Florida court hands out 20 years in "stand your ground" trial

[Dandyman]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/14/why-...-sentence-despite-invoking-stand-your-ground/

No need for our resident good ol' boys to worry - it was only a Black woman warning off her abusive husband.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Probably because the jury was full of Rednecks – you know,the ones that have more fingers than teeth!

 

[Spun Cuppa]

This is thin ice territory with regard to case law. Of course everyone would agree that domestic violence against a partner is wrong, and it must be said it is not always male/female, as there have been cases of female/male, but, and it is a big but, if people are acquitted on self-defence grounds due to domestic violence, this could then be used as a 'legal' way of ridding yourself of a non-violent partner, by simply claiming they had been violent towards you, or they had threatened violence...

As I say, domestic violence is totally unacceptable, but is a minefield when trying weigh up culpability and truth...

 

[spring hall convert]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/14/why-...-sentence-despite-invoking-stand-your-ground/

No need for our resident good ol' boys to worry - it was only a Black woman warning off her abusive husband.

Perhaps she should have joined the neighbourhood watch.

 

[martyn20]

This is thin ice territory with regard to case law. Of course everyone would agree that domestic violence against a partner is wrong, and it must be said it is not always male/female, as there have been cases of female/male, but, and it is a big but, if people are acquitted on self-defence grounds due to domestic violence, this could then be used as a 'legal' way of ridding yourself of a non-violent partner, by simply claiming they had been violent towards you, or they had threatened violence...

As I say, domestic violence is totally unacceptable, but is a minefield when trying weigh up culpability and truth...

I think the point that really stands out is Zimmerman shot someone dead and got nothing, this lady fired warning shots into a WALL and got 20 years! She did not hurt anyone, she certainly did not attempt to get rid of anyone.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The last paragraph of that article has a great bearing on the result.

“When she [Alexander] discharges a firearm in the direction of human beings, the legislature says it’s dangerous,” Corey said, according to the Florida Times-Union. “And one of the reasons is because the bullet went through the wall where one of the children was standing. It happened to deflect up into the ceiling, but if it had deflected down it could have hit one of the children.”

 

[martyn20]

The last paragraph of that article has a great bearing on the result.

“When she [Alexander] discharges a firearm in the direction of human beings, the legislature says it’s dangerous,” Corey said, according to the Florida Times-Union. “And one of the reasons is because the bullet went through the wall where one of the children was standing. It happened to deflect up into the ceiling, but if it had deflected down it could have hit one of the children.”

Clearly it was bloody dangerous but she was not aiming at anyone, she was not trying to kill and she got 20 years, we don't even give that to convicted murderers in most cases over here.
A form of the same defence was used in both cases, Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and so did Marissa Alexander how can the punishment be so different.

 

[liverpool_one]

Her sentencing fell under the guidelines of what’s known in Florida as the “10-20-Life” law, which set certain mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed with a firearm. The law enacted in 1999 requires that any crime committed with a gun earns the perpetrator a minimum ten year sentence, as the Florida Department of Corrections explains. If the firearm is discharged, the convicted will receive a 20-year minimum sentence, and if shots fired from the gun injure or kill anyone, the minimum sentence is 25-years to life.

Wish they had this law where i live.

 

[Robdinho]

Bit more to this one than that report makes out

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

Sounds like the difference is that she had the opportunity to leave, but instead went and got her gun and came back again

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Clearly it was bloody dangerous but she was not aiming at anyone, she was not trying to kill and she got 20 years, we don't even give that to convicted murderers in most cases over here.
A form of the same defence was used in both cases, Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and so did Marissa Alexander how can the punishment be so different.

Judging by that paragraph, it seems it was reckless. It was only a deflection that prevented someone (one of the children) from being killed. I'm only going by that article and have no other knowledge of the case at all.

 

[martyn20]

Her sentencing fell under the guidelines of what’s known in Florida as the “10-20-Life” law, which set certain mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed with a firearm. The law enacted in 1999 requires that any crime committed with a gun earns the perpetrator a minimum ten year sentence, as the Florida Department of Corrections explains. If the firearm is discharged, the convicted will receive a 20-year minimum sentence, and if shots fired from the gun injure or kill anyone, the minimum sentence is 25-years to life.

Wish they had this law where i live.

So she committed a crime but George did not?

 

[yxee]

Clearly it was bloody dangerous but she was not aiming at anyone, she was not trying to kill and she got 20 years, we don't even give that to convicted murderers in most cases over here.
A form of the same defence was used in both cases, Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and so did Marissa Alexander how can the punishment be so different.

I agree, mandatory minimums are stupid and this case highlights that.

However, the news story given in the first post omits some important details. During the altercation (when she allegedly feared for her life) she left the house and went to the garage to get a firearm then returned to the house and pointed it at her husband. Stand your ground isn't a defence if you don't actually stand your ground but leave instead, and then return to the scene with a deadly weapon.

She then fired it into a wall behind a child. You're guaranteed to go to jail anywhere in the world for this.

The state saw the harsh predicament of the 20 year mandatory minimum so they offered her a 3 year plea deal, and she rejected it. The jury had no choice but to find her guilty because she confessed the entire story in a statement to the police.

 

[martyn20]

Bit more to this one than that report makes out

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

Sounds like the difference is that she had the opportunity to leave, but instead went and got her gun and came back again

Like Zimmerman did not have to get out of his car and follow Trayvon, as he was being told to do on the phone

 

[martyn20]

I agree, mandatory minimums are stupid and this case highlights that.

However, the news story given in the first post omits some important details. During the altercation (when she allegedly feared for her life) she left the house and went to the garage to get a firearm then returned to the house and pointed it at her husband. Stand your ground isn't a defence if you don't actually stand your ground but leave instead, and then return to the scene with a deadly weapon.

She then fired it into a wall behind a child. You're guaranteed to go to jail anywhere in the world for this.

The state saw the harsh predicament of the 20 year mandatory minimum so they offered her a 3 year plea deal, and she rejected it. The jury had no choice but to find her guilty because she confessed the entire story in a statement to the police.

And surely Zimmerman did not have to get out of his car and follow Trayvon because he thought he looked suspicious. He could have stayed in the car and waited for the police as the operator told him to, he made a concious decision to follow him, like she did to get the gun. Zimmerman would have been in no danger if he had stayed in the car, neither would Trayvon

 

[liverpool_one]

So she committed a crime but George did not?

no,we got too many knobheads running around with guns.
My apologies for not making this clear.

 

[Robdinho]

Like Zimmerman did not have to get out of his car and follow Trayvon, as he was being told to do on the phone

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending Zimmerman! Just pointing out that the original article left out an awful lot of key information about this case

 

[vegster]

And surely Zimmerman did not have to get out of his car and follow Trayvon because he thought he looked suspicious. He could have stayed in the car and waited for the police as the operator told him to, he made a concious decision to follow him, like she did to get the gun. Zimmerman would have been in no danger if he had stayed in the car, neither would Trayvon

Although I understand and admire your logic, we are dealing with Americans. I remember the case a few years ago of a British emigre knocking on the front door of a house somewhere in America and the owner shooting him dead through the door. The case was thrown out as the armed householder was defending his property... from a " intrude/burglar/assailant " who decided to knock on the front door.