General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Florida State Attorney Corey Seeks 60-Year Sentence for Marissa Alexander
Jacksonville, FL - Florida State Attorney Angela Corey announced on March 1, 2014, that her office is seeking a maximum 60-year sentence in the retrial of Marissa Alexander, beginning in late July.
Marissa Alexander, the 33-year-old African American mother who fired a non-lethal warning shot to fend off her abusive husband, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 2012. State Attorney Corey, who personally prosecuted the case, sought the maximum sentence of 20 years under Florida's mandatory sentencing laws, despite no injuries or deaths. The jury deliberated for 12 minutes before returning a guilty verdict. The judge ordered Alexander's 20-year sentences for the three charges to be served concurrently--at the same time.
However, in 2013, a 1st District Court of Appeals judge overturned Alexander’s conviction and called for a new trial. Corey's latest demand is for the judge to order consecutive sentences, meaning Alexander may serve three 20-year sentences, sixty years, if convicted again.
A statement from the Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign called the move by Corey, "A stunning abuse of power." The statement continues, "As a consequence of winning the appeal to hopefully secure a more fair trial, Alexander now faces the alarming prospect that the original devastating sentence could be tripled in the new trial."
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2014/3/2/florida-state-attorney-corey-seeks-60-year-sentence-marissa-alexander
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Demoiselle
(6,787 posts)brush
(58,663 posts)She knew exactly the outcome she wanted when she overcharged in the zimmerman case dunne case — they would not be found guilty of the murders they committed.
This woman is out of control. Hope the DOJ is watching this incredible act of abuse of power.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)smokey775
(228 posts)this is a state case, not a federal case.
Only the FL. governor has the power to pardon her.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The two(?) shots fired were at head level in the wall beside where her ex-husband was standing. She just happen to miss her intended target.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)with atempted murder? are you assuming she's a bad shot? 
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The CSI photos are available on the web.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)All I did was point out that the so-called warning shots were not that.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)how do you know she didn't miss deliberately?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)And would result in you going to jail assuming you are so convicted.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)thank you.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)there are no facts. Only interpretations. Have a good night.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)sentence?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Her sentence seems way out of line.
brush
(58,663 posts)I mean, c'mon, if she had wanted to hit him with a shot at that close a proximity she could have. They were both in the same room.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Most folks want to believe that she is Annie Oakley and purposely missed her ex-husband's head by a couple feet because she was trying to scare him away. When firing warning shots, folks normally fire in a direction other than at their target. The more logical belief is that she was actually shooting at her ex-husband and missed due to being a bad shot.
Yes, that is an opinion, but it is one based on experience.
Nictuku
(4,014 posts)Response to RandySF (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jmowreader
(51,793 posts)Response to jmowreader (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
immoderate
(20,885 posts)If you don't kill the person, you're not really "standing your ground."
--imm
Response to immoderate (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hack89
(39,180 posts)It was not like she deliberately shot away from him.
Response to hack89 (Reply #22)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hack89
(39,180 posts)She choose to get a gun and return to confront him. And even then she was offered a three year plea deal which she refused. She would be a free women now if she had taken the state's offer.
Response to hack89 (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hack89
(39,180 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)handgun in order to stop a mugger or an attacker. Firing a warning shot can land you in prison. The authorities often frown on you if the person you threatened contacts the authorities before you do.
A law passed in the last few years allowed a person who had a carry permit to inadvertently flash their concealed weapon. That can happen if the individual was walking through a parking lot and the wind caught their jacket and revealed they had a holstered handgun on their side or if he reaches up for an item on a high shelve in a store.
I remember a concealed weapons instructor in the Tampa Bay Area that told his class that if they ever have to pull their weapon it "better come out smoking."
Florida is considering rewriting the self defense laws to allow a person to stop an attack by displaying his weapon or even to fire a warning shot. I an quite hesitant to recommend firing a warning shot but often an attack can be stopped when the victim simply shows that he is armed.
Florida Might Revamp the State's 'Stand Your Ground' Law
MIKE RIGGSJAN 14
***snip***
Last week, the Florida state senate's Criminal Justice Committee unanimously approved the Threatened Use of Force Act, which would expand the circumstances under which someone could use Stand Your Ground as a defense.
As written, Florida's Stand Your Ground law allows someone to use deadly force to protect himself, without the responsibility to retreat, if he believes his life is in danger. The Threatened Use of Force Act would extend that protection to someone who, under similar circumstances, only brandished a gun or fired a warning shot.
"The point is to prevent prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense, but don't actually shoot or kill an attacker," says Greg Newburn, the Florida director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "Prosecutors routinely argue that a warning is itself evidence that a person wasn't sufficiently afraid to pull a firearm. ('If he was really afraid he'd have shot him.') This bill corrects that problem."
The Threatened Use of Force Act has an obvious poster child in Marissa Alexander. In 2010, Alexander fired a warning shot during an argument with her abusive husband. Because her children were present, Alexander was found guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm, and was sentenced to 20 years under Florida's draconian 10-20-Life law. In brief, that law says brandishing a firearm gets you 10 years, firing it gets you 20 years, shooting someone gets you 25 years-to-life.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2014/01/florida-legislature-might-be-changing-states-stand-your-ground-law/8093/
I remember several examples where the display of a firearm stopped an attack.
One occurred years ago in downtown Tampa. Two co-workers of mine on a chilly winter Sunday morning were using magnetic detectors to find old coins or other valuables in a lot where an old building has just been torn down. A man approached them and pulled a large butcher knife. He demanded they turn over their wallets.
One of my co-workers was licensed to carry and he pulled back his jacket enough to show that he had a .45 auto in a shoulder holster. The mugger turned and walked off swearing to himself.
therehegoes
(37 posts)www.friscopaul.blogspot.com
What happens when cops discover they made mistakes? They ALTER THE EVIDENCE.
jmowreader
(51,793 posts)It is far easier to make the SYG defense work if you're white.
hack89
(39,180 posts)SYG favors the shooters
Merlot
(9,696 posts)
ReRe
(11,115 posts)hack89
(39,180 posts)1. She was in the bedroom.
2. She left the bedroom and walked by her ex on the way to the garage, muttering " I have something for your ass."
3. She walked by the front door on the way to the garage - she could have escaped
4. She entered the garage, got her gun from her car.
5. She took that gun and went back into the house to confront her ex
6. She shoot just over his head into the ceiling. Her kids were standing next to the ex
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)
MiniMe
(21,844 posts)when he was shooting up that car for playing their music too loud. He could have escaped too, but instead he killed a teenager boy.
hack89
(39,180 posts)And the state is going to retry him on the murder charges. All goods things, right?
MiniMe
(21,844 posts)They couldn't even get the jury to agree on 2nd degree murder because a few of the jurors wouldn't convict Dunn. How can you be guilty of attempted murder on the other 3 boys, and not be guilty of murdering the 4th?
hack89
(39,180 posts)
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)They said so at the press conference after the verdict. Why wouldn't they re-try him? That case had more evidence than most I've seen.
How you can be guilty of attempted murder on the three other boys and HUNG on the killing of the first one is because of the obvious circumstances of the case. The last two of the three volleys of shots were randomly into the car as it was retreating and at people who at no time threatened him in any way - they just happened to be in the same car.
For some reason three people believed that he was in fear of his life from the one boy that he had words with and killed. Unfortunately, since the SYG law went into effect it has been written into the basic self-defense laws meaning that no longer is it that a person can be legitimately afraid for their life or great bodily harm to themselves according to the "reasonable person" standard, it has been changed to whether or not the defendant actually believed they were in fear or their life or great bodily harm regardless of whether it was reasonable according to the "reasonable person" standard. Therefore, really paranoid easily frightened people can legally get away with claiming self-defense that isn't and be found not guilty for it because the jurors are required to follow the law. How these three jurors could believe that he was in fear of his life by the boy he had words with and killed with all the piles of evidence that show otherwise along with all his conflicting stories of what occurred and what he did and did NOT do after he left the scene is beyond me.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)No one is saying she's innocent.
hack89
(39,180 posts)She rejected it.
Just so we are clear - I think miminum mandatory sentences are and abomination. She should not be in prison for that long. But this is an unintended consequence of laws designed to severely punish the use of guns while committing crimes.
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)hack89
(39,180 posts)brush
(58,663 posts)If she wanted to shoot him she could've easily. It's so obvious that she only wanted to scare him.
If she was a white woman we all know a SYG defense would have been allowed.
hack89
(39,180 posts)I do not want her to go to prison for 60 years - I think mandatory minimum sentences are an abomination. I hope she is offered another plea deal.
How can anyone look at the facts and call it self defense? She had ample opportunities to escape. She went to a safe place (after walking by both her ex and the front door) to get a gun. She then returned to shoot at her husband, barely missing his head.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. you're admitting that the threat isn't imminent.
Therefore discharging a firearm becomes unjustified use of lethal force.
brush
(58,663 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,855 posts)What facts are you using to support this assertion? The fact that she missed his head by a relatively small distance is much more indicative of a person who is not expert with a firearm and whose adrenaline is surging simply missing the target than of deliberately missing in an attempt to scare.
brush
(58,663 posts)to state this:
"The fact that she missed his head by a relatively small distance is much more indicative of a person who is not expert with a firearm and whose adrenaline is surging simply missing the target than of deliberately missing in an attempt to scare."
That's opinion not fact.
COLGATE4
(14,855 posts)wildly miss their target much more often than hitting it due to the stress/adrenaline of the situation. If that's the case with people who are trained (tested and retested periodically) in the use of a firearm, it's even more likely to be the case with a person who doesn't have the experience.
brush
(58,663 posts)"it's even more likely" is not fact.
C'mon.
COLGATE4
(14,855 posts)believe it? After 25+ years as an attorney who saw a whole lot of cops do all kinds of things I can assure you that this is absolutely often true. But by all means go on believing that an average housewife with no particular expertise in shooting and who is thrust into the middle of a highly charged, emotional situation can cooly play Annie Oakley and 'warn' her husband with a couple of well=placed shots close to his head.
The Wielding Truth
(11,423 posts)What does it take for her to live in safety especially if arguments triggered his abuse? Would warning shots do it? hmmm...
hack89
(39,180 posts)it was his house.
Btw - while she was awaiting trial, she was arrested for domestic abuse for violating bail conditions, visiting her ex again, and assaulting him.
The Wielding Truth
(11,423 posts)Let alone 60 years.
hack89
(39,180 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,376 posts)SYG means you have no duty to retreat and can meet force with force if attacked. However, from court documents, it appears she left the house, retrieved the gun, and then reentered and fired the shot through a wall. It's hard to argue that that is acceptable. I believe her sentence was overly harsh, a tragic outcome of Florida's 10-20-life sentencing laws. I would have given her leniency given the abuse from the husband.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Okay, so she managed to get a prosecution in the Dunn case; good for her. Still doesn't quite make up for the bungling of the Zimmerman trial and now she's going to prosecute Marissa Alexander for *triple* the original term she had to face?
This whole saga is honestly sounding like a poorly scripted B movie now.....yeah, it's that nonsensical. 
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)She's engaging in another malicious prosecution.
LisaL
(46,956 posts)
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Right?
RIGHT?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)She was in HIS house, left, and came back with a gun. Big difference there.
LisaL
(46,956 posts)It doesn't have to be your own home and you don't have to flee.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)and firing a warning shot to scare the owner? I just don't think this is a cut and dried as the headlines make it out to be.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I'm more pro-gun than a lot of DU, but drastically less pro-gun than most of the US, for what good that is.
I think this case, as the with Dunn case so far*, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. "If you shoot at someone, make sure you don't miss" is just about one of the worst things you could hope to codify into law. It's a bit less dangerous than "Shoot anyone that annoys you, no matter what lengths you have to go to to justify it.", but that's a hard bar to clear.
What's really confusing me is the defense of the charges. Either warning shots mean the threat wasn't imminent, and the law is blatantly fucked up, because it encourages immediate escalation to deadly force in a threatening situation, even if you have to reload and chase them through the streets to get there, or she meant to hit him, the threat WAS imminent, and the threat isn't being considered imminent because she wasn't a white guy. Which means the law is blatantly fucked up, and being enforced by racist idiots. There's really no direction this can go in that makes the self-defense laws in Florida look good.
*Which is why it's very important to convict Dunn of murder. As it stands right now, his crime appears to be missing when shooting at African Americans.
hack89
(39,180 posts)1. She was in the bedroom.
2. She left the bedroom and walked by her ex on the way to the garage, muttering " I have something for your ass."
3. She walked by the front door on the way to the garage - she could have escaped
4. She entered the garage, got her gun from her car.
5. She took that gun and went back into the house to confront her ex
6. She shoot just over his head into the ceiling. Her kids were standing next to the ex
Trajan
(19,089 posts)A known Gungeonite plugging for an extreme sentence, for a woman of color, for firing a warning shot that happened to harm no one ...
What is up with a gun 'expert' of DU promoting extreme prison sentences for people of color who have done little to no real harm to anyone ...
Something stinks here ....
hack89
(39,180 posts)I thought she should have taken the state's three year plea offer.
I have never said the sentence is just. I have consistently said it was not self defense.
Beside - I thought that anti-gunners wanted people that used guns in the commision of a crime to be severely punished. Do you think she was a "responsible gun owner" or someone that used a gun in an illegal manner? Do you think she should have had a gun in the first place?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I have been reading down this thread and never ONCE has this person said what you claim. In fact, they have stated the complete opposite MULTIPLE times. The bigger question is why do you feel the need to lie and how can you possibly think people won't see the lie when the evidence is right here?
brush
(58,663 posts)Or were you there?
There could have been threatening moves or words towards her to have caused her to shoot. The boyfriend had been physically abusive to her many times in the past. Hell, he even said himself that he "beat all his women" to keep them in line.
If she wanted to shoot him she could have. They were both in the same room.
hack89
(39,180 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:17 AM - Edit history (1)
She never brought up such a scenario in her own defense.
If she was so fearful that she felt she needed a gun, why didn't she simply stay in the bedroom? Or walk out the front door when she walked by it? Or stay in the garage? She choose to get her gun and return to confront him.
Btw, are you aware that while she was waiting trial, she was arrested for domestic violence for violating bail, returning to his house, and punching him out? It sounds like a mutually violent relationship.
brush
(58,663 posts)and decide to fight back. This seems like one those cases. In other jurisdictions in similar circumstances, actually when the women have killed their abuser, they've gotten off.
Seems she should've killed him for Corey to show any sympathy like she did with zimmerman and dunn (guess you have to be a killer for her to show some mercy).
IMO even the 3-year deal was too much since the guy was an admitted serial abuser.
hack89
(39,180 posts)let's remember that she didn't even live in that house.
Is being abused a license to kill when you are not in imminent danger? And what about the kids - you think endangering them by firing in their direction is justified?
brush
(58,663 posts)You favor Corey's abusive prosecution.
hack89
(39,180 posts)but that she committed a crime. It was not self defense. If you shoot at people you should be punished.
The real issue in this case is the horrible minimum sentencing laws. She should have taken the state's three year plea offer.
CanonRay
(15,030 posts)Naw, Angela Corey isn't racist...
Beachwood
(106 posts)must be severely punished if they ever do, even if they harm no person. It's an American tradition.
Cha
(306,812 posts)just what an attention seeking racist asshole she is.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
stillcool
(33,100 posts)Makes me want to puke.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... but, thought 20 years was excessive .... much less 60 years.
I do not think her actions were the best for the given situation (it is always "easy" to judge the situation from outside the situation), but for Pete's sake ... no one was hurt.
What could Angela Corey's possible motivation be?
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)
flvegan
(64,730 posts)but she's seeking consecutive (as opposed to concurrent) 20 year sentences. I seriously doubt she will ever get handed that.
She campaigned on being tough on gun crime. For those screaming "racism" because they're still emotional about the Trayvon Martin case: Ronald Thompson and Michael Dunn. Matter of fact, the Thompson case is a bit like Alexander's IIRC.
While I believe that 60 years as a sentence is completely ridiculous in this case, I also think Alexander is a complete idiot. Idiocy shouldn't be criminal, but the acts you commit as one oftentimes can be. That said, if it was her attorney that suggested trying "stand your ground" he or she is an even bigger idiot.
I dislike Corey for her politics and her friends. If I recall, she offered Alexander a relatively light plea deal. Alexander refused and chose to go to trial against multiple counts of aggravated assault involving a firearm, admittedly having fired a shot into a wall. The jury came back in like half an hour. Not taking the deal was dumb, sorry.
Granted, this is all based simply on what I've read and heard and is just opinion. I wasn't in the courtroom nor was I a witness to what happened. If Alexander was truly in fear for her life or the life of her child, and her mistake is shooting a wall instead of plugging the offender, then I hope she gets a better lawyer who can and will successfully argue that for her and win.
brettdale
(12,671 posts)and Fox news, and right wing commentators getting behind this woman?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)They will not defend this minority gun user ...
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Why should anyone defend the illegal use of a handgun?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)First, the Cristian Fernandez case in 2009. (Where she charged a 12-year old with murder as an adult, later pled to manslaughter. Afterwards, it came out that she had ordered him held in solitary confinement for months in the state prison; when this was reported in a Jacksonville newspaper, she threatened the reporter who broke the story in a one-page single-space letter on official stationary with a libel suit and (specious) criminal charges.)
Then, the first Marissa Alexander case.
Then, the Ronald Thompson miscarriage of justice. (She sought a 20-year sentence against a retired disabled 65-year-old Army veteran for firing two warning shots into ground during an attempted home invasion in 2009. When a superior court judge threw out the 20-year sentencing guideline as "a miscarriage of justice" and unconstitutional, she appealed, got the sentence reinstated back to 20 years. After that was thrown out in 2012 due to improper conduct by the presiding judge in the original case, she again sought 20 years before accepting a plea deal for time-served + 2 years...a total of 5 years.)
Then, the Trayvon Martin murder.
Then, the Jordan Davis murder.
Now, this witch-hunt against Alexander in the second case because she's pissy the court threw out her ill-obtained conviction.
I can't wait for Crist to beat the snot out of Scott so he can fire this woman and at-least undo some of the harm by commuting Alexander's sentence. By that time, Thompson will be out or nearly so, having served his full-term. (Edit: It turns out she's elected. We're going to be stuck with her forever.)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Lesson: Shot to kill always. Otherwise you will do more time than for murder.
How do simpletons like Corey even make it through law school?
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)On the other hand, the loud music clown was convicted of not killing the other teens in the car, but was acquitted of killing the one teen in the car.
So, yeah, I guess stand your ground is only permissible when you kill, and that guarantees your innocence.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The logic goes something like this:
If you are not shooting to stop/kill, then you do not actually fear for you life. Since you do not fear for your life, no lethal force is allowed. The use of guns is always lethal force.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)But can't bring themselves to actually kill another human being when the moment presents. I consider that the difference between being human and being an animal. Those who shoot to kill are animals in my book.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)By admitting that you intentionally missed in order to deter someone, you've tacitly admitted that you were not in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
That makes discharging a firearm unjustifiable.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)And can't bring themselves to kill people. I guess that's the difference between human and animals. Gun owners who shoot to kill are animals.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Discharging a weapon over the head of your spouse and his kids is lethal force.
A warning shot demonstrates that you don't think the threat is imminent.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)To protect themselves from attacks that will never occur, THINK they have it in them to kill fellow human beings, only to discover they themselves are humane.
The shoot to kill with no problem crowd? They have no humanity within them.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. using a firearm to win an verbal argument is a bad idea, then I suggest you steer clear of firearms altogether.
If you use lethal force, you shoot to stop the attack. Not 'shoot to kill'. You don't fire over the head of your spouse and his kids.
You're demonstrating your ignorance again.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)And if states have a vested interest in anything regarding firearms, it should occur during the procurement of them, not during the discharging of them.
And they certainly would pass legislation permitting them in bars. But then, like you said I'm ignorant.
And what you were politely saying is I'm stupid.
I'm crying now cause you hurt my feelings.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I can't imagine you are (serious that is).
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)There truly is no control under which can be fired. Stand Your Ground laws a clear examples. Shoot, and simply say you were scared.
Shoot a family member, and it accidentally discharged. Shoot a sibling, and the kids were playing with a loaded gun in the open.
In all those examples, no consequence for murdering a human is ever visited upon the perpetrator.
Just call me Gump. I'm not a very smart man.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The state has no vested interest in regulating the discharge of firearms?!? How utterly moronic a statement.
More ignorance. It's not about whether you were 'scared'- if I were a psychotic who is terrified of bic pens, that doesn't mean I can shoot the guy on the bus with a pocket protector full of them and expect to get away with it. A reasonable person, given the same circumstances would have to feel that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
Except that's not actually true, even in Florida. See Justin Campos, William Siskos, Trevor Dooley, Reginald Etienne, Walter Bishop Harvey, Jason Clair, Jerome Jones, Kevin Hallman, Jimmy Lee Cruz, Shawn Aaron Penn, Luis Javier Farias-Mendoza, etc etc etc. All those were found guilty or took a plea.
You might actually want to check with reality once in a while, it helps make your claims more credible.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)I don't know what your agenda is, and I don't care. Do not respond any further.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
Discharging a firearm is using lethal force. You only do that in the direst circumstance. Warning shots can kill a bystander, a child in the next apartment, or if you fire in the air, a person a long distance away.
It's an irresponsible thing to do.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)Not only are you annoying, you are also an asshat.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)There's potential jail time and lawsuits attached to every bullet that leaves the barrel of a firearm. Knowing the responsible use of firearms is a duty every owner has.
druidity33
(6,626 posts)you are standing on your lawn and shoot into the dirt? I live in the "woods" and my neighbors use their firearms often enough. Yeah it's unnerving, but i've talked to both of them and seen where their targets are. What i'm trying to say is that i think there must be a "responsible way" of firing a warning shot...
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)A poor home range design will get you a reckless endangerment charge if something goes wrong, possibly even negligent homicide should someone die as a result. (There have been charges and lawsuits over both. Something to remind your neighbors of next time you see them!)
Using a firearm in a confrontation is using deadly force. The circumstances where that is justified are slim (as they should be.) Using a firearm to warn is not justified.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It sometimes demonstrates that you think that you might be able to address an imminent threat with a warning shot. The law may disagree but then the law is crazy.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If there is a chance that the attack may not happen, it isn't imminent.
Warning shots are illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Suppose, for example, that someone says "Prepare to meet your maker" and then approaches me aggressively with a baseball bat or a knife. Suppose further that before he reaches me I fire a warning shot which causes him to change his mind and so stop the attack. How could that not be justified self-defense?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Prosecutors love 'warning shot' cases- they're almost always open and shut.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)if it would allow me to shoot at the person coming at me with a knife but not use a warning shot instead. The fact that I use a warning shot doesn't make the attack any less of an attack or the threat any less imminent.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you think the potential attacker can be dissuaded, then it isn't imminent.
And shooting into the air?!? Bullets come down with lethal force.
*sigh*
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Let me change the example to help you see your error. Someone is strangling me in an attempt to take my life. I shoot a warning shot into a tree. (No one is around except me and my attacker. So I don't endanger innocent bystanders.) It works. He backs off and I escape with my life. On your view there was no imminent threat to my life and my act of self-defense is unjustified. That is just silly.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)By definition.
Re your moved goal post situation- you would be currently under attack. However, you'd likely still face a reckless discharge charge.
When you're under attack, your adrenaline spikes, increasing your pulse and blood pressure, you get tunnel vision, your fine motor skills deteriorate, your sense of hearing is impaired. How sure are you that nobody else is around to be injured by your shot? How can you know that the shot won't ricochet? If it does richochet and strikes and kills someone, is that negligent homicide? Or are you going to say, "But officer, I didn't mean to kill that person, I was only trying to make this other person let go!"
Vattel
(9,289 posts)If I can justifiably shoot at an aggressor in self-defense, then under relevantly similar circumstances I can justifiably shoot at, say, a tree as a warning shot to scare off an aggressor. There needn't be any more danger to innocent bystanders in the one case than in the other. All of the things you say about adrenaline spiking and shots possibly ricocheting, etc., apply to shooting an aggressor in self-defense no less than to shooting a warning shot in self-defense. Both have risks. But both are sometimes justified to address unjust aggression.
You say that I move the goalpost, but even in my original case (someone coming at me with a knife after announcing that he would kill me) I described a scenario in which shooting the aggressor in self-defense can be justified and so firing a warning shot in self-defense can also be justified. Probably your mistake is due to the fact that in real life most warning shots are not really a response to an actual attack, but rather are intended to discourage someone from attacking or from some other wrongdoing. In those cases there would be no self-defense justification for the warning shot and criminal charges would be likely. Maybe that is the sort of case you have been talking about all along and so we have merely been miscommunicating.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. say that she left and came back with the gun, and shot over their heads from across the room?
brush
(58,663 posts)I mean the guy had beat her many times.
It doesn't take much to scare someone that you've been beating whenever you felt like it. Just a look, or words. She could very easily felt threatened.
I don't get at all why Corey didn't let her plead SYG. Being a woman and all you'd think she would be sympathetic to an abuse victim.
Guess you'd have to be a white woman though for Corey to relate.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Would a reasonable person fear imminent death or grave bodily harm? A warning shot demonstrates that whatever one feels, it isn't imminent.
brush
(58,663 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)According to her spouse and his kids, she said, "I've got something for your ass.", left the room where they were arguing, went to the garage to retrieve her firearm, came back in, and fired the shots into the wall above her spouse and kids' heads.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I was certainly not attempting to defend her.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)What you cannot do is attempt to stop what you perceive to be a non-lethal attack with lethal force---which ALL GUN SHOTS ARE.
Let me repeat--ALL GUN SHOTS ARE lethal force. No strays, warnings, ricochets, or accidents. You use a gun, you are using lethal force.
Your argument reminds of armed robbers who try to claim that the only reason they brought a loaded gun into a 7-11 was to scare the clerk. No--you brought a lethal weapon in to effect an armed robbery. That's how the law sees it when your bullet 'accidentally' hits the clerk.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)that is a potentially lethal attack and shooting him would be justified self-defense under the law. So how could it become unjustified just because I shoot into the air instead of at the person trying to knife me?
JVS
(61,935 posts)In fact, I'd be interested in seeing how the line between "warning shots" and "attempted homicide" is drawn.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)Sixty years to warn, freedumb to kill.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)after she left his house and came back. She also had a restraining order against him, which begs the question of why she was in his house with him in the first place.
It's not like this guy was in her home and she fired a shot over his head. I don't think there would be a question of whether it was self defense in that case. If someone came in my house and fired a shot, I would want them prosecuted too.
She should have taken the three-year deal.
brush
(58,663 posts)First time I heard she didn't live there.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)so I don't see how they could be living in the same house.
smokey775
(228 posts)Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Free Marissa NOW!
LisaL
(46,956 posts)Corey wants to retry her.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
mtasselin
(668 posts)I think this prosecutor should be recalled or impeached. She has not shown herself to be very effective at what she does and doesn't do, what kind of message is she trying to get across to people, if it is that she is not a clear thinker and she thinks she is some kind of God, fine OK she wins.
azureblue
(2,347 posts)Can the defense bring up the disparity in charging, as evidence of prosecutorial bias towards blacks? Can the defense also bring up the fact that Corey would not allow Alexander a SYG defense?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And the real lesson learned here?
Warning shots are illegal. If you're not in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, you don't use lethal force (which is what a warning shot is.)
Response to RandySF (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
indepat
(20,899 posts)
ecstatic
(34,597 posts)She's not incompetent--she's quite good with carrying out her racist agenda. She could barely contain her glee after failing both Trayvon and Jordan. Thanks to social media and the Internet, there's a bright spotlight shining on her ass and I hope she's removed from office soon.
Dawson Leery
(19,388 posts)
3catwoman3
(26,053 posts)...during the interview after the verdict was creepy and surreal.
Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)I will be sure to include moronic and ignorant in all posts to, you know, toughen up. As for the language barriar, it's probably because I'm ignorant and the tough guy poster is tough.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:45 AM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter needs to toughen up. It almost seems like there's some language barrier here? I really don't understand this exchange.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The rude tone is inappropriate for this forum.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)belong in that position.
smokey775
(228 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)those right here in NY.
Same question, can a prosecutor be recalled for abuse of power?
smokey775
(228 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)diabeticman
(3,121 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The problem is not with the law she violated, the problem is the mandatory sentencing.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)would have been convicted of murder. It is all because of her skin color. It is self-defense
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)She left her ex's home to get the gun and returned. She fired the gun. She violated several laws. It was not self-defense or SYG.
madville
(7,540 posts)She returned to his home again, violated the restraining order and got arrested for assaulting him.
The sentence was harsh, and tripling it even harsher. With the known facts and not knowing her entire criminal history I would say the 3 year plea deal offered was fair. 1-3 years sounds appropriate if she is convicted again. The problem here is the minimum sentencing guidelines for gun crimes in Florida.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to address these sentencing laws? I recal a legislator saying the law was intended for situations where somebody uses a gun to rob a liquor store. I suppose we might not have learned about the Florda gun sentencing if she had accepted the original plea bargqin offered to her. She did not believe she did anything wrong and she may have gotten bad legal advice.
MoonRiver
(36,974 posts)She's obviously a racist scum, who tries to throw trials when the defendant is white, and accused of killing blacks. BUT, when the defendant is black, she throws the book plus kitchen sink at her. 