Florida woman sentenced to 20 years for firing warning shot

Firing a shot, whether aimed at a person or not, is using deadly force. Firing a "warning shot" is admitting you were not in immediate fear of death or grevious bodily harm and had no justification for shooting at all.

Click to expand...

There was a pretty extensive discussion of this a while back. As for me, I can, just barely, imagine circumstances where a warning shot would be a good idea But just barely. And apparently so can Mr. Ayoob, as he does discuss them, as Deaf Smith pointed out.

And, in that rare circumstance, it would not be an admission that you had no justification for the use of deadly force.

So, "Almost never fire a warning shot" is something I agree with; and I admit that "never" is a reasonable (if not completely accurate) approximation of that.

Fire, aim, ready?

JohnKSa said:

.

Click to expand...

If you read my post #14, or looked up 784.021FS and 775..082(4)(d)FS two statutes, you would see that there is no contradiction between my two posts.

So, Aggravated Assault per se is with NO GUN and 5 years max; AA with gun, no shots fired is 3 years minimum, shots fired is 20, victim suffers great bodily harm is 25 to Life. The "warning shot" is what invoked 775.087FS,enhancing the penalty to the 20 years.

This case was a slam dunk for the prosecution. She should have took the plea bargain offer.

It's good to know what you know; even better to know what you don't know.

I do not post on the latter.

Seems to me that the people of Florida need to fire a certain prosecutor!

This went through a full jury trial. So whatever she had to say, apparently the jury did not believe her. The facts I've been able to piece together suggest a rather more complex scenario than the newspapers have been printing.

The sentence is clearly out of whack, but that's another matter. I sure wouldn't want to have a negligent discharge down there.

What was the womans name??? I'm scared my ex wife is moving closer? If the man was being agressive I can understand a warning shot, it's her husband....she loves? him and all that jazz.

If she was like my ex wife.....well, I left before she got to my guns!! Lock her up!

Do a little more research for those that think the sentence stinks and read about how she was let out on bond, re confronted her husband and a gave him a black eye, yet she was afraid of him enough to fire a gun the first time?

She was ordered to stay away, was away, yet chose to confront again. Sorry no sympathy.

Warning shots still a no-no

JohnKSa said:

I wasn't addressing any contradiction between your two posts. I was pointing out that you were incorrect when you accused another poster of being wrong.The fact remains that she was convicted of aggravated assault, just as was stated in the post you claimed was in error. The discharge of a firearm elevated the sentence, but the offense is still aggravated assault and the penalty for aggravated assault is, indeed, 20 years when a firearm is discharged.

She was not charged nor convicted of firing a "warning shot" because there is no such offense in FL law.

Click to expand...

We are are debating technical semantics - ending up the same place. Warning shots are indeed deadly force in Florida. It is illegal to fire a warning shot in a situation where deadly force is not justified.

The Information will read " Aggravated Assault with a Firearm contrary to 784.021, and 775.087 FS" if that makes anyone feel better while doing their 20.

Hope this clears up my origional point.

Cheers!

We are are debating technical semantics - ending up the same place. Warning shots are indeed deadly force in Florida. It is illegal to fire a warning shot in a situation where deadly force is not justified.

The Information will read " Aggravated Assault with a Firearm contrary to 784.021, and 775.087 FS" if that makes anyone feel better while doing their 20.

Hope this clears up my origional point.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Not a single person here has argued that warning shots are not deadly force.

Semantics? Got it. So when you flat out wrongly claimed aggravated assault carries a max 5 year sentence (contrary to what the judge sentenced and what the Alexander's lawyers were protesting) and not 20 and challenged us to read a statute completely unrelated to the case, and that is a semantic difference? I do believe that would be what you refer to as an "internet hip shot" of which you accused me. The difference is, I had my semantics correct and you did not.

You told me to check again on the issue of warning shots.

Check again

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[UOTE=Double Naught Spy;8159015]I read this last night. The article title isn't exactly accurate. The woman was not sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot. Florida's laws do not state that warning shots are illegal.

Another internet hip-shot.^^^

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I did. Warning shots are not specifically denoted in Florida law as being illegal, as I stated above. Marissa Alexander was not sentenced to a minimum of 20 years for firing a warning shot.

So my original statements that you wanted me to check again were accurate.

You stated...

I spent 38 years in Florida's Criminal Justice System and have substantial exposure to the Court section if it. I discussed the revelent section of Florida law to begin with. Aggravated Assault per se carries a 5 year maximum sentence, not a 20 year sentence.

Anyone who cares to can it up for themselves: 775.082 FS.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's look that up, shall we? It is entitled ...

775.082 Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison.—

Click to expand...

This was an interesting and specific section of the law to be citing as your proof that aggravated assault carries a maximum 5 year sentence and not 20. What makes this interesting is first that this particular law doesn't apply to the Marissa Alexander case. This section of the law deals with classifying prison releasees as "reoffenders" and how such reoffenders should be sentence when committing various transgressions of the law in Florida. Marissa Alexander had not been a prison releasee who is now convicted of aggravated assault. So she isn't yet reclassified as a "reoffencer" and the reoffender sentencing regulations don't apply. The ONLY reference to aggravated assault in this section is in the list of crimes that would cause a releaseee be classified as a reoffender. Nowhere in this section of the law does it state that the maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 5 years as you claimed.

The maximum of 5 years for aggravated assault is only if the charge is prosecuted as a third degree felony. If prosecuted as a 2nd degree felony, it carries a max of 15 years. This is done when certain semantic conditions are met as described under

784.07 Assault or battery of law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical care providers, public transit employees or agents, or other specified officers; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentences.—

Click to expand...

As you and JohnKSa have covered, aggravated assault can indeed carry the minimum 20 year sentence you said it could not carry when prosecuted under the 10-20-Life law.

The minimum can go up to 25 years under 775.087 if there is a death or serious bodily injury from a firearm meeting specific criteria.

=====

The issue of firing warning shots and the claim to have fired warning shots is interesting. In most (all?) states, the phrase of "warning shot" is not explicitly defined in legal statutes, but if frequently used in non-legaleese to describe a shot made that was intended to give the opposing party warning that continued aggression or progression will be met by a non-warning shot. Whether or not the notion of warning shots is a good idea isn't salient for defining what warning shots are.

To state that Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years for firign a warning shot is wrong and misleading on several levels. Assumed in that description is what Marissa Alexander's intent was when the gun discharged. How would we know her intent? We have her statements, the statements of her significant other, and the gunshot evidence. Marissa Alexander's own attorney described the firing as a negligent discharge resulting from when Marissa Alexander flinched when she thought Rico Gray (the ex) was going to hit her. Gray claimed the shot was at him. Marissa Alexander's family says it was a warning shot.
http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2012/05/different-views-on-marissa-alexanders_11.html

To confround things even worse, the accounts of what happened for the shot to have been discharged seem to change back and forth with various news reports and changed stories.

Given the outcome of the case, the ND flinch seems to be ruled out. That leaves Marissa Alexander intentionally firing at Rico Gray or intentionally firing a "warning shot" for which neither set of circumstances seems to indicate a warranted use of lethal force on her part.

So no, she was not convicted and sentenced for firing a warning shot. What that isn't even an offense under Florida, to know it was a warning shot would mean knowing the intent of the discharge and that simply isn't known, or even if it was intentional, as per her lawyer.

Is the lesson sinking in? Never fire a "warning shot."

Click to expand...

I don't think this is a good case for justifying the claim to never fire a warning shot. It was a bad idea in this case because Marissa Alexander had no justification for the use of lethal force. As such, the intentional discharge of the gun, whether intended to hit Rico Gray or intended as a warning shot was not legal. That does not mean that warning shots fired in cases where lethal force was justified would be a bad idea. Over the years, there have been numerous cases where warning shots have worked out very well, and cerntainly many where they have not. Whether or not a warning shot is a good or bad idea will depend on situation-specific circumstances.

I guess some people assume that if they shoot at someone and miss they can just chalk that up to being a warning shot.

No harm no foul heh?

She was offered a plea of three years that she rejected...

Click to expand...

This is a real problem with the justice system. There is no reason that the difference between pleading guilty in a plea deal and getting convicted should have such a great disparity in the sentencing. She thought she was innocent and I imagine her defense lawyer probably thought the chances of winning were pretty good. IMHO, you should not face an additional 17 years just because you ask for the trial that you are legally entitled to.

Tuj/// you're welcome to your opinion (and I'd imagine many would agree). If you're ever in a court situation, you'd be smart to never act on it, though. In the many years I was involved with the system (1973 to 1995) as a cop... I occasionally saw justice in a courtroom, but it was usually entirely incidental to all the other stuff that was going on... That's the main reason I spoke up in my first post on this topic. As a matter of practicality (if there is such a word), court proceedings are adversarial (it's about winning or losing, period). Once that particular 10,20, life law was on the books it specifically forbade any discretion so your only hope is that you're charged with a lesser crime that won't involve that mandatory sentencing provision.... I'd have strong words with any advisor that encouraged someone to risk such a penalty (and I know many lawyers have fools for clients...). I don't know if that's what occurred in this case.. but my point still stands - I would never risk it, period. Would that be "justice"? Like I said, can't say I saw justice very often in any courtroom I was in.

lemaymiami: I agree with you. Unfortunately many people charged with crimes get public defenders or bargain-basement lawyers, no idea if that was the case here or not. But I can see this woman's dilemma: its awful hard to swallow a 3-year sentence when you genuinely believe you are going to win the case.

I was a defendant in a minor criminal lawsuit once. I had the privilege of having one of the best lawyers for that particular charge. I ended up copping a plea not because we thought we couldn't win the court case, but because it was going to cost me a boat-load of cash to go to a jury trial which I simply couldn't afford at the time. I was lucky that the charge was minor, as was the sentence.

I really worry that this particular case in FL, and perhaps too many cases across the country, are not won or lost on facts and evidence but on the skill of the lawyers. And sadly, prosecutors have more resources than the vast majority of defendants.

Finally, I think this case makes a good example of why mandatory sentencing guidelines are a bad idea. I understand that the guidelines are there to try to create 'equal' justice for those convicted of the same crime, but one of the reasons we have and elect judges is for their *discretion* in sentencing, be it stronger or weaker than the guideline.

The Lawyer failed this lady by not playing the differance of force, accident discharge etc. Poor lady must have had a law grad class anchor.

From what I've heard about this case it sounds like they were separated and she had a restraining order against him and while having the restraining order moved back in with him. Also she didn't just pull out the gun and shoot, she claims that he pushed her, then she ran out to the garage and grabbed her gun and went back inside (she said the garage door wasn't working, I've heard that there was evidence that it was), after she was back inside she claims that he threatened her then she fired. There were no marks left on her from him pushing her so it ends up as her word versus his for if he actually pushed her or threatened her (which I'm not sure but I think that claiming someone threatened you isn't enough reason to shoot them.) Also as mentioned earlier in this thread, when she was out on bail she went back to her husbands house and assaulted him, even though she wasn't supposed to contact him.

My Warning shot consists of the "Snick!" of the fire control group being set to 'Operate'.

I have no reason to quarrel with the jury's verdict, but the sentence seems inappropriate to me.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with that statement in it's totality. There comes a point at which "blind" justice starts to become deaf and dumb as well, with emphasis on the dumb.

So she should have fired a warning shot into his chest?

Semantics vs. substance still

Double Naught Spy said:

Not a single person here has argued that warning shots are not deadly force.


The maximum of 5 years for aggravated assault is only if the charge is prosecuted as a third degree felony.


That leaves Marissa Alexander intentionally firing at Rico Gray or intentionally firing a "warning shot" for which neither set of circumstances seems to indicate a warranted use of lethal force on her part.



...Marissa Alexander had no justification for the use of lethal force. As such, the intentional discharge of the gun, whether intended to hit Rico Gray or intended as a warning shot was not legal.


(Bold is mine, words yours.) We agree on the substantive portions quoted above of your reply. Would it make any practical difference to Ms. Alexander or any other similar defendant if we debate the difference between "not legal" and "illegal"?

Click to expand...

So, it sounds to me,
(a) that warning shots are use of deadly force,
(b) that warning shots are justified in a situation where deadly force is justified,
(c) that warnings shots are illegal use of deadly force where deadly force is NOT justified,
(d) that warning shots in illegal aggravated assault are illegal use of deadly force and a sentence enhancement in jurisdictions like Florida?

I get the impression that shooting to wound or kill in a situation where a warning shot would not be justifiable, would not be justifiable either.

I have no reason to quarrel with the jury's verdict, but the sentence seems inappropriate to me.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with that statement in it's totality. There comes a point at which "blind" justice starts to become deaf and dumb as well, with emphasis on the dumb.

Click to expand...

That would depend on how you look at it. Florida believes this heavy-handed approach to be successful in the reduction of gun-related crimes. Marissa Alexander committed a gun-related crime and endangered 3 lives other than her own in the process. This comes on the tail of being out on bond after giving her exhusband a black eye.

The claim by her lawyer that the case was over prosecuted is in error. The problem wasn't with how the case of prosecuted, but that her actions, if found guilty, qualified her for the hefty sentence. As the judge noted, he gave her the minimum stipulated by the law.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html

It was interesting the procecutor looked into the trigger

Corey said. “This gun had a seven pound trigger pull. So this isn’t a hair trigger — this isn’t an accident

Click to expand...

I'm sort of thinking that no matter what kind of trigger you have the DA is going to try to screw you somehow by saying something about it.

If you have a light trigger - then you're an irresponsible and dangerous wacko who has a hair trigger. If you have a 7lb trigger it shows you're cold blood blooded and pulling the trigger was entirely pre-meditated.

Warning shot = Bad Idea!

Screams out loud that you were NOT in fear for your life!

BTW - I wish we had the 10-20-Life law in Illinois.

It seems that the politicians here are on a quest to make it impossible for people to commit crimes, instead of just punishing crime.

Last year the Chicago PD busted a drug gang. All of the gang members arrested had previous felony convictions. For the members who weren't found to be in possession of drugs but were found with guns, they were charged with "Possession of Weapons by Felons"

The sentencing guidelines are 2 to 10 years but these felons were only facing 3 to 4 year sentences.

It really bothers me that Chicago's answer to crime is strict new gun laws that would have banned guns, called for gun owners to turn their guns in or face jail time - it would have been a Class 3 Felony.

Drug dealers don't just happen to have guns - they have guns because they are violent people in a violent line of work. The last time those guys got out of prison, they took up drug manufacturing and drug dealing, and carrying weapons illegally. So, what would make anyone think that in 3 years when they get out, they're not going to do the same thing?

They should have been put away for 20 years - at least.

The Chicago politicians, prosecutors and judges cannot be trusted, the law abiding citizens of Chicago and Cook county need a 10-20-Life law.

And that sort of stuff, relatively light sentences for bad actors using firearms is just how Florida ended up with the current law....

Applying Florida's law to a domestic situation.... that, you could get an argument for.

Wish I had a nickel for every bad marriage and worse divorce that I was sent to years ago. They ranged from the comic to the horrific and a few of them will be with me until I'm gone. The smell of large amounts of fresh blood mixed with liquour is something nothing prepares you for.