COURT FINALLY OVERTURNS MARISSA ALEXANDER’S 20 YEAR SENTENCE.
Source: BlackMedia
A Florida woman who claimed to be a victim of abuse was sentenced to 20 years behind bars for allegedly firing a warning shot during an argument with her husband was granted a new trial.
The appellate court ruling erased a decision by a jury that took just 12 minutes to convict Marissa Alexander, a mother of three, of aggravated assault.
Alexander unsuccessfully tried to invoke Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law as the same prosecutors who unsuccessfully worked to put Zimmerman behind bars told the court that she did not act in self-defense.
In granting the new trial, Judge James Daniel also seemed unmoved by the Stand Your Ground defense.
“We reject her contention that the trial court erred in declining to grant her immunity from prosecution under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, but we remand for a new trial because the jury instructions on self-defense were erroneous,” wrote Daniel.
Read more: http://www.blackmediascoop.com/court-overturns-marissa-alexanders-20-year-sentence/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Thanks for posting!
elleng
(130,901 posts)just 5 minutes ago, SKP!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)These are people lives we are talking about.
brush
(53,778 posts)I clicked on the post thinking that charges had been dismissed but this seems to be a repost of two-week-old news.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)A retrial in December might go well if she gets a different judge.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Charges should be dropped; with a proper jury instruction she would never be convicted.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and her first jury, which was multiracial, didn't buy her lies.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)I would have voted to acquit, and consider a sentence of twenty years grotesque.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of the children she shot at. Nor would you have, when you realized that no physical evidence matched her story. Nor would you when you found out that after shooting at this man and his children, she then conspired with him to give a false deposition. Then, apparently upset that she could not manipulate and get out of the charges, she broke the restraining order against her and went and beat him up...giving him a black eye and her a domestic violence conviction. This was all before her trial.
The defense has lost two key hearings, already...they couldn't get the search thrown, and they couldn't conceal her conviction for domestic violence.
She was offered a plea for 3 years.....but the 20 is a mandatory sentencing provision. I've had clients like her....they always think they can talk their way out of it.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)And as you know, I do respect your judgement on these matters.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that Crystal Mangum is an apt comparison. I fear that may be the case.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)
Cha
(297,213 posts)
sheshe2
(83,758 posts)A victory~
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)or does it not apply to women?
csziggy
(34,136 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Am I to gather that, people can shoot a stranger because you are afraid of them with no reason for being so, other than the voices in your head ... But you CAN'T shoot someone because you are afraid of them BECAUSE they have a history of being violent toward you?
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Sounds like the legislators have NO understanding of domestic violence and the psychology and logistics of being stuck in an abusive relationship.
I'd bet anything their thinking was something like, "oh, she should have left....If she didn't leave him then she has no excuse."
Victim blaming, in other words. 
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)and the shootee is black, apparently.
Black people are inherently scary to white people, ya know.
Especially if they're armed with toy guns or are known to be involved in the distribution of contraband tobacco.
catrose
(5,066 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)That is why SYG did not apply.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)because otherwise you would have a situation where she shoots him while he was asleep because it was an "ongoing threat".
The standard for self defense has been around for centuries - there has to be an imminent threat that makes a reasonable person fear for their lives. Once you retreat to a place of safety and your attacker does not follow, there is no imminent threat. In her case, she could have walked out the house, stayed in her room and called the cops, or have stayed in the garage with her gun. She chose to go back in the house to shot at him - that is not self defense.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The purpose of the SYG law was to allow people to stand up to those threatening them. They were passed in response to, "I did not do anything wrong, so why do I have to run away?"
You have two legally distinct situations here.
1. She and her boyfriend got into an argument. She left. The end.
2. She and her boyfriend got into an argument again. She threatened him with a firearm because she felt threatened by him during this second argument. She had the legal right to carry the firearm. She had the legal right to stand her ground rather than run away.
If SYG does not apply, why does the SYG law exist? This incident is exactly what the SYG law was supposed to enable. If not, then the SYG law is no different from the self-defense laws that have existed forever. So what was the freaking purpose of passing the SYG laws in the first place?
A lot of people went through a lot of work to let us defend ourselves. But the courts keep refusing us that right. These rulings were nothing more than judges ignoring a law because they don't like it.
I am sure a lot of gun control advocates would agree with their, and your, misinterpretation of this law.
Travelman
(708 posts)She had no reasonable fear for her safety. He was not hitting her, he was not threatening to hit her, he was not shoving her around, nothing like that.
Any self-defense claim, whether it's "stand your ground" or not, requires as its central tenet the reasonable belief that one's safety is in imminent danger. Marissa Alexander had no such reasonable belief. If you're afraid for your safety, you flee, you don't walk through the living room, kitchen, and laundry room to go out to the garage, get in your car, unlock the glove compartment, retrieve your gun, load your gun, walk back into the laundry room, back into the kitchen, yell "I've got something for your ass!" and then shoot at the head of someone who has been standing in the living room not threatening anyone the entire time.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Your "if you're afraid" advice was true before the SYG laws. You were required to flee.
I will ask the question again. Why did they pass a SYG law? If you are still required to flee, if you must still let the bully win the day, then what is the point? Why does the law exist?
Instead of "Stand Your Ground" does it actually stand for "Surrender Your Ground"? Because that is what you seem to be saying here.
Travelman
(708 posts)And, once again, you're not required to flee, but you are required to be in reasonable fear for your safety. Marissa Alexander was not anywhere near being in reasonable fear for her safety. Hence, self-defense, including stand-your-ground, does not apply.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)A lot of things that are not "threatening" to men are indeed frightening and threatening to women.
And being in an abusive relationship means:
One: the end of peace of mind
Two: the end of sleep
Three: the end of health
Four: the end of normal expectations of a societal member. (We all grew up expecting to be protected if we need to call the police - but women quickly learn that that police usually will do everything possible to avoid handling a situation of abuse properly. Weak excuses prevail "Well, we could take your spouse in, but he would be back here tomorrow, so why would we?" "Get a restraining order," etc.)
It is also true that many people who are abusive on an on-going basis are also very manipulative and even charming. If Nicole Simpson had bought a gun and used it on her spouse sometime before she broke up with OJ, she would be alive today. And she would just about now be being released from prison, as she would have served her time.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Explained perfectly.
Hekate
(90,683 posts)Travelman
(708 posts)"kids, put your shoes on because we're leaving" was somehow threatening to Marissa Alexander.
IF you can demonstrate that she actually had a reasonable fear for her immediate safety, then you'll be able to get all of the charges dismissed against her.
Good luck with that. No other sane person who is actually aware of the facts believes that cock-and-bull story.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Or enraged male relative, get back to me.
Anyone who has experienced life with an person who is prone to violent rages knows what I mean.
You apparently don't. You are a guy, and you don't know what it is like to ever be hassled by someone who is enraged and could break your neck like it was a piece of kindling.
I recently spent some serious time helping a friend get a male relative out of her dwelling. The matter took about two years. (Police were no help, and California has laws that make a person a "tenant" if they stay somewhere a certain length of time, so once a person achieves tenancy, even if they' re not paying a thing toward even their own grocery bill, they have protected status.)
I found it of interest that the judge who finally oversaw my friend's court plea to have her son removed - he addressed the court room and explained that anyone living with someone they consider dangerous to their health and safety should consider getting a court order, called a restraining order. But he also counseled the women in the court room that if they do make the decision to get that restraining order, then they have to also be aware of the fact that doing so will possibly trigger more rage and conflict coming from whomever they are having problems with.
I helped edit a scholarly book on date rape, and that point was made repeatedly by the author of the book.
So your comment that the mother of children should not mind the idea that a person she has repeatedly experienced as a confused, troubled and enraged soul now was about to have custody of the children - well, that is rather troubling thing for an abused woman to experience.
As far as I am concerned, if every man who ever was enraged while with a woman, if those men got shot and killed by some type of inter-galactic avenger, I would not cry a single tear over the tens of thsouands of three legged bastards who would lose their lives. In fact, I would celebrate.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)hoping for murders and planning to celebrate them.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And every single day of the week, we have dozens of headlines, Tweets, and FB posts regarding how inter galactic avengers have taken out dozens of domestic abusers.
Maybe we could put together an OP about the dangers of inter galactic avengers? To prove just how celebratory we women opposed to domestic violence should be?
But in the real world, these are the facts:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/domestic-intimate-partner-violence-fast-facts/
United States:
Each minute - Twenty-four people are victims of intimate partner violence, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Each day - Three or more women are murdered by their boyfriends or husbands on average, according to the American Psychology Association.
Each month - The National Domestic Violence Hotline receives an average of 22,000 calls.
Each year - Over 12 million women and men are victims of intimate partner violence, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
U.S. deaths 1980-2008 (from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics)
Overall - Almost one out of five or 16.3% of murder victims were killed by an intimate partner.
Women - Women account for two out of three murder victims killed by an intimate partner. The number of women killed by an intimate partner fell from 43% in 1980 to 38% in 1995, but rose to 45% in 2008.
Men - The number of men killed by an intimate partner fell from 10.4% in 1980 to 4.98% in 2008.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)celebrating and hoping for the murder of others.
Snow Leopard
(348 posts)Guys never face people who want and could break their necks. Sheesh.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)But here are the stats -
(From CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/domestic-intimate-partner-violence-fast-facts/
U.S. deaths 1980-2008 (from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics)
Overall - Almost one out of five or 16.3% of murder victims were killed by an intimate partner.
Women - Women account for two out of three murder victims killed by an intimate partner. The number of women killed by an intimate partner fell from 43% in 1980 to 38% in 1995, but rose to 45% in 2008.
Men - The number of men killed by an intimate partner fell from 10.4% in 1980 to 4.98% in 2008.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's not a threat?
Travelman
(708 posts)The claim that he "charged at her" is not really credible. She went out to the garage, got the gun, came back in, and then, when he saw the gun, then he said he was going to kill her? Really?
Come on. That's not even remotely credible.
Gray took the kids and fled to safety. She engaged in a seven-hour standoff with police in which she repeatedly threatened to kill any cop who came into the house.
The "broken bathroom door" claim was proved to have been many months prior, not the day of the shooting.
The only way in which she "fired into the air" is simply by virtue of the fact that there were air molecules between the muzzle of her gun and the wall immediately next to Gray's head where the bullet struck, 5'8" above the floor, better known as right at head height.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)much of that which you consider not remotely credible was testified to by the witnesses, including the Gray.
Marissa Alexander, an African American woman from Jacksonville, FL, reports that, in July 2010, nine days after she prematurely gave birth to her youngest daughter, her estranged husband, Rico Gray, attacked her, strangled her, and threatened to kill her. According to a sworn deposition, Gray admitted to beating Alexander as well as having a history of abusing other women with whom he was involved. Women who have been involved with Gray submitted letters in Alexander's trial confirming that Gray abused them, but these witnesses were prevented from testifying. He also testified that he threatened to have Alexander killed. According to Alexander, she tried to escape through the garage, but the garage door would not open. This account was confirmed by Gray in a sworn deposition. According to all accounts, Alexander then retrieved her registered gun from her vehicle and went to the kitchen. She recounts that Gray said "Bitch, I will kill you," an account which was affirmed by one of Gray's sons at Alexander's trial and who was present during this event. Alexander fired what she says was a warning shot, which hit the wall above Gray's head, and deflected into the ceiling. The single shot injured no one.
What source are you relying on? Please link to it.
Travelman
(708 posts)See long, detailed coverage of the actual facts of the case here.
No one is saying that Rico Gray is a great guy (or at least I'm not, anyway). The guy's a woman-abusing shithead of the highest order and he has a track record with the police to prove it. It's just that the actual facts in this case do not involve him threatening Marissa Alexander in any way that comes anywhere remotely close to the standard of belief that one's safety is in imminent peril. None of what Alexander says adds up to anything credible. She was in imminent peril because he became enraged that she had a gun, and only then did he threaten her life? Seriously? She "fired into the air" and the bullet just happened to miss Gray's head by a few inches? She couldn't open the garage door even though she had opened that same garage door to put her own car in the garage just moments earlier? And the police had no problem operating the garage door during her seven-hour standoff with police, but she couldn't open it?
The "bathroom door" incident was proven in court to have happened months earlier, not the day of the shooting. If she were really trying to flee, as she claimed she was, then why not simply run out the front door that she walked past in order to go to her car and get her gun?
Rico Gray is a very long way from sainthood, but Marissa Alexander is a disturbed, violent, dangerous woman who unquestionably committed attempted murder. She has less than zero credibility and has been caught in numerous lies, as well as frequently disregarding legal orders (such as the "non-violence" order that the courts had imposed before the shooting, as well as the zero-contact order that the court imposed as a part of her bail). The woman was staggeringly stupid to refuse to take the deal that was offered her, particularly given that her attorneys were begging her to take the deal. She would already have finished serving her time and could have potentially had this whole event expunged had she simply taken the deal that was very generously offered. Instead, she was pig-headed and refused to listen to anyone who told her, in utterly no uncertain terms, that she had absolutely no leg to stand on in her claim of self-defense.
Pity meter pegged at negative infinity. She belongs behind bars, and she'll be put back there after this new trial if she's too dumb to take a plea deal (if they even offer one this time).
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)but none of hers?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but what the jury believed and they found his testimony, and that of the children, more credible than hers.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)I do not trust them at all. I do not trust a man with a history of abusing women (which he has). He should have been in jail a long time ago. Why didn't he serve 20 years for any one of his assaults? Oh the men beating the women just get tsked tsk'ed at. Maybe go to jail for the night and then they come back and beat the spouse up again. Until these bastards serve very long sentences for abuse, the destructive story will just go on and on.
My goodness, the woman had just had a baby and he attacks her while in the bathroom and you have the gaul to believe him?
And the idiotic jury believed him as well? Let's hope the next time the jury is represented with people who have better sense for bullshit and manipulation.
And why wouldn't she need medical attention after this- it is called past partum depression. She needed medical help, and just got the police instead.
Sad. very sad.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)even the children testified against her.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and children are not let off of the abuse and manipulation either. They see/hear the belittlement and this effects them as well. It is a complex and horrid problem. Sorry, she may have been acting nutty- who wouldnt one week after giving birth? And then attacked by the violent man who wasnt even supposed to be there.
Again, why wasnt he in jail for all of his violence?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)She came out of the bedroom, announced to the Gray and the kids "I got something for your ass" went to the garage and came back with the gun. The boy testified "I thought I was fixin' to die" as Alexander pointed it at them.
Pick better heroes and causes celebre.
This case illustrates a disturbing truth; many domestic violence victims advocates aren't.
christx30
(6,241 posts)especially when it comes to women defending themselves against abusive men. But if you're firing a warning shot, you're not in fear for your life. You are trying to scare someone away. If you are truely scared and trying not to get killed, you aim for center body mass to end the threat against you. You aren't trying to kill someone, you are trying to end the threat. SYG just means that you are allowed to end the threat without fear of being prosecuted.
It's why Michael Dunn is serving life in jail for Jordan Davis' murder. Davis and his friends were leaving. Dunn shot at the back of their car. It doesn't matter that Dunn says he was scared that they might come back. They were leaving at the time. That was an incredibly bad shoot. SYG did not apply.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)she could not get away- he broke through the window- what more is required? And he had been convicted before of abuse.
Your argument is flawed.
Travelman
(708 posts)There is utterly zero evidence that he beat her up, threatened her, broke through any window on the day of the shooting.
He may have been violent with her in the past, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. In order to claim self-defense, she needed to have a reasonable fear of imminent danger. She didn't.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)What sort of a silly question are you posing- you can read the same things I can. You want to show evidence that he did not beat her? Hospitalize her, etc?
He had an undisputed violent history and he should have been in jail. Anyone being abused has the right and responsibility to protect themselves.
Travelman
(708 posts)Take that idiotic "you're protecting a violent man" bullshit and stick it right where the sun don't shine.
I've already stated that Rico Gray is a woman-abusing shithead. That's not in question. He's a violent bastard who has no business being a father or a boyfriend/husband/live-in/hook-up for any woman. I am in no way "protecting" Gray at all, so just STFU with that idiotic, emotionalist-based bullshit.
His HISTORY simply is not at issue here.
The simple fact is that at the time of the shooting, he was not in any way, shape, form, or fashion threatening Marissa Alexander. He did not hit her, he did not slap her, he did not grab her and shake her, he did not pin her down somewhere, he did not threaten her.
Please put aside your emotionalism for just a minute and try to get this concept to compute:
SOMEONE WHO IS CLAIMING SELF-DEFENSE MUST HAVE A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT THREAT TO THEIR SAFETY.
Got it? Imminent, as in "right now." That wasn't happening. There was no imminent threat. The most threatening thing that Rico Gray did THAT DAY was to tell his kids to put their shoes on because they were leaving the house while Alexander was there.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Maybe you should not ally yourself with wife batterers?
Response to Ash_F (Reply #240)
Post removed
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Is he your brother? Do you get $10,000 for every additional year she spends in jail? Why is this sending up your blood pressure on a message board that did not and cannot give this woman leniency no matter what views they hold? What benefit do you get from being so demeaning about the thoughts of a fellow DUer?
Regardless of what position you take, you might consider upping your level of discourse, unless someone is badmouthing your parents, spouse or your kids.
Travelman
(708 posts)I do get irritated when emotional basketcases make patently false claims about me, such as that I'm protecting/defending Rico Gray, or when bald-faced liars just make up spectacular bullshit like that I get paid for Alexander to sit in prison.
My level of discourse is just fine, and considerably higher than that of the emotional basketcases in this thread screeching idiotic shit that has no basis in fact or reality. YOU, however, should consider raising the level of your own discourse by NOT FUCKING TELLING LIES ABOUT PEOPLE.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Travelman
(708 posts)Let's see it. This should be very interesting indeed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)being the man's brother. Point was, you had no reason that I knew of to be taking the discussion so personally. If you did not get that much out of my post, no wonder you seem so angry.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)namely, the body of the thread?
What's your opinion on this issue?
merrily
(45,251 posts)FYI, he's been alerted on (not by me) more than once on this thread alone. In my reply 285, I was trying to get him to shift gears unless someone attacked him personally first. However, that only caused him to go off on me.
If you've read this entire thread, but I'm the only one you picked me to school about not attacking DUers, I am bemused.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)wouldn't surprise me if you and I are being alerted on this very second, however, the difference is that you tried to take him to task without addressing the gist of the thread.
What's your opinion of this thread's topic?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Still bemused.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)probably multiple times, but unless a post is hidden, or the results of an alert are posted, you have no way of knowing whether or not a post has been alerted.
Now, what's your opinion of the thread's topic?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Is a smilie supposed to be an answer these days?
merrily
(45,251 posts)but I am not taking the bait.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I'm just asking what your opinion is of the topic?
And you didn't disappoint me in the least.
Travelman
(708 posts)I'll take that as your admission that you lied.
merrily
(45,251 posts)of actually taking money. Or of actually being the husband's brother. I think you may have gotten that as well, because you said nothing about the brother bit.
In any event, if you didn't get it, I can only feel sorry for you. If you did get it and are pretending that you didn't, that's too bad as well. Either way, I hope you don't get alerted on too many more times on this thread.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Sorry to see the hits you are taking from this traveler guy.
But a small Friday afternoon toast to you 
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Don't you know anything about domestic violence?
Travelman
(708 posts)You need to learn to deal in actual FACTS rather than your runaway emotionalism.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)you cannot understand the case without understanding the cycle of abuse.
hack89
(39,171 posts)words have meaning. If she felt threatened she did not have to retreat. But once she retreated then she cannot come back to shoot him.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Once she left, she doesn't have the right to go get a gun and come back, shoot at him and then claim SYG.
I'm sorry that you think that, but it's factually wrong.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Who's kids were in there?
Travelman
(708 posts)Not her house.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you really need to read the court transcripts. She was not standing there with a gun in her hand being threatened by him. There wasn't even a conversation. She stepped in the room, waved her gun at him and the kids, and then fired a shot at his head that barely missed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)she fired after he said: “Bitch, I’ll kill you.” - See more at: http://www.blackmediascoop.com/court-overturns-marissa-alexanders-20-year-sentence/#sthash.yWLWlAdL.dpuf
Now granted, the article might have misreported what she testified to at trial ... but I doubt it.
Perhaps, you'll be so kind as to post (the relevant part of) the transcript ... or stop lying making stuff up.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the jury did not believe her. The physical evidence also support their story and not hers.
The prisons are full of "innocent" people - ask them and they will tell you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Marissa Alexander, an African American woman from Jacksonville, FL, reports that, in July 2010, nine days after she prematurely gave birth to her youngest daughter, her estranged husband, Rico Gray, attacked her, strangled her, and threatened to kill her.[1][4] According to a sworn deposition, Gray admitted to beating Alexander as well as having a history of abusing other women with whom he was involved. Women who have been involved with Gray submitted letters in Alexander's trial confirming that Gray abused them, but these witnesses were prevented from testifying.[5] He also testified that he threatened to have Alexander killed.[6] According to Alexander, she tried to escape through the garage, but the garage door would not open.[4] This account was confirmed by Gray in a sworn deposition.[6] According to all accounts, Alexander then retrieved her registered gun from her vehicle and went to the kitchen. She recounts that Gray said "Bitch, I will kill you," an account which was affirmed by one of Gray's sons at Alexander's trial and who was present during this event.[4][7] Alexander fired what she says was a warning shot, which hit the wall above Gray's head, and deflected into the ceiling.[8] The single shot injured no one.[9]
No transcript to support your recounting of events? Okay!
Travelman
(708 posts)If the garage door didn't work, then how did she get her car in there in the first place.
Gray recanted that sworn statement later.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there is no duty to retreat under SYG ... that's why it's called SYG.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)she retreated to the garage, thereby taking away the imminent danger element of SYG.
And the fact that he didn't attempt to follow her was was strong evidence that she wasn't in anymore danger at that point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)where you wish and ignore everything afterwards.
After she returned from the garage, the testimony has it that he charged her and threatened to kill her. At that point, under SYG, she had no duty to retreat.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)She retreated, at that point, she can't legally come back and shoot at him.
And her testimony was found to be not credible at trial.
Remember, after she shot at him, almost hitting his head and his kids on the other side of the wall, he left the home with his kids and immediately called 911, she then refused to exit the home and threatened to shoot any police that attempted to enter the home.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you keep talking about retreating, once, extinguishes the right to SYG in subsequent, even immediately subsequent, encounters ... the law plainly does not.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)If he had followed her to the garage and threatened her, then SYG would still be viable, but he didn't, he stayed in the house, she was the one that armed herself and then returned and shot at him.
She did not SYG, she left and then returned with gun.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Travelman
(708 posts)Even if you don't have a duty to retreat, once you do, then you've pretty much given up your option on stand your ground unless you have retreated and someone is continuing to attack you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)As the other poster has already cited.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)they did testify against her after all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)trying to reveal is the decades old manufactured one and one that has been purchased on a large scale as I see it and that is BLACK THREAT!!!! BLACK THREAT!!!!! To prison with that one!!!!!!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but at any rate, she tried to exit the garage but couldn't get the door open.
Travelman
(708 posts)The police were able to get the garage door to work just fine during the seven-hour standoff that she had with the cops who responded to the scene.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)From her open letter:
He and my two stepsons were supposed to be exiting the house thru the front door, but he didn’t leave. Instead he came into the kitchen that leads to the garage and realized I was unable to leave. Instead of leaving thru the front door where his vehicle was parked outside of the garage, he came into the kitchen by himself. I was terrified from the first encounter and feared he came to do as he had threatened. The weapon was in my right hand down by my side and he yelled, “Bitch I will kill you!”, and charged toward me. In fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling. As I stood my ground it prevented him from doing what he threatened and he ran out of the home. Outside of the home, he contacted the police and falsely reported that I shot at him and his sons. The police arrived and I was taken into custody.
http://www.justiceformarissa.blogspot.com/2012/04/lincoln-b.html
Her claim has been the same from the beginning - she tried to leave, couldn't, retrieved her gun, and fired a warning shot. By her ex-husband's own statements, he threatened to kill her. How much more does it take for it to be a SYG case? Apparently SYG doesn't count if you are black and female.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)she passed by the front door, she could have left the house at that point, but she choose to go to the garage, get her gun and go back into the house, once again passing the front door and shoot at him.
That's not SYG.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Realized she had dropped/forgotten her keys, tried to open the garage door to get out, it wouldn't work. That's when she got her gun - that she had a concealed carry permit for - and went back into the house to go out another way. Then her husband threatened to kill her and charged at her.
According to her statement, she thought her husband had left by the front door. That would keep her from attempting to leave the house by that way.
In SYG there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)think brilliantly like you. Shame on her.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) smilies you want, be my guest, but that doesn't change the fact that once she entered the garage, she removed herself from imminent danger, at that point, SYG was no longer a defense.heaven05
(18,124 posts)
while you miss the truth of the matter, completely. May she be released and walk free again. I'm in HER corner, not some racist, bigoted, misogynistic judges DA's corner. Okay! This is FLORIDA!!! No chance land for black people. Law in that state is NOT applied fairly or in a balanced manner. Hell if I was getting beaten like that and was able to get a weapon to defend myself, I would.
But of course that not the right of the person getting beaten, according to you. You're saying her statement is a lie. I say it's not. Have a .....
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you know, those silly little things like facts.
The truth of the matter is that she violated a restraining order, she went to the garage, he stayed in the house, she came back with a gun and shot at him, mind you with the 2 kids standing next to him.
She was not being beaten at the time of this event, so there was no imminent danger to her life.
In no way is that SYG or self defense.
Lose the emotionalism and look at the facts of the case.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)especially in Florida, I forgot. Oh please, you're not going to change the event to fit your logical, brilliant mindset. Mine is made up. I hope she walks free. Your 'brilliance and logic' won't EVER change the EVENT to fit into your little cubbyhole. Have a one.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) hack89
(39,171 posts)she could have walked out to safety.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Because it certainly does not comport to the facts of this case.
Once inside, she claimed, her husband saw the gun and charged at her “in a rage” saying, “Bitch, I’ll kill you.” She said she raised the gun and fired a warning shot into the air because it was the “lesser of two evils.” - See more at: http://www.blackmediascoop.com/court-overturns-marissa-alexanders-20-year-sentence/#sthash.yWLWlAdL.dpuf
hack89
(39,171 posts)They thought she was trying to kill them. She walked past the front door on the way to the garage. She could have escaped. That is what the jury could not get past.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Marissa Alexander, an African American woman from Jacksonville, FL, reports that, in July 2010, nine days after she prematurely gave birth to her youngest daughter, her estranged husband, Rico Gray, attacked her, strangled her, and threatened to kill her.[1][4] According to a sworn deposition, Gray admitted to beating Alexander as well as having a history of abusing other women with whom he was involved. Women who have been involved with Gray submitted letters in Alexander's trial confirming that Gray abused them, but these witnesses were prevented from testifying.[5] He also testified that he threatened to have Alexander killed.[6] According to Alexander, she tried to escape through the garage, but the garage door would not open.[4] This account was confirmed by Gray in a sworn deposition.[6] According to all accounts, Alexander then retrieved her registered gun from her vehicle and went to the kitchen. She recounts that Gray said "Bitch, I will kill you," an account which was affirmed by one of Gray's sons at Alexander's trial and who was present during this event.[4][7] Alexander fired what she says was a warning shot, which hit the wall above Gray's head, and deflected into the ceiling.[8] The single shot injured no one.[9]
But I'll keep looking for the transcripts.
hack89
(39,171 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)provided the support for YOUR argument!
hack89
(39,171 posts)On August 1, 2010, the Defendant shot at or near Rico Gray Sr. [and his two sons]. The Defendant had not been living in the marital home for the two months leading up to the shooting. On the evening of July 31, 2010, the Defendant drove herself to the marital home and parked in the garage, closing the garage door after parking her vehicle. The Defendant stayed the night in the marital home. The next morning, on August 1, 2010, Rico Gray Sr. arrived at the marital home with his two sons and the children entered the home through the garage door. Rico Gray Sr. made the family breakfast and nothing went awry.
After breakfast, the Defendant went into the master bedroom. Before entering the bathroom, the Defendant handed her phone to Rico Gray Sr. to show him pictures of their newborn baby [], who was still in the hospital. At that point, the Defendant went into the master bathroom while Rico Gray Sr. looked through the phone. While going through the phone, Rico Gray Sr. observed texts from the Defendant to her ex-husband Lincoln Alexander prompting Rico Gray Sr. to question whether the newborn baby was his. At this point, Rico Gray Sr. opened the bathroom door to confront the Defendant regarding the texts. A verbal argument ensued between the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr. For this reason, Rico Gray Sr. stepped out of the bathroom and yelled for his sons to put their shoes on because they were leaving. Rico Gray Sr. returned to the bathroom and demanded that the Defendant explain the texts and the verbal argument continued. During the verbal argument Rico Gray Sr. stood in the doorway to the bathroom and the Defendant could not get around him. Either Rico Gray Sr. moved from the doorway or the Defendant pushed around him to exit the bathroom.
Rico Gray Sr. moved to the living room where his children were. Subsequently, the Defendant emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. The Defendant testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite the Defendant's claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.) The Defendant then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. The Defendant returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three Victims. Rico Gray Sr. put his hands in the air. The Defendant shot at Rico Gray Sr., nearly missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The Victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. The Defendant stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911. The Defendant was arrested on the date of the incident.
The Defendant posted bail prior to arraignment and was ordered by the Court and signed a document through Pretrial Services stating she was to have no contact with the Victims in the instant case. However, the Defendant continued to have contact with the Victims in this case, more specifically with Rico Gray Sr. Prior to Rico Gray Sr.'s deposition, the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr. discussed what he should say at deposition. Shortly after Rico Gray Sr.'s deposition, the Defendant drove to Rico Gray Sr. 's new house where his two children were staying (not the Defendant's home). While there, the Defendant physically attacked Rico Gray Sr., causing injury to Rico Gray Sr.'s face. Again, Rico Gray Sr. immediately called 911 after the incident and the Defendant did not. The Defendant was arrested on new charges and her bond was revoked.
There is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself, another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. During the date in question, the Defendant alleged that while in the bathroom Rico Gray Sr. pushed her, and the bathroom door hit her in the leg when it swung open. Per the Defendant's own testimony, she did not suffer serious bodily injury as a result of the altercation that took place in the bathroom. Further, after Rico Gray Sr. exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
After weighing the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, this Court finds that the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was justified in using deadly force in defense of self. Hence, the Defendant has not met her burden of establishing her right to immunity as a matter of fact or law.
http://blackbutterfly7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/alexander-decision.pdf
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)which will likely be reversed, should Alexander appeal the appellate courts ruling that SYG is a dead (pardon the pun) issue. The appellate court has remanded the matter because of the trial courts improper jury instruction for self-defense; specifically, that the trial court improper shifted the burden to the defendant, AND it was on the basis of those improper instructions, that the trial court concluded that SYG did not apply. This is a reversible error.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because there is no new evidence. The jury instructions are irrelevant in that regard. So if there is no SYG hearing, then she goes to trial. And your guess is as good as mine as to whether or not the jury instructions had any influence on the first trial. The jury may still not believe her.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)There is no reason to believe a new trial will have a different result. My only point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and so it is all OK?????????
Why wasn't the creep of man in jail for previous injuries to her then? Now someone has to be seriously injured to be allowed to defend themselves?
She had had a baby only one week earlier and then is in this crazy scene?
This monster has the gaul to provoke a fight? He attacks her and you defend him. Pretty sad.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)the truth would totally stymie you.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)I am a teflon one.....
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)it figures that you didn't take the time to actually read the whole thread.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)what point are you trying to make????? And I read until I couldn't stomach a lot of the silly fearful responses on here. The rationalizations of some people with very hidden agendas(not really) on this thread are transparent to say the least. Extremely obvious and laughter provoking. May Marissa Alexander walk free again.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but time will tell.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The how did she get her car into the garage in the first place?
Why, on her way to the garage, didn't she leave out the front door?
Why, on her way back from the garage, didn't she leave out the front door?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)All of it is relevant because of SYG.
You can't take yourself out of danger, go get a gun and then put yourself back in danger and then claim SYG, you just can't legally do that, and the fact that he didn't attempt to follow her is clear indication that her life wasn't in imminent danger once she entered the garage.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Let's go to the law:
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
And:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
Still think what you think?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the appellate court ruled as much ...
The only thing I can think of is that Gray had a lawful right to be in the home.
Curiously, SYG specifically does not allow the defense in domestic violence case where the person shot at has a lawful right to be in the home. Maybe it's to prevent the murder of a spouse and the only witness alive to testify alleges domestic violence as their reason for shooting.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)therefore cannot use SYG.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I read the opinion and found the appellate court's ruling vis-à-vis SYG odd.
The appellate court has remanded the matter because of the trial courts improper jury instruction for self-defense; specifically, that the trial court improper shifted the burden to the defendant to prove she did not act in self-defense, AND it was on the basis of those improper instructions, that the trial court concluded that SYG did not apply.
http://blackbutterfly7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/alexander-decision.pdf
Further, the "SYG is dead" conclusion does not appear in the majority opinion; but rather, the concurring opinion. While it's been a while since I needed to know ... back in the day, CONCURRING opinions were not binding, and could not be cited as such ... merely persuasive. And, as a general rule, Concurring opinions that speak to matters of fact (including the weighing of facts) were to be pretty much discounted ... except to sneak in and hope the court doesn't notice. 
Have things changed in the years since I was before the court?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what about the Opinion question?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I read the opinion and found the appellate court's ruling vis-à-vis SYG odd.
The appellate court has remanded the matter because of the trial courts improper jury instruction for self-defense; specifically, that the trial court improper shifted the burden to the defendant to prove she did not act in self-defense, AND it was on the basis of those improper instructions, that the trial court concluded that SYG did not apply.
http://blackbutterfly7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/alexander-decision.pdf
Further, the "SYG is dead" conclusion does not appear in the majority opinion; but rather, the concurring opinion. While it's been a while since I needed to know ... back in the day, CONCURRING opinions were not binding, and could not be cited as such ... merely persuasive. And, as a general rule, Concurring opinions that speak to matters of fact (including the weighing of facts) were to be pretty much discounted ... except to sneak in and hope the court doesn't notice.
Have things changed in the years since I was before the court?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pretrial, and the error was trial. The first or second page of the ruling indicates that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)on the pre-trial motion (if published).
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)She didn't live there, she violated her own restraining order, wasn't in any danger once she entered the garage, put herself back into the thick of things by grabbing her gun and re-entering the house and confronting him.
When she retreated, she remove the SYG variable.
That's very clearly not eligible for the SYG defense.
Still think what you think?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But before I concede your being right, where is it stated that it was not her home.
If that is true, SYG would not apply ... so you would be right for the wrong reasons.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)On August 1, 2010, the Defendant shot at or near Rico Gray Sr. . The Defendant had not been living in the marital home for the two months leading up to the shooting. On the evening of July 31, 2010, the Defendant drove herself to the marital home and parked in the garage, closing the garage door after parking her vehicle. The Defendant stayed the night in the marital home. The next morning, on August 1, 2010, Rico Gray Sr. arrived at the marital home with his two sons and the children entered the home through the garage door. Rico Gray Sr. made the family breakfast and nothing went awry.
After breakfast, the Defendant went into the master bedroom. Before entering the bathroom, the Defendant handed her phone to Rico Gray Sr. to show him pictures of their newborn baby [], who was still in the hospital. At that point, the Defendant went into the master bathroom while Rico Gray Sr. looked through the phone. While going through the phone, Rico Gray Sr. observed texts from the Defendant to her ex-husband Lincoln Alexander prompting Rico Gray Sr. to question whether the newborn baby was his. At this point, Rico Gray Sr. opened the bathroom door to confront the Defendant regarding the texts. A verbal argument ensued between the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr. For this reason, Rico Gray Sr. stepped out of the bathroom and yelled for his sons to put their shoes on because they were leaving. Rico Gray Sr. returned to the bathroom and demanded that the Defendant explain the texts and the verbal argument continued. During the verbal argument Rico Gray Sr. stood in the doorway to the bathroom and the Defendant could not get around him. Either Rico Gray Sr. moved from the doorway or the Defendant pushed around him to exit the bathroom.
Rico Gray Sr. moved to the living room where his children were. Subsequently, the Defendant emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. The Defendant testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite the Defendant's claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.) The Defendant then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. The Defendant returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three Victims. Rico Gray Sr. put his hands in the air. The Defendant shot at Rico Gray Sr., nearly missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The Victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. The Defendant stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911. The Defendant was arrested on the date of the incident.
The Defendant posted bail prior to arraignment and was ordered by the Court and signed a document through Pretrial Services stating she was to have no contact with the Victims in the instant case. However, the Defendant continued to have contact with the Victims in this case, more specifically with Rico Gray Sr. Prior to Rico Gray Sr.'s deposition, the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr. discussed what he should say at deposition. Shortly after Rico Gray Sr.'s deposition, the Defendant drove to Rico Gray Sr. 's new house where his two children were staying (not the Defendant's home). While there, the Defendant physically attacked Rico Gray Sr., causing injury to Rico Gray Sr.'s face. Again, Rico Gray Sr. immediately called 911 after the incident and the Defendant did not. The Defendant was arrested on new charges and her bond was revoked.
There is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself, another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. During the date in question, the Defendant alleged that while in the bathroom Rico Gray Sr. pushed her, and the bathroom door hit her in the leg when it swung open. Per the Defendant's own testimony, she did not suffer serious bodily injury as a result of the altercation that took place in the bathroom. Further, after Rico Gray Sr. exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
After weighing the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, this Court finds that the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was justified in using deadly force in defense of self. Hence, the Defendant has not met her burden of establishing her right to immunity as a matter of fact or law.
http://blackbutterfly7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/alexander-decision.pdf
Once she retreated to the garage, SYG went away, that's why the court ruled that SYG wasn't applicable..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not being present in the home does not extinguish the legal right to be there.
Secondly:
That is NOT what the court ruled ... in fact, the majority opinion is silent on SYG and the concurring opinions are not binding.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Too bad it turned out she had a gun in her car. She could have crawled out a window or something to escape and maybe flagged down a cop instead of trying to retrieve her vehicle.
Yeah, I know. I'm stretching here. Who ever heard of an abusive ex doing something like that!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)she entered his home while he was at work to retrieve some of her things, something she should have done with police escort, she was illegally in his home, without his permission.
But the fact remains that once she entered the garage, the "imminent danger" factor was null and void and SYG no longer would apply.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)male or female ... apparently.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)One of the most freaking outrageous, unjust, indefensible sentences in recent memory.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The problem is that Florida has mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)This was a horrible ruling by the court. My grandfather and father would have been in jail many times over according to this jury. My grandmother and two aunts (confronted the KKK with firearms) and my mother (stopped a gang of thieves) would have been jailed at least once each based on this precedence.
hack89
(39,171 posts)stand your ground means stand your ground.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)What if she ran into him the next day, and happened to have her gun on her? Would her rights to stand her ground be back in force then? How much time has to pass between enounters before those rights are regained?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)she can't claim SYG.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The operative word is imminent threat of death or bodily harm. In other words, if you don't shoot him then you will be killed. If you run away to a safe place then there is no imminent danger of death, now is there? If she ran across him the next day and he attacked her, then she could stand her ground. She could not shoot him just because he attacked her the day before
The words are simple to understand. Why are you having so much problem with them?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The whole point of the SYG laws was to let people fight back against the gangs, abusive boyfriends, thieves, etc. DUers keep trying to water down the meaning of SYG to pure meaningless.
If the SYG laws serve no purpose then I guess the pols (and the NRA which supported them) were just pulling wool over our eyes when they told us it would let us stand up to the assholes in the world.
hack89
(39,171 posts)SYG was one sentence added to the existing self defense laws.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Period.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)given the location of this travesty, you are probably right. May she walk free again. Period. You and a few others try to fit those square pegs in round holes, and how many times does it take to show IT DOES NOT WORK!!!?????
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)She went to the garage to retrieve the gun. Once you retrieve you cannot reengage, which she did by going back into the house with the gun.
You're right with SYG you don't have to retreat, but once you do you can't return.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Since she only had her gun with her the second time, she no longer has the right to stand her ground?
What if she runs into him in a grocery store the next day and has a gun on her? Does she have the right then? How much time must pass between encounters to reset her right to stand her ground?
This law is seeming more and more useless.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)all indications are that he wasn't threatening her, or hitting her, so SYG would not apply.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Solly Mack
(90,766 posts)illinoismike
(10 posts)This story is actually over a year old. She was granted a new trial in September of 2013!
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)That's the link I saw, too, GGJohn.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Now if only they courts would take a hard look at the Don Siegelman case, they would overturn that one too.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Someone messed up and reposted this on the OP URL site with today's date.
Here is the most recent news:
Anne Schindler, First Coast News 10:33 a.m. EDT October 10, 2014
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Rico Gray did not take the stand himself, but his allegedly volatile relationship with Marissa Alexander and several other women in his life was the focus of a lengthy pretrial hearing Thursday afternoon.
Alexander is accused of trying to kill Gray in August 2010 in what she claims was self-defense. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison at her original trial, but an appeals court overturned that sentence because the trial judge made a mistake during jury instructions.
The retrial, set to begin Dec. 1, has garnered national attention, in part because Alexander was a victim of domestic abuse, and because she faces three consecutive 20-year sentences if convicted, despite the fact that she didn't injure or kill anyone.
Witnesses Thursday included three women with whom Gray has had children, as well as two sisters-in-law. All accused Gray of physically intimidating or brutalizing them.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/crime/2014/10/10/rico-gray-exes-claim-abuse/17025979/
There is another link in the Google results:
atlantadailyworld-Oct 13, 2014
In another Florida shooting case that captured national headlines, an appellate court overturned the decision to put Marissa Alexander behind ...
But when you click on it, it gets you to "Nothing Found" - they may have gotten bitten by the same false story. I tried searching that side for "Marissa Alexander" and only found their most recent story still online is:
Jul 24, 2014
By Roz Edward, National Content Director
http://atlantadailyworld.com/2014/07/24/marissa-alexander-still-facing-60-years-in-prison-new-stand-your-ground-hearing-denied
elleng
(130,901 posts)I suppose blackmediascoop should be informed or questioned about the history of the story.
edit: I sent them a comment, attaching a link about the new trial.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)One of the comments at the bottom indicates that this is a year old story and posts the link to the original.
I hope Marrissa gets justice - time served is far too much for what she did, protecting herself and her children. The prospect of Angela Corey trying to triple her sentence makes me ill.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)The press conference after her team blew the George Zimmerman trial was nauseating. That's all I say, if I think about her more, I'll 
hack89
(39,171 posts)even Corey understood that 20 years in prison was not appropriate. Hopefully she will make the same offer again.
elleng
(130,901 posts)I commented there, with 'new' link about new trial.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Marissa was granted a new trial and still has to wait another month and a half. What a disastrous miscarriage of justice....will she be compensated?
valerief
(53,235 posts)black people to vote for Republicans in the mid-terms? I mean, our judicial system isn't getting any less racist.
hack89
(39,171 posts)She had too many opportunities to avoid the confrontation. How can leaving the house, getting her gun, and returning to confront her ex be SYG? Especially since she endangered her children in the process.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)"How can leaving the house, getting her gun, and returning to confront her ex be Self Defense?" Answer, it isn't. "She had too many opportunities to avoid the confrontation" which invalidates claims to self defense.
SYG was enacted to eliminate the "opportunity to run away" requirement. It doesn't matter that she could leave. She did not want to. That was her right.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and he did not follow her, her life was not in imminent danger. Which has been the standard for self defense for centuries.
And you do realize that she did not live in that house? You don't have the right to SYG in someone else's home.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)It is SYG, not self defense that applies. And SYG applies everywhere. Even if you are visiting someone. Was she ordered off the property? If so, then trespassing laws certainly do apply. If not, she was just standing her ground.
hack89
(39,171 posts)all it says that you do not have to retreat if you feel your life is in imminent danger. But all the other laws pertaining to self defense still apply. You still have to have a valid reason for self defense.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)already ruled.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Every single time someone has claimed SYG, the pro-gun DUers come out screaming, "SYG does not apply in this case." I get the distinct feeling they are trying to have it both ways.
This is exactly the type of scenario for which SYG was designed. She was in a situation that frightened her. But she wanted her car, her stuff in the apartment, etc. Were the situation reversed, the guy would just muscle his way into the apartment and take his shit. She can't do that. Unless she has a gun.
Now, under self-defense laws, she couldn't use that gun. He could keep her stuff. He could now keep her car. She can try to escape and call the cops. He can lock the door and ignore them.
Right there, right then, she had a gun, had the ability to retrieve her goods, but only if she could legally use that gun.
And she could. The SYG law said she did not have to leave. She was frightened. He was stupid enough to let her get to her gun. She took advantage of that to protect herself and her belongings. Just like the law says.
That is WHY the SYG law exists. It exists precisely for this situation. If it does not apply in this situation, then the law is toothless.
The NRA spent a lot of resources and money getting this law passed. Are you saying they are so stupid they did that for nothing? They sure as heck outsmarted the California state legislature on 3-Strikes laws. I find it hard to believe they screwed this up so badly.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)doesn't cover you when you are engaged in illegality.
Response to hack89 (Reply #67)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #205)
GGJohn This message was self-deleted by its author.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)cannot be anti-feminist and/or hate other women? Really? Just because you're a woman does not mean that you cannot think and act against your fellow women, believe me. I've known some women who were more hateful of their fellow women than some of the worst male misogynists.
Her complete lack of concern for what Marissa went through at her abuser's hand and what that did to her, as well as her stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts of the case and the violent abusive nature of Gray, kind of give her away on that point.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)ok.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)Either way, the comment was hidden by jury decision.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
You're right, my bad and my apologies to hack89.
Don't know why I thought he was a she.
Anyway, I'll delete the post.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)She walked by her front door and went into the garage to retrieve the gun. Then she returned. SYG does not mean you can leave, get a weapon, and return.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The 2nd enounter is still a separate encounter. Her rights to stand her ground should have applied in the second encounter.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)He was not threatening her, committing any acts of violence against her at the time, she walke out to the garage, passing the front door where she could have left, went to her car, opened the glove box, retrieved her gun, loaded it, walked back into the house, again passing the front door, and yelled at him, then took a shot at his head, narrowly missing him and her kids on the other side of the wall.
That doesn't even meet the definition of self defense, much less SYG.
And on top of all that, she violated her own restraining order by being in the house.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)SYG is supposed to apply under far more circumstances than self-defense. That's why it exists.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)she went to the garage, she retrieved her gun from the glovebox, she loaded the gun, she walked back into the house, passing the front door where she could have left the scene, she then took a shot at his head, nowhere is that even close to either SYG or self defense.
At no time did he follow her to the garage, so her life was not in imminent danger, so no SYG.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)That was always the worst anti-Zimmerman argument. It did not matter that he initiated it.
What did matter was that someone was crying and begging "don't kill me". That was either Zimmerman with a gun, or Martin facing Zimmerman's gun. One of these makes sense. The other does not. THAT should have been what hung Zimmerman's ass.
The pro-gun crowd want it both ways. They want the SYG law, but then they want to claim it doesn't really mean anything. Well, if it doesn't mean they shouldn't mind if we repeal it then, should they?
In this instance, the big outstanding question is, "did he lock her in?" Why did the garage stop working only after he let her into the garage? Given that he abused "his" woman in the past, that looks really suspicious. Under those circumstances, if I had a gun in my car, I would probably get it out and threaten to shoot his ass too if he didn't "fix" his fucking garage door in the next ten seconds.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If you don't live there, it's not your ground, particularly not when you leave your target's home to retrieve a weapon from your car and return.
The police found no evidence that the garage was locked, which stands to reason, since she opened it to park her car while Gray was at work.
Occam's razor says that she's lying, and that she very well could have opened the garage and drove home, and that it was an excuse for not leaving created after the fact.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)And "you don't live there, it's not your ground" is the Castle Doctrine. Not SYG. SYG is everywhere.
That is why it exists. They wanted White people to "take back the streets" from all those scary Black teenagers. They couldn't do that under the old self-defense laws. So they passed SYG to make self-defense into an offensive weapon. Everywhere you go is now your ground.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The cops arrived to find an unlocked garage door. A door which she was perfectly able to open the previous evening when she parked her car in it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)do note how the judge stated that he did not believe stand your ground was an acceptable defense, ostensibly because it happened to a black woman in a domestic violence situation (a crime which is typically perpetrated on women).
any of us could be marissa. police forces across the country have made it crystal clear that they don't take domestic violence to be a serious crime. women call over and over again and never get the help they need. some of them get killed. others decide to take matters in their own hands and are punished for it.
because Marissa is black, and a woman, self-defense laws don't apply in her case. a white man can slay a black teenager and claim, on spotty evidence, that he did it to save himself, but a black woman can't protect herself from her abusive boyfriend. I find that outrageous, and unacceptable.
hack89
(39,171 posts)She then shot at his head while he was standing with her children.
brush
(53,778 posts)from an abusive man with a long history of beating women in his life.
She knew what was about to happen to her so she went and got the gun.
I don't blame her at all for finally saying enough of this stuff, you're not beating me anymore.
I say bravo to her, the "letter" of the law be damned. She did what she had to do to stop the beatings and she should
have been found innocent in the first trial.
It's pretty apparent that because she was black and a woman she didn't stand a chance with the judge's erroneous
instructions and the jury's 12-minute deliberation to find her guilty.
12 MINUTES, ONLY 12 FUCKING MINUTES they took to send her to jail for 20 years for trying to stop getting beat up.
You have to know in your heart, and even your head, that that is not justice.
hack89
(39,171 posts)she could have walked out the front door to safety. She could have stayed in the garage. She choose to walk back into the house to confront her ex. She then shoot at his head, barely missing while endangering her children that were standing next to him. That is why it was not self defense.
She was sentenced to 20 years because she refused a plea deal for three years. Florida has mandatory minimum sentencing.
brush
(53,778 posts)the man is a serial woman beater and had beaten her multiple times.
I commend her for having the courage to finally do something to stop it.
I've followed the case. She didn't try to hit him, she shot a warning shot to let him know the beating were stopping NOW.
If you don't understand that I feel for you.
Apparently you haven't been in that type of situation, and your empathy gene is sadly lacking.
hack89
(39,171 posts)There were no ongoing beatings and from all accounts, he was not asking for her to move back in with him. After the shooting, she was arrested on a domestic violence charge for breaking the conditions of her bail and going to his house and attacking him, giving him a black eye.
It would appear that their relationship is much more complex than you want to believe. She needs to stay away from him, don't you think?
She shot at him. The bullet hit the wall right over his head. Her children, who were standing next to him, thought that she was going to kill them.
brush
(53,778 posts)The man is a serial abuser. He threatened her and she wasn't going to take it anymore.
I commend her.
hack89
(39,171 posts)she had moved out. She chose to go to his house.
Thought gene lacking.
brush
(53,778 posts)if you think giving that woman 20 years is justice for standing up against a serial abuser.
And don't even try the plea-bargain-turned-down offer from one Angela Cory, the DA who bungled the zimmerman trial.
Who has faith in her judgment and any unfair deal she offered?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I've dealt with such situations, and the cops are notoriously bad about actually showing up and making reports much less prosecuting.
if she left, it's likely the man would have continued to harrass her. some abusers become stalkers because they just cannot deal with the person leaving their realm of control.
I don't believe in vigilante justice, but law enforcement needs to pick up the slack on domestic violence. the fact that this man has beat her many times and yet seen no charges says everything.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and this whole case should be about him going to jail for attacking her.
Period.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)to you for putting up with the DU abuse:
And thank you for adding the facts you added to the discussion (not that it offered any of the tormenters here any insights)
brush
(53,778 posts)It's such a no-brainer that Marissa Alexanders shouldn't have been charged I just had to add my comments.
And true enough, there are more and more a holes on DU that seem to have strayed over from right wing sites. It's disappointing but we have to fight back against their repug-like, law-and-order talking points.
I'll look out for your posts from now on. See ya in the funny papers
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I don't have a problem with people supporting hillary, but the anti-feminist rhetoric sours quickly.
brush
(53,778 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)excuse my incoherence also lack of segue.
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)He's shown that he only gives a damn about the violent abusive man, and not the women who are his victims and if they try to finally defend and protect themselves THEY are the criminal aggressors, in his mind. Disgusting.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and she also broke the restraining order.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The charges against him were dropped. I guess that does not matter.
kmlisle
(276 posts)trying to get away from this guy who had a vehicle parked outside the house. So I would not have gone out the front door either because I would want to get in my car to get away from him. Also I see that the garage door did not work after he used it. Could it be that there is a lock on that system that he engaged to keep her in the house and then released before the police showed up? Keeping her in the house under his control is consistent with the behavior of an abuser.
Regardless, abuse is about keeping the victim so fearful that you can control them and she was undoubtedly terrified. I think she was justified from what I see. Also just the contrast with the white men who have used SYG successfully to walk free after murder with 20 years with an abused woman who was obviously defending herself from a perceived threat with no harm done is stunning.
Finally I think SYG was deliberately left vague so that judges could interpret the law one way for the Zimmermans and another way for the Alexanders of this world.
hack89
(39,171 posts)She, for what ever reason, decided to spend the night. So I doubt she was that terrified of him.
As a women, would you shoot in the direction of your children, terrifying them and making them think you were trying to kill them.
kmlisle
(276 posts)They return to their abusers and try to start up the relationship again. Very puzzling to those of us outide that relationship.
As for shooting towards the children, it was definitely a mistake but no one was harmed - so 20 years for her while another child died and Zimmerman walked? That is the point here.
hack89
(39,171 posts)even the prosecutor thought 20 was excessive for the crime and offered a three year plea bargain.
As for Zimmerman, yes he should be in prison. The difference however was there were no eye witnesses for his crime - that and an incompetent case by the state that had prosecution witnesses confirming Zimmerman's story. That was not the case with Alexander.
kmlisle
(276 posts)color differently and that was the point of this post. And as a woman it is probably easier for me to see the blame the victim response that I see so widely in responses to this post and in the trial transcript because it is systemic in the points of view of the courts and law enforcement and much of the public. I am not saying Alexander was without blame (ie perfect) but to put it ALL on her shoulders is the way the courts and law enforcement behave and its why so many women die at the hands of their abusers every day in this country because the system protects the abusers and blames the victims. If you step back and look at all the facts here she was the victim blamed for trying to defending herself.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is the issue here. Eyewitness accounts and physical evidence shredded her story. It is as simple as that.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)She violated the restraining order by going over to his house, she's the one who went to the garage where her car was parked, retrieved her gun, loaded it and returned to the house and took a shot at Gray, while the kids were at his side, they left and called police, she refused to surrender to police for 7 hours all the while threatening to shoot any police that tried to enter the home.
In what way was she defending herself?
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)plus who is walking very well one week after giving birth? And your theory about the garage door sounds about right.
Why wasn't this monster in jail himself? Society, just like these guys on DU, always wants to protect them.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)She's guilty and will do time.
Igel
(35,304 posts)She wasn't on "her" ground. She had a restraining order keeping her ex away from her.
So he came home and found her in his house, retrieving some of her things. She violated the restraining order and was on "his" ground. She entered his house without permission while he was elsewhere.
Then she left, yielding her ground. She got a gun and returned.
Then she fired it, not to kill or injure, but to warn. That's not legal in Florida, it seems.
Moreover, she shot generally in the direction of her sons who were, IIRC, in another room. The bullet ricocheted away from them, but could have easily gone the other way. Drywall makes for bad protection against bullets.
She botched her defense. She was offered a plea bargain that would have put her in a rehab program without jail time, IIRC. But she insisted on being found entirely not guilty. Then suddenly her race was less important than the fact that she broke into and entered his residence, illegally fired a gun, endangered her children, and violated a restraining order.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Response to redruddyred (Reply #25)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Judi Lynn
(160,527 posts)and that loathsome, slimy, dishonest, self-centered little monster Zimmerman's.
Florida State Attorney Angela Corey should have lost her job long ago. She's not qualified to pretend she is competent in that position. Her race hatred keeps her from doing honest work.
Thank you, elleng.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That is why SYG did not apply.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)in any event it appears her intent was to scare and not to harm.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And let's not forget that her kids were standing right next to him. They were terrified that they were going to die. Isn't that worth some time in jail.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)believe it or not, women are not completely irrational, when they're mad at someone, it's usually for a reason. I don't believe that about the kids, she had no reason to hurt them. the boyfriend, on the other hand...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)the guy who started the fight, or the lady who finished it?
seriously.
also, I'm not sure why the fact that the ex called 911 and she didn't is considered as important evidence. I've called the cops a total of 8 times for help with domestic violence, and not even got a report out of it. if I ever had a serious problem, a gun would be my first go-to and not the phone. men, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of luck with the "bitch be k-razy" argument, also fucking "stand your ground".
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)where the bullet holes are. If she would have fired at the ceiling like some here think that is where the bullet hole would be. It is not it is in a vertical wall at head level and traveled through to the ceiling on the other side. Here are the pictures.
http://sao4duval.tumblr.com/post/57426964006/bullet-hole-through-kitchen-wall-into-living-room
911 call
http://chirb.it/Imz0Ev
https://www.scribd.com/doc/213219027/The-Truth-About-the-Alexander-Case
http://blackbutterfly7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/alexander-decision.pdf
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)it sounds to me like he started some shit and didn't like how it turned out.
if he had simply punched her a few times, and left no marks, would there have even been a case? women have to grab weapons in order to equalize the balance of power. not saying it's right, but it definitely works against them in court.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and is paying the price for her conduct.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)several somethings in fact.
still waiting for justice on that front.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She was charged and there are photos of him injured from her for domestic violence against him. It would seem she is not an innocent child like some think.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and he's an adult man. as I was saying, women typically have to use weapons in order to hold their own in a fight. that doesn't mean that she's the principal aggressor, however. in fact, I suspect the opposite is true.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)but some only want to blame the male and she is just a saint that does no wrong at all. The facts say otherwise. Yes females may need firearms to even the odds but to break the law while using a firearm you pay the consequences. She fired a weapon at him and the kids from across the room at head level. You do not fire warning shots, you fire to stop the threat and that is generally trained as center mass of the the threatening individual.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)which she was not.
alexander had a concealed weapon license, she was trained to use a gun. she was unlikely to have missed on purpose.
clearly her warning shots were successful in stopping the threat, as the guy quickly exited the house.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)warning shots are not to be used. I have never heard that in any certified CCL class. In most places it is against the law and innocent bystanders can be shot. The firearm is the ABSOLUTE last resort. Exit the area if possible, if the weapon is used, fire center mass as many times as required to stop the threat.
She fired at head height and I suspect she missed due to the very high adrenalin levels she was experiencing at the time.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)wow. no wonder we have a gun problem in this country.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Like I stated and you seem to have ignored.
They teach you that a firearm is a deadly weapon not to be used unless all other options have been used and there is nothing left to prevent serious or deadly harm to you or another person.
Her use of that weapon in that case was not justified.
No, we do not have a gun problem with CCL holders as they follow the laws more than the general public and the millions that have one are not breaking the rules and firing the guns illegally.
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
http://www.flcwla.com/faq.htm
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)the guy was consistently abusive florida law enforcement was clearly not taking care of the problem as evidenced by the dropped charges. what was she supposed to do? it sucks that she had to go for the gun, but she wouldn't have had to if the cops were any help in the first place.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)charges against her at the time she tried to kill him. She could leave but she did not, she chose to go and stay at his house. Females can also be the aggressor for domestic violence and she had a pending court date on that.
Problematic that as a last resort you should be able to use deadly force to protect your life? She did not have to go fer her gun as deadly force was never justified. She will now pay the price for the wrongful use of that firearm she chose to use in an improper manor.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)no, they just get charged with it.
again, I don't think she's the primary aggressor. I think she got sick of this guy beating up on her, and decided to do something about it.
we need our laws to protect women and not the other way around.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)SHE came to his house, she had the option to leave, HE didn't try to stop her from leaving, SHE went to her car in the garage, at that point, she had retreated in the eyes of the law, SHE got her gun from the car, loaded it, chambered a round, walked back into the house, said something like "I've got something for your ass" and then shot at his head.
She was the aggressor, not him, him and the kids immediately left and called 911, SHE refused to leave the house and threatened to shoot any cop that tried to enter.
In CCL classes, it is STRESSED that firing warning shots is illegal and WILL get you arrested.
You can try to justify it all you want, but the cold plain truth is that she committed a felony act and now she'll pay for it unless the DA takes pity and offers a plea deal.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and not a criminal.
again, I don't know what calling 911 has to do with it, they obviously hadn't been much use before. esp considering this guy was consistently abusive, but she was the only one who had been charged.
had that been me, I'd probably consider killing the guy myself.
not that I think she did, however, he probably deserved it.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Even her kids testified against her, one said that they were scared for their life when she shot at him, don't forget, the kids were there with him that day, she put those children in danger with her reckless actions.
I mention 911 because he's the one who did everything right that day, after she took a shot at his head, which, again, was illegal, he grabbed the kids and left the house and called 911, she barricaded herself in the house for 7-9 hours, refusing to surrender and threatened to shoot any cop that attempted to enter.
She was clearly the aggressor that day, she's the one who committed the felony and the jury didn't believe her story one whit.
Now, I believe 20 years is too long, but the 20 years was because she rejected a plea deal from the DA and decided to take her chances with the jury, and FL has those stupid Mandatory Sentencing laws.
This time around, if the DA offers her a plea deal, she should jump all over it.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)she shot at the air.
I mention 911 because he's the one who did everything right that day
right in the eyes of the the extremely sexist and racist courts and law enforcement agencies. he hit her, but left no marks, he picked a fight, but it's his word against hers and she's an unreliable witness. he threatened to kill her, but she was not in any imminent danger.
I want to know what marissa alexander could have done "right" to make him leave her alone. I want to know know what she could have done "right" to put him behind bars, where he belongs.
I want to know, because if some guy ever yells, "I'll kill you bitch", I want to know what my options are. because, clearly, calling the cops ain't gonna do shit.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and yes "Females can also be the aggressor for domestic violence". I know you do not want to hear that but I also believe males are more often the aggressor (and should be charged and arrested), it is wrong in all cases not just the male side.
He was charged and the charges were dropped, for what I do not know.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)too often the "female aggressor" meme just means that they mistakenly arrest the victim, instead. for example, there's a lot of evidence to show that abusive husbands are misusing the laws in order to win a favorable settlement in divorce settlements.
bullies (and this is what domestic violence is after all -- bullying) pick on weaker people; truly violent and abusive women go after the children and not their partners. looking at the statistics, when women are violent with their male partners, it's overwhelmingly likely to be in self-defense.
here's an eye-opening document from the purple berets: http://www.purpleberets.org/pdf/bat_women_prison.pdf
I think there's a misconception that any woman who doesn't just take the beatdown is not a "true" victim and so is not necessarily protected by domestic violence laws. I think there's still some room for women to rely on their own agency even if they are at a huge physical disadvantage. this does not mean that they still ought not to be protected by the law.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)everyone and everything is sexist in your mind and you think a female can never be the aggressor. I do not think that is the case.
I think the system is sexist when it comes to divorces, children and alimony but I know that is not the case with all, just a majority.
Have a great one, as we are just now talking past each other.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I've also heard that the large majority of men who sue for single custody are also abusive, whether to the wife or kids. look it up.
there are abusive women, but they are typically emotionally and not physically abusive. my chiropractor was married to one and I got to hear all about it.
I think the trouble is in a traditional relationship, in which the wife doesn't work, she will be unlikely to break away if there are any problems. even in a less traditional relationship she may struggle to support herself.
domestic violence is not an equal opportunity crime.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)give me a break
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)just like anybody else.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and instead rely on emotion and medicocre reporting.
Chemisse
(30,811 posts)This was the most glaring example of injustice I have seen in a very long time.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)She had a restraining order against her ex. She then went to HIS house to get some of her stuff, entered without his permission, and he came home and she was there. She left to get a gun, returned and fired a warning shot in his general direction (and the general direction of her children). Twenty years seems WAY too harsh for this, but there's a couple of black men in the midwest who didn't even get "warning shots" from those who are supposed to "serve and protect". I'd consider that a far more glaring example of injustice.
hack89
(39,171 posts)She was offered a lenient plea deal that she refused.
Igel
(35,304 posts)She's a symbol. Symbols are special. Only some facts are factual, the rest are irrelevant. And to challenge a symbol is to challenge all those who hold the symbol to be precious and important.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)if not, if found guilty Florida's mandatory minimum sentences will put her in prison for 20 years.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Why are you defending him? Seriously, there is a problem here.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Just wondering - it fits you well.
The OP is about her retrial. I think she was guilty but did not deserve 20. He should have gone to jail.
Btw - are you aware she violated her bail after the shooting by driving to his house and punching him out? She was arrested for domestic violence.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But some will just dismiss that part. Some think domestic violence only can be one way.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)in the first place. Why are men rarely prosecuted for domestic violence?
And when convicted given short short sentences.
That is the issue.
She needs mental help, so does he, but he hospitalized her.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
malthaussen
(17,195 posts)Shame they had to get it wrong first.
-- Mal
hack89
(39,171 posts)since her SYG plea has been rejected. Her best bet is a plea bargain like the one she originally turned down.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Apologists for abusers right here on DU.
20 years is bullshit for this. Sometimes the law is an ass.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)He's scum, but under Florida law and the laws of many other states, what Alexander did was a crime as well.
By leaving the house (that she was NOT living in), going into the garage, retrieving her gun from her car and then going back into the house to fire a shot, she escalated the situation. Alexander should have gotten in her car and driven away.
I do think 20 years was excessive though.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)you all believe his side of the story and discount hers.
You all think that she should serve some jail time, but do not advocate that he serve any.
No, he should have been in jail long ago and then none of these things would have happened.
It is because abusers are let go and rarely punished that these things escalate.
And this case really shows that escalation. This woman needs mental help, not jail time. Most men convicted of battery get sentences to counseling. Why is she getting jail time rather than mental help?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Alexander would have been charged and arrested in almost every state of the country, either for assault with a deadly weapon or even attempted murder.
Alexander was offered a plea deal that would have seen her released within 3 years, she declined and chose to take it to a jury trial.
I agree with you that the husband should have been in jail, but take that up with the prosecutor, not me.
Here is a link by an attorney that specializes in self defense law who explains why she was convicted:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/the-marissa-alexander-case-wasnt-about-stand-your-ground-either//#more
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)but suddenly, because she posed danger to a *man*, everyone is up in arms shouting for her to do jail time.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts), but the FACTS of this case are quite clear.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and you wonder why some feminists hate men. end up in a fight with one and do anything but take the beating, and you could get charged with a crime. it's a scary thing to contemplate. most of us don't want to even bother with y'all anymore. I sure don't.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The first time I heard about this case, I was outraged too and then I looked farther into the details that didn't make it here to DU and I changed my mind. I still think 20 years was too long, but under Florida law and the laws of the majority of the states in the country she was the one who committed the crime that night.
Feel free to put me on ignore, I certainly don't feel like bothering with people who argue something without knowing the facts or the applicable law in cases like this.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)but for whatever reason we are choosing not to believe her.
florida clearly ignored the law many times as per the abusive husband, why must she feel its full force?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)absent testimony and physical evidence you can't get a conviction.
What got her convicted was her leaving the house, going into the garage to retrieve a firearm and then going BACK into the house and then firing a shot.
The jury and two different judges found her testimony unconvincing and I expect the second jury will probably find her guilty as well.
And I agree with you that the husband should have been in jail
Here is a link by an attorney that specializes in self defense law who explains why she was convicted:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/the-marissa-alexander-case-wasnt-about-stand-your-ground-either//#more
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I remember reading that grey's ex-partners all wrote letters confirming that he had been serially abusive, tho for some reason these weren't admitted as evidence.
a lot of abusers end up as stalkers. if I were marissa, I'd be pretty motivated to stop that shit in its tracks.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)under the laws of virtually every state in the country, once she left the room, went to her car in the garage and got the gun and then re-entered the room, she lost the right to claim self defense.
If she was in such fear of her safety, why did she go back in the house? At the time of the shooting he was living there, not her. He was the one that called 911 and left the house with the children. Marissa apparently refused to come out of the house when the police arrived.
Is the husband scum, of course he is, but that doesn't change what Marissa did that night.
Legally and from a jury's viewpoint she made just about every mistake possible that night and worse, the abusive ex-husband managed to do just about everything right that night in the eyes of the jury and the law.
We can go back and forth until we are blue in the face, but it won't change the letter of the law and under that law, the jury found her guilty.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)she didn't have the car keys, and the garage door wouldn't open.
I want to know what Marissa could have done "right" in those circumstances.
there is a problem with the jury and with the law if a woman is not allowed to defend herself successfully in a domestic violence situation.
the key word being "successfully".
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but apparently she passed two doors that led outside, so she had a chance to exit the house.
I don't know about her car, but even my old car from 1998 locks the doors and/or turns the car alarm on after about 5 minutes, so I have some doubts about both the car and the garage door which had recently worked when the ex husband came home.
The jury did not find her testimony credible and once she had removed herself from the immediate danger she lost the ability to claim self defense, by going back into the house she escalated the situation, additionally the warning shot also hurt her case. Warning shots are illegal in 48 or 49 states, including FL at the time. The rationale behind that is that you if have time for a warning shot, you aren't, at that specific moment, truly in fear of death or grave bodily harm, because if you were you should have shot her attacker.
And the alleged stand off with the police when they arrived, really didn't help.
Not sure if it was Marissa or her lawyer that wanted to take this to trial instead of accepting the plea deal,but whoever made that decision made a serious mistake.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)that kind of legislation seems to encourage people to shoot to kill. in DV warning shots are appropriate as the purpose of DV is to control and not necessaily to harm. the law is flawed and marissa acted in good judgment.
she said when she ran out she didn't have her keys.
I don't know where you live but in certain parts of the country, walking is not really an option. I'm not really sure what stand your ground laws exist for, if not to deal with these sorts of problems. some people claim syg did not apply b/c it was not her house, but, if not, what was her stuff doing there?
legally, we make excuses for people to shoot others for some really specious reasons. handling a violent ex is one of the few appropriate uses for a firearm. why are we punishing her for it? zimmerman killed someone and got off; the details on that are still murky. alexander hurt no one, and she's convicted of a crime?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The jury that did hear everything allowable under the law, found her guilty after 12 minutes of deliberation. Perhaps they are privy to some things that did not make it into the media.
It is very simple and this isn't anything new, you do not fire warning shots. They are illegal and you WILL go to jail. You don't use a lethal weapon to send a message.
SYG simply means you do not have to retreat if threatened if you are somewhere you are entitled to be. She lost the SYG because she chose to retreat and because she was not living at the house at the time. For that matter her stand off with the police alone would have gotten her jail time.
I know you don't like much of what I've said and maybe you think my answers are wrong and that the laws should be changed, maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, either way it isn't up to me.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)yeah, I think that was part of the problem. at 12 minutes, you're still going on racial stereotypes and not any real kind of deep analysis.
actually one of the reasons the case was overturned was because the jury was misinformed.
so if a burglar breaks into your house, and you retreat to the living room to get your gun, have you lost the right to stand your ground because you retrieved your weapon? I think these are very narrow definitions of "retreat" and also "living" which you are using, which furthermore undermine the spirit of the law.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Your view is that the 12 minutes of delibration is based on bias and racial sterotypes
Another view is the case was so clear cut that the verdict was easy to reach.
Either way she gets a re-trial and a new jury
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)maybe in your mind. this may come as a shock, but some people would disagree with your pov. vehemently, in fact.
sometimes people live in more than one place at once. they don't usually leave their stuff at a stranger's house.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)because you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that Alexander deserved to be found guilty. I'm not emotionally vested in whether or not Alexander is found guilty, as long as she gets a fair trial under law.
People are entitled to disagree with my pov as vehemently as they want.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)you sound pretty emotionally invested in proving she IS guilty. I wonder why that could be.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I've seen nothing you've typed that indicated that you were ever willing to consider that just maybe Alexander deserved to be found guilty.
Anyway, it's a moot point, she is getting her re-trial with a different jury and a different judge, hopefully this one will give the jury the correct information before they go to deliberations.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)but I think I've researched the topic more thoroughly than you have; what I've been trying to do is explain to you why a woman may feel it necessary to use what might be considered disproporitionate force in a domestic violence situation. I've also tried to explain to you that police are not necessarily very receptive to helping domestic violence victims. I'm telling you this because I think it's vitally important that 1) we hold law enforcement accountable and 2) as long as we are not holding law enforcement accountable, we are giving women some leeway to defend themselves.
I've lived in the south before, and I've had to deal with guys being aggressive with me, and nearly every time I brought it to the authorities, there was a real sense of pushback, anger even. again, I don't want to generalize to all cops, because they have a hard job and many of them are good people who mean well, but unfortunately, in many places in this country, misogyny is still alive and kicking.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I can completely understand that your unfortunate experiences in the past have led you to a certain view on this subject and a justifiable inclination to take the side of the victim, but I also think it makes you less then objective.
Aside from the mandatory minimums, the laws in regarding the use of a firearm in self defense (which is not the same as SYG) in Florida aren't much different in the rest of the country.
I've tried explaining why she was found guilty and I even linked to a column regarding this by a lawyer who specializes in self defense law who explained why she was found guilty and who explains it better then I can.
Even domestic violence victims are subject to the laws of the state they live in and under the law, Alexander committed a crime. Because she is entitled to a fair trial and since the jury was given improper instructions, she will get a re-trial. I would caution you to not get your hopes up about the re-trial, unless the jury instructions fundamentally changed the jury's thought process, it is likely that Alexander will be found guilty, based on the facts and evidence.
It was good that we were able to discuss as adults, far too many discussions here end up with name calling, but I also think we are covering the same things as we have previously, with neither of us changing our position.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I understand what you're saying, but I've researched the problem in some detail, and I'm not alone in this. law enforcement is not dealing with domestic violence effectively. furthermore, there's a disturbing trend of arresting the victims instead. it really, really scares me; abusive relationships are shockingly common and I don't want to find myself in the same situation.
I've also did look thru your own link throroughly, but it has not changed my mind.
frankly I think the focus on the alleged misuse of the weapon is gender-biased and should not hold up in a court of law for that reason. women are essentially forced to "escalate" the conflict by bringing out a weapon. I understand the legal reasoning, but it is poorly applied in this case.
even if the worst of what you say about alexander is true, I really get it; if some guy was beating you, and the police were making you take the fall for it, wouldn't you want to give him a taste of his own medicine? I think there's some room for a ptsd diagnosis as well, from both fronts.
if I don't hear back from you, have a good day.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)are two VERY different things and it's probably best that way.
There may very well be some PTSD going on, however it does not seem to have been brought up by her lawyer.
IN GENERAL, I don't doubt that there are elements of law enforcement, including the prosecutors office not dealing with DV effectively, equally there are probably elements of law enforcement who do want to do something but hare hindered by a refusal of the victim to press charges or testify and/or insufficient enough testimony and evidence to get a strong enough conviction to get the abuser behind bars.
A good day to you as well.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)that's a hallmark of male-on-female dv. I figured out that eventually I would need to get a video camera to catch my abuser, as no one would take any action otherwise. I think that's excessive. even if there weren't any evidence, a bit of community policing might not have gone amiss; just having the cops come by to talk to the guy may have been adequate deterrent.
according to alexander's own testimony, she seemed to be under the impression, at the time, that she was protected by syg. the video also says that she was in her own house. here you are:
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)She was the aggressor, what she should have done was leave the premises, not go to her car in the garage, grab her gun, go back into the house and took a shot at his head.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)ongoing abuse is extremely damaging to one's mental health, it's likely that that "I'll kill you bitch" was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I don't believe this nonsense that she tried to kill him, after all, that's grey's testimony.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And even if she didn't try to kill him, and, as she claims, was a warning shot, in every state in the country that's illegal.
Her life wasn't in imminent danger that day, she wasn't justified in shooting at him in any way, shape or form.
You really ought to take a CCL class and learn under what circumstances you, as a CHL holder, are justified using your firearm.
You'd be surprised just how limited it really is, despite some that think you can draw and shoot at the slightest provocation.
You don't even have to apply for the license after the class, but at least learn what you're talking about.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)but thanks for the advice.
I think the jury may have been a bit biased, on the basis of her sex and skin color. from what I read, they were also misinformed.
the law mentions "improper use", scaring off a guy who shouts, "I'll kill you bitch," is hardly improper.
drray23
(7,629 posts)They should just vacate the conviction and let her go.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)what an outrageous situation.
Travelman
(708 posts)This had absolutely nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with a woman who, without any doubt whatsoever, committed attempted murder. She was not in any way "standing her ground;" a central tenet of any self-defense claim is that one must be reasonably in fear of some manner of imminent danger. Marissa Alexander was not, in any way, shape, form, or fashion in any sort of imminent danger. Rico Gray was not hitting her or threatening to hit her. That he did so in the past is not relevant to the situation on the day in question.
This woman went to Gray's home and entered that home, uninvited, and in direct violation of an order of protection. No, "she was getting her stuff" is NOT a valid excuse for violating an order of protection. If you want to "get your stuff" and it's in a domicile where the occupant has an order of protection against you, then what you do is call the sheriff and get them to accompany you to get your stuff, not just show up when someone is away at work.
She got into a protracted argument with Gray, and then she left the house to go out to the garage, retrieved a gun from the locked glove compartment of her car, loaded the gun, then went back inside the house and fired a shot at Gray's head. She walked past at least one door that was readily available for her to leave the premises had she actually felt she was in danger. She could have opened the garage and driven away had she chosen to (she claimed that the garage door didn't work, but that neither explained how she got her car into the garage in the first place, not did it explain how it was that the garage door worked just fine when the police arrived).
She did not shoot into the ground or into the ceiling, as one would do with an actual warning shot (which is still a spectacularly bad idea, but that's beside the point); she fired AT HIS HEAD. She barely missed his head, and the bullet wound up penetrating a wall and it was only through sheer blind luck that neither of her children on the other side of that wall managed to not get hit. To preface her "warning shot," Marissa Alexander said to Rico Gray "I've got something for your ass!"
Again, Rico Gray was not beating up or in any other fashion terrorizing Marissa Alexander at the time that these events occurred. She was, effectively, burglarizing his home when he returned home from work, and she went and got a gun out of her car to shoot at him.
After she shot at Gray, he took the children and fled from the house, and Marissa Alexander then engaged in a SEVEN-HOUR STANDOFF WITH POLICE in that same house, threatening to kill herself and the police if they came into the house.
After all of this, she was still offered a plea deal that would have already had her released from prison. Despite her attorneys pleading with her to accept the deal, assuring her that if she failed to take the deal, then the jury would undoubtedly convict her, and they would have no choice but to give her a twenty-year sentence, she steadfastly refused and insisted upon trying her chances with the jury. The case was so incredibly obvious that the jury needed no time at all to convict, and no, it was not an all-white jury: one Black woman, one Hispanic woman, one white woman, two white males, one Asian male.
This is not, was not, and never will be a case of self-defense. This is a case of a disturbed, violent, dangerous woman who committed attempted murder. She deserves to be behind bars where she can't hurt anyone else.
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 08:43 PM - Edit history (3)
This is not, was not, and never will be a case of self-defense. This is a case of a disturbed...dangerous woman who committed attempted murder.In May 2010 — while the restraining order was still in place — Marissa Alexander and Gray were married. Alexander gave birth to their baby in August 2010, but...for the last two months of her pregnancy...she lived with her mother, meaning that Alexander and Gray weren’t living in the same house when the incident occurred... (link)
She had no business being in Gray's home, and I certainly question her judgement in leaving the hospital (I have read nothing to the effect that she had been released). If she and the baby had been there for more than a week, both of them must have been having some post-natal medical problems.
“The victim [Gray] stated that his estranged wife [Alexander] had come to his residence to drop off their child...[Gray] stated that an argument ensued when he would not allow her to stay overnight at his residence.” The police report noted that Gray’s left eye appeared swollen and bloodied...
When the responding officer met with Alexander approximately an hour after the incident, she initially claimed that “she...had an alibi...” Alexander changed her story and eventually claimed that...Gray...(h)ad attacked her...after she wouldn’t stay for the night. The officer wrote that Alexander had “no visible injuries.” Alexander was arrested and bond was revoked...She entered a plea of no contest to the domestic battery charges on March 27, 2012. (link)
rocktivity
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)F*** the facts of the case, they want to believe what they want to believe and when overwhelming evidence is presented they will ignore the case or ignore those presenting facts to ease their cognitive dissonance.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)a) the previous night she left her newborn baby at the hospital, came to Gray's house (thus violating a protection order), spent the night there, and fixed breakfast for Gray and his kids when they arrived the following morning.
b) Gray and both kids were in the living room when Alexander shot at them.
c) after she was arrested, the court ordered her to have no contact with gray, but she violated it to attempt to tamper with Gray's testimony.
d) Shortly after his deposition, she drove again to his new home, attacked and injured him. She plead no contest to that attack.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)of course we'll have to see how the retrial pans out for her...what good is the 2A if you can't defend yourself.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Remanding for new trial, based on erroneous jury instructions; while REJECTING the defense proffered, is a long way from overturning a judgment.
Alexander is likely to serve time.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 15, 2014, 05:00 PM - Edit history (1)
It was not a stand your ground, nor even a self-defense situation. It wasn't "a warning shot", the bullet entered the wall behind her target's head.
20 years may be too long, but she should (and will) go to jail. Unfortunately, the judge is constrained by the statutory 20 year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of which she is guilty.
Alexander's apologists should educate themselves by reading the actual court documents rather than feminist blogs.
It's the height of hypocrisy for domestic violence advocates to hitch their wagons to Marissa Alexander, a convicted abuser.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)then I think you've got it right.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Please stop, he picked a fight and attacked her and had a history of this behavior and now she is the abuser?
The only trouble with her actions is that she did not rid the world of this monster- see how many other women's lives he has ruined? Didn't you read that in the above posts? Three other women had his children and sisters-in law that he threatened? And you worry about him? Why hasn't he been in jail for 20 years for every time he beat a woman up? I have completely had it with this ridiculous male privilege of beating up women and serving no jail serious jail time for it.
WRONG!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She broke that order by going to the house?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)so she violated her own order.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and he wasn't supposed to be there.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)she decided, for whatever reason, to spend the night, him and the kids didn't arrive home until the next morning, she was supposed to be gone by then.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)why she was out and about speaks volumes about a life that was unsupported at best. A good man who had fathered a child would be there helping take care of her, cooking and cleaning and helping get things ready for the hospitalized baby to come home.
These male monsters cause far more trouble than simply beating a woman up, they destroy the next generation because the mother is so wrecked by the abuse that she cannot really mother the baby properly. Who ended up raising this baby while she has been in jail?
Abusive men need to be given seriously longer sentences and they need to be removed from society.
Any behavior of hers that appears crazy comes right back to the relationship of abuse that was not stopped by society in any way.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The prosecutor wrote a letter to the legislators attempting to clarify the facts of the case. She indicated that it was a mutual no-violence order (whatever that is) that allowed contact between parties.
So apparently she had permission to be there, provided she wasn't violent. I guess she failed.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Why did he let her into the house? I am not aware of this fact, but if it is true if he wanted it enforced why didn't he call the police?
And why did he attack her in the bathroom? And how about all the other times and other woman he brutalized?
Crazy violent men like this need to be permanently in jail. Why wasn't he in jail already for his past crimes?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)He didn't let her in the house, she entered the house while he and the kids were gone, she opened the garage door and pulled her car in, entered the house and started to collect some belongings, then decided to sleep there, he and the kids didn't arrive home until the next morning.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)1 week after giving birth and the woman is picking up clothes from her old house and falls asleep.
But you and the other brutal man apologists just have to keep chiming in that it was her fault and she was the aggressor.
No, an abusive man should be in prison for life, he should not be walking the streets or impregnating any more women.
The issue is him, not her.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Should she also be in prison for life?
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)And how many times did she put him in the hospital?
You did read that he beat her and she had to be hospitalized?
What makes people crazy is being that when they are physically assaulted nothing happens to the assailant. Nothing, but when one fights back, they get charged.
It is all crazy making stuff, and this woman needs mental health help. This man needs to be behind bars and also get mental health help. He is the dangerous one. He put at least one woman in the hospital. I really cannot understand why you feel the need to defend such a monster.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)why did she only get a restraining order, these men need to be in prison, not out attacking women who have just given birth no less.
Sick bastard. And there is something very wrong with all of you brutal man apologists for coming out and defending him.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and broke the restraining order, stayed the night and that is just the fact. And if he was convicted of abuse he should have been in jail.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and she had been hospitalized? And it had been her house and she had clothes there still.
This is a man who has abused multiple women.
And as is usually the case they serve little to no jail time for this.
It is a major problem in our society. Police ignoring abuse and the "justice " system doing very little to stop it.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)On August 1, 2010, the Defendant shot at or near Rico Gray Sr. . The Defendant had not been living in the marital home for the two months leading up to the shooting. On the evening of July 31, 2010, the Defendant drove herself to the marital home and parked in the garage, closing the garage door after parking her vehicle. The Defendant stayed the night in the marital home. The next morning, on August 1, 2010, Rico Gray Sr. arrived at the marital home with his two sons and the children entered the home through the garage door. Rico Gray Sr. made the family breakfast and nothing went awry.
After breakfast, the Defendant went into the master bedroom. Before entering the bathroom, the Defendant handed her phone to Rico Gray Sr. to show him pictures of their newborn baby [], who was still in the hospital. At that point, the Defendant went into the master bathroom while Rico Gray Sr. looked through the phone. While going through the phone, Rico Gray Sr. observed texts from the Defendant to her ex-husband Lincoln Alexander prompting Rico Gray Sr. to question whether the newborn baby was his. At this point, Rico Gray Sr. opened the bathroom door to confront the Defendant regarding the texts. A verbal argument ensued between the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr. For this reason, Rico Gray Sr. stepped out of the bathroom and yelled for his sons to put their shoes on because they were leaving. Rico Gray Sr. returned to the bathroom and demanded that the Defendant explain the texts and the verbal argument continued. During the verbal argument Rico Gray Sr. stood in the doorway to the bathroom and the Defendant could not get around him. Either Rico Gray Sr. moved from the doorway or the Defendant pushed around him to exit the bathroom.
Rico Gray Sr. moved to the living room where his children were. Subsequently, the Defendant emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. The Defendant testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite the Defendant's claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.) The Defendant then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. The Defendant returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three Victims. Rico Gray Sr. put his hands in the air. The Defendant shot at Rico Gray Sr., nearly missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The Victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. The Defendant stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911. The Defendant was arrested on the date of the incident.
The Defendant posted bail prior to arraignment and was ordered by the Court and signed a document through Pretrial Services stating she was to have no contact with the Victims in the instant case. However, the Defendant continued to have contact with the Victims in this case, more specifically with Rico Gray Sr. Prior to Rico Gray Sr.'s deposition, the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr. discussed what he should say at deposition. Shortly after Rico Gray Sr.'s deposition, the Defendant drove to Rico Gray Sr. 's new house where his two children were staying (not the Defendant's home). While there, the Defendant physically attacked Rico Gray Sr., causing injury to Rico Gray Sr.'s face. Again, Rico Gray Sr. immediately called 911 after the incident and the Defendant did not. The Defendant was arrested on new charges and her bond was revoked.
There is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself, another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. During the date in question, the Defendant alleged that while in the bathroom Rico Gray Sr. pushed her, and the bathroom door hit her in the leg when it swung open. Per the Defendant's own testimony, she did not suffer serious bodily injury as a result of the altercation that took place in the bathroom. Further, after Rico Gray Sr. exited the master bedroom, the Defendant intentionally passed by the Victims and entered the garage where she immediately armed herself and proceeded back into the home. This is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for his or her life.
After weighing the credibility of all witnesses and other evidence, this Court finds that the Defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was justified in using deadly force in defense of self. Hence, the Defendant has not met her burden of establishing her right to immunity as a matter of fact or law.
http://blackbutterfly7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/alexander-decision.pdf
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Shows why she was convicted and I assume she will be again.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)bleive that the court made the correct assessment. This brutal man should have been in jail already for his prior attacks of her.
She should not be charged with anything. This man belongs in prison for a very long time.
I suggest that we stop as I am not going to convince you of anything, and you are not doing anything but defending a violent monster, imo.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and if you need to kill them to stop them, that that is sad, but necessary. This is called self defense. And since you have chosen to believe children under the control of this violent abuser, you can think that they are telling a truth.
But most likely they are telling a truth that was implanted by the manipulative abuser who should have been in jail.
He had hospitalized her before for goodness sake. What is your answer- why wasn't he in jail for beating her so badly that she had to be hospitalized?
There should be mandatory sentences for that, why aren't there?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)you said that you read the court rulings, yet you persist with the delusional idea that she was acting in self defense.
The former can't be reconciled with the latter.
I find it interesting how her apologists can pivot instantly between the "self defense" and "warning shot", as if a warning shot is something you do to someone who is a legitimate and immediate threat.
Luckily for his kids, she will be re-convicted and spend 20 years in jail and will therefore be unable to take your advice.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)why you have such a need to defend a violent brutal man who should have been in jail a long time ago.
Self defense is what she claimed and is what I believe. You do not believe it for that particular moment.
So, we disagree. But your wanting her to serve 20 years for trying to stand up for herself is alarming, really sad and alarming.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But between the two of us, I'm the only one who isn't disappointed that no one died.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)will, metaphorically, hang her. Maybe give her just years........ Fucking judge has still ignored the facts!!!!!!! I am glad she protected herself from an misogynistic, abusive asshole. Period. No excuse for violence and abuse such as domestic violence, child abuse. Period.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Opera immediately flags it as dangerous
Securisite Has flagged it as having 10 warnings, Evuln has it as suspicious (Yandex has it blacklisted), Webutation has listed Website Antivirus showing a warning but also shows Google Safebrowsing listing it as safe.
On the other hand AVG has it as safe.
elleng
(130,901 posts)but at the very least here they were inaccurate. Should I delete this OP?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It's just that there do seem to have been some problems with the site and visitors to it should make sure their firewall and anti-virus software is up to date.
elleng
(130,901 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I live in Florida, so for me given what happened with "Georgie Zimmerman" and him getting off scott free was a travesty. Regardless of what negative comments some may post about her, I feel she was convicted BEFORE she entered the court.
niyad
(113,302 posts)have happened had it been the man shooting instead of her.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and just look at all the creeps on DU defending him!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Nobody id defending his past conduct but her conduct for this action is wrong. She tried to kill him and missed. Warning shots are not fired at peoples heads.
niyad
(113,302 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)http://blackbutterfly7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/alexander-decision.pdf
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and lodged in the ceiling in the next room.
She was clearly trying to hit and/or kill him, and right in front of their 2 sons.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... and not the deliberate fiction created by activists.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/213219027/The-Truth-About-the-Alexander-Case
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I think many in this thread should read it, but I do not think it will change their minds though.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 02:07 AM - Edit history (5)
This is frankly shameful. The truth as explicitly described in court documents is well known to all, but the lies better fit the prevailing doctrine.
Marissa Alexander:
Was not in fear for her life or safety.
Let herself into Gray's house.
Stayed there all night waiting for Gray to return home the following morning with his kids.
Left the house after an argument, retrieved her gun from her car, walked back in and shot at them - not a warning shot but at eye level. His son testified "I thought I was fixin' to die".
Gray and the kids fled the house (if anyone had a Stand Your Ground basis for self defense it was him) and called 911.
After a seven hour standoff with the cops, she was arrested. The police found that none of the evidence at the scene corroborated her story.
After being released from jail she violated a court order to meet Gray to coach him on his testimony.
After he gave his deposition, and while out on bail, she again violated the court order, went to Gray's new house and attacked him. Because Gray was injured, she was again arrested and plead no contest to domestic violence.
So that's Aggravated Assault with Actual Discharge of a Firearm, domestic assault, witness tampering, violating a court order, child endangerment, perjury and attempted murder.
20 years sounds about right.
Attempts to consider her a hero frankly make me sick. None of her apologists have any standing to lecture anyone about domestic violence. They don't really want an end to violence, they just want to pick the winner.
Travelman
(708 posts)how many people are so hell-bent on just flat-out refusing to acknowledge the facts of the case, isn't it?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)the police say. I figure if this person getting shot at was as violent as described he could have coerced the kids to say anything. Hey anything written describing her as a threat is wrong. This individual was an abuser and a violent male abuser. Maybe she got sucked into that whirlwind of dysfunctional relationships and it ended up the way you say, yet it is not all her fault. To continue to defend a violent male such as this one, you are, in essence, saying domestic abuse of the female with no fear of retaliation from the victim is okay. Am I correct?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)She broke the law in this case, she will pay the penalty despite what you may think of the courts and police.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)the plain and simple fact is that on that occasion, she broke the law and more than likely she will be returning to prison unless she can cut a plea deal with the DA.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)contrary to your opinion. But I am glad you're out here to show the world............
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)of which there is plenty on this topic, with facts, not baseless rants.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)but since you are so taken with your brilliant deductions, analysis and logic. Please proceed. There is a place for emotionalism, spock, in fact it proves that others out here may just have enough personal experience with violent domestic situations, that it trumps your analysis. No rant, experience. Facts, emotionalism based on personal experience. You DO NOT know. Period. And finally the sooner you realize you are in a swamp and that is quicksand you are standing in the better off you shall be.
Good day.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)everything that guy just said is bullshit.
Good day to you too.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)but you want her to.
See how crazy making that is?
I never believe anything an abusive man says. Women who get all caught up in this sort violence and drama need mental health help, not jail time.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Your trust is misplaced. Deliberately misplaced.
Or maybe she's the whirlwind, accountable for her own actions.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)you're right and wrong.....I DO NOT TRUST THE AMERIKKKAN JUSTICE SYSTEM when it comes to minority rights and or sentencing. Not misplaced just very careful what I trust when it comes to my trust of the amerikkkan enablers of a racist justice system. With wilson still not in jail, zimthepig still walking free, those two that murdered a man with a toy gun in walmart, a man choked to death for selling cigarettes to be able to eat and on and on. Hey it's your system, you're welcome to embrace it's laws, unfairness and unbalanced sentencing. I can't.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)he was a bad man, well yes. But he did not commit the crimes at least this time.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and it was out of the judge's hands.
archaic56
(53 posts)one rule for the black person.. one rule for the white man. How many women are in jail for self defense? THis world ..with it's men with ties running things is destined to fail.. unfairness, stupidity and racism.. I am sick of it. Prayer for Marissa
Stellar
(5,644 posts) AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)