Stand Your Ground

[Jimbone]

That's ridiculous!

Yep. Pretty much.

That's where Castle Doctrine and SYG laws came from... to end the laws that required you to NOT defend yourself.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Exactly, THATS what SYG is supposed to be. However, stupid fucking politicians and more lawyers per sq foot down here than most places badly wrote some laws leaving loop holes you can throw a cat through. They need fixing, but I don't trust those same politicians to Fix anything, they are more likely to fuck it up worse.
Its not at all surprising that criminals are working the system, I am not even very worried about it, pretty much its criminals killing criminals.
There are going to be some collateral damage until its sorted out right, like the guy with the dog leash. But it will get sorted eventually.

[Maggot]

Did someone say government healthcare? Or ANYTHING government run. For the good of the people ya know.

[BlueTiki]

However, stupid fucking politicians and more lawyers per sq foot down here than most places badly wrote some laws leaving loop holes you can throw a cat through.

And who stands to gain when there are loopholes that can be debated while accumulating billable hours?

Certainly not the same folks who wrote the ambiguous law in the first place!

It's a shame that the proposed change of "duty to run when outside the home" wasn't in place before Skittles was shot.

He would have been bound by law to just keep a runnin' when tubbie chased.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I don't blame skittles, he was just exercising his constitutional right to get shot for being stupid.

[BlueTiki]

I don't blame skittles, he was just exercising his constitutional right to get shot for being stupid.

"Da law be sez I donts needz to be a runnin' awayz from youze, fuckin' cracker assed bitch!"

[HairOfTheDog]

She didn't pull a gun during a crime.

She violated a gun law at worst. The judge and the states attorney should lose their jobs.

Glad to see the 20 year sentence is being revisited. I think it was way too much as well.



TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A Florida appeals court is ordering a new trial for a woman sentenced to 20 years to prison after she fired a warning shot in a wall during a dispute with her husband.

The 1^st District Court of Appeal ruled that a judge did not properly instruct the jury handling the case of Marissa Alexander.

But the appeals court also said the judge was right to block Alexander from using the state's "stand your ground" law as a way to defend her actions.

Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. But the judge at her trial said her conviction on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon carried a mandatory 20-year sentence under state law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26..._ref=crime

[SIXFOOTERsez]

20 years may seem a bit stiff when you consider how many assholes are out there running around with multiple felony convictions. However, she is guilty of violating the gun laws. She was never in any danger, the x may have threatened or scared her but he was in the process of leaving, AND he has his kids right there. The law does not allow for "Warning Shots". She fired her weapon into a wall with no regard to where the bullet would end up. How about if you and one of your kids had been walking by? What then?
Your responsible for that bullet from the moment you squeeze the trigger until it stops.

[HairOfTheDog]

I understand the gun laws, Six.

Alexander's ex has convictions for domestic abuse and admitted in deposition that he hit all but one of his five baby mamas. The court considered him a danger to Alexander and awarded her a restraining order against him. He admits that he was banging on the locked bathroom door and demanding that she come out that day. Alexander legally owned the gun.

I know that the relationship was tumultuous and she was part of the dysfunction too.

But, like in Zimmerman's case, under Florida law, the jury should have been instructed to consider whether SHE (the defendant) considered that the ex was a danger to her and represented a threat of great bodily harm when she fired what she claims was a warning shot. The judge, however, failed to instruct the jury accordingly. So, she goes back to trial and proper jury instructions will be given before verdict deliberations next time.

The self defense laws in the state should be applied equally and correctly across cases. That's the appellate issue at hand. Maybe the next jury will also feel that she violated the gun laws because she wasn't acting in self defense when she fired, and maybe they'll instead acquit her or convict her of a lesser charge (if one is put on the table in the next trial).

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I understand the gun laws, Six.

Alexander's ex has convictions for domestic abuse and admitted in deposition that he hit all but one of his five baby mamas. The court considered him a danger to Alexander and awarded her a restraining order against him. He admits that he was banging on the locked bathroom door and demanding that she come out that day. Alexander legally owned the gun.

I know that the relationship was tumultuous and she was part of the dysfunction too.

But, like in Zimmerman's case, under Florida law, the jury should have been instructed to consider whether SHE (the defendant) considered that the ex was a danger to her and represented a threat of great bodily harm when she fired what she claims was a warning shot. The judge, however, failed to instruct the jury accordingly. So, she goes back to trial and proper jury instructions will be given before verdict deliberations next time.

The self defense laws in the state should be applied equally and correctly across cases. That's the appellate issue at hand. Maybe the next jury will also feel that she violated the gun laws because she wasn't acting in self defense when she fired, and maybe they'll instead acquit her or convict her of a lesser charge (if one is put on the table in the next trial).

Agreed, the laws should apply equally.
I read this story when it first came out and I understand that she may have felt unsafe. But, SYG will not apply because she had to leave the room, go out to the garage and retrieve he gun and then come back in the house and reengage. Several mistakes there.
And then there is the danger she put the kids in.
The judge screwed up, no doubt about it, that's why she gets a retrial. She may get a better deal on the next one, but I don't think she deserves a free ride by any means

[BlueTiki]

But, SYG will not apply because she had to leave the room, go out to the garage and retrieve he gun and then come back in the house and reengage.
And then there is the danger she put the kids in.

Ahhh . . . c'mon, Six.

Don't let the facts get in the way in ruining a great sob story!

She didn't call 911.

She had an opportunity to flee . . . she didn't.

He wasn't threatening her, he wasn't preventing her from "escaping" or abusing the children when she retreated and then returned with a gun.

She deliberately pulled a trigger of a loaded weapon without a specific target and without regard for the safety of her children.

She was an irresponsible, trippin' bitch with a gun.

Yeah . . . this twat should get a parade instead of an arrest record!

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't think there's a sob story here or that she's likely to get off without an arrest record.

The fact is that the sentencing of 20 years was rendered under incorrect jury instructions. Maybe the result will be the same with the correct self defense instructions in the next trial. IDK.

She would have been wise to take the 3 years that Corey originally offered her to plea, given her actions that day. Too late now.

Based on the facts and circumstances, 20 years is too much, in my opinion. I could see a few years for child endangerment and illegal discharge of a weapon (without the aggravated assault). She'd have a record and lose gun privileges.

I think Corey plans to try the exact same case though and may not offer lessers. We'll see.

[BlueTiki]

Based on the facts and circumstances, 20 years is too much, in my opinion. I could see a few years for child endangerment and illegal discharge of a weapon (without the aggravated assault). She'd have a record and lose gun privileges.

I never intended to suggest otherwise.

I resented the fact the news blurb you posted deliberately ignored salient facts and instead, offered a picture of a woman allegedly facing a life threatening situation with the only option of discharging a firearm to "save" her life.

It's yellow journalism . . . no, wait . . . it's bullshit AND a damned lie.

[HairOfTheDog]

Based on the facts and circumstances, 20 years is too much, in my opinion. I could see a few years for child endangerment and illegal discharge of a weapon (without the aggravated assault). She'd have a record and lose gun privileges.

I never intended to suggest otherwise.

I resented the fact the news blurb you posted deliberately ignored salient facts and instead, offered a picture of a woman allegedly facing a life threatening situation with the only option of discharging a firearm to "save" her life.

It's yellow journalism . . . no, wait . . . it's bullshit AND a damned lie.

My fault if it came across as suggesting that Alexander had no other options when she decided to fire. I didn't intend to suggest that she was undoubtedly facing a life threatening situation, but instead to summarize the facts presented in her self-defense case.

Anyway, I agree that she certainly had plenty of options and should have just left the scene. 20 years is too harsh, to me, but I don't think Alexander should get off scot-free or be seen as a helpless damsel in distress either.

[BlueTiki]

My fault if it came across as suggesting that Alexander had no other options when she decided to fire. I didn't intend to suggest that she was undoubtedly facing a life threatening situation, but instead to summarize the facts presented in her self-defense case.

My comment wasn't directed to you, sweetie . . . you're too bright, objective and thorough to be so blatantly slanted.

It was to the writer masquerading as a journalist, his editor and the publishing rag.

[HairOfTheDog]

Blind justice for John Wayne, or just a hot-headed drunken murderer let off the hook?


John Wayne Rogers, 40, declared immune from prosecution under SYG

The Florida murder trial of a blind man was cut short Friday after a judge granted a "stand your ground" motion for immunity and ruled the man acted in self-defense when he shot a drinking buddy in the chest with .308 Remington rifle.

Rogers, who was declared legally blind after a work accident in 2001, has a history of violence. Four years ago, he fired 15 rounds from a handgun at Michael Rogers, his roommate and cousin, following a night of drinking and fighting in Geneva, according to court records.

Michael Rogers suffered scrapes but no gunshot wounds. The defendant was charged with aggravated assault but, in a deal with prosecutors, pleaded no contest to a lesser charge — unlawfully displaying a firearm — and was placed on probation.

That was revoked, however, when he pushed and punched a woman a year later, something that resulted in him spending 71 days in the Seminole County jail for domestic violence, according to court records.

The latest incident, for which Rogers was arrested and standing trial before being granted SYG immunity, occurred two years ago after the victim, 34 year-old James T. DeWitt, and his girlfriend had gone to Rogers' house to drink beer and had spent the night. The next day the group had made a 10 a.m. trip to the store to buy more beer.

The defendant testified that he asked DeWitt to leave but that the victim attacked him, so he went into the bedroom, retrieved his rifle, walked back into the living room and pointed it in DeWitt's general direction. DeWitt then charged him, he said, so he fired one round.

DeWitt's girlfriend, Christina Ann Robertson, told Seminole County deputies that the two men had been "play fighting," something they sometimes did, when Rogers walked into another room, emerged with the rifle and shot DeWitt without provocation.

After listening to Rogers' testimony on Thursday, Circuit Judge John Galluzzo returned to the bench Friday morning and granted his "stand your ground" motion, meaning he declared the defendant immune from prosecution.

Refs:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014...ael-rogers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...buddy.html

[Duchess]

Cocksucka!

There was a time I thought that was a pretty good law but that day is long gone. I now think it's one of the dumbest ones on the books & I'm sick of reading stories like this because I feel these people are getting away with murder. Ugh.

[Cynical Ninja]

All this Stand Your Ground shit is ridiculous I'm really glad more and more people are starting to realise it too.

When there is a shooting the emphasis should be on the victim not the shooter. This law trivialises murder and encourages people to shoot first ask questions later. It means people with guns can act completely out of all proportion and get away with it scot free.

Its like the most important thing is the health and welfare of our poor old downtrodden shooters.

[Duchess]

This would be fine if all gun owners were like Six & F U but they are not and I'm starting to think that those 2 are in the minority.

[Cynical Ninja]

Back in the day I would have gone hunting and shooting with FU and Six but like you say I think they are in the minority in the US.

Too many angry, unstable, twitchy fuckers with alcohol, drug and emotional and mental health problems with guns is the top and bottom of it.

Its not the guns its the fact that nutters can get their hands on them that's the real problem.