"Stand Your Ground" in Florida: How It *REALLY* Works

[Econoline]

‘I got five baby mammas, and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one,” Rico Gray confessed during a November 2010 deposition. “The way I was with women . . . they had to walk on eggshells around me.” He recalled punching women in the face, shoving them, choking them and tossing them out the door.

Yet somehow, after one of those women fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her Jacksonville, Fla., home to scare him away during yet another violent outburst, prosecutors managed to convince a jury that Gray was the victim. As a result, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, faces 20 years in prison for standing her ground against an abusive husband.

(Read more here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews ... years.html)

[dales]

On March 16, after deliberating for 12 minutes, a jury convicted Alexander on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Although she injured no one, she faces a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence unless she can win a new trial.

Took 'em that long. /sarcasm

This whole thing stinks, glad I don't live in Florida.

[Econoline]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture a guess that Ms Alexander is African-American.

[Lord Jim]

I'll go out on that same limb and guess that Mr. Gray is as well....("baby mommas" I believe is "ghetto slang")

[Econoline]

Well, yeah...but the relevant fact is that SHE'S the one arrested, charged--and convicted. Unlike the shooter in, you know, that other Florida incident....

Oh, lookee:

The bad new is, I was right; the REALLY bad news is, her motions for a retrial were denied.






(Gee, who'da thunk it...different complexion, different legal opinion?)

[Lord Jim]

Well my point is, I don't see how the conviction could be racially motivated if the other party was also black....

I have not really looked into this story (I haven't even had time to follow the link.) but on the face of it it sounds like she had a really crappy lawyer....

[BoSoxGal]

I am not at all surprised by this. It's an issue with self defense employed by battered women everywhere, not just Florida. You should do a little research, Econoline, into the disparate sentencing between men & women who kill & claim self defense. Actually, the stats I've seen in the past indicate that men who kill in 'the heat of passion' (caught her in bed with another dude) are typically sentenced far lighter, if convicted, than women who kill the abusive BF/husband after years of abuse.

This isn't a complexion issue, it's a gender issue.


We've come a long way, baby.

[dgs49]

This is not a case of "stand your ground." She did not claim that she was in imminent danger of being harmed by him.

Honestly, she would have been much, much better off if she had just shot & killed the bastard, then spoken to a lawyer before answering any questions from the police.

Ironic, ain't it?

[Scooter]

This is not a case of "stand your ground." She did not claim that she was in imminent danger of being harmed by him.

Huh?

So when a fight started in their master bedroom, Alexander told police she feared for her life.

Whether it was true or not is another question, but she clearly did claim it.

[Long Run]

That the jury took 12 minutes should raise a few common sense tingles that the article is not telling the story that the jury heard. But a full recounting of the story would require actual reporting and an intent to be as accurate as possible rather than to create a story slant that will sell.

[Econoline]

I am not at all surprised by this. It's an issue with self defense employed by battered women everywhere, not just Florida. You should do a little research, Econoline, into the disparate sentencing between men & women who kill & claim self defense. Actually, the stats I've seen in the past indicate that men who kill in 'the heat of passion' (caught her in bed with another dude) are typically sentenced far lighter, if convicted, than women who kill the abusive BF/husband after years of abuse.

This isn't a complexion issue, it's a gender issue.

Well, yeah, probably...though in this case I think it might be a bit of both--with maybe a bit of a class issue thrown in. (I think maybe that under the same circumstances an attractive, middle-class, white ex-wife might've have gotten a different verdict?)

This is not a case of "stand your ground." She did not claim that she was in imminent danger of being harmed by him.

From the article I linked to:

Marissa Alexander was convicted on three counts of aggravated assault after firing a warning shot at her ex-husband inside their home in August 2010.

At the time, Alexander had already taken out a protective order against her ex-husband earlier that year when he was arrested for physically abusing her.

So when a fight started in their master bedroom, Alexander told police she feared for her life. Motions filed by the State Attorney's office state Alexander was the aggressor, not her husband. However, her defense attorney argues Alexander's ex-husband said he was going to kill her.

Alexander's attorney, Kevin Cobbin, wanted a new trial based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law and said that it should have applied in this case.

Judge Daniel disagreed in making his ruling before a packed courtroom.

After the hearing, Cobbin said the Stand Your Ground law is not always applied fairly.*

"The law was made for people like Ms. Alexander. They did not make it for people running around on the streets shooting people. They made it for women in their homes trying to defend themselves against abusive mean men," said Cobbin.

Honestly, she would have been much, much better off if she had just shot & killed the bastard, then spoken to a lawyer before answering any questions from the police.

Ironic, ain't it?

Well, you're right on there. Dead men tell no tales. The guy apparently gave at least three (sworn) versions of the event--one of which agreed with Ms. Alexander's account. She'd've done much better if her version of the event was the only one available.


*This was my point in starting this thread.

[Lord Jim]

Well, yeah, probably...though in this case I think it might be a bit of both--with maybe a bit of a class issue thrown in

Well let's see...

Both parties are the same race....

Both parties are the same "class"....

The only difference is their gender.....

(I think maybe that under the same circumstances an attractive, middle-class, white ex-wife might've have gotten a different verdict?)

Well, you're certainly entitled to think that, but nothing you've presented suggests it to be the case....

(We also don't know anything about the make up of the jury....if there were African American women on the jury, that would seem to throw that theory into a cocked hat....)

the Stand Your Ground law is not always applied fairly.*

Okay, fair enough. But if by "fairly" you mean "uniformly" then I suppose that could be said of any law.....

*This was my point in starting this thread.

That's funny....

I got the distinct impression that the point was to claim something more than that...

That the "unfairness" in the application of the law arises from racial bias....

For which the evidence, (at least in terms of trying to use this case as an example) is pretty weak....

[Scooter]

Obviously there's no way of knowing on the facts presented whether racial bias played a role, but its influence can't be discounted simply because both defendant and "victim" were black. If it was a predominantly white jury that was predisposed to see blacks as less likely to be honest or more likely to engage in criminal acts, they might not have been inclined to believe her claims of self-defense.

[Lord Jim]

This is rather odd....

I cannot seem to find anything on the make up of the jury for this case....

I know that sometimes after controversial cases juror names have been withheld for a time, (like in the Casey Anthony case) but the basic make up of the jury; how many men, how many women, and the ethnic make up....

Is usually publicly known even while the trial is taking place....

But I can't find it any where....

It seems to me that given the fact that the verdict came back in twelve minutes, that unless this was an all white all male jury, Long Run has a very good point when he suggests there must be significant elements of the evidence that was presented to the jury that are missing from the press accounts.

[dgs49]

To review: The "stand your ground" law addresses situations when a potential victim is in imminent fear of serious harm.

This does not apply to situations where the other person has attacked you in the past, or he has expressed an intention to kill you, or is generally pissed off. It addresses situations where IN THE EXACT MOMENT, the person has a reasonable fear of immediate infliction of mortal injury.

This does not appear to be the case here. If the shooter had waited a few moments the situation may have deteriorated to the point where he was going to attack her, but as of the time when the shots were fired, he was just yelling and threatening. Indeed, his seeing her with the pistol probably had a "chilling" effect on his bad intentions at that moment.

According to this writeup, the stand-your-ground law did not apply to the specific moment when the shot was fired, and the jury was correct in its decision.