The case turned on one simple fact; she left the confrontation, and came back a short time later and fired a shot, that hit the wall, or went through the wall; therefore stand your ground defense was no longer available to her; 20 year sentence is way to harsh; however the judge had no discretion since the legislature had amended the law several years ago to make it a minimum/maximum sentence; taking sentencing out of the Judges hands has become a two edged sword, that is why there is a push across the nation to amend the federal and state laws, giving judges more discretion as was the case for over 200 years in this nation, before we became the tough on crime crowd.

The problem is he warning shot... She should have shot to kill

We all have the right to protect ourselves. If the only means to leave was to go past him to get out of the house , it may have been best to just show the gun and tell him to clear a path so I can leave.

This hard to to do when not trained and angry. Looks like she would have gotten 10 years for just showing the gun. Court messed up on this one.

That is why we have a jury of our peers. The question is asked, what would a reasonable person do in that situation? The jury found that a reasonable person that was afraid for their life, wouldn't go back in the house and stay in the garage. I also wonder at going into the garage in the first place. She lives there and should have known that the garage door was "stuck". If she wanted to leave, she wouldn't have gone to the garage.

I understand the ruling she fired in the direction of the children. I'm sure she wasn't feeling in danger from them and had no right to endanger their lives. Also there was no physical attack in progress at the time. You can't shoot because he might attack only because he is attacking.

Either or, a 25 cent bullet into a wall will cost the tax payers how much for 20 years?

10-20-life?? What did she do for the 10? They didn't say.

She simply missed... not enough time at the range...

here you go. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html

She possessed a firearm during the commission of a crime, though the crime was the shooting. 10 years.

She fired a firearm during the aforementioned crime. 20 years

trust

Thanks. I assumed that the 1st offense was 10 years, the second was 20, and the third was life. They are saying that, depending how the gun was used, you can get 20 for the first offense, as she did.

The difference between this case and GZ vs Trayvon whatever is that she left and came back. Trayvon attacked GZ. GZ didnt confront trayvon go back to his truck get the gun and then shoot Trayvon.

Apples and oranges.

Warning shot...or a miss!

Is it a near miss, or a near hit?

Hey Buck nice try, but Trayvon could have just gone home as well.

The problem is she's a woman, and she didn't kill him. If she was a man and shot and killed someone she would be a NRA hero.

The media has been blowing this whole "stand your ground" stuff way out of proportion. About the only thing the law does is avoid some of the absurdities where "self-defense" is not seen as a valid defense. Too often a defendant who's life has been threatened and is in a confrontation has justify the extent of the measures they took to defend themselves. If someone is coming at you and you fear for your life yous should be able to shoot the person to end the threat. You shouldn't have to face lawyers who will pound you with "why didn't you run away? Why didn't you just shoot their leg? Wasn't there something else that you could have done besides kill the person?"

I've seen all kinds of trials. Each one is unique and although people like to make generalizations about the results, the fact is that most jurors try very hard to apply the law to the facts. I've seen a case where a woman who was abused decided to get her husband drunk, so drunk that he passed out. She argued self-defense and the jury acquitted her. As they say in the criminal defense world, there's 2 questions you need to get a jury to agree with you on. First, did the sonovabitch deserve to die. Secondly, was the defendant the one to do it. If they answer yes to both, then you get an acquittal. Doesn't work in all cases, but hey, if it's clear the defendant did it, then you've got to do your best to defend. Sometimes it's just hard to convict the defendant because to do so gives tacit consent to the victim's actions.

Regarding the stand your ground law, sure, initially some people might think they can get away with murder. But, once they find out that it doesn't give them carte blanche to murder, they'll think twice before doing so. It really is the high rollers version of craps.

i think that is the point of stand your ground. to make gun owners look like fools. which G.Zimmerman has done. Leaving T.Martin as a small loss in the battle to out law firearms ownership.

TheOverlord

I think many comments on this forum prove that Americans are just too stupid to carry guns around and these ridiculous stand your ground laws should be banned... eventually they will be.

if you don't like them feel free to go somewhere that doesn't have them. Actually in this case... had she not left and returned which is the argument, the Castle Doctrine would have applied. Technically had she shot him as he entered the home she would have been within her rights... there was a restraining order.

Something I never understand is why ANYONE would allow their abuser back, especially with a restraining order in place. THERE ARE OPTIONS.

ahh.. the chickens coming home to roost ALREADY???

remember folks.. guns dont kill people.. just everybody that has one seems to.

She should have shot him and then claimed she was in fear for her life just like Zimmerman. Her sob of a husband isn't even dead is he and she received 20 years?

According to the news on TV in FL the shot was into a wall near him (not into the ceiling.. ??) when he had the children, her warning was that she was going to kill him, the police said there was no evidence that the garage door would not have been able to be opened, and that she could have more easily went out the front or back door than into the garage. Not sure about the details as I was not there or on the jury.

From the way it sounds, the stand your ground law does not appear to apply in the case, just like it didn't apply in the Trayvon Martin case. You can not pursue someone and call it standing your ground. Now if she feared for the children's safety and he was harming them then it may would have applied.

The sentence does seem excessive so perhaps the mandatory sentencing laws should be reconsidered. Her lawyer should have used a battered woman's defense and not stand your ground. In a jury trial she would have likely gotten off with a better lawyer.

"In Florida, anyone who pulls a gun during a crime receives a mandatory 10-year sentence. Firing a gun during the commission of a crime equals a mandatory 20-year sentence. Anyone convicted of shooting and killing another person during a crime is sentenced to 25 to life in prison."

Someone said thats why we havea jury of our peers. That someone I believe has never been on one before. Most of the people there dont even understand why and how to make a rationalized thought or decision. My confidence in the jury of your peers statement, went out the window when I started learning about america's history in school. Whites have always had the upper hand and given more lenience, than any other race in the history of this country. This trial and law is a joke.

Actually, I think this article is a great example backing up the argument that guns don't kill people. The gun this woman had didn't kill anyone. Case closed. Guns do not kill people.

If the kids had guns, this wouldn't have happened!

YOu guys won't be happy til it's alll Trayvon all the time( FOr awhile I'd ask my wiofe, "YOu want to turn on the Trayvon?) - amazing how alll posters described what happened in that case as if they werthere when none of them really knows squat.

@frespech,

Martin WAS going home. He was returning from a convenience store where he had bought skittles and a lemonade for his half-brother. He lived in the gated subdivision with his father. His hoodie was up because it was raining. Any mopre made-up crap???? Not even a nice try, infact, you go on ignore for that crap.

"I was defending myself" is a lot harder to prove/claim when the person you were defending yourself against is alive and can testify against you. T. Martin was not able to do so. If he had been able to he might have said how he feared for his life. After all he was followed and stalked by a unknown adult man with a gun driving a car while returning from the corner store with a ice tea and pack of skittles. That man continued to pursue on foot. Last time I checked walking to the 7-11 is not against the law. Even if you are young, black, male, and wearing a hoodie. A warning shot would have or at least should have been in the ceiling not anywhere near the kids in this case. Hard to claim self defense when both you and your spouse have assault charges against each other.

Clearly many of you just read the headline, and skipped the story. She left, would have been safe, but instead of remaining safe, she got a gun and WENT BACK. End of story. 20 yrs is too much, yes, but she made this choice.

Chris-749391

@frespech,

Martin WAS going home. He was returning from a convenience store where he had bought skittles and a lemonade for his half-brother

Care to try again?

Tracy Martins fiance' lived in the gated community with her son. Tracy Martin lived elsewhere. Trayvon lived with his mother in another city... near miami if I recall. The son of Tracy Martins fiance' would have become his STEP brother.

So now that we have THOSE facts straight.... nice try by the way... put the rest of us on ignore I guess for correcting you. Any more made up crap? And how would you know if frespech had more to make up if you are ignoring frespech?

It is being stated that she left the house to get the gun..... since when going to a garage that is attached and thus a part of the house leaving the house?

The prosecutor under the pretense of justice blah blah blah, got this woman locked up for 20 years because she did not kill the abusive threatening husband. That is the point here... she got the 20 years because she did not kill the abusive threatening man. If she had killed the man then she would not have been charged or convicted of firing a weapon from the look of things.

That is what folks can take from this because other folks who have actually killed the other person and cite the 'stand your ground' law and are not convicted of killing/murder/ manslaughter etc, and are set free, thus do not have to go to prison for 20 years from the look of recent cases.

Wasn't this case brought by the same prosecutor in Florida who is charging a child as an adult and is handling the Trevon Martin/Zimmerman case? Is this the sign of things to come where the the guy that killed Treyvon Martin will not be prosecuted for murder and the 'stand your ground' defense will be accepted because Martin is dead? Hmmm

Hope there is an appeal of this unjust sentence because locking up this mother who has no criminal history and was just trying to protect herself from her abusive husband is just wrong. Justice was not served here imo.

This prosecutor talks about being for the victim, so how is it that this mother who was victimized by her abusive husband is the one being sent to prison for 20 years? The only victim in this case was the mother that was sentenced to 20 years in prison for discharging a weapon into the wall as a warning shot to her husband. So if the prosecutor is for victims why did she charge this victimized and abused mother when she did not kill or harm her abusive husband in the first place just because the woman was supposedly 'angry' when she fired the weapon into the wall?

If she was calm cold and calculating and then had fired the warning shot would she be free today or not charged with a crime that sent to to jail for 20 years?

Amazing.... victimized by a abusive husband and now victimized by the judical system for not being cold and calculating and un-angry and not committing murder of or not harming the abusive husband. Wow....

Stand your ground proponents..... you must never show any feelings that may be misconstrued of as anger. You must always have your weapons on hand close by even if children are in the house. Do not store the weapon in the attached garage or any other structure on your property and thus away from the reach of the children in the house. Show no emotions before during or after the shooting, or even months after as all will be held against you- if one goes by the present ruling etc in the present case.

Zimmerman can start celebrating now.... from the look of things. LOL

What a country......

She went and got the gun and came back to get out..............................Guilty!

He got out of his vehicle and followed the boy after warned not to.........................?????!

WTF is wrong with Florida?

War on women of just garden variety racism, you decide!

Racism, this isn't the only case like this lol. All the black cases are guilty, the ones with other races are still innocent. Why I said last time don't any black people in florida think of trying to use this law.

There is one reason for the verdict. George Zimmerman is white so he gets off with a slap on the wrist. This woman is African American. The judge is white.

It says that she went into the garage to get a gun and the door wouldn't open so she could leave through another door. How the he11 was she to get out of the garage unless she went back into the house-- and the garage is still "the house".

I think the Shoot to Kill law is one sided-- shoot to kill and walk free. Shoot into the wall and get 20 years. How one-sided is that law-- and the judge too.

Zimmerman is not white.. He's Hispanic.. or does that only count when courting voter groups?

Again, neither case falls under the stand your ground law. This is totally the lawyer's fault for trying to argue a case from a losing standpoint, which may even happen with Zimmerman. No jury would have convicted this woman if the lawyer would have pulled the poor battered woman fearing for her self and children pulled a gun and shot the ceiling. Even Lorena Bobbit escaped going to jail when she pulled the battered woman card.

All of that aside .. the media is just using these stories to stir up the political bases to donate $$$ and the sheep are following.

US Rep. Corrine Brown wouldn't have given Marissa Alexander the time of day if it wasn't for the lobby pay out she either already got or stands to get now. Ms Alexander could have chain-sawed Mr. Gray into little bits and we never would have heard a word about this case, but because it involved a gun, politicians came a running blowin their horn.

How many gun owners do you know that don't have a temper - of those I know at least half of them drool over the idea they might get to shoot somebody. Gun owners hear just a fraction of what a gun law says - and just fill in the rest to suit their desires. Well, when you guess wrong, you deserve to go to prison. That is priceless - the people gun owners hate the most, that being people in prison, get to spend half their life with them when they apply their own brand of justice... hehehe.

Mikep101 you are very wrong, a pursuing person can chase someone down, confront them and then kill them if they turn out to be in fear of their life. I explain, A Black man in florida saw a man breaking into cars, he chased him down the street with a butcher knife in hand. Caught the thief, who turned and swung a bag of stolen radios at him, he stabbed him to death. The pursuer was arrested and charged with murder, He went to a Stand Your Ground hearing, I believe its an Arthur Hearing. The judge determined he had a right even though he was the pursuer to use deadly force when the thief turned the tables on him. and susie stop the racist banter, she was convicted by a jury of her peers, and the judge followed the law. stpid b1tch should have killed him then she could claim she was in fear. The most disturbing thing to me is she shot in the direction of the kids, she should have 20X3 consecutive.

Apparently, only if su habla espanol.

People don't kill people - triggers kill people - how did I know that by pulling that trigger that a lead projectile would be emitted at such a speed that it could kill someone. Out law triggers and nobody dies from guns.

If you want to play dumb - I'm good at that - keep bringing your stupid defense statements - I'm sure I can match your stupid and raise you a stupid.

I love how the same people (Al, Brown and some on here) who just weeks ago denounced SYG but now want it used to free a woman who was not standing her ground, but who was no longer engaged in a conflict or in danger when she decided to wildly shoot up the house with kids present because she was pissed off.

These people are with out moral or character, Al was in rare form in his video on this story, and Rep Brown is IMHO a complete hack who will use anything for her own political gain, including completely reversing her stance on SYG just like Al did. What a couple of jokes these two are.

All the black cases are guilty BULL

There have been cases just recently where defendant was black and got off.

The FOUR Pillars for Justifying the Use of Deadly Force that the majority of prosecutors (and not just the "liberal" ones) look at when someone uses a gun to defend themselves:

1. Reasonably in immediate fear of death or great/grave bodily harm for yourself or another.
2. MUST be an innocent party.
3. MUST have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. NO LESSER FORCE WILL SUFFICE TO STOP THE THREAT.

She was in immediate fear for her life, there is no actual doubt of that. She was an innocent party -- until she went and got the gun. She did have a reasonable means of retreat -- as shown by the fact that she left the area of the immediate threat -- and then returned. SHE COULD HAVE KNEED HER HUSBAND IN THE GROIN ("balls", "nut-sack", etc) OR JAMMED HER THUMBS IN HIS EYES, OR OTHER SUCH NON-POTENTIALLY DEADLY THINGS -- but she decided instead to fire off a shot into the wall near/next to her husband AND HER CHILDREN.

She FAILED on three counts, and she deserves the 20-life prison sentence.

By the way, I am a gun owner, I am in the process of getting my Concealed Carry License -- and I am NOT a Tea-publican.

one case in point where black defendant and white victim, which completely disproves Al, Brown and everyone else who says it's a racist law, or it never helps a black person killing a white person, IT ALREADY HAS, so all those still crying racism are full of it.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_27

I read the headline and the first thougth that popped into my head was that she had to be black. I was right. FYI, I'm caucasian.

stand your ground law doesnt apply here. plain and simple, she returned to the house, after retrieving the gun. fired a shot. how do we know she wasnt aiming for him? you dont think by chance maybe they talked to the children involved in this by chance? wtf is wrong with people to even try and make her issue about race, and fairness? she was pi22ed off, and wanted to play bad a22 gangsta bi-otch. i didnt hear anything backing her claim he was abusing her at the time of the incident.. so, not being in the courtroom to hear the evidence against her, like the members of the jury, who BOTH sides will haggle to be someone unbiased to be fair to either side to hear evidence, and competently decide IF someone is guilty or not! the JURY found her guilty.... not the judge! it was MORE than a fair fight. this is racebaiting by the crybabies.

so some better understand something here....

how many people on the jury were black? i would guess.... at least 1 to be safe?

(go with me on this... it gets really good!)... now... out of how many members of that jury, you have to also figure in, if there was that type of debauchery going on... bam! judge fixes it right on the spot. lets count how many complaints from the actual jury memeber(s) all crying it was all about race..... wait, there isnt 1? come on! thats why they call it a jury, you are guilty by a member of your peers. i'd rather be found guilty by a judge. better shot at an appeal. i dont know this common knowledge 1st hand however, that was the word when i sat 5 days for overdue library books...

now lets hear what Al Sharpton has to say....... Al? (knock-knock)... guess Al doesnt have a comment.

Jessie Jackson?...... (faint sound of crickets chirping).

someone from the jury making a comment it was all about race and they were forced to vote guilty?..... nope.

sounds to me like the constitution did its job. have a nice sit for 20 years. she rolled the dice, and lost. not 1 person... not 1! could see it in their heart she was innocent, and deserved the entitlement to go along with that law. not one (1) person. i kind of feel, i like most people who would be selected for jury duty, and elected to participate in the boring drama, altho yes boring, would take the responsibility seriously.

if you dont believe in a jury trial, you can always take some 3rd world country justice system, and give that a whirl.

FOR THE LAST TIME... HISPANIC IS NOT A RACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS AN ETHNICITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hispanic may not be a race but when it comes to dividing people up into political groups or even when typically discussing race and ethnicity people are extremely fast to point out that the hispanic/latino groups are different than white. It was even made into a big deal when "whites" became the minority group in "the racial make up" of California because of the increase in hispanics/latinos. The groups are also counted differently for grants and scholarships.

Yet suddenly, white and hispanic/latino are the same when it meets someone's political agenda to create a news story?

So yes, I totally agree that it's technically not a race but then genetics testing has shown that racial lines are not nearly a black and white as most people seem to think.

Hayabusa; after looking at my (very outdated) Websters Dictionary - I can't see a clean/clear separation in definitions between the two - do you have any current sources that give a clearer, modernized definition of the two?

For those of us who are a bit older - some words are used correctly as they were taught to us - don't be so harsh. My wife described herself to me (we met on-line) as being Hispanic (she was born in Arizona), she sometimes will say she is Mexican American (one of her parents was born in Mexico and the other had grandparents in Arizona, but it was Mexican territory - originally from Spain). I tell her she is American - not Mexican American.

We still teach kids that Columbus was a hero - even though the Discovery channel (back when they weren't a reality channel) debunked that 20 years ago... just sayin'.

I doubt it will be your "LAST TIME" that you correct people on your views - is it worth the time and energy?

As quoted in a post by Mike P101.....

"In Florida, anyone who pulls a gun during a crime receives a mandatory 10-year sentence. Firing a gun during the commission of a crime equals a mandatory 20-year sentence. Anyone convicted of shooting and killing another person during a crime is sentenced to 25 to life in prison."

As I am currently living in Florida, I can say that the aforementioned law is doing squat to deter gun related crimes here in this fetid swamp. It seems that people here cannot wait to shoot one another. Just on the local news on Friday the 11th, the same day as the Alexander sentence was handed down, an older couple was found shot to death in their home in Jax.....he was 70 plus years old, she was 60 plus years old. The bodies were not in close proximity to one another when they were found and each body was found with a firearm. Cannot imagine what would make this couple (who lived in a quiet, "better" area of town, cops have not said they believe anyone else was involved)) arrive at this point Shooting is epidemic here. It's nuts! Can't wait to see what occurs during the summer, the scorching heat and humidity always seems to bring on even more craziness here. As for the Alexander case, 20 years just seems excessive. I am not saying that she should have walked away clean but 20 years is far too much time for what happened IMO. I think the appeals process will help her out. Justice in Florida is bought, especially in this area of the state. Guess she didn't have enough money.

Sandie-644591

I think the appeals process will help her out.

I'm curious .. how do you feel the appeals process will help? Are you suggesting she get equal but special treatment under the 10-20-life law?

I agree that the law appears excessive in this case. Yet another shining example of flawed FL Law. It appears however that the legislature is convinced their law is reducing crime. MANDATORY sentencing is decried when cases like this show up but demanded when judges don't punish harshly in instances that are almost like this... example had the law not been there and she injured a bystander and gotten only 3 years... Another example of MANDATORY sentencing gone awry.. crack vs coke. Todays bugaboo becomes tomorrows mandatory sentencing becomes next weeks "bias" law.

Guess she didn't have enough money.

probably correct on that one.

"Mikep101 you are very wrong, a pursuing person can chase someone down, confront them and then kill them if they turn out to be in fear of their life. I explain, A Black man in florida saw a man breaking into cars, he chased him down the street with a butcher knife in hand. Caught the thief, who turned and swung a bag of stolen radios at him, he stabbed him to death. The pursuer was arrested and charged with murder, He went to a Stand Your Ground hearing, I believe its an Arthur Hearing. The judge determined he had a right even though he was the pursuer to use deadly force when the thief turned"

flyerznut...Just because a judge made that ruling doesn't make it the right judgement. There are plenty of overturned judgments throughout US history that render that way of thinking a fallacy.

First, and foremost, in that case you the pursuer pursuing someone who is committing/ has committed a criminal act which gave the pursuer a right to pursue. The pursuant is therefore regarded as carrying the knife precautionary. If the pursuant did not witness the crime and just attacked someone for having radios and that person attacked, then the pursuant would be regarded as the aggressor not defending himself, but initiating the attack.

And for those using this as an argument against Trayvon Martin in the George Zimmerman case is ridiculous because the person being followed had not committed nor had been seen committing a crime in the George Zimmerman/ Trayvon Martin case. Trayvon was, in that case, unarmed and being stalked by an unknown pursuant for an unknown reason making him the innocent person in peril. For following Trayvon, a minor, without cause and also initiating the confrontation, George Zimmerman should be regarded as the aggressor. Read up on the case. George Zimmerman followed and approached Trayvon Martin. They get into a heated argument over this pursuit, and George Zimmerman who has gun on his person says that he reached for his "cell phone." How is Trayvon supposed to know what George Zimmerman is reaching for and for what intent?

Mike P101 - nicely thought out nuanced post - You might get banned for that - be careful.

Saxon: I agree and would be willing to bet that the jury was not allowed to know that a verdict of guilty would carry a mandatory 20 sentence. If the jury had known she would be free today.

I'm a woman and I understand the ruling completely because I think with my head not my hormones. She left and was out of danger confrontation ended. dial 911 and wait. She picked up a gun and went back into the situation and assaulted three people the husband and the children by reason of pointing a gun at them. She could also be charged with kidnapping by reason of holding a gun on them. She fired a gun in the general direction of three people thereby endangering their lives. She started the second confrontation and escalated it to the level of life and death when she brought the gun into the situation. It is interesting that all the people who are against guns in the Martin/Zimmerman case are suddenly saying she shouldn't be punished for using a gun. Either you are against guns or you are not but don't be hypocrites.

@lonereb: its funny how you steadfastly defended George Zimmerman's right to stand his ground. you wrote earlier that Ms Alexander was not afraid or she wouldn't have gone in the house. Well the same logic should apply to Zimmerman. He was not afraid of Trayon or he wouldn't have followed him with his gun. It's amazing to me how bigots can contort themselves and their logic.

Rodrick Perkinsvia Facebook

. It's amazing to me how bigots can contort themselves and their logic.

Why are you amazed? You do it all day long. You don't want George to have self defense when he is physically attacked and being beaten with NO RETREAT... As much as you think he is a worm he was unable to retreat into the ground. Yet MA retreated to her vehicle and came back with a gun. Same laws different outcomes due to different circumstances. What she should have done was stayed in her garage until the aggressor left or blown him away when he came to find her in the garage.

A garage is not a part of the "house" in that it is not in the occupied portion meaning that while people visit it and go into it, people don't live in it. It doesn't matter whether it's attached to the house or not. A garage converted into a living space (I had one in Texas) would then be part of the house but it would have to have substantial evidence to that effect such as HVAC, finished and insulated walls and some kind of flooring. It would have to substantially satisfy construction code for occupation, something which almost all garages do not. It would then also add to the living space in county property tax records, something which would also be added evidence. But, in her case it is not. She left, returned, fired a handgun, mortally endangered three children and assaulted a man with a firearm. Nowhere in this does "stand your ground" apply. I have sympathy for her problems with an abusive former spouse, I had one too who brandished a firearm and later left telephone threats to shoot me. But nowhere did I ever get the right to brandish a firearm or shoot one at or near her. She now has 20 years to think over her egregiously bad decision, one that put her in prison and left her abusive husband free.

TheQuackedOne.... so this mother should not defend herself and her children including the baby that was in the house? She should have left them with her abusive husband? Wasn't the baby 9 days or so old at the time? How strong do you think a mother is recovering from delivery. The woman may have been having post partum depression for all we know.

One could even believe that she had battered wife syndrome and to her the only way to save herself and her children was to go get the gun and discharge a warning shot. It is obvious that her mindset was not to kill or hurt/harm anyone, because instead of shooting this man who had a long history of abusive behaviour towards herself and other women she fired a warning shot.

I suppose if she had left the house and ran away and the abusive husband had then turned around and beat up on the children she would have been blamed for that also. The question then would be 'how could a mother leave her children including an infant in harms way or in the care or possession of an abusive man'..... and then a new round of condemnation would have been heaped upon the woman's head.

The woman stood her ground. She did not leave her home go outside with the gun and shot the abusive husband in the back as he was leaving, while being told by the 911 operator to stay indoors like occurred in Texas when that man killed 2 men , shot them in the back because they had supposedly robbed his neighbor's house and was now running away. That man cited the stand your ground mantra and was not charged with any crime when the case went before the grandjury.

That Texan shotgun toting guy was told not to go outside -yet he did go outside- he was told not take his shotgun with him- yet he took the shotgun with him- the guys were on his neighbors property not on his, and were not a threat to him and they did not have any weapons... he cited the 'stand your ground' law to the 911 operator and was heard shooting the 2 men -who were running away from the neighbor's house and the guntoting man who was therefore in no fear of injury or of being killed- to death. But he was not charged with the 2 murders rather he was lauded for what he had done.

Yet this woman- who did not leave her property and go next door to her neighbors property and retreived a gun and then returned and used it to stand her ground- she went to the garage which was a part of her home and retrieved the gun to protect herself and her children from her abusive husband who was in her house. Did she kill him...no. Did she injure him.... no, but she goes to jail for 20 years? That is not justice imo. This is justice being deaf, dumb, unbalanced, vindictive, ignorant and not as un-biased as it is supposed to be imo. Makes one wonder the part race and gender may have played a part in this situation doesn't it.

Some may say she should have taken the plea bargain.... but why should she go to jail for a reduced sentence of several years, when she was just protecting herself and her children?

If it had not been the outcry from the Treyvon Martin case this injustice would not have been brought to the attention of the rest of the country. Apparently there were some protesting going on prior to the case that was sortof covered by the local media, making their 'headlines' but the mainstream media did not think it was worthy of full coverage at the time until it was mentioned on a cable channel program by a reporter in passing from the look of things during the Martin/Zimmerman stand your ground debate.

The main stream media need to realize that politics is not just local and injustice is not just local and the various things happening throughout the USA is just not local to where the incident took place thus it should be broadcasted so all can hear about it. Each State is a part of the USA and not just a country on to themselves. What happens in one State can happen in another State and can affect us all.

The problems in Michigan and the problems in Wisconsin etc and the rest of those other States affect us all one way or the other. If this is not so why did this country go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan after the distruction of the twin towers in NY city? Shouldn't that incident be local to those Cities or States where those incidents occurred and thus should not have involved the rest of the country?

If it was not for some cable news programs many of the things happening in the various States around this country would not be known.

Cphilano........ In the car radio theft case of Garcia who chased down Roteta and killed him, citing the stand your ground premis, it was not stated that either were black from the reports.

Just like in those other cases these men who used the stand the ground defense to their advantage and were given the benefit of the doubt then this woman/mother should have been given the benefit of the doubt too imo.

'Nuff said.

Peace....

Seems that "The Overllord" prefers the Jim Crow laws that Stand Your Ground replaced. Typical of one with an elitist mindset to the point that he considers himself an Overlord.

For those talking about Zimmerman being white; How Black is Black? Is on half Black still Black? Is 1/4 Black still Black? Is 1/8 Black, (like Zimmerman, who is half white, 3/8 Peruvian Indian and 1/8 Black)?

I am 1/4 Choctaw and 1/4 Commanche, does that mean that I'm white?

If the husband would have shot back and killed her, that would be covered under the SYG law, in this case SHE was the attacker, and thats why it took the jury 12 minutes to convict her.

florida's stand your ground is unconstitutionally broad and vague, and, since self defense is already legal, it is by any rational standard unnecessary. It's already responsible for three unpunished murders I know about and I don't follow these things. But, agreed, it does not seem to apply here.

However, verdict in this case is insane. She should have got 3 years probation for reckless endangerment. If floriduh's mandatory sentencing law required the sentence, the law should be changed next week.

Of course, as someone has mentioned, her lack of money is probably the real culprit here. However, since this would be a chance to make law, perhaps some publicity hungry lawyer will appeal the mandatory sentencing law. It looks vulnerable to me. But I'm not a lawyer, I merely play one whilst on the crapper.

Of course, nowadays, appealing something on the basis of it's being too broad and too cruel might be a losing effort. As the Empire declines, the inhabitants' behavior becomes increasingly erratic and bizarre.

JimD-406742

florida's stand your ground is unconstitutionally broad and vague, and by any rational standard, unnecessary. It's already responsible for three unpunished murder I know about and I don't follow these things. But, agreed, it does not seem to apply here.

Generally laws are only challenged on constitutional grounds when they overstep government authority, found to be prejudicial or violate the Rights granted under the constitution. SYG does none of those. In fact it is an attempt to shield law abiding citizens from overzealous or retaliatory prosecution. Agreed it has some flaws but not constitutional.

The 10-20-life does not appear to be unconstitutional. It has been around since 1999 I believe. This is one of those laws on the books that unfortunately catches some in the nets that was not intended... but that is the entire concept of MANDATORY. No exceptions. She had the opportunity to plead out, presumably knowing what she was facing. Her lawyer being incompetent is her only hope of an appeal. If WE, those of us commenting on her, can see where SYG would not apply, the lawyer should have seen it. There have been over 140 SYG assertions since 2005 and I am sure at least one had similar circumstances.

Unfortunately there is no cure for stupid. Florida is so well known for intelligence when it comes to law. ~sarcasm

Wow, what a mentality you seem to have. It would seem you do not grasp the concept of the law as it is. As an old man, I can't run, don't fight anymore, but if I'm threatened by ANYONE, I protect myself.

BTW I do have a Concealed Carry Permit. For the purpose of information was this confrontation/clarification, in a white or black or mixed household? Protestant, Muslim, Hindu??? Just asking, you know!

How is it another prime example of why the law should be abolished? Her defense didn't work and she got 20 years.

wburnes

BTW I do have a Concealed Carry Permit. For the purpose of information was this confrontation/clarification, in a white or black or mixed household? Protestant, Muslim, Hindu??? Just asking, you know!

WHY does the race/ethnicity religion matter? Only the actions and LAW should matter.

The law didn't work because she needed to shoot him dead and then claim she had the gun the whole time. Ah well. It's a new law and people are still learning how to use it.

Toasty don't start the racist remarks.

right toasty this is terrible act of justice white people only with no priors she should have gotten probation travisty of justice

Stand your ground fails because it can be taken advantage of. " Dead Men Tell No Tales " You can get away with murder if you kill them and lie about it.

It's not racist to point out racism, Nanci. And you should be afraid of what this means too, since this law only seems to apply to white MALES. Be careful what you vote for.

GZ is White hispanic, dont just cut out part of his ethnicity to fit your racist view.

@Toasty McGrath: You're right on Toasty. It's a racist law, constructed solely for use by "white men", and maybe some ancillary benefits for certain "white women".

a white Hispanic man is still a white man..

Funny whenever someone mentions race, the thread gets itchy..

Not saying this is it here.. but racism does exist and will continue to exist as long as we remain afraid to discuss it and thus expose it

Still a white man? Okay let me phrase it like the racist Mcgrath, The Stand your ground doesn't apply unless its to Hispanic folk.

He left the hispanic part out because he wants to turn it into a white on black, but what about Hispanic on black?

no he chose to leave part of it out to be a racist scumbag which is what he is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQj7hhqaLg&feature=fvwrel
Why dont we just call it what it really is. A man killed a young adult. not a white man killed a black kid.

So as an old man who can't run anymore, wburnes has a need for that "Stand Your Ground" law so he can legally defend himself with a gun? BULL@!$%#!

1. If wburnes feels he is in immediate danger of being killed, then wburnes has the right to defend himself.
2. If wburnes is not the one who starts the trouble, i.e. does not start/continue the confrontation leading to any need to defend himself through the use of force, then wburnes has the right to defend himself.
3. Since wburnes is not able to just run away, wburnes has the right to defend himself.
4. Since wburnes is no longer able to use his fists/feet to defend himself, wburnes has the right to use WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY to defend himself.

wburnes DOES NOT NEED any "Stand Your Ground" law.

The law didn't work because she needed to shoot him dead and then claim she had the gun the whole time. Ah well. It's a new law and people are still learning how to use it.

Mike Davis-433554 has shown why these "Stand Your Ground" laws giving anyone the "right" to use Deadly Force just because they "feel" threatened need to be repealed.

So you prefered the "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" Jim Crow laws that "Stand Your Ground" replaced?

The details apparently left out were that she retreated to the garage to leave. Retrieved her legal gun. Could not find the garage door OPENER and attempted to leave through the home where she found herself cut off and the "husband" advanced on her (by his own admission)

Gun control: Hold gun with both hands and hit what you aim at. Warning shots... paper target from last time at range posted prominently on wall.

If you fear your life is in danger, you don't fire warning shots, you shoot to kill. Apparently she was either a bad shot or she didn't fear for her life. 20 years seems a bit steep, especially when convicted murderers often get less. If there is an injustice, it's that her sentence is too long, not that she has to serve time.

If you fear your life is in danger, you don't fire warning shots, you shoot to kill.

Wow, sit in judgement much? Absurd. Have you shot and killed anyone? She just aims for her husbands skull and fires off a few rounds? In the real world women (or men) are sometimes threatened by someone they love and she probably didn't want to kill the father of her children.

You should take some basic human psychology courses before spouting such nonsense.

Wow, sit in judgement much? Absurd. Have you shot and killed anyone? She just aims for her husbands skull and fires off a few rounds? In the real world women (or men) are sometimes threatened by someone they love and she probably didn't want to kill the father of her children.

There is one reason to point a gun at someone and one purpose in pulling the trigger after doing so. If you don't intend to fire your gun at a specific target you have no reason to be holding the gun in the first place. NEVER EVER fire a gun unless you KNOW where the bullet will stop. That is part of EVERY BASIC gun course out there. Even the military trains that way. Spray and pray is for wannabe drive bys and hollywood.

Spray and pray is for wannabe drive bys and hollywood.

Not true. Suppression fire (Shooting as fast as you can down range in semi or 3 burst mode) is taught as part of basic training in the military.

Trusty

So you should NEVER warn anyons? just grab a gun and kill them?

significant difference between suppression and spray and pray. suppression has the purpose of making the other party keep their heads down.. spray and pray is just that.. spray and pray to hit someone.

fool2

Trusty

So you should NEVER warn anyons? just grab a gun and kill them?

"I have a gun and am going to blow you away" is a warning.

If you have a gun, and you point it at someone the ONLY place to point AND shoot is center of mass. Discharging a round and not knowing where it is going is reckless and has the chance of hitting an unintended target.. that could be yourself, your neighbor or the cop coming in the door.

Gun control: Two hands and hitting what you aim at.

i was always taught that if you pull the gun, and point you better be ready to use it. you don't shoot to wound, you don't shoot and miss on purpose, cause the other guy can

A take your gun shoot you with it

B pull his gun/knife/club and kill you

its like this....if the situation has escalated to the point to where you feel you have to shoot to defend yourself, then shoot center mass and kill the SOB, the alternative sucks. you don't do violence half ass. that gets you killed. you are gonna have to be more violent that your attacker or you are dead. simple really.

What the hell, she couldn't get the SIDE/BACK DOOR of the garage to open?

I guess you folks don't understand the essence of the stand your ground or retreat laws. When threatened physically or verbally with violence these laws say that you can meet deadly force with deadly force. It doesn't say that you have to carry deadly force with you to use the law, you might need to go get your firearm, and you certainly don't have to leave your house to retreat from a threat. The warning shot was obviously needed given the machismo of this threat. The alternative would have been to shoot him without a warning. Now, if this husband said "I'm going to hurt you a little, or I am going to spank you then she might not have a case, but I think we all know what it means when someone says "if I can't have you nobody can." I want to know the racial makeup of this jury that convicted her in this case and the charging instructions by the judge, because I can't imaging her being guilty of anything except bad choice of spouses. If my spouse ever threatened me she would be gone and I would expect her to do the same to me. If it took a firearm to seperate us then so be it just so nobody is hurt. If this is not a stand your ground case then there arn't any.

She had a 9 day old baby in the house, he had a restraining order against him, she stood-he should have departed. This is a travesty and this young woman does not need to be separated from her family. Her crime discharging a firearm in city limits. 6 months probation and 50 community service hours. But instead they convoluted the charges and she got 20 years OMG.

Bullet by your own admission she committed a crime. Florida has mandatory sentencing laws, if you use a gun in the commision of a crime you get 10 yrs, if you fire the gun you get 20 yrs. Once a jury of her peers found her guilty the judge had no choice but to sentence her as legislation required. PS if she was just protecting her children why did she fire the round into the wall near them, to me that seems as if she was unconcerned about her children and just out of control angry.

I don't think that the law would have worked to protect her then. The facts of the case would still be the same. From the evidence given in the article and the judgement of her peers it looks like they didn't believe that she was afraid.

tntsdad - if she truly was stuck in the garage (be it the door was jammed, she was too scared and/or jittery to work the lock properly or whatever), she was not safe. She was still trapped in the house. Do you think there was a magical line her abusive husband would not pass between the house and garage that would have protected her? She was not yet safe, even if she had temporarily left the scene of the immediate confrontation. Now, if you want to argue she should have been able to yet find a way out the situation, fine. You can argue that. By it is patently not true that she "safe" because she "left the scene" by retreating to the garage she apparently could not get out of at that time.

And for the love of God, stop with the idiotic name-calling. What grade are you in? This is a prime example of why we can't possibly have a meaningful conversation about important issues in this country anymore. Where are all the grown-ups? Someone says something you don't agree with and you resort to name calling. Disgusting, juvenile behavior that can be forgiven in a child, but not a grown man.

Kind of hard to kill with kids watching. mess them up for life.

George Zimmerman didn't have to return and confront Trayvon Martin either. He could have stayed away and been safe too but he was still able to successfully use the stand your ground defense, at least until it was overruled.

Hey Benno- The facts have not been established yet as to who confronted who.

frespech...the fact that GZ left his truck is established, and IMHO that is where he looses the SYG argument. If Martin had approached his truck and begain to try to attack him then SYG should apply. I don't see where SYG should apply when he left the safety of his truck to approach someone who was doing no more than walking through his neighborhood. IMHO this woman should have stayed in the garage, tried to get out of the door, or called the police. If the husband then came into the garage, I would think the SYG should apply.

I am not sure the law is bad. I feel everyone should have the legal right to stand your ground when you are confronted, especially on your own property. I don't think the law should give you the right to "look for trouble" . In the GZ case, I feel he looked for trouble. I don't think this woman was looking for trouble, sounds like she just made a poor choice. It is a shame she was sentenced to 20 years, but the story clearly said she was offered a better deal. She chose to roll the dice.

Just because GZ left his truck doesn't mean that SYG doesn't apply. If that were the case then no one could leave their house. The escalated situation may have started after he left the truck.

PLEASE can't we leave the GZ/TM on those threads?

This is why libtards are so much fun.

And this is why you will never be taken seriously. Your fetish to politicise everything almost makes me sorry for you. Almost.

Amazing how many people here KNOW that she was safe in the garage and should have lain down and gone to sleep. Or maybe there was a TV in the garage she could have watched.

fool2...woman in garage, husband in house with 2 boys. Which part did you not understand? Yes she should have stayed in the garage even if she could not get out. Had he entered the garage then she would have the right to protect herself. If she was a terrible shot as some of you suggest then she is lucky she did not hit one of the boys. She also turned down the 3 year offer...which leads me to believe she felt she could get off on the SYG law. Now that we have those facts correct please allow me to ask one simple question. I believe it states in the article that both parties had a history of abuse. Why do none of you believe that the woman can be the abuser. You say this law is for white men only..bull...but that is another arguement. I was in a marriage for 19 years and abused the entire time until I decided to get out of it. My ex told the judge she was the one abused yet I had not one record of even a complaint in the entire 19 years and the judge saw through her and told her to shut up. Yes I hate to tell all of you this but women can be more than bitches they can be the abuser also. So in this case why did she have a gun in the garage in the first place. That is the last place I woud keep my guns. Was she planning this all along? Maybe she was the abuser also and just got cold feet before she actually shot her husband or he would be dead. So many questions so little time. As me none of you were there but a lot of you sure throw out a lot of accusations and want to rewrite laws. All based on assumptions!

tntsdad

That's right that's why, not the fact that she left the scene (was therefore safe) and came back, that has nothing to do with it.

This is why libtards are so much fun.

It is this kind of "winner" who insists that PRESIDENT Barack Obama is the one dividing the U.S.A...........

Telcogirl

If the husband then came into the garage, I would think the SYG should apply.

If she would have stayed in the garage and the husband came looking for her, then the SYG law WOULD apply, but she didnt do that, she got the gun and went looking for him, thats why she got 20 years.

But George Zimmerman too was in no danger if he had stayed away from Trayvon Martin but he actually pursued him and was still able to claim the stand your ground defense. The law does not seem to be applied uniformly.

Benno - but george Zimmerman didnt leave then come back. Trayvon attacked george which prompted the stand your grand defense. The husband didnt attack the wife at the time (unless that detail was left out)

if trayvon didn't attack george zimmerman, George couldn't use stand your ground. it can be applied both ways.

wiz-33, you have no proof that trayvon attacked first, that will be litigated in the up coming trial.

As much as people want to, you can not compare cases.

They have separate and different circumstances. All the way from how it started, to how it ended.

I am sure there are blogs out there to discuss Travon and George.

NYMike

Big differences Zimmerman was a white man who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager.

Alexander was a black woman who fired a warning shot at her husband.

Fool2, Wrong!

It was a Hispanic man that shot and killed a black teenager!

It was a black woman that left the confrontation, came back with a gun, and shot a warning shot at her husband and two kids.

phillip robinson
i have no proof? Why else did GZ get cleaned up at the scene? They weren't giving him a shower. Honestly I'll believe that Trayvon attacked first. You can believe that he didnt. Unless you show me proof that I'm wrong, Im gonna keep believing it. Not like it matters. We're not on the jury, but everyone is going to try to make this a racist thing instead of a neighborhood watch watching a possible burglar. There's multiply ways to see this.

Wiz-3385151, according to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, ANYONE who is being followed by -- and feels threatened by -- an unknown person with unknown intentions HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

That means Trayvon Martin had the right, in the attempt to defend himself from a perceived threat by means of whatever force is necessary, including the right to attack George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman decided to follow Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman decided to corner Trayvon Martin -- and GEORGE ZIMMERMAN decided that GEORGE ZIMMERMAN did not have to keep himself at a reasonable distance from a PERCEIVED threat -- and ESCALATED THE SITUATION.

Likewise, Marissa Alexander retreated from a threat -- and RETURNED TO ESCALATE THE SITUATION.

Understand it, and deal with it, Wiz-3385151

The Quacked One

Wiz-3385151, according to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, ANYONE who is being followed by -- and feels threatened by -- an unknown person with unknown intentions HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

Care to cite where in 776 those words exist? not a paraphrase or some armchair lawyer but within the STATUTE. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

And this thread is about marissa alexander... TM is another thread.

The Quacked One

So TM was cornered now? Yeah, he attacked someone, He's to blame. Just like this woman. 20 years is extreme but as you put it, she escalated it. She should of gone for a phone if she felt her life was in danger, she could get away from him, she got to the gun, she could of gotten to the phone. Hell in this day and age everyone has a cellphone.

At a cost of $55,000 a year for 20 years, the state of Florida is protecting us from an abused, postpartum black mother and wife who fired a warning shot into a wall after having been beaten by her husband. Okay, sounds good. Three years was a preposterous offer, BTW. "Happy Mother's Day, Marissa Alexander!" from the state of Florida. Affordable access to healthcare, civil rights, and protection from abuse is really the best gift to a woman on any occasion.

Please join UniteWomen.org in the fight against the war on women.

Look, if she was in the garage with a gun and her husband was in the house with the kids....how could she feel she needed to comeback into the house to shoot at him as a defensive move? She did not go into the garage to escape she went to get the gun. SYG does not apply.

As for GZ there is nothing wrong with pursuing someone who you believe to be suspect. There were past break-ins in the neighborhood that's why they have a watch group. If I see someone I believe is suspect in my neighborhood I'd follow them too to see what they are up to. His actions are rational considering he is a part of the neighborhood watch. "If" TM attacked him I don't know. "If" GZ followed him to shoot him I don't know that either.

A couple of guys tried to break into my neighbor's home a long time ago. My grandfather yelled at them as they were attempting to gain entry with a screwdriver through the front door but they didn't respond. He then pulled out his 45 and drew back the slide to load the chamber. Once the 2 individuals heard that they ran into the woods and later were captured by the police. If they had turned on my grandfather instead what do you think he should have done? Run away? Their race or my gandfather's doesn't matter. If I said what they were would it change your opinion of that situation?

@ fool2

Big differences Zimmerman was a white man who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager.

Alexander was a black woman who fired a warning shot at her husband.

Zimmerman is 1/2 white, 3/8 Peruvian Indian and 1/8 Black.

Rabbit Raiser

So it was black on black?

STOP THE BLACK ON BLACK CRIME!!!!

How did she leave? Unless you believe she was blatantly lying about the door being stuck (which the article does not indicate was the case), then she did not leave. She retreated to a different part of the house. Not the same as leaving. But I assume, based on your belief that she had the ability to leave and did not that you likewise believe Zimmerman's defense is baloney, because he was the one in pursuit who could have stopped following and left at any time (up to the moment that it escalated into a physical confrontation, a confrontation that would not have happened had he left the situation sooner). If you agree that the law equally fails to apply to Zimmerman, then at least you are not a hypocrite.

I don't think it matters whether or not she "left." What matters is that she shot the gun while there were children present. No, she didn't shoot him, didn't harm anyone, but it could have easily happened. She could have even waited it out in the garage, where she could have watched for him at the door. She would have been safer, there, though not completely safe. Another problem I have with this is that she was going to leave the children with this man who had abused her.

That's just it Kerren it was her house, he had a restraining order. She retrieved the gun to protect herself. The warning shot was not needed but it also doesn't call for 20 years in prison for a first time offender.

She left the situation she was safe there was no reason to go back and fire a warning shot or any shot. The original confrontation ended when she left the scene. She had no right to go back and start a new confrontation. At that point she was the aggressor/attacker not him. That is the point none of you understand you cannot go back and start a confrontation once the original confrontation is over. Once you are safe you cannot go back and begin it again.

MSNBC got it from the source...the Jacksonville news. Has nothing to do with any "spins". I clicked the link up there...try it.

Two different stories so keep on the topic. GEEZ

lonereb...read the story again..she was not safe...she was trapped in the garage which was attached to the house...she could not get out....she grabbed her LEGAL gun and tried to get out through the house and fired a warning shot......she had every right to try and leave a dangerous situation. Why would you think she was safe? You think an abuser cares if you are in the living room or the garage when they are beating the hell out of you??

He came at her before she shot the gun. He has beat her many times and they have records of it. He told her he was going to kill her. The law needs to be stopped if it doesn't work for all races. She isn't the only one thats going to jail for it. All blacks that have used it so far are guilty in florida.

2Wylde4U I believe it is kind of difficult for an abuser to "beat the hell out of you" When you are in the garage and they are in the living room. Call me crazy but I think she was out of immeadiate danger...at least according to the article. So please 2Wylde4U please read the story again as you advise.

Guilty because the jury decided so. I think they had access to way more information than the posters here.

20 years because a tough on crime legislature made this the only sentence that could be given. This is what mandatory sentencing does.

Three years as the "plea bargain" was too much. Twenty years--insane. I am former abuse victim. She should def have used the battered woman's defense. A battered woman, as I know, is in fear for their life 24-7, the kind of fear going into a garage does not cure. "stand your ground" is pure bull@!$%# and should be removed from law immediately before it grows!!! As someone said there are already self-defense laws, that is enough. The contrived, redundant "stand your ground" law is itself nothing but a loaded gun that will hurt more people than it ever helps!!!

The contrived, redundant "stand your ground" law is itself nothing but a loaded gun that will hurt more people than it ever helps!!!

SYG simply clarifies Self Defense and puts the BURDEN on the prosecution and more importantly, in theory, provides immunity. it is funny you are stating SYG should be removed... but want this woman to be covered by it.

There is living in fear and being in fear for life and limb. Living in fear does NOT give ANYONE the right to simply pull a gun and shoot someone or shoot AT someone... There needs to be an IMMEDIATE and imminent threat. Otherwise people who have fear of clowns would be permitted to seek out and shoot clowns simply because they feared them.

sagiwoman

this is another case where im thinking the court system is crazy. 20 yrs, come on. i read just last week a man got 8 yrs for killing 2 people. i mean WTF are they doing out there..?

WFT= the LEGISLATURE mandated 20 years for the crime. That is the minimum under the sentencing guidelines. Just like crack = 10 to 20 while coke = walk to 5 . Don't blame the court for the soup the legislature cooked.

Appeal all you want, but if the law says the minimum sentence for this type of crime is 20 yrs then appeals will do no good. Get the law changed if you don't like it.

Don in MN, you kind of sound like a judge yourself with that kind of talk. I know I've heard that myself come out of a judges mouth. "If you don't like the law, change it." is what he told me. What a bunch of BS I told him, how he could sit up there and say that to me, like I myself at 19 years old could do anything to change the law. Yet these judges can sit up there and pick and choose which laws they want to enforce or not. And I told him that he couldn't tell me otherwise, there were numerous laws on the books that he and other judges choose to turn a blind eye too and choose not to enforce. A lot of those laws were sexual in nature for an example. Guess that judge didn't like to be told that in "his" courtroom. "His" courtroom, I like that, he thinks it's his courtroom, like he can take it home or something. I guess he forgot that "his" courtroom wasn't paid for out of "his" pockets. It's "our" courtroom, "we" elected him and "we" paid for the thing. Can you guess what sentance I recieved for a first time offence? The max, 364 days in the county jail. On a sentance that he gave a person before me a $300 fine and 3 years probation. S***t like that really, really puts a bad taste in my mouth about our legal system. I know I for one would love to and hope to see, one day the roles reversed. Maybe one day we will have a revolution in this country and all the judges and the prosecuters that gave out unfair, biased sentances will be held accountable for what they have done.

It's not really any different than the Martin case. Zimmerman could have stayed away and been safe too but he actually pursued Martin but still was let off by using the stand your ground defense. There needs to be much more uniformity in how the law is interpreted. The only difference I see in the two cases is that Ms Alexander is black and Mr Zimmerman isn't.

Weird is right! I'm getting pretty sick of this crap where the prosecution offers a deffendant a small amount of time for pleading guilty and if they don't take it and are found guilty then they throw the book at the person. Like in this case, offering her 3 years and since she didn't take it she ended up with 20. Does that seem unfair to anyone else?

Assault does not have to involve harm to anyone. Assault is simply the act of using a weapon to place someone in harm's way. Battery is the physical part of harming someone. Please don't mistake the two again. Thanks.

Wrong if you threaten with a gun that is always assault even in your liberal states. There was no confrontation in progress she started a new one. She threatened three people with that gun.

Yes, the problem is "application"; but that's exactly why judges should have discretion in sentencing. Firing a gun in a house is inherently reckless, but she got the same sentence you'd get if you were someone just shooting for fun and consciously indifferent to possibility of the bullet hitting and killing someone. Even the prosecutor isn't claiming that's the situation here. Does society really need 20 years of protection from this woman? Under the law in Florida, a trained and experienced judge is not permitted to ask that question, and come up with a rational decision.

Crazy Merican

Dang! 20 years for aggravated assault?!? Is she a repeat offender? In my RED state only minorities get that kind of sentence!

See minimum sentencing requirements in FL. Picking on your name here but in Mexico simple possession of a gun can get you 10 to 20 and they don't have HBO is my understanding.

A white goes free for murdering a black kid and a black woman gets 20 years for firing a warning shot (and nobody was hurt) it isn't fair it's Floriduh.

Fool2 Wrong, a Hispanic goes free for murdering a black kid.

From what I gather from the article is that there was a confrontation, she retreated to the garage. She then acquired the gun and went back and fired the "warning" shot...that makes a total of two confrontations. If she had stayed in the garage and he came to the garage to continue the altercation and she shot at him, that would be a stand your ground case. The fact that she returned to the original scene with the gun makes her the aggressor, and ineligible for the stand your ground defense.

Regarding the 8th Amendment, I'd be willing to bet (and I'm not a betting man) that there is jurisprudence regarding minimum/maximum sentencing as Florida's not the only state that has those for gun violence. I don't see a 20 year sentence as either cruel or unusual. The purpose of the 8th Amendment, I believe, was to protect from having a $1million fine or the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread. A 20 year sentence is not an unusual punishment for someone who has committed an act of violence with a gun. It's happened quite a few times throughout the country in very recent history...

Yes, she did. Assault is simply the act of brandishing a weapon is a threatening manner. Battery is when the weapon actually strikes someone. Why is it that people on this site don't know this? A simple internet search can explain definitions.

commonsenseisdead-5929024

A simple internet search can explain definitions.

Internet? Search? What are those? (sarcasm) I agree with your screen name.

thfan

you are a fool the word assault means fear and battery is when one is hit. don't you thing firing a gun in anyone direction causes fear.

commonsense and NYC, I think what thfan was trying to say that in the terms of the word, the guy wasn't physically assaulted. This is another case that the criminal justice system uses it's broad deffinition of a term to punish someone too excessively for something that is almost completely unrelated to that persons true action. Just because a case barely fits a charge doesn't mean the prosecution can go out of it's way to mold into something that it's not. She should have been charged with firing a firearm in public if she should have been charged at all. The fact is and this is the honest truth, if she would have hit him, she would have recieved a lesser sentance.

except the wall, the wall wasn't happy

How do you get out of a locked garage without going back to get the key?

Only kind of locks I've ever seen that you need to have a key to open from the inside are keyed deadbolts. Not many of those in garages.

Enough-2735007

Only kind of locks I've ever seen that you need to have a key to open from the inside are keyed deadbolts. Not many of those in garages.

Power garage door openers don't allow the door to be lifted unless the release is pulled... generally the release would be above the car about dead center with the door down and the vehicle inside. Strange that she couldn't find the push button on the wall though... maybe not all of them have that?

charleyfarley

How do you get out of a locked garage without going back to get the key?

Who locks a garage door unless going on vacation? If one does lock the garage door, wouldn't the key be on the keyring?

If she just would have hit him she would have gotten off with only 15 years...

Do us all a favor, Flori-DUH and secede from the union, you backward freaks and take your blind, deaf and dumb to justice 10-20-life crap with you.

dusk18

Do us all a favor, Flori-DUH and secede from the union, you backward freaks and take your blind, deaf and dumb to justice 10-20-life crap with you.

perhaps if you READ/understood what 10-20-life involved.... or do you think criminals should get off lightly for using a firearm?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life

Agreed.

At first read, this does not seem to be a justifiable "Stand your ground" scenario, but 20 years?

Ridiculous.

say thank you Jeb Bush... wonder if he will come out and say the law was not meant to be applied this way in this case like he did in the GZ situation.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html

That's what I don't get. Based on what I read, she wasn't trying to harm anyone, just basically firing a shot in the air to get distance to get out of the house. She wasn't trying to assault anyone. How is that a 20 yr. crime? If she was a bad shot and missed, then I can understand but it seems like she genuinely didn't aim towards anyone and just wanted to get away. What is the crime she committed?

italylove656 How long do you think it would take her to re-aim that gun? 2 seconds maybe? Wasn't trying to harm anyone? PLEEEEEAAAAASSSSSSSEEEE people!

You could say she got 20 years for not killing him, for trying to get away without hurting anybody.

NOW it all makes sense.

They should rename it Stand Your White Ground. lol

Oh get over you bigotry crap...I guess all black people should be excluded from laws...would that make you happy? I worked in a Trauma hospital close to the projects. Do you even have a clue of how many times I have heard "They were just turning their lives around" To someone who had just been shot at 3 in the morning ...Hummmmmmmm must have been attending night school huh? Has nothing to do with black white brown or purple Has to do with breaking the law! Get It?? Besides you ever see a black woman get pissed? OMG! If anything the fact that she was black would reinforce the issue...Their is a reason even black men are afraid of their mama'a...and it is valid!

marlo

Look who's talking about bgotry.

Huge difference between bigotry and facts...learn them and be a smarter person