[bkt]

This is insane no matter how you slice it.

Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot
By Mitch Stacy
***. 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.

 

[Ranger-6]

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.

 

[Tackleberry1]

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

 

[Shoobee]

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.

 

[towboater]

There are some good ones.

 

[Rentacop]

Mandatory minimums are horrifying.

 

[BenLuby]

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.

 

[Rentacop]

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 .

 

[galapogos]

Mandatory minimums are horrifying.

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.

 

[MobileMarine]

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

 

[Axxe55]

if the facts of this case are true, then she should have taken the three year deal she was offered. she decided to gamble and she lost. do i feel twenty years is excessive? really undecided at the moment. part of me says yes, but part of me say she got what she deserved. she also should have known that all of her past dealings with her husband would brought out into the open and for the jusry to hear.

 

[Doc3402]

This is insane no matter how you slice it.

Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot
By Mitch Stacy
***. 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 for firing a firearm during the commission of a felony.

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.

This is a loser no matter which way you look at it. She was offered a 3 year plea deal by that lovable Angela Corey and refused it. She decided to go with a trial and use the Stand Your Ground law as her defense. When found guilty by a jury of her peers the judge had no choice in giving her 20 years.

Sure, she did suffer abuse at her husband's hands. It was an ongoing problem. So why didn't she go before the court and get a restraining order and dump him? Why did she feel a need to re-enter the house once she had armed herself? The children were in no danger until she fired. Now add in that her so-called warning shot did not go into the ceiling as her family states, but went through one wall, into another, and was fired in the direction of the husband and sons.

Something else that people either aren't seeing, or are totally ignoring, is that after she was out on bond from this incident she violated a no-contact restraining order and confronted and battered the man she was allegedly so afraid of.

After researching this case, and hearing about it ad-nauseum from our maternally biased local news sources, I am convinced this woman needs to be off the streets, and 20 years sounds pretty good to me. She had a three year deal and turned it down. She chose to violate the no contact order issued after her arrest and caused documented injury to her husband, which is confirmed by the sons. If she is turned loose it is only a matter of time before someone dies.

 

[Axxe55]

Doc3402, pretty much the same as i see it, if what has been reported to be true, which i suspect is. she got a fair offer of three years, probably could have been out in a year and a half to two, but she decided to gamble on the. "Stand Your Ground" defence, and now she has twenty years to reflect on her decision.

when she left the scene, the threat was no longer there, and IMO, became attempted murder. had he followed her, it would have been a different set of circumstances, but she went back with a pistol. iwould have been suprised at anything less than a guilty verdict from the jury, but they seem to have seen it for what it was, not self defence.

 

[danolator]

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.

Spot on. This female committed a crime and shamed gun owners by doing so. I have no sympathy for her.

 

[Doc3402]

Mandatory minimums are horrifying.

I disagree, but only because I am old enough to remember the disparity in sentencing brought on by race, financial status, or the judge's wife's attitude.

 

[billt]

What is giving this story a lot of traction is nothing more than the fact it's being misreported. This woman was a total POS from the get go, with many run in's with the law. She was prone to violence, and had no legal business even touching a weapon. This whole "warning shot" business is also a bunch of crap. As was mentioned she wasn't "warning" anyone. The shot she fired was at chest level, and she was damn lucky she didn't kill someone with it. This ***** deserves to rot behind bars. She should have gotten life.

 

[PanBaccha]

What is giving this story a lot of traction is nothing more than the fact it's being misreported. This woman was a total POS from the get go, with many run in's with the law. She was prone to violence, and had no legal business even touching a weapon. This whole "warning shot" business is also a bunch of crap. As was mentioned she wasn't "warning" anyone. The shot she fired was at chest level, and she was damn lucky she didn't kill someone with it. This ***** deserves to rot behind bars. She should have gotten life.

Do you have links to statement above? Or is this just an opinion?

 

[billt]

The woman deserves 20 years based on her own stupidity. She was offered a plea deal for three years. Which with good behaviour would have gotten her out in 18 months or less. Instead she decided to roll the dice and face the *** end of a mandatory 20 year sentence. It doesn't matter what she did or didn't do. The reality of the practice of law is what only matters is what you can PROVE to a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt.

She did what she did. Florida law states, 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 years to life in prison.

Her lawyer had to have informed her of the consequences she would be up against if she lost. And he no doubt advised her to take the plea based on the severity of the mandatory sentence if she lost. She played a long shot and lost. Too bad. Now she wishes she would have taken the plea. Now it's too late. Which is worse, serving 18 months for something you feel you didn't do. Or, serving 20 years for something you've been legally convicted of doing?

 

[Doc3402]

Do you have links to statement above? Or is this just an opinion?

I've been following this case since it went public, and I can see where some of the statements in BillT's post came from. It's all very confusing, made worse by the bias of whatever source is telling it. Let's look at some known facts.

She did go to the house of a man she had a restraining order against.

This man was the alleged father of her daughter born 9 days earlier.

She states she thought he would be out, but upon arrival found he was home.

An argument ensued and she states she felt threatened.

She did leave the house to a place of safety before the shot was fired.

She did retrieve a weapon from that place of safety... her car... and returned to the house.

She then reentered the house and fired one shot into the wall, not the ceiling as she claims was her intent.

Here is where things get confusing.

Some stories report that she got the gun out of her car, other stories tell you the gun was hidden in the garage, and yet other stories state she got the gun out of the car which was parked in the garage. Some stories will tell you she fired through the kitchen wall into the room the man was in, others will tell you he saw it coming. Some will tell you there were two boys in the room, and others will tell you they were standing next to the man when the shot was fired.

You could try to make some sense out of it by reading the story linked to in the first post, but don't count on it. Even the alleged victim differs in his statements. On the 911 call he states she aimed the gun at "them" and fired, yet in his deposition she allegedly fired in the air. Remember, the bullet hole was in the wall, not the ceiling.

Back to the facts.

She was offered a three year deal. She refused it and insisted on a trial. While out on bail awaiting trial she went to the man's home again in spite of a no contact restraining order sworn out by the man. She committed battery against him during this visit, a fact sworn to by the two boys, who are somebody's son, but I haven't figured out whose yet. She was convicted in the restraining order case and sentenced to time served.

As far as I have been able to find out, she did not have a criminal record that would keep her from owning a firearm, but the man did. Of course, she has one now, but that won't be an issue for 20 years.

What I will never understand is why she went back into the house. Once she did that she was screwed. She threw out all possible defenses by returning to confront the documented abuser.

Here is a story with slightly more info.

 

[kycol]

I disagree, but only because I am old enough to remember the disparity in sentencing brought on by race, financial status, or the judge's wife's attitude.

Very true I have seen it often money = slap on wrist or ankle bracelet and you can stay at home and party