PDA

View Full Version : Court Overturns 20-Year Sentence for Woman Who Fired 'Warning Shots' at Husband


Bustercat
11-08-2013, 4:13 PM
http://gma.yahoo.com/court-overturns-20-sentence-woman-fired-warning-shots-221358241--abc-news-topstories.html

Justice done!

RMP91
11-08-2013, 4:15 PM
Took them long enough...

GoatLovin
11-08-2013, 5:00 PM
So what you're saying is Crazy Joe was right?

junior40er
11-08-2013, 5:02 PM
Good.

fizux
11-08-2013, 5:59 PM
That was the "why does an African-American who claims SYG lose, while a White [shhh, actually Hispanic] guy get acquitted on SYG [even though that wasn't invoked by GZ's defense team]" case.

dreyna14
11-09-2013, 7:46 PM
Wow, stating that self-defense didn't apply because she didn't suffer injury? Wow, I'm flabbergasted. The exact reason why she didn't suffer injury is because of self defense. She might very well be dead had she not had the gun. Unbelievable.

Ninask
11-09-2013, 7:56 PM
Good on ya

Darto
11-16-2013, 9:35 PM
Sounds to me like the Florida prosecutors envision an America where attacked persons are required to run away like H3** or go to jail if you instead stand and fight. In my opinion, that makes the Florida prosecutors devoid of common sense or of a sense of justice.

----------

Alexander testified about three other alleged incidents of physical abuse by her husband, including one that led to his arrest. Several witnesses claimed to have seen the injuries she allegedly suffered and the final defense witness in the case testified that she met the criteria for "battered person's syndrome."

In a statement, prosecutors wrote, "The defendant's conviction was reversed on a legal technicality. ... We are gratified that the court affirmed the defendant's Stand Your Ground ruling. This means the defendant will not have another Stand Your Ground hearing. The case will be back in the Circuit Court in the Fourth Judicial Circuit at the appropriate time."

ChaoSS
11-17-2013, 7:33 AM
Wasn't this the "SYG" case where she left, and then came back with a gun though?

socom2shooter
11-17-2013, 7:48 AM
Bout time. Syg is ment so you dont get hurt or did i missinterpret that.

Spyguy
11-17-2013, 10:41 AM
Wasn't this the "SYG" case where she left, and then came back with a gun though?
Yes. She "escaped" to the garage. But then, instead of opening the garage door and leaving, she retrieved a pistol from her car, went back into the house, and fired twice at her bf's head. When the police arrived, she claimed the garage door opener wasn't working, but the police pressed the button and it opened right up.

There were so many lies and changes to her story (and the victim's story too), that nothing in this case was cut and dried. But one fact was perfectly clear: it was NOT a case of SYG.

Too bad most people only get their "facts" from the agenda-driven MSM.

ChaoSS
11-17-2013, 2:51 PM
Yes. She "escaped" to the garage. But then, instead of opening the garage door and leaving, she retrieved a pistol from her car, went back into the house, and fired twice at her bf's head. When the police arrived, she claimed the garage door opener wasn't working, but the police pressed the button and it opened right up.

There were so many lies and changes to her story (and the victim's story too), that nothing in this case was cut and dried. But one fact was perfectly clear: it was NOT a case of SYG.

Too bad most people only get their "facts" from the agenda-driven MSM.

Well, she's black, so there's no way that she could be guilty of anything but being black in a racist society, right?

LoneYote
11-17-2013, 3:03 PM
Well, she's black, so there's no way that she could be guilty of anything but being black in a racist society, right?

LOL... A woman too...

morfeeis
11-17-2013, 3:19 PM
Yes. She "escaped" to the garage. But then, instead of opening the garage door and leaving, she retrieved a pistol from her car, went back into the house, and fired twice at her bf's head. When the police arrived, she claimed the garage door opener wasn't working, but the police pressed the button and it opened right up.

There were so many lies and changes to her story (and the victim's story too), that nothing in this case was cut and dried. But one fact was perfectly clear: it was NOT a case of SYG.

Too bad most people only get their "facts" from the agenda-driven MSM.
To much truth here.

also add that her kids were almost shot too and that this whole fight started because she was screwing some other guy and the husband was leaving and taking their kids.

kermit315
12-03-2013, 5:22 AM
Dont forget that it wasnt overturned as much as it was sent back for retrial due to a jury instruction error.

randian
12-03-2013, 10:43 AM
The only thing this proves is that the courts are solicitous of women. No way this ruling happens with a male defendant.

johnthomas
12-03-2013, 10:58 AM
She said she fired warning shots, they said she aimed at his head. She needs weapons training bad.

bwiese
12-03-2013, 4:23 PM
The only thing this proves is that the courts are solicitous of women. No way this ruling happens with a male defendant.

Correct.

The woman was in the wrong and somehow got "abused woman sympathy".

She...
- was NOT in IMMEDIATE fear for her life (she was away)
- she CAME BACK to property in a confrontation,
- and she randomly discharged (i.e, not aimed fire in defense of threat).

She should still be in jail.

taperxz
12-03-2013, 5:37 PM
Correct.

The woman was in the wrong and somehow got "abused woman sympathy".

She...
- was NOT in IMMEDIATE fear for her life (she was away)
- she CAME BACK to property in a confrontation,
- and she randomly discharged (i.e, not aimed fire in defense of threat).

She should still be in jail.

This statement could make you the poster child for advocating DV as being OK don't you?

Your quote is "she should still be in jail" even if you are right, i bet she and many other women would say "at least she is still alive" You never know what the guys intent was. She probably knew better than anyone else on earth.

ChaoSS
12-04-2013, 9:09 AM
This statement could make you the poster child for advocating DV as being OK don't you?


Absurd. Intentionally putting herself into an abusive situation does not give her the right to behave in a dangerous and illegal manner. Saying so does not make you an advocate for DV.

mage
12-04-2013, 9:30 AM
Correct.

The woman was in the wrong and somehow got "abused woman sympathy".

She...
- was NOT in IMMEDIATE fear for her life (she was away)
- she CAME BACK to property in a confrontation,
- and she randomly discharged (i.e, not aimed fire in defense of threat).

She should still be in jail.

No actual damage, victim was a piece of trash, I'm okay with her being free.

I'm generally okay with jury nullification.

BKinzey
12-08-2013, 1:38 PM
He was taking off with the kids, so did she "escape" to the garage and have to return to the house because the garage wouldn't open or did she return with a gun to confront him? Did she fire a warning shot, or did she just miss?

Doesn't sound cut & dry at all.

stix213
12-09-2013, 12:51 PM
This statement could make you the poster child for advocating DV as being OK don't you?

Your quote is "she should still be in jail" even if you are right, i bet she and many other women would say "at least she is still alive" You never know what the guys intent was. She probably knew better than anyone else on earth.

If she did know better, why did she leave to the garage, and then return?

Gemini Effect
12-09-2013, 1:12 PM
Yes. She "escaped" to the garage. But then, instead of opening the garage door and leaving, she retrieved a pistol from her car, went back into the house, and fired twice at her bf's head. When the police arrived, she claimed the garage door opener wasn't working, but the police pressed the button and it opened right up.

There were so many lies and changes to her story (and the victim's story too), that nothing in this case was cut and dried. But one fact was perfectly clear: it was NOT a case of SYG.

Too bad most people only get their "facts" from the agenda-driven MSM.

I just have to ask, who is the girl in your avatar?

Kid Stanislaus
12-10-2013, 8:58 PM
So what you're saying is Crazy Joe was right?

NO! NO! NO! Crazy Joe said to fire two shots from the BALCONY with a 12 ga. SHOTGUN!!:p

chozenfew805
12-10-2013, 8:59 PM
:hurray:

Kid Stanislaus
12-10-2013, 9:03 PM
Yes. She "escaped" to the garage. But then, instead of opening the garage door and leaving, she retrieved a pistol from her car, went back into the house, and fired twice at her bf's head. When the police arrived, she claimed the garage door opener wasn't working, but the police pressed the button and it opened right up. There were so many lies and changes to her story (and the victim's story too), that nothing in this case was cut and dried. But one fact was perfectly clear: it was NOT a case of SYG.

Try to remember, when a person is in panic mode it can become very difficult to do simple things like push a button to open a garage door.;)

Kid Stanislaus
12-10-2013, 9:04 PM
Well, she's black, so there's no way that she could be guilty of anything but being black in a racist society, right?

HO-CHEE-MAMA!! You are the master of the cheap shot!:eek:

Kid Stanislaus
12-10-2013, 9:05 PM
To much truth here. Also add that her kids were almost shot too and that this whole fight started because she was screwing some other guy and the husband was leaving and taking their kids.

It was his ALLEGATION that she was screwing some other guy.;)

Kid Stanislaus
12-10-2013, 9:09 PM
If she did know better, why did she leave to the garage, and then return?

She wanted to get out the garage door but for whatever reason was not able to do so.

mikestesting
12-11-2013, 12:18 PM
Correct.

The woman was in the wrong and somehow got "abused woman sympathy".

She...
- was NOT in IMMEDIATE fear for her life (she was away)
- she CAME BACK to property in a confrontation,
- and she randomly discharged (i.e, not aimed fire in defense of threat).

She should still be in jail.

I have to disagree. This viewpoint is partly why we have such an anti-2A/anti-gun climate in this state. People are always so quick to judge based on emotions, based on the what-if's. This woman did not hurt anyone; she didn't kill anyone. Why should someone be imprisoned because she could have hurt someone? That's the logic that anti's use when they legislate anti-gunner laws: they use the logic that someone could possibly somewhere be hurt by these evil things and they then put these laws in place so as to restrict what someone may do because of what may occur if they do do those things (yes, I wrote doodoo).

I believe it is wrong to make a criminal out of someone gor what they may have done rather than what they did do. She didn't hurt anyone. She didn't kill anyone. So why make her a criminal? So what if she "could have"? I could have run over a pedestrian on the way to work today, but I didn't. Someone should only be charged with a crime when they in fact do something that causes harm to another person.

This logic follows what Calguns tries to actively fight against: don't make gun laws based on what people may do with their firearms. It's already against the law to kill someone. We don't need more laws to restrict the actions of people based on the notion that they may try to kill someone. This just goes against individual liberty.

kermit315
12-13-2013, 7:22 AM
I have to disagree. This viewpoint is partly why we have such an anti-2A/anti-gun climate in this state. People are always so quick to judge based on emotions, based on the what-if's. This woman did not hurt anyone; she didn't kill anyone. Why should someone be imprisoned because she could have hurt someone? That's the logic that anti's use when they legislate anti-gunner laws: they use the logic that someone could possibly somewhere be hurt by these evil things and they then put these laws in place so as to restrict what someone may do because of what may occur if they do do those things (yes, I wrote doodoo).

I believe it is wrong to make a criminal out of someone gor what they may have done rather than what they did do. She didn't hurt anyone. She didn't kill anyone. So why make her a criminal? So what if she "could have"? I could have run over a pedestrian on the way to work today, but I didn't. Someone should only be charged with a crime when they in fact do something that causes harm to another person.

This logic follows what Calguns tries to actively fight against: don't make gun laws based on what people may do with their firearms. It's already against the law to kill someone. We don't need more laws to restrict the actions of people based on the notion that they may try to kill someone. This just goes against individual liberty.

This prosecution was based on events that did happen, not events that might happen. She left the area, got a gun, went back and fired shots. This is nowhere near the same as the anti's trying to ban things as a preventative measure to something that might happen. She knowingly went back into a confrontation with a weapon and fired two shots. One story was that they were warning shots. If they were, and she injected herself back into the situation, she should have been charged with agg assault, and possibly culpable negligence. Deadly missiles could be charged as well, but that does not happen that often. If it is found that she was not in fear of great bodily injury or death, she will be convicted again. The fact that she went back, even if armed, lends itself to that conclusion.

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree,

784.05 Culpable negligence.—
(1) Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

790.19 Shooting into or throwing deadly missiles into dwellings, public or private buildings, occupied or not occupied; vessels, aircraft, buses, railroad cars, streetcars, or other vehicles.—Whoever, wantonly or maliciously, shoots at, within, or into, or throws any missile or hurls or projects a stone or other hard substance which would produce death or great bodily harm, at, within, or in any public or private building, occupied or unoccupied, or public or private bus or any train, locomotive, railway car, caboose, cable railway car, street railway car, monorail car, or vehicle of any kind which is being used or occupied by any person, or any boat, vessel, ship, or barge lying in or plying the waters of this state, or aircraft flying through the airspace of this state shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

gunsmith
12-27-2013, 3:32 PM
Correct.

The woman was in the wrong and somehow got "abused woman sympathy".

She...
- was NOT in IMMEDIATE fear for her life (she was away)
- she CAME BACK to property in a confrontation,
- and she randomly discharged (i.e, not aimed fire in defense of threat).

She should still be in jail.

gawd, I hate warning shots!
only idiots fire warning shots, she is a menace. doesn't know anything about self defense or law ....
she needs the time in jail-now she thinks she was justified, now more morons will fire warning shots and go to jail or kill innocents or both.

FUBAR!

Just_some_guy
12-29-2013, 12:29 AM
There seems to be a hell of a lot more behind this story than a poor, female victim.

She has a history of violence as well. I have no idea what really transpired, but from the looks of all the facts, I think she belongs in jail.

kf6tac
12-31-2013, 3:24 PM
I believe it is wrong to make a criminal out of someone gor what they may have done rather than what they did do. She didn't hurt anyone. She didn't kill anyone. So why make her a criminal? So what if she "could have"? I could have run over a pedestrian on the way to work today, but I didn't. Someone should only be charged with a crime when they in fact do something that causes harm to another person.

Do you also believe that a person should only be prosecuted for drunk driving if someone actually dies or gets injured as a result? Should they be let off the hook if, by sheer luck, they manage to get from the bar to their house without causing any accidents or hitting anyone?