Originally Posted By ecdc What is wrong with this state! <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/...pt=hp_t1</a> >>Saying he had no discretion under state law, a judge sentenced a Jacksonville, Florida, woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband. Marissa Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to derail the prosecution, but a jury in March convicted her of aggravated assault after just 12 minutes of deliberation.<< (Yeah, I went out last night, so I'm spending my Friday night being outraged over the news. Also, get off my lawn.)
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "After the sentencing, Rep. Corrine Brown confronted State Attorney Angela Corey in the hallway, accusing her of being overzealous, according to video from CNN affiliate WJXT." She is just an overzealous prosecutor. That's what she does. She is an elected official who is perpetually running for reelection.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones That being said, I don't know why she shot the wall. She should have shot him.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones By the way, under Florida law it's illegal to fire warning shots. For all the nonsense about Florida being a gun nut state, they have mandatory minimum sentencing for crimes involving firearms. I'm trying to research who supported these mandatory sentencing laws for crimes involving firearms.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Sorry about all the posts, but here's an article from 1999 that I found about the 10-20-life law. <a href="http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/031199/met_2B1ten_2.html" target="_blank">http://jacksonville.com/tu-onl...n_2.html</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'm trying to research who supported these mandatory sentencing laws for crimes involving firearms. >>> I think you'll find that in many cases, these laws are supported (through campaign contributions and other methods) by the private prison industry, which in Florida's case specifically, has been growing dramatically since 1995. More people in prison + longer sentences = more prison overcrowding = more outsourcing to private prisons = higher profits.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 <<By the way, under Florida law it's illegal to fire warning shots.>> So, it is illegal to fire warning shots, but if you actually shoot a person in "self defense" under the Stand-Your-Ground law it is legal!? What the hell kind of screwy state will sentence someone to 20 years in prison for shooting a wall, but no time at all for shooting a person?!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What the hell kind of screwy state will sentence someone to 20 years in prison for shooting a wall, but no time at all for shooting a person?! >>> The key distinction is whether or not the shot was in justified self-defense, not whether it was a warning or not. In the case above, the judge ruled out the presentation of the self-defense defense on the basis that if she was reasonably scared of being killed or seriously injured (the cases where shooting in self defense is permitted), she would not have re-entered the house, with or without the gun. The problem I have with the above is that it seems to ne that it should be a matter for the jury to decide, not just the judge. It would seem that this entirely depends on the state of mind of the defendant, and that would seem to me to be a finding of fact, not of law, and therefore should be something for the jury to decide.
Originally Posted By andyll <<In the case above, the judge ruled out the presentation of the self-defense defense on the basis that if she was reasonably scared of being killed or seriously injured (the cases where shooting in self defense is permitted), she would not have re-entered the house, with or without the gun.>> But if you follow a kid on your own violation you are permitted to fire? Unless there are facts not being reported this is a travesty of justice. There were 3 times this could have been stopped and wasn't: 1) the original judge could have ruled the stand your ground law applied. 2) The procescutor could have applied reason and used a lessor charge. 3) The jury could have not convicted her. BTW... she re-entered the house not because the threat was over but because she forgot her keys. She was charged not because she had an intent to harm him but because her shots were in the direction of children. There was no intent to harm anyone so under florida law it was not an assault. I knew she was black before I saw her picture.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 She's black? I'm going to take a wild stab here and guess that the NRA will not be leaping to her defense the way they did with Zimmerman.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>What the hell kind of screwy state will sentence someone to 20 years in prison for shooting a wall, but no time at all for shooting a person?!<< I guess that's why some people call it FloriDUH. Where else can can a 250 lb man be "threatened" by a teenager and be allowed to "stand his ground" but when a woman is threatened by a much larger man, she has to stand down? As for Spain taking Florida back, they're too smart for that.
Originally Posted By Labuda Yeah that and it being WAY TOO DIFFERENT than what I was used to here in Texas both helped contribute to my move back from there back in '96.
Originally Posted By disneyfreaksk Florida is full of freaks. There are nice people also, but SO many under the influence that it is a freak show. This happened a few blocks from where I lived: <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/gulfport-mother-accused-of-attacking-another-mother-with-hatchet/1116072" target="_blank">http://www.tampabay.com/news/p.../1116072</a>
