Just Another Florida Clusterf**k

[El Barto]

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• A judge issues a 20-year sentence to woman who fired warning shot inside her house
• Judge James Daniel says he had no choice in the sentence
• Marissa Alexander says she fired the warning shot to fend off her abusive husband
• A congresswoman confronts prosecutor Angela Corey after the sentencing
• A congresswoman confronts prosecutor Angela Corey after the sentencing

Man, where to begin.  Most interesting is mandatory sentencing.  Like most people, I think it sucks.  Yet it's purpose is actually quite valid.  Without it, every sentence is open to allegations of favoritism or prejudice, and with it every sentence seems arbitrary and frequently absurd.  What are ya gonna do?

As it applies to this case and it's racial overtones, you've got people suggesting that Zimmerman was the recipient of beneficial discretion, and this woman is the the victim of a complete lack of discretion.  Of course they're both true, but what's the solution? 

Next you've got the notion of self defense.  The prosecutor actually has a very good point that by going back into the house to retrieve her keys, she made the self defense claim highly questionable.  Once she disengaged, she was no longer in immediate peril.  She armed herself and then went back in.  Bad move.

Throw in the fact that by firing a warning shot, she also diminished her self defense claim.  If you're in danger of being assaulted, you act to stop your attacker.  A warning shot in this instance is pretty bad acting.

Which leads to the biggest problem. If she actually was in immediate peril, and you discount the fact that she introduced the peril by reentering the house, then shooting the bastard might well have been the good move.  But then there's what we now know about deadly force in Florida, and that certainly complicates things, as well.  If I'm a young black woman, I don't think I'd have must trust in the system to determine if I was actually in danger.  With that in mind, taking the extrajudicial approach of just scaring the shit out of him actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea anymore.  If you chart out the risk/reward of every possible action, it might well come out on top. 

Next you've got the plea deal.  She turned down an offer for 3 years, rolling the dice against a mandatory 20.  Man, that's a harsh decision. 

There are really a whole lotta problems here, and not too many answers; none of which are good.

Whatcha in for?
I didn't kill my abusive husband.
Bummer.

[Progmetty]

That is a comical sentence, if you can send people to jail for firing a warning shot then why the fuck did you allow them to have a gun the first place? It simply means you're only allowed to use your gun to point at someone to scare them off or just shoot them. Cause pointing the gun alone might not scare a dangerous attacker who probably has a 99% chance inside their mind that you won't have the balls to fire the gun, a warning shot seems reasonable to me.

[Scheavo]

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.

That's just asinine. Why the fuck else would she grab a gun? Why the fuck would she then also fire a warning shot? And are we just completely overlooking the fact that she's an abused spouse?

We know racism exists in the judicial system, there's more than enough studies about it. But there's still nothing like a direct comparison, especially when they're both recent events. The only better example I can think of, is this image:

 

[GuineaPig]

This was the top rated comment on this story from Reddit:

I've actually done some research on this case already. Let me fill in some of the holes and correct the misinformation here.

She wasn't isn't in trouble for firing a warning shot, she's in trouble because she used deadly force when it wasn't justified according to the law.

She did not fire the weapon into the kitchen ceiling! She was standing in the living room with her husband (and he was next to his 2 kids), she pointed the gun as head and fired, the bullet barely missed his head, traveled through the wall and then into the ceiling the of the kitchen.

Her husband's (the man she fired the gun at) was basically discounted because against the orders of the court they met up after she was arrested and discussed what he was going to say in her defense.

If you still think her husband is trustworthy, he told the police after the shooting that she threatened to shoot in the past, and his children told the prosecutor that she was screaming at them during the incident, he then testified those were all lies.

After being arrested for shooting, she drove to his house (again she was not supposed to have any contact with him) and assaulted him and she was arrested again.

Her defense about using stand your ground doesn't work. When she fired the gun, he was not doing anything towards her. She had left the house, got the gun and came back, and he was in the process of leaving when she pointed the gun at him.

edit: For those asking for the source

Seems like there are some other sides to this story.

[Scheavo]

Ya, she's an abused wife. That simple fact adds a lot of subtext. Unless she wasn't abused?

I believe there's some states that give more leeway to an abused spouse.

[ReaPsTA]

Stuff like this makes me emotionally distraught.  This should never happen.  Ever.  For any reason.

[El Barto]

Seems like there are some other sides to this story.

Yeah, three sides to every story, as the adage goes.  Along with those points, are the fact that there was a history of domestic violence in the home and that she had been hospitalized as a result before.  There had been a restraining order issued against him, and by his own admission he'd threatened to kill her numerous times.  While he might well have lied after the shooting to help her out, there's plenty of evidence to support her claims that happened previously.

None of us know what happened in that house.  What we do know is that women who are subjected to spousal abuse seem to never have their heads screwed on straight.  Looks like their are plenty of things she could/should have done differently, but then that seems to always be the case with domestic abuse situations.  In light of what we know about such things, I'd certainly say the girl deserves the benefit of at least some doubt. 

Something else I just noticed.  She was charged with 3 counts of aggravated assault "alleging that she intentionally and unlawfully threatened to harm her husband and two of his minor children by firing a gun."  Seems to me that she only tried to harm one of them, hence the single shot.  Just because can't prove which one it was, doesn't mean it was all three.  If she'd fired three shots, or if she'd taken the time to line them up single file, then maybe you've got three attempts, but in this instance it's only a single attempt to harm one of three different persons.

Fuck, I hate prosecutors. 

[Scheavo]

None of us know what happened in that house.  What we do know is that women who are subjected to spousal abuse seem to never have their heads screwed on straight.  Looks like their are plenty of things she could/should have done differently, but then that seems to always be the case with domestic abuse situations.  In light of what we know about such things, I'd certainly say the girl deserves the benefit of at least some doubt. 

Especially considering the given reason why she cant' claim self defense is that she returned, on several occasions. From what I know about these kind of cases, that's pretty much exactly what we should expect. I mean, the man has her kids, wouldn't she be worried for her kids? It's like the entire prosecution and judges in this case lost their fucking minds.

[El Barto]

https://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/139454238.html

No prison time for Minneapolis coach in shooting

A basketball coach and father of one of Minnesota's all-time great girls players was sentenced to six months in the Hennepin County workhouse and probation for firing a gun at another player's dad in Minneapolis, despite the prosecution's request for a longer sentence in prison.

Paul Hill, 45, of Minneapolis, pleaded guilty to second-degree assault last week for the September 2011 incident outside the YWCA at 2121 E. Lake St. No one was injured in the confrontation.

On Wednesday, District Judge Daniel Moreno sentenced Hill to three years in prison, but stayed the sentence for five years. If Hill does not violate the terms of his probation, he will serve no prison time and his felony conviction will be reduced to a misdemeanor.

According to the county attorney's office, the sentence is far less than called for by the Minnesota sentencing guidelines. However, because Hill has no criminal record, Moreno issued the more lenient sentence. Assistant County Attorney Dan Allard told Moreno that the sentencing guidelines take into account Hill's clean record and there is no reason to deviate from them.

On Sept. 29, Hill and parent Patrick Adams got into a short argument and shoving match at the YWCA. Hill then told Adams, "I've got something for you," according to a criminal complaint.

Hill drove away, retrieved a gun, returned, asked Adams' wife where her husband was and then spotted him in the parking lot. Hill drove up and fired a shot from his truck at Adams, prosecutors said. He turned himself in six days later.

During sentencing, Hill admitted that the gun he fired was a .22-caliber handgun, not a starter's pistol, as he told a probation officer during the pre-sentence investigation and as he claimed in court when he was pleading guilty, according to the county attorney.

Hill, a father of seven, is well known in youth basketball circles, particularly in south Minneapolis. A 1985 graduate of South High, Hill lives near the school with his wife. He is the father of Tayler Hill, one of the state's all-time leading high school players at Minneapolis South who now plays for Ohio State.

Yeah, this seems fair.   

[jsem]

*img*

That is nasty.

[Scheavo]

Yeah, this seems fair.   

I'm pretty sure if I wasn't a white male, I'd be in jail right now.

[El Barto]

Yeah, this seems fair.   

I'm pretty sure if I wasn't a white male, I'd be in jail right now.

Somewhat surprisingly, Paul Hill up there is a black man.  In this instance it wasn't being a white guy that saved him, but just the random peculiarities of the legal system. 

[Scheavo]

Yeah, this seems fair.   

I'm pretty sure if I wasn't a white male, I'd be in jail right now.

Somewhat surprisingly, Paul Hill up there is a black man.  In this instance it wasn't being a white guy that saved him, but just the random peculiarities of the legal system.

Well, way for me to jump to conclusions.

Still, it is surprising for a reason.

Comparisons like that really do make me think the federal government needs to get involved. I mean, the woman in Florida has a much stronger case to get off than the man up in Minnesotta, yet her punishment is extreme. Comparatively, it makes the woman's punishment "cruel and unusual."

[El Barto]

I think everybody jumped to that conclusion.  I was certainly surprised when I saw his mugshot. 

And suffice it to say, I seriously doubt much of the prosecutor's office will be around much longer.  Between this chick and the Trayvon incident, I suspect Mrs. DA might decide to spend more time with her family the next election cycle, before quietly starting her own practice somewhere.

Or, maybe Obama's silly ass will give her Holder's job when he resigns next year.  Who knows. 

[Scheavo]

If Obama wanted to be a hero, he would give the women clemency, at least. I'd almost like him to do it, just so I could see how Fox News would attack him for it.

[El Barto]

As it stands now, most people think she got a raw deal.  Hell, even those assholes at the cop forum are bent out of shape about it.  Enough people are troubled by it then local avenues might well work out for her.  If Obama gets involved the whole thing becomes politicized, and then you'll have 50% of the population wanting to see her burn, for no other reason that Dickhead supports her.