Law tears family apart over a single gunshot

[sledgemeister]

Why this is news in Australia is beyond me but it made me chuckle to myself a little

<http://www.news.com.au/world/law-tears-family-apart-over-a-single-gunshot/story-e6frfkyi-1226361610793>

A MOTHER of three will spend the next 20 years in jail for firing a gun into a wall during a domestic dispute, even though no one was hurt.

Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before the US incident in Jacksonville in 2010, when she fired a single shot to scare off her husband who she felt was threatening her.

Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of a toddler and 11-year-old twins, had claimed self-defence, tried to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and rejected plea deals that could have won her a much shorter sentence. But a jury found her guilty as charged: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon - and Florida's mandatory-minimum gun law dictated the 20-year sentence.

At her sentencing, Alexander's relatives begged Judge James Daniel for leniency, but he said the decision was "out of my hands".

"The legislature has not given me the discretion to do what the family and many others have asked me to do," the judge said.

State Attorney Angela Corey, who also is overseeing the prosecution of shooter George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case - in which the neighbourhood watch volunteer fatally shot an unarmed black teenager - stands by the handling of Alexander's case.

Ms Corey said she believed Alexander aimed the gun at the man and his two sons, and the bullet could have ricocheted and hit any of them.

Florida's "10-20-life" law was implemented in 1999 and has been credited with helping to lower the violent crime rate.

Anyone who shows a gun in the commission of certain crimes gets an automatic 10 years in prison. Fire the gun, and it's 20 years. Shoot and wound someone, and it's 25 years to life.

Critics say Alexander's case underscores the unfair sentences that can result when laws strip judges of discretion.

Greg Newburn, Florida director of the Families Against Mandatory Minimums advocacy group, said the judge should have the authority to decide an appropriate sanction after hearing all the unique circumstances of the case.

US Representative Corinne Brown, an advocate for Alexander, said: "The Florida criminal justice system has sent two clear messages today.

"One is that if women who are victims of domestic violence try to protect themselves, the 'stand your ground' law will not apply to them.

"The second message is that if you are black, the system will treat you differently."

Let me guess this chick is african american?
In anycase I would like to rebutt, no you dumb F#ck, the message is if you point a gun in fear for your life then shoot the scumbag dead! They dont get up to tell tales and send your stupid ass to prison. Black, Brown, Green or Purple with Polka Dots it wouldnt make a feck of difference to the legislation the way its written. Seriously how dumb are people?


Edit:
Thanks to google I offer my apologies for the use of the aforementioned term "chick" unknowningly and without thought


Someone, anyone EYEBLEACH PLEAAASSEEEEEE!

[Hazcat]

Why this is news in Australia is beyond me but it made me chuckle to myself a little

<http://www.news.com.au/world/law-tears-family-apart-over-a-single-gunshot/story-e6frfkyi-1226361610793>
Let me guess this chick is african american?
In anycase I would like to rebutt, no you dumb F#ck, the message is if you point a gun in fear for your life then shoot the scumbag dead! They dont get up to tell tales and send your stupid ass to prison. Black, Brown, Green or Purple with Polka Dots it wouldnt make a feck of difference to the legislation the way its written. Seriously how dumb are people?


Edit:
Thanks to google I offer my apologies for the use of the aforementioned term "chick" unknowningly and without thought


Someone, anyone EYEBLEACH PLEAAASSEEEEEE!

If you knew DemocRAT Corinne Brown you would not ask that question!

[tombogan03884]

"A MOTHER of three will spend the next 20 years in jail for firing a gun into a wall during a domestic dispute, even though no one was hurt."


If this had been a guy they would be complaining that "even with children present he only got 20 years".

[twyacht]

Because the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines were Legislators interfering with Judicial Process, because many Liberal Assclown Judges were all over the map. It's a double edged sword....

One liberal assclown judge gives a violent rapist 2 years, and gives someone who embezzles $10,000 from their company 10. A crack  dealer gets 1 year and probation, while a 22 year old shoplifter from the hardware store gets 3.

The sentencing can be all over the map. Legislators passed the laws stripping away a Judge's discretion, cause a lot of Judges are stoopid....

[JLawson]

... the message is if you point a gun in fear for your life then shoot the scumbag dead! ...

I won't comment on the case but I think the above statement is a bit reckless.  Those who use or carry a gun for self-defense should not do so with the intent to kill.  The intent should be to stop the attack... if the attacker dies from his injuries then so be it.  We don't practice "Failure to Kill" drills - we practice "Failure to Stop" drills.

During a critical incident, we do what we have practiced and we say what we have rehearsed.  I would much rather tell the police that I "wanted to stop the attack" rather than I "wanted to kill him."  The after-shooting circumstances are likely to be quite different depending on which phrase you use.  If we cultivate the "shoot 'em dead" mantra, in thought or speech, then we are far more likely to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

I won't comment on the case but I think the above statement is a bit reckless.  Those who use or carry a gun for self-defense should not do so with the intent to kill.  The intent should be to stop the attack... if the attacker dies from his injuries then so be it.  We don't practice "Failure to Kill" drills - we practice "Failure to Stop" drills.

During a critical incident, we do what we have practiced and we say what we have rehearsed.  I would much rather tell the police that I "wanted to stop the attack" rather than I "wanted to kill him."  The after-shooting circumstances are likely to be quite different depending on which phrase you use.  If we cultivate the "shoot 'em dead" mantra, in thought or speech, then we are far more likely to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

What you say is true from a semantic/propaganda point of view, however all of the practical places to shoot to stop either are, or are close to "kill zones", Head, chest, pelvic girdle, largest area's of the body, that contain all the major support and operating systems of the body.
So it is just a matter of the perception generated by the words, it has no actual bearing on conduct.
I will qualify that by stating that I'm assuming we all have brains enough not to go get another gun to finish the attacker off after he's down and not moving.

[PegLeg45]

I think 20 years is harsh for this incident, and that you can't have a 'blanket policy' to cover things like this either...just like Zero Tolerance in schools....because each case is different.

Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before the US incident in Jacksonville in 2010, when she fired a single shot to scare off her husband who she felt was threatening her.

This is the key point to me.

Do not fire warning shots.
I just read an article by Sheriff Jim Wilson on this topic, and it bolsters the point.
Warning shots are a bad idea for several reasons: hitting by-standers mainly, this incident where laws vary and jail time was incurred, wasting ammo that could be used for defense.

Bottom line, if you are in direct fear for your life or a loved one's life, shoot to stop the threat (and if that involves killing, so be it)... if not, DON'T FIRE THE WEAPON.

[Solus]

About semantics, I was told it is good to not even say you shot the bad guy.  Say, instead, that you shot in his direction.  The supposed advantage is that you have admitted as little as  you can and will require the prosecutor to prove as much as possible.

Never seemed like a major advantage to me since they are gonna prove the bullets came from your gun no matter what, but I guess it is a good mind set to have.....say as little as possible.

"He said he was going to kill me and I believed him so I shot in his direction to protect myself."

"Did your shots  hit him?"

"I don't know."

I guess it is always possible that the ballistics test could fail to prove your gun was the one that fired the bullets that hit h im....and then you have not admitted to it in your initial statement.

[lhprop1]

I heard about this on the radio the other day.  Apparently, the husband has been convicted of domestic violence on other girlfriends in the past and even admitted to the police that he threatened his wife and intended to beat her up.  It was only upon consultation with a lawyer that he changed his story.

[tombogan03884]

I heard about this on the radio the other day.  Apparently, the husband has been convicted of domestic violence on other girlfriends in the past and even admitted to the police that he threatened his wife and intended to beat her up.  It was only upon consultation with a lawyer that he changed his story.

In that case she should have shot him.
By shooting the wall she endangered everyone beyond it.
I bet if she had put her round safely in the threat they would have told her "Go forth and quit dating A holes".