Stand Your Ground Double Standard in Florida? Say it Aint So

[Lord MJ]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... in-florida

Stand Your Ground came to the forefront after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida on February 26. Many didn't even know such a law existed.
The 28-year-old self-appointed neighborhood watch captain claimed he fatally shot the 17-year-old high-schooler in self-defense even though Trayvon was unarmed with only candy and a drink on him.. It took 45 days for him to be arrested and charged, for the Sanford police say they didn't have any grounds to keep him in custody and then State Attorney Norm Wolfinger had barred them from filing charges. Stand Your Ground was in full protection mode in this case.
Not so for one young woman, who also lives in Florida, Jacksonville to be exact. Which shines a glaring spotlight on the many cons of this legislation added to Florida's judicial books in 2005 by then governor Jeb Bush, brother to former President George W. Bush. To date 25 other states have followed in Fl.'s footsteps. A reported 130 people were killed in that State since the law came into effect. Of that number, only 19 were convicted.
One such con is Marissa Alexander, who has been convicted and is reportedly facing 25 years hard time for discharging a gun to scare off her alleged abusive husband. No one was hurt in the process, yet Marissa is sitting in jail.
The Internet is having an outraged conversation on this apparent double standard but the main-stream is eerily silent on this case. How many more travesties are there out there? How many casualties of Stand Your Ground?
This seems like the reverse of Trayvon-Zimmerman tragedy. In the teen's case, the law worked well for his killer until an overwhelming outpouring of outrage blanketed Florida and the rest of the country. Special prosecutor Angela Corey said her state doesn't respond to pressure but follows the law to the letter.
Right--we know better. Somehow that same law didn't see fit to arrest and charge the neighborhood watch for shooting a boy in his chest, at point blank range, until 'the pressure' was applied.
But in 2010, Corey and Florida saw it fit to arrest and charge Marissa Alexander for discharging her gun at the roof of her home to scare off her husband. She was allegedly protecting herself for he had been abusive before and was threatening her at the time.
No one was shot or even hurt. She reportedly had a permit for the gun and was Standing Her Ground. Prosecutors based their charges on the premise that Marissa could have retreated through a back door or window if she felt trapped by her husband.
But doesn't Stand Your Ground stipulate that one can stand their ground and use deadly force if they felt threatened or feared for their life and do not have to retreat?
Marissa's ex-husband has created a website to get the word out, fighting to free her. She is a mother of 3 and was arrested 9 days after her pre-mature baby was born. That baby was still in the Intensive care Unit when she was allegedly confronted by her angry husband.
According to her Ex lincoln B. Alexander Jr., who is telling the story on Marissa's behalf, she now sits in the pre-trial Detention facility in Jacksonville, Fl. awaiting sentencing and cannot be with her children. She was charged and convicted of 3 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon with no intent to harm.
On August 1, 2010 when the alleged incident occured, Marissa said she was about to leave her abusive husband when he confronted her in the bathroom and began to choke her. She wrote that she ran but while in the garage she realized she couldn't open the garage doors because of a mechanical failure and she had also forgotten her phone and keys. Trapped, she allegedly went back to retrieve them, thinking he had already left because he was on his way out with her 2 stepsons.
Again, according to Marissa, he did not leave but came back minus the children and shouted," Bitch, I will kill you! She said he charged towards her so she took out the gun she had taken from her truck and fired a warning shot towards the ceiling. Husband supposely ran away then and called the police.
It was then her life seem to fall apart for hubby allegedly told police that she had tried to kill him and the children. Even though she had a restraining order and a filed police complaint of spousal abuse, they still took his word over hers.
So here sits the 31 year old mother, 2 years later, convicted and fighting to stay out of prison. Incidentally the State Prosecutor now on Trayvon Martin's case, Angela Corey, also handled Marissa's. Even though her husband recanted and admitted he was the aggressor, the State still proceeded with the case.
You can learn more on Marissa's case No:2010-CF-8579
Division:CR-G by clicking links below:
CBS Jacksonville News 47
What is really going on in Florida and other parts of America,where Stand Your Ground is part of the law? Is there unequal justice loose in numerous counties and cities?
There is also another case in Georgia where homeowner John McNeil who was reportedly Standing His Ground in his home, warned an assailant not to come any closer and shot him when that man still charged him. He is now in prison serving a life sentence.
Acording to msnbc, 6 years ago the McNeils, a Black family, hired Brian Epps's who is White, and his contruction company to build their house. The relationship was a rocky one and Epps allegedly became increasingly threatening. This bad relationship escalated to a fatal shooting on December 6, 2005.
On that fateful day, McNeils teenaged son had reportedly called him about a strange man lurking in the back yard. When the dad came home, he recognised Epps and told him to leave. He said Epps didn't leave but instead went to his truck for something and came towards him. McNeil told him to leave again and fired a warning shot at the ground. Epps allegedly didn't comply and charged at the homeowner very fast, who then fired his gun a second time, fataly shooting him in the head.
Read the details here:
Rania Khalek detailed the confrontation in Salon:
So wasn't McNeil Standing His Ground in Cobb County Georgia where Stand Your Ground is also the law? It is starting to look like Stand Your Ground works only if the shooter is a certain color?
Someone once wrote under one of articles,"Stop using the race card." I will say what a good friend of mine says so succintly,' I will retire my race card, when you put an expiration date on your racism." Is America's judicial system yet to stamp an expiration date on bias and prejudiced practices?

And if it is to be argued that the distinguishing factor here is that Ms. Alexander fired a warning shot, so what? Defense against potential physical harm trumps legal statutes in my opinion. And if a point needs to be made about not recklessly discharging firearms, give her 30 days and call it a day. How this could turn into a potential 25 year prison sentence is beyond me.

[Ekiqa]

That makes this an open and shut case. Stand Your Ground doesn't apply in the Zimmerman case, as he had the option of NOT FOLLOWING. Murder 2 guaranteed, as he deliberately followed his victim and shot him.

[Batman]

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if she would have walked free thanks to Stand Your Ground if she had actually shot her husband. Stand Your Ground, as I understand it, only applies once you actually use force against your perceived aggressor, so yes, in the eyes of the law, the woman only firing a warning shot might indeed possibly mean Stand Your Ground doesn't apply. Yes, it's stupid, and it's unfair, and it makes no sense, but that's the law for you a lot of the time.

[Simon_Jester]

The defense will argue that Martin attacked Zimmerman physically before Zimmerman shot Martin- in which case Zimmerman still shouldn't have been following Martin, but it isn't murder to shoot someone who's beating your head on the ground.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And if it is to be argued that the distinguishing factor here is that Ms. Alexander fired a warning shot, so what? Defense against potential physical harm trumps legal statutes in my opinion. And if a point needs to be made about not recklessly discharging firearms, give her 30 days and call it a day. How this could turn into a potential 25 year prison sentence is beyond me.

In the article it says prosecutors argued she could retreat. I wonder if the Stand Your Ground law doesn't apply to domestic relationships.

It would make sense because domestic relationships complicate things because they both have a right to be there and both live there. Ms. Alexander would have to prove that she was in fear for her life and that this fear was reasonable. This would make it a typical self defense case. The other cases are stupid. Stand Your Ground does not mean that deadly force is justified in any situation.

[Simon_Jester]

Although since he was choking her and saying he was going to kill her, "reasonable fear for her life" would sum up the situation pretty well...

[Kamakazie Sith]

Although since he was choking her and saying he was going to kill her, "reasonable fear for her life" would sum up the situation pretty well...

Agreed. That's what she claimed happen. Now is there evidence of this? Marks on her neck for example?

[aerius]

I would like to see the original police reports and other relevant documents if they're available before I form an opinion on these cases. I want to see if everything lines up as reported or if the media is editorializing again.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would like to see the original police reports and other relevant documents if they're available before I form an opinion on these cases. I want to see if everything lines up as reported or if the media is editorializing again.

My guess is editorializing. Certain media elements are trying hard to push a racist double standard.

[Lord MJ]

So I've been doing some more research on this case.

Here is a copy of the failed motion to dismiss: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Orde ... to-Dismiss.

Apparently she was visiting her husband in his house due to their newborn child.

Also here is the blogspot page set up by Mrs. Alexander (not sure if by her directly or someone on her behalf)

http://justiceformarissa.blogspot.com/

[Beowulf]

I think part of the problem is that she fired a warning shot. You see, if you have the capability to fire a warning shot, there's a good argument that you're not in such imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury as to warrant the use of deadly force. This is also complicated by the fact that her husband was her attacker, and that it took place in a home (it's hard to determine from reporting if it's hers or his), rather than on the street.

[Simon_Jester]

So... firing a warning shot is attempted murder (or punished as if it were, "use of deadly force" or whatever) under circumstances where shooting the guy in the head would likely be treated as self-defense?

Please tell me I misunderstand you.

[SVPD]

So... firing a warning shot is attempted murder (or punished as if it were, "use of deadly force" or whatever) under circumstances where shooting the guy in the head would likely be treated as self-defense?

Please tell me I misunderstand you.

She's not charged with attempted murder, she's charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This is a third degree felony in Florida. Murder is a felony of the first degree, making attempted murder a felony in the second degree. The article is therefore incorrect; she is not facing 25 years on this charge; she's facing 5 years, the maximum for a third degree felony. Even if she were charged with attempted murder, the maximum would be 15 years. The inability of the article to get something this basic right calls into question their presentation of all the other facts as well, but what do you expect from an article that's clearly intended as an editorial opinion piece and presented on a website with a name like "allvoices"?

As to your actual question, yes, you understood him correctly and while it is counter-intuitive that a warning shot might not be covered by stand your ground while actually shooting someone is, that's actually the way it's supposed to be.

The basic fact is that if you are not in such immediate fear of your life that you can fire a warning shot, you don't need to fire. Simply pointing the weapon or announcing that you are going to shoot if the attacker does not stop should accomplish anything you would need to fire a warning shot to accomplish. If you pull the trigger, you are choosing to actually exercise deadly force, and that should only be done when it is finally necessary.

The reason is simple: We can look at the external evidence available and make a determination of whether the facts and circumstances warrant a person exercising deadly force. We cannot look into a person's mind and determine what their intent in firing a particular shot is. Not only would it be very easy to claim any missed shot to be a "warning shot" (and one wonders where the bullets are ending up), but in cases where the warning failed and someone ended up actually getting shot, the additional confusion would be horrendous.

In regard to this specific case, furthermore, she was not in her home, but in his, meaning stand your ground does not apply to her at all (although that does not entirely eliminate self defense; being in another's home does not give them license to assault you). The article, once again, misstates the facts; it had been her home but she had not lived there for 2 months again, according to the motion that was linked above. While there might be lingering issues of the marital estate and her name possibly being on the deed or loan, it is not "her home" in the sense meant by slef defense laws; those mean a place you are physically living in.

In fact, click that link and read page 4. The court paints an entirely different picture of what happened than the article does. No surprise there though.

[Lord MJ]

Allvoices isn't the only site saying 20 years.

Marissa Alexander's blog, and local news sites are also saying 20 years. I don't think this story has been picked up my any national news outlets though. I'll keep looking.

[SVPD]

In that case, they're all equally inept because the motion to dismiss you cited clearly refers to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. If allvoices is merely jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of the press in that regard, fine, but a review of the motion reveals that they are still blatantly distorting the facts of the case. The woman in this circumstance was in someone else's house, not hers, and went to her car and then came back to continue the confrontation. She was not "standing her ground" at all, and there is no double standard evidenced by the facts available at this time.

[Lord MJ]

Unless it happened as she claimed in her blog, that she tried to leave the house via her car but didn't have her keys, and then went back into the house with her gun to leave another way (or get her keys) and was confronted again. Which in that case would be a new confrontation, not a continuation of the previous one.

[Lost Soal]

Florida uses a law commonly known as 10-20-life as a sentencing guideline when a felony takes place with the use of a weapon. Under this statute, my felony charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to harm carries a twenty year mandatory sentence.

Link
This is where the claim for 20yr sentence is coming from. I don't know if Florida does use this guideline but its why the defendant, NAACP and every reporting of it is stating 20yrs.

Edit: From here

10-20-LIFE

10-20-life poster
Poster is available in English and Spanish versions and can be ordered online.

Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon
Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed

[Simon_Jester]

At least half the problem then is the sentencing guideline, not the self-defense laws.

What sane judge would give a 20 year sentence for a warning shot in a tense conflict between two people, when there's an obvious aggressor? If the judge had more discretion, I'd bet on the sentence having been a lot shorter.

[Lost Soal]

One hogtied by the word "mandatory".

[Simon_Jester]

Er, sorry, the rhetorical question didn't come out right. There should have been a "willingly" in there.

And yes, I think we're on the same page.

[Kamakazie Sith]

At least half the problem then is the sentencing guideline, not the self-defense laws.

What sane judge would give a 20 year sentence for a warning shot in a tense conflict between two people, when there's an obvious aggressor? If the judge had more discretion, I'd bet on the sentence having been a lot shorter.

If you read the copy of the failed motion to dismiss you'll find that there are three victims listed and that the warning shot went right by the primary victims head. I don't call that a warning shot. I call that a miss. What stopped her from firing additional rounds is all three victims ran from the house.

[hunter5]

Unless it happened as she claimed in her blog, that she tried to leave the house via her car but didn't have her keys, and then went back into the house with her gun to leave another way (or get her keys) and was confronted again. Which in that case would be a new confrontation, not a continuation of the previous one.

According to the motion to dismiss she claimed the garage door wouldn't open but either she didn't provide (which doesn't make sense) or there wasn't any evidence to support that claim. Regardless it seems from the evidence even her own story the husband let her go to her car thus letting her leave the situation she brought her self back into the situation. Both seem to have arrest for domestic violence and I think most if not all the charges on both where dropped in the past. This is a tough one but I am getting from the motion to dismiss the judge decided that by walking back into a situation she claimed to have "feared for her life" does't meet the stand your ground statute.

[Beowulf]

She must not have been found guilty of any domestic violence charge. Any successfully prosecution by the state triggers the Lautenberg Amendment, which bans the ownership or handling of firearms or ammunition by those found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence charges (felony domestic violence is covered under the general ban on firearms ownership by felons).

[Lord MJ]

An update. Her sentencing has been delayed. On April 30, her attorneys will be filing a retrial motion.

[hunter5]

She must not have been found guilty of any domestic violence charge. Any successfully prosecution by the state triggers the Lautenberg Amendment, which bans the ownership or handling of firearms or ammunition by those found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence charges (felony domestic violence is covered under the general ban on firearms ownership by felons).

Agreed I figured there never was a trial at all since the charges were dropped, but I am not too familiar with what charges being dropped really means in a legal sense.