Warning shot gets woman 20 years in prison
 

This is insane no matter how you slice it.

Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot
By Mitch Stacy
Ass. Press / May 19, 2012

TAMPA, Fla.—Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of a toddler and 11-year-old twins, knew it was coming. She had claimed self-defense, tried to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and rejected plea deals that could have gotten her a much shorter sentence. A jury found her guilty as charged: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Because she fired a gun while committing a felony, Florida's mandatory-minimum gun law dictated the 20-year sentence.

Her case in Jacksonville has drawn a fresh round of criticism aimed at mandatory-minimum sentencing laws.

Nobody is going to make a fuss about this because it was a B to B shooting. It's one more lady B out of commission, now the other lady B's have more room to maneuver.

What's a B? Other lady B's? I don't get it?

I had to think about that one ...

B to B ...

Babe to babe ...

Bytch to bytch ...

Reading the article gave me a clue ...

Black to black.

"Proportional response" probably does not include firing a warning shot.

Shooting to kill is a different can of worms though. Many women have gone to prison for life for shooting their hubbies and claiming self defense.

Often because there is no reported case history of any type of abuse.

Not sure what the answer is to domestic violence or unrest. But shooting a warning shot is definitely not one of them.

Too dangerous for the neighbors.

There are some good ones.

Mandatory minimums are horrifying.

If you dig further, in this particular case, she's been found guilty of domestic violence, and is banned from owning a firearm.
Her husband had a restraining order against her, which she violated by going to his house.
She LEFT the house, and went to her car to get her gun out, and then went BACK inside.
Yes, she may be a mother, and this will get a few people upset, but just because someone spits a kid out doesn't automatically make them a better person. Octomom comes to mind.
She made willful, illegal moves, and then attempted to hide behind a law which is designed for an entirely different situation. While I think 20 years is way too long, I also realize, those kids might have a chance to NOT be raised by an obviously uncontrollable hot head.

The important issue here is that "mandatory minimums" prevent judges from considering the unique aspects of each case, and can apply in cases the politicians never forsaw .

These laws are an attempt to rein in "bleeding heart judges" but they are a mistake .

And yet you will find that the system still has ways of dealing with them. There are many felons who were snagged under those mandatory minimums who got out after a fraction of the time. The Justice system is changing. It is costing states too much to house and care for criminals. The new order of business is to release as soon as legally possible and barring that, come up with a law forcing the early release.

This is why you keep reading these insane stories of "repeat" offenders out to repeat their crimes again and again.

Hell hath no furry like a women scorned

I know a few women that would shoot you before some q-tip in A-gan would