Florida woman sentenced to 20 years for firing warning shot

[jbrown50]

http://us.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

(CNN) -- Saying he had no discretion under state law, a judge sentenced a Jacksonville, Florida, woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband.

Marissa Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to derail the prosecution, but a jury in March convicted her of aggravated assault after just 12 minutes of deliberation.

The case, which was prosecuted by the same state attorney who is handling the Trayvon Martin case, has gained the attention of civil rights leaders who say the African-American woman was persecuted because of her race.

The following two paragraphs shed a little more light onto why she truly was convicted:

Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.

But a previous judge in the case rejected the request, saying Alexander's decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety, according to the Florida Times Union newspaper.

 

[btg3]

My nieghbor spend the night in jail for firing a shot into the ground to scare off vandals behind his retail store. Would not have been a problem in the county, but he was inside the city limit.

 

[Paladin38-40]

Big no-no

Discharging a firearm in the general direction of a person - into the ground or over their head-, even though there is no intent to kill or inflict bodily harm (commonly called "warning shot") meets the criteria for deadly force.

If there is fear sufficient to justify firing the firearm there is justification for firing directly at the threat. If that level of fear is not present, there is no justification for pulling the trigger at all.

Aside from legalities, warning shots communicate hesitation rather than determination, wastes precious time, depletes possibly much needed ammo, and noise has zero stopping power.

This defendant and many like her suffer from training derrived from Hollywood and folklore. Having a firearm for personal protection is an awesome responsibility, and professional training is the cheapest insurance anyone can buy.

 

[ChileRelleno]

If you've enough fear for your or another's life/great bodily injury, then you've no time or reason to fire a warning shot.
You should be immediately 'Stopping the Threat'.
If it is time to pull it, it is time to use it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The judge, in saying he had no choice, is saying he disagrees with the sentence. Perhaps the governor (or a future governor) will commute the sentence to time served. I have no reason to quarrel with the jury's verdict, but the sentence seems inappropriate to me.

 

[towboat_er]

Most certainly inappropriate. Our judicial system sucks.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Mas Ayoob gave the suggestion that if for some reason you must must fire a warning shot (he is mostly against doing it) that you pick a target that will stop your slug.

Say a tree or dirt bank or such that you know (or as a lawyer would say, should have known) would stop the slug.

That way you are not open to the charge of endangering other people. Keep in mind every bullet you fire has a lawyer (and prosecutor) attached.

And you have proof you didn't fire at the person at all.

On the other hand the one you tried to 'scare' just might be scared enough to just kill you.

Deaf

 

[Owen Sparks]

Something tells me that in almost every case the shooter is the one who called the police.

 

[dprice3844444]

warning shots can hit innocent bystanders,if your going to fire it,make sure you hit what your aiming at.

 

[Serenity]

The dynamics of a domestic situation are not the same as those of a home invasion or stranger/acquaintance violence. It is problematic to analyze it within the same parameters. How many here would be willing to shoot your spouse, even if threatened? Would you re-enter your residence to check on your children? Of course. I have no doubt that her life was threatened, or at the very least that she perceived that it was. Women are killed by partners or ex-partners at an appalling rate; it is discouraging that she had the means to defend herself and chose to put the safety of her attacker before her own and her children's.

 

[elano]

Punishment seems excessve to me especially considering nobody was hurt.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I don't recommend warning shots, using "less lethal" ammunition for the first round or anything of that sort. If the situation justifies shooting at all, it justifies shooting the attacker(s). But 20 years, when no one was even hit? Ridiculous. There are any number of far more serious crimes that don't carry that kind of sentence. This goes back to something I've been saying for years: laws must allow for "wiggle room" and discretion.

 

[dprice3844444]

serenity,my wife tried that one morning.3 feet away in a 3 foot hallway and she missed.with my own gun,too

 

[Paladin38-40]

Unintended consequences

775.087(2)FS

2. Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” as defined in s. 790.001 shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years.

The law was aimed at deterring armed robberies. There was a big publicity campaign under Gov. Jeb Bush who pushed for the law. There were abundant public service TV advertisements, and store front posters.

Prosecutors have the discretion to plea bargain this section and many times do so in the interest of justice. But some prosecutors (persecutors) are idealogues, or building a "law and order" resume' to enhance their career. Note the chief prosecutor in each of Florida's Circuit Court jurisdictions is an elected official.

Judicial discretion is frequently maligned by the general public and therefore legislated away by the politically ambitious. But it is an integral tool needed to prevent miscarriages of justice such as this one.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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 (last I checked).

This sort of misrepresentation reminds me of folks claiming a person is arrested for self defense such as in NYC or Chicago and produce a gun for self defense but are then arrested because the gun is not properly registered. A driver of a car that strikes a pedestrian and leaves the scene could claim to have been arrested for driving a car, but that isn't the case, is it? The arrest isn't for self defense, driving, and so the 20 year sentence isn't for firing a warning shot. There are, however, specific laws relating to the use of deadly force (which includes discharging a firearm), assault, and the endangerment of others.

So contrary to the article title and thread title she was not sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot. She was sentenced to 20 years for aggrevated assault. There is a difference.

 

[lemaymiami]

What hasn't been discussed so far is that this offense comes under the "minimum mandatory" firearms law here in Florida. It was widely publicized from the beginning as the 10-20-life rule in an effort to deter crimes with firearms here in this state. As a retired cop I'd say this is one of the unintended consequences of laws that bind judges to a particular course of sentencing without any discretion in the matter.

I'd like to have a short talk with whatever attorney that allowed his/her client to go to trial facing this kind of penalty. When you read into the case you'll find that a three year plea bargain was on the table from the prosecutor's office... That penalty would have had the offender out of jail in less than a year..... so much for "over zealous" prosecution in this matter. If I were charged with this set of facts there's just no way I'd want to be facing an automatic 20 year sentence, period.

 

[Ledgehammer]

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

 

[Fred Fuller]

Definitely an educational vignette, anyway.

What was that line from Dickens? "...the law is a ass - a idiot..."

 

[BBQLS1]

I guess that article has left me with a lot of questions about what happened. Not sure I have an opinion at this point.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If you've enough fear for your or another's life/great bodily injury, then you've no time or reason to fire a warning shot.
You should be immediately 'Stopping the Threat'.
If it is time to pull it, it is time to use it.

Amen!

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.

To say nothing of the danger posed by stray shots fired unnecessarily.

 

[Paladin38-40]

Check again

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.^^^

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.

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

 

[JohnKSa]

Aggravated Assault per se carries a 5 year maximum sentence, not a 20 year sentence.

"Under the state's 10-20-life law, a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has been discharged carries a minimum and maximum sentence of 20 years without regarding to any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that may be present, such as those in this case," Judge Daniel said.

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

.

 

[beatledog7]

In many places and in the eyes of many jurisdictional authorities, a warning shot is nothing more--or less--than a simple miss. Bad idea in any case.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

 

[T Bran]

The only hint that there is a gun in your posession should be the flash and impact of the slug. Do not fire warning shots shoot to miss or shoot to injure. All a warning shot does is cost you the element of surprise and if you hit an innocent bystander you are done for. This is the reason for all of the warnings about overpenetration. To intentionally miss is one of the worst things you could do in regards to the safety of others and the aftermath of lawsuits you will surely face even if the shot was justified.
Be careful out there.
T