Abused Mother gets 20yrs in Jail for shooting at Abuser

[HipChick]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/marissa-alexander-sentenced_n_1510113.html

the 31-year-old Florida woman who fired what her family calls a warning shot at her abusive husband, was sentenced Friday morning to 20 years in prison.

Alexander was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for firing into a wall near her husband and his two young children at their Jacksonville home in 2010. Alexander has maintained that she wasn't trying to hurt anyone and that she was standing her ground against a man who had over the course of nearly a year punched and choked her on several different occasions. Alexander says that she believed she was protected that day under the state's Stand Your Ground Law, which gives people wide discretion in using deadly force to defend themselves.

A judge and a jury disagreed.

Gray admitted to a history of physical abuse. In a previous incident, Alexander said he beat her so severely she ended up in the hospital and he ended up in jail. "He pushed me, choked me, pushed me so hard into the closet that I hit my head against the wall and passed out for a second," Alexander said.
In a deposition for the case against Alexander, Gray backed up much of his wife's story. "I told her if she ever cheated on me, I would kill her," he said during the proceeding led by a prosecutor for State Attorney Angela Corey's office and his wife's defense attorney.

She is baffled why invoking the stand your ground law wasn't successful in her case.


"Other defendants have used it. What's so different about my situation that it doesn't apply to me?" she asked. The local NAACP believes race may have played a role."There's a double standard with stand your ground," said Isaiah Rumlin, president of the Jacksonville Chapter of the NAACP. "The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases," he added.

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. K&r but lots of threads abouut this on DU

[TheWraith]

2. As much as I feel for this woman, she was definitely in the wrong.

Firing a gun in the direction of someone, even if you don't mean to actually hit them, is the use of potentially deadly force, and deadly force is only legally authorized if you have a reasonable belief that you're at IMMINENT threat of death or severe bodily harm. Further, firing a warning shot is usually considered prima facie evidence that you DIDN'T feel your life was immediately in danger, or you would have fired at your attacker.

[jehop61]

6. I guess

you've never been faced with a larger, stronger person charging down on you. I love how folks always know what should have been done in a stressful situation. I think it's called "second guessing". Your thinking is akin to the prosecutor in this case. Now those kids get to be raised by an abusive, bully instead of their mother. Let's hope we don't next have a story on how this man killed one of his kids in a fit of rage. Nice Job Jacksonville!

[TheWraith]

7. Except that you're changing the definition of what happened.

We're not talking about someone charging you down with intent to murder. We're talking about discharging a deadly weapon in the direction of three people--two of them children--when no justifying threat was present. And again, the fact that she fired a warning shot is literally evidence against the premise that she was acting against an actual threat.

[Cave_Johnson]

9. From the CNN article...

Cross posted from a similar OP
_____________


Corey said she had offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life."

The law mandates increased penalties for some felonies, including aggravated assault, in which a gun is carried or used.
Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html

________________________________

Warning shots are never never never never never a good idea.

Shoot for center mass or don't shoot at all.

On a side note, I wonder if she had hollow points.

[EFerrari]

10. Yes, this is travesty and those kids will live with this the rest of their lives.

WTF is the matter with Florida? It needs a smudging.

[1monster]

18. Republican law makers who take sentencing decisions out of the hands of the judges and

make them mandatory. It happens in many states.

And not all of those law makers are republican either. Many are democrats. And there are many on this forum that support mandatory sentences.

It is not just Florida. Has everyone forgotten the California man who got life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza at a picnic... because he had two prior convictions?

The whole freaking country is suffering from laws like the one that just put the woman away for 20 years, and from prosecutors who don't give a single flying leap off a shallow curb about justice and fairness.

If you are outraged, don't just point fingers at others; do something to make a change for the better.

[EFerrari]

22. You are right. CA is fucked up beyond belief.

The prison guards lobby is one of the most powerful ones in the state and prison conditions here are inhumane. The WODs is a big racket and we're paying to be screwed as far as I can tell.

[harmonicon]

27. This has been my plan since 2000:

Florida should be cut off from the rest of the continent both at its borders and from the base attaching it to the continental shelf. Then, it could be put on edge and floated through the Panama canal. After this, it would be set adrift in the Pacific.

[EFerrari]

28. Maybe it will just sink under all the BFEE corruption.

Besides, we don't want to add to the garbage patch.

[1monster]

41. And is Michigan (your home state) any better? Consider its current dictator law which

allowed a single man to make the decision to sell the Pontiac stadium (that cost the city $55,000,000 to build to be sold for $500,000. And that same man is now in business with the person who bought it.

Every state in this country has very real and very BIG problems. It's time to stop pointing fingers at other states and to start problem solving instead.

[harmonicon]

44. Is it going for half a million now?

Last i heard was like 80 grand. That bastard should sell SELL SELL. Sports are for the bourgeoisie, they're not for us.

[me b zola]

33. i believe you are missing the larger point

This happened in Florida. Same state as Trevon Martin was killed and his killer was not even arrested (until there was intense national pressure) because of their 'stand your ground' law.

[Warpy]

3. It will never apply to wives

Even if he put her into an ICU and tracked her down when she tried to leave, she'll be put through a murder trial.

Can't have these uppity wimmen destabilizing the bedrock of the country--the family--can we?

On edit: self defense in domestic abuse is not the same as a bar fight between two drunken bruisers. The abused partner has to act before the abuser snaps completely or it might be too late. It's doubly bad when it's a smaller wife against a much larger male.

This woman did the right thing, the warning shots to snap him out of it. I think she was fully prepared to kill him to protect herself and her kids. She just didn't want to take a life unless she absolutely had to.

The sentence is ridiculous. It will likely be overturned on appeal.

[EFerrari]

4. Exactly.

Under the law, if she felt she was in imminent danger, that should have been enough. But, oops, she's a woman and a woman of color at that.

[TheWraith]

5. That's a false statement.

Under the law, if she felt she was in imminent danger, that should have been enough

This is completely wrong. One must have a reasonable belief of imminent death or severe bodily harm. Reasonable being defined as what any normal person would have thought in the same circumstances. Despite a lot of specious "reporting," there's nothing in the law about "feeling threatened."

[EFerrari]

8. What do you think "a reasonable fear of imminent peril" is, exactly?

LOL

No, it is not completely wrong, it's the law.

[Beaverhausen]

24. what the fuck is wrong with you?

He already beat her so badly that she ended up in the hospital. of course she is in danger with this man.

Do you know how many women are killed by men who they have a restraining order against?

[Darth_Kitten]

12. When people fight back, it's never in the most politically correct of ways..

Too bad for all the holier-than-thou people who've never had to deal with abuse or any of the fallout from it.
Remember, one has to deal with these situations in a calm, cool, and collected manner.

[frylock]

11. SYGWB

[EFerrari]

25. Yep. And that other detail,

women who report domestic violence are discounted by a mostly male police force.

[malaise]

13. Did she actually shoot the abuser?

This is madness

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. No. She missed. Her family said it was a "warning shot." If only they has been on the jury.

[exboyfil]

14. If I remember the case she had left his

presence, got the gun out of the garage, and came back. Obviously she could have escaped instead. I think 20 years is insane. Could she not have done better arguing that she believed that the children were in danger? That is the only reason to return to the situation without a cop.

Of course if you have a guy walk who chases after someone who steals your car radio, stabs and kils him because he swings the bag of radios at you, takes the radios and sells some of them, and goes home to sleep it off falls under "Stand Your Ground" then this case should be the same.

[EFerrari]

17. She went back for her keys.

I did the same thing minus gun on more than one occasion when my ex was in a violent psychotic episode, sometimes after days of trying to manage the situation. All I knew was he had my purse, my license, my wallet and my keys. That's what I was focused on. What that stupid? Maybe. But it's easy to say that now.

When you say, "obviously she could have escaped instead", you're talking from the rational viewpoint of someone who is not in that situation.

[exboyfil]

19. Agreed.

It is an awful situation. I grew up in an abusive home, and a woman's options can be so limited. I remember my mom taking me and trying to drive to my aunts but getting lost. My dad mocked her when she returned. In spite of his flaws he was still a good father, and I miss him terribly. Their marriage did work out in the end as she nursed him as he died of cancer.


I did not know she tried to return for her keys. That would be a good reason to return. It is her house as much as his. I guess I was giving the reason for the verdict.

[EFerrari]

23. The thing is, when you're in the zone

as a victim, your mind is not entirely available to you. There's too much adrenaline pumping to make good decisions, imo anyway.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Boy, that jury has a few screws loose. The man had put her in the hospital

previously, for fuck's sake. And had threatened to kill her.

What was she supposed to do, let him beat her to death?

[EFerrari]

20. For the geniuses who say she should have just left, an object lesson.

I once "just left", fled to work and then stayed with a friend while I figured out my next move.

While I was gone, he had my car towed out of my driveway.

He had my cat and dog picked up as strays.

He disappeared the contents of my little jewelry box. Goodbye class ring and all that.

He went through the house and systematically destroyed everything that I cared about. Slashed a newly covered chair, smashed my violin, burned my OED in the fireplace. Smashed my dining room table in two and of course, my laptop. He took a hammer to my desktop.

Of course, he emptied my bank account because he had my wallet and my bankcard.

That's what can happen when you "just leave". It was lucky that neither animal was put down, I found the cat just in time as it was.

There's more to all of this but my point is, it's never that simple when you're dealing with an abuser.

[Tumbulu]

47. Oh my God!!!!!

What a nightmare! Did this man ever have to pay for any of these damages?

I am so very sorry that you suffered like this.

[Darth_Kitten]

31. Well, she shouldn't have had a gun, she's not some good ole boy!

n/t

[Taitertots]

52. Call the police, don't get a gun after you are no longer in danger and initiate a confrontation

What is she supposed to do when she has left and is no longer in danger? Why do you think returning with a gun is an acceptable response instead of calling the police?

[DLevine]

53. She was trying to escape. The garage she fled to was attached to the house.

From the article: "On Aug. 1, 2010, a fight between Alexander and her husband, Rico Gray, 36, left her cornered in the couple's home. She fled into the garage to escape but was trapped behind a jammed door, she stated in court documents. She said she grabbed the gun she kept in the garage, returned to the house and, when Gray threatened to kill her, fired a single shot to ward him off". She also had a restraining order against him.

[coalition_unwilling]

58. I'm just putting the poster of post #52 on Ignore. But thank

you for issuing the specific refutation.

[Swede]

21. Totally ridiculous sentence

She should have gotten no time behind bars.

[Deep13]

26. Based just on what I read here, I think she was legally right.

Remember, this is not about what she should have done after the first time the husband sent her to the hospital. It was about what to do to prevent the next, apparently imminent beating. The husband expressed a willingness to kill and even if he was unarmed, it would not be difficult for the average man to beat a woman to death with his hands.

[harmonicon]

29. My god, people are fucking crazy.

Shooting at people is not cool - EVER!! I'm glad this disgusting person is going to prison for a long time. This may prevent her from firing another "warning shot" which could kill someone, possibly one of her own children.

[Darth_Kitten]

30. Yeah, crazy that an abusive husband is scot free, huh?

That poor, poor guy.

[harmonicon]

32. It's ok to murder some people but not others, huh?

Funny. I didn't know that. If we follow that logic, it must be ok to abuse some people and not others too, right? There's so much I have to learn, especially when it comes to carrying around a gun with the intention of shooting someone with it.

[EFerrari]

36. The thing is, she wasn't carrying around a gun.

She did have one and went to retrieve it along with her keys when she was trying to leave.

I myself am glad I never bought a gun because there are a few times I definitely would have used it and regretted it later.

Her gun isn't really the issue. The issue is, she did her best to survive this situation and now, after hurting no one, she is facing 20 years.

[harmonicon]

37. And what would you say if her husband (boyfriend?) shot at her?

We can't get into her brain and determine what she meant to do with the gun when she picked it up. The fact remains, she fired a shot with it which could have killed someone. I cannot read her mind and glean intention. This went to trial, and a jury determined that she is a criminal and she is now being locked up - it seems rightly so - as she is a danger to society. I think that's great.

One of the most basic things drilled into my head as a child was "two wrongs don't make a right," and I still stand by it. If she was abused, that's terrible, but it doesn't excuse attempted murder. Just consider the act. I don't care who did it. I care that a person who would do such a thing is locked away from the public.

[EFerrari]

39. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And she didn't shoot at anyone. She shot up at the ceiling. So, pretending that she took at shot at anyone is wrong.

She didn't attempt to murder anyone.

She shouldn't be locked up and this will be thrown out.

[harmonicon]

40. We'll see.

I trust that the jurors know far more about this than any of us do from some article. Someone posted here that a plea bargain was offered, and the defendant didn't take it. That's not my fault. I'm on the side of the law here, but I'm also on the side of the reasoning that guns don't make bad situations better. Domestic violence is a very real and tragic problem, but bringing guns into the situation isn't likely to fix it. Anyone being abused it terrible, but it doesn't mean the abused is a good person. Terrible people who might shoot someone in cold blood can be abused just like anyone else can. This is exactly why we have a justice system, and I'm happy about that.

[Cave_Johnson]

56. She likely would have been better off if she had actually shot him...

Then SYG or Castle doctrine might have applied.

As it stands she fired a shot into an area with children in it.

[EFerrari]

57. There were children on the ceiling? nt

[Cave_Johnson]

60. The CNN article...

... states that one of the deciding factors in prosecuting the case was that the room that she fired into had children.

Also, this is America. Our homes are made of sheet rock and wood. Bullets go through that no problem, keep going and then gravity takes over.

No warning shots.Ever...

Either shoot for center mass and empty the magazine or don't shoot at all.

_____________________

Corey said she had offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life."

The law mandates increased penalties for some felonies, including aggravated assault, in which a gun is carried or used.
Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html

[EFerrari]

61. Yes, the prosecution's argument is ridiculous

as is the attempt to dictate backwards in time to a DV victim in crisis.

[Cave_Johnson]

63. I realize that DV is an emotional issue...

As some of your replies in this thread show.

Imagine if she had been outside in the street and fired into the air. A few pieces of wood and plaster don't do much to slow down a bullet. It is still pretty much the same thing.

Personally, I think she should have just shot the abusing SOB and things would have been great for everyone.

[Kaleva]

62. Apparently the defense couldn't provide any evidence to suggest she actually did fire into the ceili

ng

[Deep13]

34. Whether or not it is "cool" is really not the issue.

Shooting in self defense may not be "cool," whatever that means, but it is sometimes necessary. No one has a duty to be a victim and take a potentially fatal or disabling beating.

[harmonicon]

38. I don't know that it's ever necessary, though it may sometimes be legally excusable.

In this case it wasn't, and a criminal is going to prison. I'm happy about that.

[Deep13]

43. Well, I do not know any more about it than I read here...

...so I am curious why you think it was not justified. Is it because he had no weapon other than his hands?

[harmonicon]

45. Because, despite my never-ending nagging doubts...

I trust out justice system.

[JonLP24]

54. Prison is one thing

20 years is way too long for what happened here. Mandatory minimums are bullshit because they don't allow for considering of the circumstances. That is what bothers me most because I really don't know all the facts but if he did indeed threaten her she would have been better off using SYG if she did target and shoot him. Again, if she is guilty of the crime, the mandatory minimum is unjust because 1. abusive ex 2. she didn't kill or injure anyone 3. she has no prior criminal record. Judges certainly should have the descretion to hand out proper sentences but his hands were tied and said just that when handing it down. I'm positive it would have been a hell of a lot shorter. There are sex crimes against minors that don't even get 20 years. ridiculous.

11-year old daughter crying over this and made a plea for her mom. Sad that she will be 31 before she will see her mom as a free woman again.

[harmonicon]

64. I'm with you about mandatory/minimum sentences, but that's another topic.

I really don't want to speculate about this woman's life and history - that's not going to get us anywhere. I'm glad that we have a justice system, and I'm glad that it's taken someone who would use a gun off the street. I take that she was offered a plea bargain for a lesser crime and a lighter sentence and turned it down. The jury decided what she was guilty of, and I'd rather not second guess them.

[JonLP24]

66. I feel it is important

Vast majority of women in prison are victims are either physical or sexual abuse and she is another one to add to that total. In the context of proper sentencing her life & history is entirely appropriate.

Plea bargaining is another topic but here are some problems with it. One is it tempts not-guilty defendants to accept something lighter rather than risk facing a harsher punishment. I understand not second guessing but understand they can be unpredictable. I'll try not to say too much here but I begin trial myself soon and I was offered bargains that were lesser than the harsher penalty I'm currently facing because I refused. I was very tempted but I had big problems with the stop. (I was stopped & searched knocking on someone's door) I asked my lawyer about the stop and he said "it is a unique stop" but then went on to say "anyone that says they can get you off on an illegal search is blowing smoke up your ass. I've lost illegal search cases I thought I'd win and won illegal search cases I thought I'd lose." The point is with her not taking the bargain probably means that she felt she didn't do anything wrong and was willing to take that chance when the penalties are stacked to influence you to admit guilt

Anyways here is the problems with plea bargaining - http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Bar-Gill%20Paper%20with%20Cover_1.pdf

We do have a justice system but disproportionately affects blacks, something like 40% of black women make up the female prison population while they are around 10% of the US female population. Again, majority of women is prison are victims of physical and/or sexual abuse.

I'm sorry but it was the "happy" comment that had me go off on other topic stuff because I feel there is nothing to be happy about. Her 11-year-old daughter was crying, didn't understand how her ex who physically abused her is the one that is free and she is the one in prison. She certainly is going to experience trauma growing up without her mom w/ an obvious unfit parent if she grows up with the ex or goes through other guardians. Her mom will spend 20-years in prison when she dealt w/ an abuser who was violating a restraining order best way she knew how (perhaps wrongly but I'd rather not second guess a victim of physical abuse dealing with the abuser) and if she probably will come out a hardened criminal w/ a lack of resources and opportunities and a community unprepared to help her. Kids going to grow up without their mom and a mom that won't have any meaningful time with them for 20 years. It is way too tragic all the way around for an incident where no one got hurt.

[harmonicon]

70. "happy" may have been the wrong word.

Domestic violence is terrible, but more violence isn't the answer to it. Sure, maybe no one got hurt this time, but what about next time? What if she fired and accidentally hit her daughter? What if she'd killed the kid's dad? We don't know these people personally. Just because this woman was abused doesn't mean that she was a good person.

Maybe I should just say this and leave it at that: I really, really, really don't like guns, and I especially don't like people who think they can use guns to solve their problems.

[Tumbulu]

48. No she should have killed him

and I mean it- then she would have been standing her ground. There was a restraining order against him and he broke it. These monsters should be shot and killed- it is called self defense. That she was kind enough not to kill him, well then that was her choice. But she should never have been arrested and not ever sent to prison. She had a newborn baby at the time, no less.

It is an outrage that our society allows these men to terrify and attack women again and again.

[harmonicon]

49. Advocating murder? That's up to you, I guess. (nt)

[Tumbulu]

69. self defense is not murder

he was going to murder her. And had already nearly done so. Get a grip.

[Taitertots]

51. Then she would be going to prison for murder

You don't get to murder anyone who commits a crime against you. That is not self defense, it is vigilante justice and has no place in a civilized society.

[Tumbulu]

68. Did you read the article? He broke into her house to beat her up and threatened to kill her

She had a restraining order- what do you mean? if that is not self defense, what is? I believe that anyone has the right to defend themselves against aggression. He chose to break into her house despite a restraining order.

She would be free for standing her ground.

But oit is easy to say- "she should have shot him" but to do that- not many people can just shoot someone. She did the best thing that she could and society should be thanking her and protecting her, not sending her to jail. The aggressor should be in jail a long time and he should be very grateful that she spared his life.

[Kaleva]

71. You might want to read this.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

Apparently she hadn't lived at the home for months and let herself in when the man and kids weren't there.

The circumstances of the second incident, where she was out on bail and ignored her no contact order with the man, went to his house and had an second altercation with the man who called 911 to report her assault on him. According to the report, the kids present confirmed the man's story about what happened.

[Tumbulu]

72. Did he threaten to kill her? Yes.

How much time had he served for beating her up before? A few days- or weeks? Don't you know 15,000 women who have been attacked by men and the police just ignored it? It goes on an on and I am fed up with it.

Who knows the dynamics- perhaps she needed something for the new baby, she had just given birth.

He threatened her, he had almost killed her before. I still think that she had every right to defend herself. Especially since society does virtually nothing to men when they assault women. The second incident- sounds as though she is furious with this guy. Why didn't he call the police to protect himself if he is so pure- he admits to beating up every one of his girlfriends in other articles. This kind of a guy should be in jail for life. Since he has been allowed to roam free being a serial attacker he is at risk of being killed in self defense. He could always stop beating women up, I suppose.

[Kaleva]

73. did you read the part where they supposedly worked together on what he was to say...

in his deposition? This was done while she was out on bail, while the no contact order was in force (she couldn't have been all that afraid of him if they were getting together after the first incident) and before she finally attacked him and she was arrested again and her bail revoked.

While the man himself isn't someone one ought to try and defend, I don't think the woman is either.

[Trillo]

35. I'm amazed at the General similarity of this to the gay kid

expelled for firing a stun gun in the air when accosted by 6 bullies.

While there are also obvious differences, We certainly seem to have a problem with further victimizing those who are already victims.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

42. this is so WRONG and makes me SO ANGRY

I....I just can't say anything more

[Tumbulu]

46. I'm with you! (nt)

[Taitertots]

50. Her actions violated the law...

Her only defense is ignorance of the law and accusations of racism. The law doesn't cover people who retreat, get a gun, and return to initiate a confrontation.

I'm wondering why the husband who has admitted to committing domestic violence is also not being imprisoned. He came out in open court and admitted to attacking her and threatening her. Why isn't he in jail too?

[Life Long Dem]

55. A history of physical abuse.

But what made her feel threatened in the last incident with her husband?

That's what the jury may have needed to go on. Not what happen in years past. With the 20 years there are 3 counts of the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On top of that there was no plea bargain.

I don't see in the story why she felt threatened "at the moment", only about feeling threatened because of a history of physical abuse.

[Kaleva]

59. Firing the gun in the general direction of where the children were is what probably got her.

"Corey disputes the so-called warning shot into the ceiling with photographs that show bullet holes much lower, going through a kitchen wall and into the living room where Corey said Gray and his boys were."

Unable to use the SYG law in her defense, not accepting a three year plea bargain deal from the PA, she was found guilty by the jury and was sentenced by Florida's very tough 10-20 law.

"anyone who pulls a gun during a crime receives a mandatory 10-year sentence. Firing a gun during the commission of a crime equals a mandatory 20-year sentence. "

[tammywammy]

65. Also she violated the no-contact order.

I found the state's motion in opposition to immunity an interesting read:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

[Kaleva]

67. So while out on bail, she violated the no contact ordered and attacked the guy.

and prior to the day she attacked him, the two discussed what he was to say at his disposition so that she wouldn''t be prosecuted.

So while I think the 20 sentence is harsh, I don't think the woman deserves much sympathy.