyone but I have shot at someone breaking in.

Even though she felt threatened, I'm sure she had pretty good reason for not wanting to shoot her boyfriend.

Shouldn't the boyfriend be doing her jail time?

What about temporary insanity? Do you believe this woman was in the right state of mind when she fired the shot?

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:09 PM
I think you should prove your theory, and let us know how the trial ends :p

Why haven't you been banned yet?

azxd
05-02-2012, 02:10 PM
Have you ever shot and killed someone? My guess is that a lot of people are not capable of doing that. She probably felt that not killing someone was the best option. But that still doesn't address the point that the boyfriend is the one who caused all of this. He should be held responsible for his actions. You are acting like this woman made a conscious decision to fuck up. She didn't cause this, the boyfriend did.Do you have proof that they man forced her to possess the gun and pull the trigger ... Or is this just an attempt to be right about something ?

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:10 PM
Yes shot at. I didn't kill.

What if your bullet had hit your neighbor's child and killed them?

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:11 PM
Even though she felt threatened, I'm sure she had pretty good reason for not wanting to shoot her boyfriend.

Shouldn't the boyfriend be doing her jail time?

What about temporary insanity? Do you believe this woman was in the right state of mind when she fired the shot?

If she had no intention of shooting him, she should have never fired a single shot in the first place.

If her boyfriend/husband hit her, then yes he should be in jail for battery.

I can't say what her state of mind was and I'd leave that to a jury.

tod evans
05-02-2012, 02:11 PM
What about temporary insanity? Do you believe this woman was in the right state of mind when she fired the shot?

I'll bet she was either scared or pissed......maybe both.

Neither of these emotions equates to "insanity".

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:11 PM
What if your bullet had hit your neighbor's child and killed them?

Kind of hard for buckshot to travel 2.5 miles into my neighbor's home.

tttppp
05-02-2012, 02:12 PM
Do you have proof that they man forced her to possess the gun and pull the trigger ... Or is this just an attempt to be right about something ?

I'm just going by what the article stated, just like you. I don't understand why I'm expected to have first hand knowledge of this case while you don't.

azxd
05-02-2012, 02:13 PM
Why haven't you been banned yet?

Another nice edit LOL


Okay:

A person wishing to rob me is breaking into my home. I fire a warning shot and they run away: nobody dies. End of story.
Sorry to take advantage of your emotions, once again.

But ............ Theories are never proven with hypothetical stories.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:13 PM
Why haven't you been banned yet?
Why haven't you? You seem quite trollish, to be honest.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:13 PM
Kind of hard for buckshot to travel 2.5 miles into my neighbor's home.

lol ok you got me there.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 02:14 PM
Even though she felt threatened, I'm sure she had pretty good reason for not wanting to shoot her boyfriend.
Okay, then she should have fled and not gone for her gun.

And if it's a matter of you-or-me dying, then it doesn't matter if she didn't want to shoot her boyfriend. If it was a matter of imminent threat to her life (what's required to use deadly force), then she had little choice. However, she did have other choices (recourses), then she should not have gotten her gun and then gone back to confront him, and then top it off by putting others in danger by shooting indiscriminately.

Yes, it was a mistake, but gun laws are serious for a reason. You can't jsut go planting a bullet whereever you want. You either do it to stop an imminent threat by shooting it, or you don't shoot. It's that simple, and the law agrees with me.

tttppp
05-02-2012, 02:14 PM
I'll bet she was either scared or pissed......maybe both.

Neither of these emotions equates to "insanity".

Scared people are just as dangerous as mentally unstable people. In my opinion, being scared for your life is more of a defense than having a mental defect.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:14 PM
[QUOTE=DerailingDaTrain;4392792]Why haven't you been banned yet?[/QUOTE
Why haven't you? You seem quite trollish, to be honest.

Yep, I participate in political discussions, attend Ron Paul events ( which I've posted about), and promote everything Ron Paul through other forums I post at and FB all as part of my troll behavior. Please do go on believing I'm a troll because I disagree with you on the subject of warning shots.

azxd
05-02-2012, 02:15 PM
I'm just going by what the article stated, just like you. I don't understand why I'm expected to have first hand knowledge of this case while you don't.I read the article links and case documents.

But you made an assumption about this man forcing her to do something.

Why did she stay with the man after the first assault ?
IMO, that's where she screwed up, originally ... Everything else is a cascading effect.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:15 PM
Yes, it was a mistake, but gun laws are serious for a reason. You can't jsut go planting a bullet whereever you want. You either do it to stop an imminent threat by shooting it, or you don't shoot. It's that simple, and the law agrees with me.

And Jeb agrees as well ;)

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:16 PM
Another nice edit LOL
Sorry to take advantage of your emotions, once again.

But ............ Theories are never proven with hypothetical stories.

Nobody likes you. Leave. You don't support Ron Paul and every time you post it's in conflict with another forum member who is actually a RP supporter. Since when are people not allowed to edit posts? I edited that because it was unnecessary because I had already stated my position in other posts.

tod evans
05-02-2012, 02:17 PM
Scared people are just as dangerous as mentally unstable people. In my opinion, being scared for your life is more of a defense than having a mental defect.


Good luck with that one in a court room, especially given the chain of events laid out in the article.

tttppp
05-02-2012, 02:17 PM
If she had no intention of shooting him, she should have never fired a single shot in the first place.

If her boyfriend/husband hit her, then yes he should be in jail for battery.

I can't say what her state of mind was and I'd leave that to a jury.

I don't know what her state of mind was. But if I was a lawyer, I'd either go for the self defense argument or temporary insanity.

jmdrake
05-02-2012, 02:18 PM
Are you people nuts? Who's to say it was a warning shot? Maybe she just really sucks at shooting and really missed by a lot. Her next shot obviously would have been closer if he kept advancing toward her. Damn, she was in fear for her life, give the woman a break!

Yep. She didn't "shoot into the ceiling". She shot and missed and the bullet ended up in the ceiling in another room. From the article.

In his deposition Gray admitted he "had told her if she ever cheated on me I would kill her" and during the fight said, "If I can't have you, nobody can." He conceded he "was going towards her" when Alexander fired a single shot, high and to his right, that went through the kitchen wall and lodged in the ceiling of the living room. Finally he left, along with his two sons.

Jury should have nullified. Or better yet just found her not guilty.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:19 PM
I don't know what her state of mind was. But if I was a lawyer, I'd either go for the self defense argument or temporary insanity.

Self defense would work, temporary insanity wouldn't. I honestly don't think she should have been charged with aggravated assault, but she shouldn't be let of Scott free. She should have been charged with reckless endangerment and gotten probation for firing the gun.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:19 PM
Jury should have nullified. Or better yet just found her not guilty.

Of aggravated assault, definitely.

tod evans
05-02-2012, 02:20 PM
Jury should have nullified. Or better yet just found her not guilty.

***********We have a winner!*************

Bet ya` a cyber dollar the jury was never informed of their duty to nullify....

tttppp
05-02-2012, 02:21 PM
Self defense would work, temporary insanity wouldn't. I honestly don't think she should have been charged with aggravated assault, but she shouldn't be let of Scott free. She should have been charged with reckless endangerment and gotten probation for firing the gun.

I could understand a mild punishment for her. Technically she did something dangerous and stupid, but its not like she meant to do it. 20 years is just ridiculous. I don't think its a worthwhile investment for us to have to pay for her jail time.

tttppp
05-02-2012, 02:23 PM
By the way, what kind of persecutor wastes taxpayer money on a case like this?

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 02:23 PM
Jury should have nullified. Or better yet just found her not guilty.
My guess is that she damned herself during the police questioning, by admitting that it was a warning shot. Seems like the only way they could determine that it was.

However, note that one of her motions was denied because she could have fleed through one of the exits, but instead went for her gun and came back into the escalated situation in the house. Again, in that regard it's similar to the Trayvon cas,e only they obviously knew in this case that she got her gun and did not flee or hide, but confronted.

But I think it's fair to say that those involved know far more of the details than we do, so we can really only speculate.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:24 PM
I could understand a mild punishment for her. Technically she did something dangerous and stupid, but its not like she meant to do it. 20 years is just ridiculous. I don't think its a worthwhile investment for us to have to pay for her jail time.

I agree. Probation would have been more than enough.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:25 PM
My guess is that she damned herself during the police testimony, by admitting that it was a warning shot. Seems like the only way they could determine that it was.

However, note that one of her motions was denied because she could have fleed through one of the exits, but instead went for her gun and came back into the escalated situation in the house. Again, in that regard it's similar to the Trayvon cas,e only they obviously knew in this case that she got her gun and did not flee or hide, but confronted.

But I think it's fair to say that those involved know far more of the details than we do, so we can really only speculate.

That's why stand your ground wouldn't apply. She fled and came back to confront him with a gun.

The Free Hornet
05-02-2012, 02:28 PM
Lets review, shall we..............

That right there indicated you only think you know what you're talking about, and didn't comprehend what you quoted.

The quote is obvioulsy stating that if you fired a warning shot, your lawyer should tell LE that you missed.

And if you haven't figured it out yet, based on the comments of myself and others ... Your assumption about legal warning shots is totally wrong.

She shouldn't be commended ... She should have the book thrown at her.

First, my comments about her being commended and that her actions "SHOULD" be legal are a critique of what the law ought to be. You disappoint me by not understanding that. If I say there "SHOULD" be no capital gains tax, that is not advising somebody to not pay the tax.

Second, the use of "SHOULD" in the legal advice is what anybody "SHOULD" do after a weapons discharge.

My use of should is prescriptive with respect to the law, the lawyer's use of should is descriptive. This should have been obvious - maybe other people besides you were confused.

Regardless, we disagree about what the law should be ("She should have the book thrown at her"). Instead of making a comment that clearly indicated that point, you chose to be a troll and you're going in the bucket.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 02:29 PM
I agree. Probation would have been more than enough.
I agree as well that the penalty is way too harsh, especially when the husband is far from innocent here.... I think those arguing against us are confusing sympathy (which I have noting but sympathy for her situation) with what's legal and justified to do with a gun.

The Free Hornet
05-02-2012, 02:31 PM
Here's the bucket.

jmdrake
05-02-2012, 02:33 PM
My guess is that she damned herself during the police questioning, by admitting that it was a warning shot. Seems like the only way they could determine that it was.

Looks like you're right.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/marissa-alexander-sentencing-delayed-stand-your-ground-exposed-for-hypocrisy-74224/
"I was terrified from the first encounter and feared he came to do as he threatened (end her life). In fear and a desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the way up the ceiling," she noted.


However, note that one of her motions was denied because she could have fleed through one of the exits, but instead went for her gun and came back into the escalated situation in the house. Again, in that regard it's similar to the Trayvon cas,e only they obviously knew in this case that she got her gun and did not flee or hide, but confronted.

But I think it's fair to say that those involved know far more of the details than we do, so we can really only speculate.[/QUOTE]

Well I was avoiding a Trayvon reference out of general principal, but......if Zimmerman has a "right" to get out of his car and follow someone he thinks is suspicious, why did Marissa not have a right to go back into her own home?

Makes no sense.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 02:46 PM
Well I was avoiding a Trayvon reference out of general principal, but......if Zimmerman has a "right" to get out of his car and follow someone he thinks is suspicious, why did Marissa not have a right to go back into her own home?

Makes no sense.
Because the crux of the Trayvon case is whether he confronted Trayvon or Trayvon confronted him. Following someone "suspcious" (completely arbitrary and subjective I know), but it isn't a crime. However, confronting him is a whole different story, and not justified to shoot when he had other recourses than to confront... Thus is why he's being charge I assumed, and may well be convicted, to determine who confronted who...

Note that there had already been a confrontation going on before she got the gun, and rather than fleeing or "standing her ground" in the garage where her gun was, she returned to the already-confrontation with a firearm, and thus did not due her due diligence to avoid a confrontation with the firearm.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 02:50 PM
Because the crux of the Trayvon case is whether he confronted Trayvon or Trayvon confronted him. Following someone "suspcious" (completely arbitrary and subjective I know), but it isn't a crime. However, confronting him is a whole different story, and not justified to shoot when he had other recourses than to confront... Thus is why he's being charge I assumed, and may well be convicted, to determine who confronted who...

Note that there had already been a confrontation going on before she got the gun, and rather than fleeing or "standing her ground" in the garage where her gun was, she returned to the already-confrontation with a firearm, and thus did not due her due diligence to avoid a confrontation with the firearm.

Guys, do not turn this thread into 200 pages too. I beg you.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 02:51 PM
Guys, do not turn this thread into 200 pages too. I beg you.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AlvMRt9uCGo/T2gKuzlSjgI/AAAAAAAADPg/D_a8jL2QglQ/s400/challenge-accepted.jpg

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 02:59 PM
Guys, do not turn this thread into 200 pages too. I beg you.
Dude, you're the one who's turned this into a 16 page thread by ignoring the fact that the law is written a certain way for good reason, but I do agree on not making this a thread about that sensationalistic divisive media crap. I only used that case as an example of "stand your ground" that doesn't apply in this case (and we're yet to find out if it does in that one either). I have absolutely no interest in debating a case that we don't have all the facts on and hasn't even gone to trial yet.

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 03:02 PM
Dude, you're the one who's turned this into a 16 page thread by ignoring the fact that the law is written a certain way for good reason, but I do agree on not making this a thread about that sensationalistic divisive media crap. I only used that case as an example of "stand your ground" that doesn't apply in this case (and we're yet to find out if it does in that one either). I have absolutely no interest in debating a case that we don't have all the facts on and hasn't even gone to trial yet.

I have less posts in this thread than most of the people talking in this thread.

Edit: I have posted 25 times in this entire thread.

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 03:11 PM
... She should have the book thrown at her.
Wow. Leave it to azxd.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 03:12 PM
duplicate.... forums slow today or something...

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 03:13 PM
I have less posts in this thread than most of the people talking in this thread.

Edit: I have posted 25 times in this entire thread.
Congratulations then. You did quite the nice job of reeling in a boat load of responses by being so woefully ignorant to the law and common sense that you don't fire a weapon indiscriminately or at all if you don't intend to shoot the threat. You may not be a troll, but you sure are acting like one.

I should have just been done with this pages ago. There's not convincing those who don't wish to listen. Have a nice day, and please don't consider gun ownership. It's not for everybody.

jmdrake
05-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Because the crux of the Trayvon case is whether he confronted Trayvon or Trayvon confronted him. Following someone "suspcious" (completely arbitrary and subjective I know), but it isn't a crime. However, confronting him is a whole different story, and not justified to shoot when he had other recourses than to confront... Thus is why he's being charge I assumed, and may well be convicted, to determine who confronted who...

Note that there had already been a confrontation going on before she got the gun, and rather than fleeing or "standing her ground" in the garage where her gun was, she returned to the already-confrontation with a firearm, and thus did not due her due diligence to avoid a confrontation with the firearm.

Let me see if I understand. If Zimmerman "confronted" Trayvon, not hit him or pointed his gun at him, just "confronted" him then the SYG law wouldn't apply in your opinion? :confused:

Anyhow, I think the amount of time served should be proportional to the amount of bodily harm actually done and/or the amount of property damage actually done. I know, the law doesn't always work that way, but it should.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 04:18 PM
Let me see if I understand. If Zimmerman "confronted" Trayvon, not hit him or pointed his gun at him, just "confronted" him then the SYG law wouldn't apply in your opinion? :confused:

Anyhow, I think the amount of time served should be proportional to the amount of bodily harm actually done and/or the amount of property damage actually done. I know, the law doesn't always work that way, but it should.
Oh boy... Well, that case isn't as cut and dry and we need to know more information, but stand your ground means that you don't have to flee if you feel there's an imminent threat. It does not give you the right to confront and escalate it into a threat when you had other recourse you could take (which he did, he called the police and was tracking him, that's what he was within his rights to do, not to confront the guy he just called the police on, and had no indication he was armed or dangerous persay).

Now, if he initiated the violence, then you could be looking at murder charges, but just by confronting someone you're following and escalating it into a violent confronation, then I could see where that could bear a manslaughter charge (and obviously the courts agree enough to look into it, or he wouldn't have been charged. I think whether or not he's convicted will come down to whether Trayvon initiated the violent confrontation at his car, or if he got out and initiated a confronatation that led to it, knowing that he himself had a weapon and no reason to believe the other guy did. In fact, if he did think Trayvon was armed, that's even less reason to confront him).

MelissaWV
05-02-2012, 04:32 PM
Screw it.

Czolgosz
05-02-2012, 04:33 PM
Found a nice write up on "no victim, no crime."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance204.html

The Free Hornet
05-02-2012, 04:34 PM
I should have just been done with this pages ago. There's not convincing those who don't wish to listen. Have a nice day, and please don't consider gun ownership. It's not for everybody.

Hmmmm. I wish there was a better breakdown on this:


Of the 2.4 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, in 92% of these defensive uses, the mere sight of a gun or a warning shot scares off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Although not disagreeing with the danger of warning shots, I highly suspect the laws and predjudice against this is based on

a) Fear of liability by the police. Not only can the dead not testify or sue for getting "winged", it is trivial to claim your life is in danger. It is harder to make that claim if you have the time and ability to make a warning shot. Perhaps of most importance, the "center of mass" training is statistically best for stopping a threat. Also, the only recognized duty of the cops is to protect themselves whereas real people have to protect themselves, their family, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their livilihood, and their freedom.

b) THE ANTI-GUN AGENDA. It is about disallowing the use of and regulating to death the firearm. Paperwork, clip/silencer/mod restrictions, gun-free zones, permits, fees (in Illinois, Blagojevich proposed a $500 FOID card instead of the then $5 but now $10 fee), some parole restrictions, and restraining orders (they can take your guns prior to any conviction or even a charge). This discharge case is a use restriction.

This unfortnate case is a textbook example of the anti-gun agenda and a zero common-sense judicial system. Berate her for being ignorant and untrained but I fear the government far more than I ever will a stray bullet:


The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 613 by 2007, out of the 301,579,895 people in the USA, according to the CDC. For comparison, there were 29,846 accidental deaths by poisoning in 2007, again according to the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths by following Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety. [The woman in this case violates the 4th rule - it would seem].

http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

Per wikipedia:


The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

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

So,

31,224 total deaths - 17,352 suicide deaths - 12,632 homicide deaths = 1,240 non-homicide, non-suicide deaths in 2007

This puts a good limit on the maxium extent of the death-by-warning-shot problem.

Here is my concern:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1430&d=1335997906

If I didn't know better, I would suspect somebody of printing prisoners.

1430

azxd
05-02-2012, 04:35 PM
Guys, do not turn this thread into 200 pages too. I beg you.Just popped back in, and noticed that you, while disagreeing with me, gave me some positive rep for post #63

Thanks, but ... Why are you perpetuating this thread ?

jmdrake
05-02-2012, 04:39 PM
Good analysis! +rep! We've got to be concerned with laws that may provide a perverse incentive to kill. Not sure what the solution is though.


Hmmmm. I wish there was a better breakdown on this:



Although not disagreeing with the danger of warning shots, I highly suspect the laws and predjudice against this is based on

a) Fear of liability by the police. Not only can the dead not testify or sue for getting "winged", it is trivial to claim your life is in danger. It is harder to make that claim if you have the time and ability to make a warning shot. Perhaps of most importance, the "center of mass" training is statistically best for stopping a threat. Also, the only recognized duty of the cops is to protect themselves whereas real people have to protect themselves, their family, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their livilihood, and their freedom.

b) THE ANTI-GUN AGENDA. It is about disallowing the use of and regulating to death the firearm. Paperwork, clip/silencer/mod restrictions, gun-free zones, permits, fees (in Illinois, Blagojevich proposed a $500 FOID card instead of the then $5 but now $10 fee), some parole restrictions, and restraining orders (they can take your guns prior to any conviction or even a charge). This discharge case is a use restriction.

This unfortnate case is a textbook example of the anti-gun agenda and a zero common-sense judicial system. Berate her for being ignorant and untrained but I fear the government far more than I ever will a stray bullet:



Per wikipedia:



So,

31,224 total deaths - 17,352 suicide deaths - 12,632 homicide deaths = 1,240 non-homicide, non-suicide deaths in 2007

This puts a good limit on the maxium extent of the death-by-warning-shot problem.

Here is my concern:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1430&d=1335997906

If I didn't know better, I would suspect somebody of printing prisoners.

1430

DerailingDaTrain
05-02-2012, 05:27 PM
Congratulations then. You did quite the nice job of reeling in a boat load of responses by being so woefully ignorant to the law and common sense that you don't fire a weapon indiscriminately or at all if you don't intend to shoot the threat. You may not be a troll, but you sure are acting like one.

I should have just been done with this pages ago. There's not convincing those who don't wish to listen. Have a nice day, and please don't consider gun ownership. It's not for everybody.

I'll get a gun when there aren't people like you making sure the government can tell you what you can and can't do with it. I don't want 20 yrs for defending myself how I chose.


Of the 2.4 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, in 92% of these defensive uses, the mere sight of a gun or a warning shot scares off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

TheGrinch
05-02-2012, 05:40 PM
I'll get a gun when there aren't people like you making sure the government can tell you what you can and can't do with it. I don't want 20 yrs for defending myself how I chose.
We shouldn't have to... Common sense should tell you that when faced with a violent confrontation, you shouldn't go get a gun and then go back in to engage the person, when you have other non-violent options, and secondly, not to fire a weapon unless you intend to shoot what you're aiming at, and certainly not indiscriminately at a wall to "scare" and put an innocent bystander in danger instead.

By owning a deadly weapon, you are responsible for using it responsibly, not wrecklessly and unnecessarily, or you're infringing on other's rights and safety, which is the one thing the government is supposed to protect: life and liberty.

Anti Federalist
05-02-2012, 06:49 PM
Lets review, shall we..............The quote is obvioulsy stating that if you fired a warning shot, your lawyer should tell LE that you missed.

Consulting a lawyer before talking to cops?

Fear monger.

Cop hater.

Sullivan*
05-02-2012, 07:08 PM
You don't fire a shot to ward off a perceived imminent threat; you shoot to stop an imminent threat. Period.

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 07:29 PM
You don't fire a shot to ward off a perceived imminent threat; you shoot to stop an imminent threat. Period.
//end thread.

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 07:31 PM
//end thread.

lol, if that comment really was an "/thread" comment then this thread wouldn't have made it past the first page!

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 07:47 PM
lol, if that comment really was an "/thread" comment then this thread wouldn't have made it past the first page!
Lol. True. I left for a moment, came back and there was like fifteen more pages. I think we can all agree (besides a few) she acted recklessly, should not have confronted the man again, should have obtained a lawyer before making a statement, and twenty years is utterly ridiculous for what I consider should have been an unlawful discharging of a firearm within city limits, along with two reckless endangerments for the kids.

Sullivan*
05-02-2012, 08:04 PM
Lol. True. I left for a moment, came back and there was like fifteen more pages. I think we can all agree (besides a few) she acted recklessly, should not have confronted the man again, should have obtained a lawyer before making a statement, and twenty years is utterly ridiculous for what I consider should have been an unlawful discharging of a firearm within city limits, along with two reckless endangerments for the kids.
We've all got 20/20 hindsight, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make; I wasn't critiquing the action she took. I'm just trying to impress on people that this is important shit. A bullet is a deadly thing, and you don't put it into your ceiling because you think some douchebag might try to hit you. If you think the douchebag is going to try and hit you, you put the bullet center-of-mass, and follow up the first well-aimed shot with two more.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Screw it.

Best response yet! :D

JebSanderson
05-02-2012, 08:23 PM
Best response yet! :D

Don't think she was replying to this thread

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=6063632

kcchiefs6465
05-02-2012, 08:26 PM
Don't think she was replying to this thread

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=6063632
She changed posts in this thread too.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2012, 08:10 PM
20 Years for Standing Her Ground

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/02/20-years-for-standing-her-ground

A Florida woman faces prison after firing a warning shot to scare off an abusive husband.
Jacob Sullum | May 2, 2012

"I got five baby mammas, and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one," Rico Gray confessed during a November 2010 deposition. "The way I was with women…they had to walk on eggshells around me." He recalled punching women in the face, shoving them, choking them, and tossing them out the door.

Yet somehow, after one of those women fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her Jacksonville, Florida, home to scare him away during yet another violent outburst, prosecutors managed to convince a jury that Gray was the victim. As a result, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, faces 20 years in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband.

Gray has been arrested twice for domestic battery, including an assault that sent Alexander to the hospital. In September 2009 Alexander obtained a protective order against Gray that was still in effect on August 1, 2010, when he flew into a jealous rage after discovering, while poking through her cellphone, that she had sent pictures of their newborn daughter to her first husband.

Alexander was in the master bathroom at the time, and Gray tried to force his way in. When she came out, he screamed and cursed at her while preventing her from leaving the bedroom. "I was like forcing her back with my body," reported Gray, who is seven inches taller than Alexander and outweighs her by 100 pounds.

When Alexander managed to get by, she ran through the kitchen to the garage, where she says she realized she did not have the keys to her car, could not call for help because she had left her cellphone behind, and could not escape because the garage door was not working. Instead she grabbed her handgun from her car and headed back through the kitchen, where Gray confronted her again.

In his deposition Gray admitted he "had told her if she ever cheated on me I would kill her" and during the fight said, "If I can't have you, nobody can." He conceded he "was going towards her" when Alexander fired a single shot, high and to his right, that went through the kitchen wall and lodged in the ceiling of the living room. Finally he left, along with his two sons.

"The gun was never pointed at me," Gray said. "She just didn't want me to put my hands on her anymore, so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn't get hurt." If his sons hadn't been in the house, Gray said, "I probably would have tried to take the gun from her," and "I probably would have put my hand on her."

But at the July 2011 hearing where Alexander argued that the charges against her should be dismissed because she had acted in self-defense, Gray—who immediately after the fight portrayed her as the aggressor, then said in his deposition three months later that he had lied out of anger—changed his story again, saying he had lied in his deposition to protect her. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt rejected Alexander's motion to dismiss, saying she could have escaped through the front or back door instead of going to the garage.

Yet Florida's self-defense law says "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat" if "he or she reasonably believes" it is necessary to prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm" or "the imminent commission of a forcible felony." In 1999, furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a woman attacked by her husband in the home they share has no duty to flee.

On March 16, after deliberating for 12 minutes, a jury convicted Alexander on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although she injured no one, she faces a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence unless she can win a new trial.

azxd
05-04-2012, 08:26 PM
Congratulations then. You did quite the nice job of reeling in a boat load of responses by being so woefully ignorant to the law and common sense that you don't fire a weapon indiscriminately or at all if you don't intend to shoot the threat. You may not be a troll, but you sure are acting like one.

I should have just been done with this pages ago. There's not convincing those who don't wish to listen. Have a nice day, and please don't consider gun ownership. It's not for everybody.LOL
Train is off the tracks.

azxd
05-04-2012, 08:29 PM
20 Years for Standing Her Ground

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/02/20-years-for-standing-her-ground

A Florida woman faces prison after firing a warning shot to scare off an abusive husband.
Jacob Sullum | May 2, 2012

"I got five baby mammas, and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one," Rico Gray confessed during a November 2010 deposition. "The way I was with women…they had to walk on eggshells around me." He recalled punching women in the face, shoving them, choking them, and tossing them out the door.

Yet somehow, after one of those women fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her Jacksonville, Florida, home to scare him away during yet another violent outburst, prosecutors managed to convince a jury that Gray was the victim. As a result, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, faces 20 years in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband.

Gray has been arrested twice for domestic battery, including an assault that sent Alexander to the hospital. In September 2009 Alexander obtained a protective order against Gray that was still in effect on August 1, 2010, when he flew into a jealous rage after discovering, while poking through her cellphone, that she had sent pictures of their newborn daughter to her first husband.

Alexander was in the master bathroom at the time, and Gray tried to force his way in. When she came out, he screamed and cursed at her while preventing her from leaving the bedroom. "I was like forcing her back with my body," reported Gray, who is seven inches taller than Alexander and outweighs her by 100 pounds.

When Alexander managed to get by, she ran through the kitchen to the garage, where she says she realized she did not have the keys to her car, could not call for help because she had left her cellphone behind, and could not escape because the garage door was not working. Instead she grabbed her handgun from her car and headed back through the kitchen, where Gray confronted her again.

In his deposition Gray admitted he "had told her if she ever cheated on me I would kill her" and during the fight said, "If I can't have you, nobody can." He conceded he "was going towards her" when Alexander fired a single shot, high and to his right, that went through the kitchen wall and lodged in the ceiling of the living room. Finally he left, along with his two sons.

"The gun was never pointed at me," Gray said. "She just didn't want me to put my hands on her anymore, so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn't get hurt." If his sons hadn't been in the house, Gray said, "I probably would have tried to take the gun from her," and "I probably would have put my hand on her."

But at the July 2011 hearing where Alexander argued that the charges against her should be dismissed because she had acted in self-defense, Gray—who immediately after the fight portrayed her as the aggressor, then said in his deposition three months later that he had lied out of anger—changed his story again, saying he had lied in his deposition to protect her. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt rejected Alexander's motion to dismiss, saying she could have escaped through the front or back door instead of going to the garage.

Yet Florida's self-defense law says "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat" if "he or she reasonably believes" it is necessary to prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm" or "the imminent commission of a forcible felony." In 1999, furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a woman attacked by her husband in the home they share has no duty to flee.

On March 16, after deliberating for 12 minutes, a jury convicted Alexander on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although she injured no one, she faces a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence unless she can win a new trial.
Bitch threatens my 2A RIGHTS by her stupid act, without thought.

Ammo for the stupid (gun grabbers).

Throw the damn book at her.

DerailingDaTrain
05-04-2012, 08:37 PM
Bitch threatens my 2A RIGHTS by her stupid act, without thought.

Ammo for the stupid (gun grabbers).

Throw the damn book at her.

Are you saying she should get 20 years?

kcchiefs6465
05-04-2012, 08:50 PM
Lol damn, this thread just won't die.

DerailingDaTrain
05-04-2012, 09:02 PM
Lol damn, this thread just won't die.

We could all agree to not post in it but I don't think that would kill it. A mod could lock it though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDUdEk1zdcI

azxd
05-04-2012, 09:11 PM
Are you saying she should get 20 years?When you decide it is worth while to own a gun, then we can talk.

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2012, 09:29 PM
Reckless endangerment. Even if no one is hurt, reckless behavior which could have caused someone or someone's property harm is a crime.
There is precedence for this in English common law...but I don't believe in "victimless crimes". :p

Anti Federalist
05-04-2012, 09:51 PM
Had she STFU and not talked to cops until consulting qualified legal counsel, a "warning shot" may have very well changed into a "a shot fired in self defense that missed".

This is a travesty that this woman is going to jail.

Captain Shays
05-18-2012, 01:53 PM
Reckless endangerment. Even if no one is hurt, reckless behavior which could have caused someone or someone's property harm is a crime.
You can ad up all the could haves and should haves and would haves and you still couldn't buy a donut with it. The woman was trying to preserve her own life witout killing if possible. Even IF there was a "possible" danger (could have, shoul.....) the real and actual threat that woman faces far out weighs what doesn't exist yet.

Anti Federalist
07-14-2013, 11:12 AM
Lol damn, this thread just won't die.

Nope...

AuH20
07-14-2013, 11:14 AM
20 years for a warning shot? What is the world coming too? She should have gotten a few hours of community service and then released.

juleswin
07-14-2013, 11:16 AM
Funny this also happened in Florida.

juleswin
07-14-2013, 11:18 AM
20 years for a warning shot? What is the world coming too? She should have gotten a few hours of community service and then released.

Any thing more than payment for damaged property is too much punishment.

Anti Federalist
07-14-2013, 11:24 AM
20 years for a warning shot? What is the world coming too? She should have gotten a few hours of community service and then released.

A police state, that is what.

One of the determining factors of a police state:

The indiscriminate and disproportionate application and enforcement of millions of rules and laws.

Rejection of the three year plea deal she was offered is what destroyed this women.

The state, throwing its usual hissy fit over a Mundane demanding some sort of trial and justice, brought in its rubber stamp jury and it was all over in 12 minutes.

tod evans
07-14-2013, 11:30 AM
A police state, that is what.

One of the determining factors of a police state:

The indiscriminate and disproportionate application and enforcement of millions of rules and laws.

Rejection of the three year plea deal she was offered is what destroyed this women.

The state, throwing its usual hissy fit over a Mundane demanding some sort of trial and justice, brought in its rubber stamp jury and it was all over in 12 minutes.

How dare she flaunt her right to trial!

The impertinent wench anyway....

KrokHead
07-14-2013, 01:04 PM
Didn't this story already happen? Didn't the lady get thrown in prison "standing her ground"? (Too lazy to read 11 pages)

Antischism
07-14-2013, 01:13 PM
Ahh, I was looking for this thread. I posted the article in a Zimmerman post last night because I didn't know if it had been made in the past.

kcchiefs6465
07-14-2013, 02:14 PM
Prison unions. The PBA.

Mandatory minimum sentencing.

Prison for profit.

Slave labor.

Enough said.

eduardo89
07-14-2013, 02:40 PM
20 years for a warning shot? What is the world coming too? She should have gotten a few hours of community service and then released.

She should appeal this sentence on the basis of a violation of her 8th Amendment rights.

Furman v Georgia rules that a "cruel and unusual punishment" is one that fits any of the following:


The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."


The last one clearly fits this case. Mandatory minimums could fit the second one.

presence
07-14-2013, 02:45 PM
I see absolutely nothing wrong with a GTFO warning shot.

They coyotes get one twice a week.

angelatc
07-14-2013, 02:50 PM
Didn't this story already happen? Didn't the lady get thrown in prison "standing her ground"? (Too lazy to read 11 pages)

It was not a stand your ground case, because she left, went out to her car and came back with her gun.

I read some story on it last night that said she was in is house. Here's his side of the story: http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/rico-gray-i-was-begging-my-life/nN7h6/
This is an argument against plea bargains and minimum sentences, imho.

brandon
07-14-2013, 02:59 PM
I just got around to reading the facts in this case and I believe the woman deserves all 20 years. She was not defending herself from an abusive husband. Her husband was confronting her about evidence that she was cheating on him, at which point she left the house, got a gun, came back in the house, and then fired it nearly missing him and two children.

After her arrest for this she violated court order and went and found her husband again and attacked him. She was arrested again.

Finally she was offered a 3 year plea deal, but this lady is so whacked out and delusional that she refuses to see any wrong in her actions so she didn't take it.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

Tod
07-14-2013, 03:00 PM
Husband admits that he's abusive (including punching her in the face) and he told her, "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you". and "she's never been violent towards me, I was always the one starting it." "I told her if she ever cheated on me I would kill her."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/90595503/Marissa-Alexander-Alleged-Victim-Disposition

PaulConventionWV
07-14-2013, 10:14 PM
Discharing a firearm within city limits ... It's on the books, and IT IS a public safety issue.

In many places is is a class 6 felony ... Google it !!

Maybe you haven't noticed, but nobody here really cares what's "on the books." It may very well be a public safety issue, but unless you can show how somebody got hurt by the gunshot, it shouldn't be a crime. Face it, the chances of a warning shot hurting someone are very slim. No crime unless there's a victim. Again, nobody cares what the law says. We're all about what the law should say.

PaulConventionWV
07-14-2013, 10:23 PM
Umm, not exactly... If you're intentionally missing, then once can assume you're not fearing for your life, or you would have shot him... That's how the law is likely to view it anyway.

By intentionally missing, however, you're, again intentionally, putting a bullet out where it could hurt another person, again, in a case where it was not yet a matter of life and death, but rather a preventative action, which is not justified to discharge a firearm for.... If you said that she was in the right because she wanted to prevent a violent confrontation, then you're opening up quite a dangerous Bush-like view of "pre-emptive strike".

Plain and simple, if she feared for her safety and had no other recourse, she should have shot at him, not out into space where the bullet could end up hitting another person instead... Though I guess the police could use discretion in this case, assuming the roof was thick enough to stop the bullet, and knowing that she was dealing with abuse... But under normal circumstances, it's still not at all safe or justified to fire a weapon into the air in a remotely populated area. People can be badly injured that way.

To be fair here, I still side with the woman, but you have to understand how the law views it. They necessarily have protocol to follow about what's justified with a firearm, and so discretion may be tough.

What's wrong with the law is that it doesn't take into account the wide range of rational human actions that can also apply in that situation. If the woman really didn't want to kill him, then it would be hard for her to do so even if she believed her life was in danger. Firing a warning shot is basically her last line of defense in that situation in hoping to prevent violence. The truth is, she may not even be able to consciously shoot someone.

Now, sure, the law isn't going to see it that way, but I don't really care about the law as it stands. The law, no matter what it may be, is completely separate from the moral code that all people are obligated to follow.

tod evans
09-29-2013, 06:23 AM
New trial ordered for Florida woman in warning-shot case

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/justice/florida-stand-your-ground-domestic-violence/index.html?hpt=ju_t5

(CNN) -- An appellate court on Thursday ordered a new trial for a Florida woman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a gun to scare off her allegedly abusive husband, ruling that a jury was improperly instructed on self-defense.
Marissa Alexander's case will be retried because the jury was wrongly told that -- for her to claim self-defense -- she needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her husband was about to seriously harm her, the appellate court said.
Rather, the appellate court pointed out, the prosecution had the burden to prove that Alexander herself was guilty of aggravated assault.
"Because the jury instructions on self-defense were fundamental error, we reverse" the conviction, a three-judge appellate panel said.
A jury convicted Alexander, 31, of aggravated assault in March 2012 after just 12 minutes of deliberation.
Alexander's lawyer said he told her about the new trial by phone.
"Marissa was ecstatic and obviously she's incredibly thankful and wants to get back with her family," defense attorney Bruce Zimet told CNN.
'Stand your ground' denied in Alexander case
The case gained the attention of civil rights leaders, who say the African-American mother of three was persecuted because of her race, and from others, including U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, who said the sentence was too harsh and Alexander never should have been charged.
Alexander claimed self-defense, saying she was attempting to flee her husband, Rico Gray, on August 1, 2010, when she picked up a handgun and fired a shot into a wall.
She said her husband had read cell phone text messages that she had written to her ex-husband, got angry and tried to strangle her.
State Attorney Angela Corey had said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.
Corey had said she offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life."
The law mandates increased penalties for some felonies, including aggravated assault, in which a gun is carried or used.
Opinion: Shame of mandatory minimums
During sentencing in May 2012, a judge said he had no choice but to sentence her to 20 years.
"Under the state's 10-20-life law, a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has been discharged carries a minimum and maximum sentence of 20 years without regarding to any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that may be present, such as those in this case," Judge James Daniel said that year.
Before the trial, Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's Stand Your Ground law to argue she was immune from prosecution. To win the immunity hearing, she would have needed to show that she was more likely entitled than not to use force.
But a judge in the pretrial immunity hearing rejected the request, saying Alexander's decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety.
In Thursday's decision, the appellate court said Alexander would not get a new immunity hearing. But she can still claim self-defense at trial.
The office of the Florida state attorney for Duval County said Thursday that Alexander's conviction "was reversed on a legal technicality."
"We are gratified that the court affirmed the defendant's Stand Your Ground ruling" denying pretrial immunity, the office said.

aGameOfThrones
09-29-2013, 06:42 AM
State Attorney Angela Corey had said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing

But if a cop had done that, well...


"There's NO Rule of Law... when the crime that is charged, not based upon what law was broken, but by who committed it."~HOLLYWOOD

Anti Federalist
09-29-2013, 06:53 AM
Just Us delayed....

presence
09-29-2013, 07:04 AM
Scathing outlook on the defendant from the same guy that did:

Trenton NJ Beasties Destroy A Restaurant (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?423702-Trenton-NJ-Beasties-Destroy-A-Restaurant&highlight=beasties) Started by presence (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?36577-presence), 08-08-2013





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBJeyO5rjc

presence
09-29-2013, 07:12 AM
Recent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2TcVVkgmGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86bI8Vg_2qU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxron1paJWE

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/27/headlines

presence
09-29-2013, 07:19 AM
Court Documents:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

tod evans
11-29-2013, 07:37 AM
Florida woman sentenced to 20 years for firing warning shot released on bond


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/29/florida-woman-sentenced-to-20-years-for-firing-warning-shot-released-on-bond/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Interna l+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29

JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – The Florida woman awaiting a new trial in a controversial "stand your ground" case is free on bond.

First Coast News reports that Marissa Alexander was released from jail Wednesday. According to the Duval County Clerk of Court, she must remain under house arrest and electronic monitoring while awaiting trial.

In 2012, Alexander was sentenced to a mandatory 20-year prison sentence for firing what she insisted was a warning shot during a fight with her husband. She tried to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law but the judge threw out her self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside

An appeals court ruled in September that the judge in the case gave improper jury instructions, and a new trial has been set for next year.

Alexander's supporters, including the NAACP and advocates for victims of domestic violence, have compared the case to the trial of George Zimmerman, who recently was acquitted in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. Both cases have brought into question the state's "stand your ground" law, which generally allows people to use deadly force if they feel threatened.

Alexander, who had never been arrested before, has said she fired a bullet at a wall in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. No one was hurt, but the judge in the case said he was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison after she was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Alexander had rejected a plea deal that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence and chose to go to trial. A jury deliberated 12 minutes before convicting her.

Alexander was also charged with domestic battery four months after the shooting in another assault on her husband. She pleaded no contest and was sentenced to time served.

State Attorney Angela Corey, who oversaw the prosecution of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, has stood by the handling of Alexander's case. Corey said she believes that Alexander aimed the gun at the man and his two sons, and that the bullet she fired could have ricocheted and hit any of them.

jmdrake
11-29-2013, 07:44 AM
//

satchelmcqueen
11-29-2013, 02:56 PM
she is guilty for firing a warning shot? this is not right at all.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2014, 12:08 PM
Marissa Alexander agrees to plea deal

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/24/marissa-alexander-agrees-to-plea-deal/19483503/

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Facing a possible 60 years in prison for firing a gun at her estranged husband and his two sons, Marissa Alexander agreed Monday to a plea deal that effectively ends the four-year old criminal case against her.

Related: Marissa Alexander Timeline

According to the terms of the plea, Alexander was ordered to serve three years in prison after pleading guilty to all three counts against her. Alexander will get credit for the 1,030 days she's already spent in jail.

That means she'll have to spend 65 more days in jail. Alexander will return to Duval County Jail following Monday's hearing. She'll be released on Jan. 27.

Because the second count against Alexander is considered an 'open plea,' she could still be sentenced to five years in prison at the hearing on Jan. 27.

The case has drawn national attention, in part because Alexander unsuccessfully tried to invoke a Stand Your Ground defense, and later because, when she was convicted, Florida's 10-20-Life laws mandated a stringent 20-year prison sentence -- despite the fact that her shot didn't injure or even hit anyone.

Alexander herself became the focus of anti-domestic violence advocates, since she claimed the victim in the case, estranged husband Rico Gray, was a serial abuser who attacked her first.

Alexander was convicted by a jury in 2012 of three counts of aggravated assault, but that conviction was overturned on appeal because of an error in jury instructions.

Following her jail term, Alexander's been ordered to spend two years under community control, or house arrest, with a monitor.

brandon
11-26-2014, 12:15 PM
3-7 years followed by supervised release sounds like a reasonable punishment for shooting a gun at someone who was not a threat. I'd say the justice system worked pretty well in this case.

aGameOfThrones
11-26-2014, 12:20 PM
And killer cops stay free.

Lucille
11-26-2014, 12:23 PM
They don't call it Floriduh for nothing.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cut_off_florida.gif

ETA:


3-7 years followed by supervised release sounds like a reasonable punishment for shooting a gun at someone who was not a threat. I'd say the justice system worked pretty well in this case.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Marty-McFly-Confused-In-Back-To-The-Future-Gif.gif

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/02/20-years-for-standing-her-ground


"I got five baby mammas, and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one," Rico Gray confessed during a November 2010 deposition. "The way I was with women…they had to walk on eggshells around me." He recalled punching women in the face, shoving them, choking them, and tossing them out the door.

Yet somehow, after one of those women fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her Jacksonville, Florida, home to scare him away during yet another violent outburst, prosecutors managed to convince a jury that Gray was the victim. As a result, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, faces 20 years in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband.

Gray has been arrested twice for domestic battery, including an assault that sent Alexander to the hospital. In September 2009 Alexander obtained a protective order against Gray that was still in effect on August 1, 2010, when he flew into a jealous rage after discovering, while poking through her cellphone, that she had sent pictures of their newborn daughter to her first husband.

Alexander was in the master bathroom at the time, and Gray tried to force his way in. When she came out, he screamed and cursed at her while preventing her from leaving the bedroom. "I was like forcing her back with my body," reported Gray, who is seven inches taller than Alexander and outweighs her by 100 pounds.

When Alexander managed to get by, she ran through the kitchen to the garage, where she says she realized she did not have the keys to her car, could not call for help because she had left her cellphone behind, and could not escape because the garage door was not working. Instead she grabbed her handgun from her car and headed back through the kitchen, where Gray confronted her again.

In his deposition Gray admitted he "had told her if she ever cheated on me I would kill her" and during the fight said, "If I can't have you, nobody can." He conceded he "was going towards her" when Alexander fired a single shot, high and to his right, that went through the kitchen wall and lodged in the ceiling of the living room. Finally he left, along with his two sons.

"The gun was never pointed at me," Gray said. "She just didn't want me to put my hands on her anymore, so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn't get hurt." If his sons hadn't been in the house, Gray said, "I probably would have tried to take the gun from her," and "I probably would have put my hand on her."

brandon
11-26-2014, 01:06 PM
The guy being a general douchebag doesnt mean he was threatening her life in this instance. IIRC, the woman left the house to get a gun then came back in with it and fired. It wasnt like she was backed into a corner. Also i think the story was that they were separated and this incident happened at his house.

The reason article presents her case which isnt exactly how things went down. Theres more to the story if you dig around.

brandon
11-26-2014, 04:57 PM
Here's the article I read a while ago that gives a bit of the other side of the story. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354178/real-marissa-alexander-story-ian-tuttle/page/0/1 There's two sides to every case and it sounds like the people who examined all the evidence decided it wasn't a self defense situation so I'm inclined to believe them.

phill4paul
11-26-2014, 05:06 PM
Here's the article I read a while ago that gives a bit of the other side of the story. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354178/real-marissa-alexander-story-ian-tuttle/page/0/1 There's two sides to every case and it sounds like the people who examined all the evidence decided it wasn't a self defense situation so I'm inclined to believe them.

A gun was discharged. No one was injured. He said, she said evidence. You're a nut-case.

DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2014, 05:30 PM
Everyone is so scared of guns. Simply firing a single shot gets you 20 years in prison? Doesn't that punishment seem WAAAAY disproportionate to the crime? Worst case scenario she should get some community service, but I don't even think that would be justified.

juleswin
11-26-2014, 06:40 PM
A gun was discharged. No one was injured. He said, she said evidence. You're a nut-case.

Makes it sound so simple. Did you read the other side of the story? because its not a simple he said, she said sorta thing. The children testified about their crazy mother almost trying to kill them in their own house. This was an attempted murder and you don't just get off scot-free because you missed your target.