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

[Nirvikalpa]

Searched the forums, couldn't find this posted anywhere.



-------

"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/2012/05/0...ing-her-ground

There are just no words.

[brandon]

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]

should have killed him

SHE'D BE OUT IN 7...

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

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]

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 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 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 ruledthat 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.

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

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

[Nirvikalpa]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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=QuA...0shots&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

[azxd]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

I take it you don't comprehend what you just quoted about "how to legally survive a defensive shooting" ?

[TheTexan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/N...ion-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]

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

See post #21

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

[JebSanderson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[tod evans]

should have killed him

SHE'D BE OUT IN 7...

Much truth here......

Less time for manslaughter than most drug charges.

[TheTexan]

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]

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

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