Court Overturns 20-Year Sentence for Woman Who Fired 'Warning Shots' at Husband

[Triana]

A Florida woman who claimed to be a victim of abuse yet was sentenced to 20 years behind bars for allegedly firing a warning shot during a dispute with her husband was granted a new trial Thursday.

The conviction of Alexander, who is black, sparked outrage and cries of a racial double standard in light of the exoneration of George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic, for the death of Trayvon Martin, who was black. In particular, outrage aired on social media and among some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Alexander unsuccessfully tried to invoke Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law as the same prosecutors who unsuccessfully worked to put Zimmerman behind bars told the court that she did not act in self-defense.
In granting the new trial, Judge James H. Daniel also seemed unmoved by the Stand Your Ground defense.

. . .

A Florida appellate court ruled today that jury instructions, which unfairly made Alexander prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was acting in self-defense, were wrong -- and that there were other incorrect instructions that self-defense only applied if the victim suffered an injury, which Gray had not.

THE REST:

http://gma.yahoo.com/court-overturns-20-sentence-woman-fired-warning-shots-221358241--abc-news-topstories.html

[madfloridian]

1. Good, about time.

Thanks for posting.

[NYC_SKP]

2. This is very good news.

That sentence was crazy.

[stopwastingmymoney]

3. It's great to hear some good news tonight

Thank you

[NotThisTime]

4. Fantastic news, thanks for posting, watching closely

[Cha]

5. Wow, so happy that her Injustice got overturned!

Thanks Triana!

[Tx4obama]

6. She has been granted a new trial. But she is still in prison. It's far from being over.

[pacalo]

10. Yes, I noticed the same quirk in the headline.

She should be walking away free, though. She doesn't belong in jail.

[Tx4obama]

13. A better headline in Comment #12

[ecstatic]

7. Good. I'm glad Florida's corrupt justice system

is slowly being exposed, thanks to bloggers, social media and some MSNBC hosts.

[Tigress DEM]

8. Yeah!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. Still not over. It goes back to circuit court.

[freshwest]

11. Good start. Let's hope she doesn't get a biased judge like Z.

[Tx4obama]

12. Marissa Alexander, Woman Sentenced To 20 Years For Firing Warning Shot, Gets New Trial

Marissa Alexander, Woman Sentenced To 20 Years For Firing Warning Shot, Gets New Trial

Article posted in DU LBN Thursday, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014603756

A much better headline

[pacalo]

14. Much, much better.

[davidn3600]

15. Important to note...

It's a new trial. And I think the way the law is written is that only the prosecution can waive the 10-20-life law. Which means if a jury finds her guilty again, the judge will be forced into the 20-year sentence yet again.

That's the problem with mandatory minimums. Everyone wants to be tough on crime and take judges out of the equation.

[hack89]

19. The prosecution offered her a plea deal the first time, which she turned down.

perhaps she will think harder about it this time.

[tsuki]

21. That's what the Florida criminal justice system wants, effortless

felony convictions with loss of all civil rights and no appeal.

[hack89]

22. She screwed up - warning shots are illegal and considered a felony in most states.

Toss in the fact she left the scene of the confrontation, got her gun, and went back in to confront her ex husband and you have a legal mess on your hands.

She should not have been given a concealed carry permit - it is clear she did not understand the law. She was irresponsible in her handling of the gun.

[noiretextatique]

25. he is an abusive asshole

I hope her attorney understands battered women better than you and the prosecutors. There no fucking way on this woman deserves 20 years when a murderer walks away free.

[LanternWaste]

28. Abusive spouses often prevent individuals from taking the more studious, academic, rational, planned

"She screwed up..."

Abusive and violent spouses often prevent individuals from taking the more studious, academic, rational, planned, notated and well-thought out route to safety.

[Niceguy1]

30. and she wasn't supposed

To be at his house in the first place. Whe one actually sees the facts it is hard to have sympathy for her.

[msanthrope]

32. After reading up on this case, I have to say if she is offered the same plea, she should take it and

run.

[Blue_Tires]

39. But we know if she were white, she wouldn't have gotten 20 years, either...

[tammywammy]

40. She got 20 years due to mandatory sentencing laws.

Are you saying that if she were white the judge would have disregarded the mandatory sentencing?

[Blue_Tires]

44. I'm saying if she were white she wouldn't have been found guilty

or given the proverbial slap on the wrist...

[hack89]

41. Do you understand what the "mandatory" in minimum mandatory sentences means?

the judge had no discretion. It is cookbook justice. X crime = Y years. Just how could the judge give a white person fewer years without breaking the law himself?

If the state was so hell bent on putting her away for 20 years, why did they offer a plea deal for 3 years?

[Blue_Tires]

42. If everything is so cut-and-dried, why is she getting a new trial??

[tammywammy]

43. It's in the OP, she's getting a new trial due to the jury instructions. n/t

[hack89]

45. Because of improper jury instructions by the judge

has nothing to do with the charges or the sentence. If she is found guilty again she will receive the same sentence.

[Blue_Tires]

47. She shouldn't even be guilty...

Since recent court rulings have given SO much leeway and benefit of the doubt in shooting incidents...

By the way, since debating the legal aspects of questionable shooting cases is a passion of yours, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these two:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022928319
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014502490

[hack89]

48. The jury saw it different.

her "I have something for your ass" comment plus physical evidence she shot in the direction of the kids was apparently enough for the jury.

Those two verdicts were pretty fucked up.

[Blue_Tires]

49. Ah, yes...The jury usually sees it "different" with non-white defendants...

That track record has established for a long time now...

[hack89]

50. She was the anomaly - in general Florida juries favor the shooter regardless of race.

Also in Florida SYG cases whites have a much higher conviction rate than blacks.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

[Comrade Grumpy]

65. Yes, the "mandatory" means all discretion lies with the prosecutor, not the judge.

I don't think that's a good thing.

I think a case can be made that if she were a white woman, she would not have been charged as harshly.

[hack89]

71. I think it was the presence of the kids that drove the charges

if she hadn't endangered their lives, I think the charges would have been less severe. Don't forget she faced multiple aggravated assault charges, not just one.

[tammywammy]

72. Part of the reason the prosecution wanted her to serve some time was due to Marissa's assault

Marissa Alexander pled no contest eventually, but she lost her bail due to her assault on the man.

The prosecution wanted her to serve 3 years, not 20.

[d_b]

51. Correct

Nothing would have happened to her at all; perhaps her old man would've been tossed in jail, that's about it.

[tsuki]

53. What has that got to do with a plea deal? nt

[hack89]

55. Sorry - misread your post

every state wants plea deals - they can't afford to take every case to trial. There is a reason a huge percentage of case never go to trial.

[Gothmog]

16. This is good news

The conviction of this lady was wrong

[stevenleser]

17. K&R nt

[Kaleva]

18. Firing in the direction of the children is what got her in deep shit.

She claimed she fired into the ceiling but the police found no bullet holes in the ceiling but did find a bullet hole in the kitchen wall and a bullet fired from that gun lodged in the living room wall which was adjacent to the kitchen. The children were in the living room at the time of the incident.

It also didn't help her case that when she was out on parole awaiting trial, she violated the no contact order with her ex by going to his place and physically attacked him. She was arrested for that and her parole was revoked.

[tavernier]

23. She doesn't exactly sound like Carol Brady

Perhaps she shouldn't have access to guns.. Or knives... Or blunt objects...

[Kaleva]

24. This case was talked about in length before...

and I don't have much, if any, sympathy for her. She should have taken the 3 year plea bargain offered to her.

[Eleanors38]

35. She shouldn't have gotten 20, but she should get time...

Funny how folks' attitudes on guns get hot-wired for unusual results when Battered Wife Syndrom is untroduced, and the racial component circuit goes dead. Interesting debate.

[Kaleva]

46. Mineralman asked a question about the 13 who were recently shot in Chicago

Asked why that didn't get any where near the attention as the Navy Yard shooting did.

I don't think the woman here should have gotten 20 either. Florida law takes the sentencing out of the judge's hands and if she's found guilty again in a new trial, then she'll get sentenced 20 years in prison again.

[Decaffeinated]

20. Court overturns sentance for woman convicted of shooting at children...

Great story ...

[noiretextatique]

26. yep...too bad she wasn't a white hispanic

Wanna bee cop. She could have claimed she was afraid of them and killed them

[Decaffeinated]

31. It would be just as wrong...

[BainsBane]

33. Did you read the part where he threatened to kill her?

She claimed that he broke through a bathroom door that she had locked and grabbed her by the neck. She said she tried to push past him but he shoved her into the door, sparking a struggle that felt like an "eternity."
Afterwards, she claimed that she ran to the garage and tried to leave but was unable to open the garage door, so she retrieved a gun, which she legally owned.
Once inside, she claimed, her husband saw the gun and charged at her "in a rage" saying, "Bitch, I'll kill you." She said she raised the gun and fired a warning shot into the air because it was the "lesser of two evils."

But it's only a woman's life. Clearly it has no value.

[Decaffeinated]

36. She broke the restraining order... made contact.. then went out side.. got the gun..

... came back and fired in the direction of kids.

WTF else does she expect? Man, woman, black, white etc... etc.. it is still wrong.

[BainsBane]

57. This was in her own house

In her home. He beat her regularly. She was defending herself.

[Kaleva]

54. Her version of events doesn't make it true.

The police found nothing wrong with the garage door the woman claimed could not be opened. I'd have to go back and do some reading but from what I learned before, my opinion was that this woman was not someone worth supporting.

Firing the warning shot in the direction of the children and thus putting their lives at risk is what got her in trouble when the physical evidence (the garage door and such) didn't back up her version of events and thus didn't support her claim of self defense.

[BainsBane]

58. I'm going to believe her over a man who beats women

Frankly your take on these events is irrelevant. She was granted a new trail.

[Kaleva]

59. There's some weird stuff about that too

When out on parole before the trial started, she went to his place, in violation of a no contact order, attacked and beat him. One of the children was present and called 911. She was arrested and her parole was revoked.

Prior to that particular incident, the man did tell the police he had beat her in the past but later on retracted that. Claiming he had only said that in order to try and help her out.

I'm operating entirely on memory here but this is a mess.

[BainsBane]

61. Your memory sucks

You are really pissing me off. I really am not interested in seeing people defend batterers.

[Kaleva]

63. Here is a link to the arrest report

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/120355498/Alexander-Arrest-Report-Dec-2010

The 11 year old (at the time) son is listed as a witness.

[BainsBane]

68. Try this link

http://dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/#hom

She sought to keep herself from being one of them, something some people here thinks she had no right to do. So count me among the other evil women who dared to survive an abusive husband. I have no doubt many think the world would be far better off if women like Marisa Alexander and I were dead. Amazingly, we don't want to accommodate them.

[Kaleva]

104. She had no right to put the lives of children at risk.

Which is what she did when she fired the "warning shot".

[BainsBane]

105. from what I heard from the DA herself

the children were in the next room or apt. She didn't know they were there. Anyone who fires a gun at any point, even at a deer, potentially puts someone else's life in danger. They usually don't go to jail for it, however.

Moreover, people who actually shoot and kill children don't end up in jail because it's deemed an accident.

[Kaleva]

108. This is an example of why very few people should have guns or access to guns.

They don't verify what's down range. I live in an area where deer hunting is very popular and I don't go out in the woods or even the fields during that time as there are too many men and women out there who shoot first and verify their target later.

Edit: You may have seen some of my posts where I made the comment that I believe it's always better to retreat or flee and one should draw a gun only when there is no chance at all for escape and one's life or another person's life is in extreme danger.

People are too quick on the draw and this often leads to unintended tragedy.

[BainsBane]

111. I agree

but that is not what Florida law stipulates. SYG means she has no duty to retreat. The jury instruction was clearly illegal, hence the new trial.

[Kaleva]

114. The judge disallowed the SYG defense and the appeals court upheld that.

"According to a judge, Alexander was rejected immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law because, "There is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life.""

http://www.policymic.com/articles/54745/stand-your-ground-laws-apparently-don-t-apply-to-everyone

The appeals court said this on the matter of SYG:

"Despite ordering a retrial, Daniel said that the judge in Alexander's first hearing was right to block her from using the stand-your-ground law to defend her actions. "We reject her contention that the trial court erred in declining to grant her immunity from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground law," Daniel said. "But we remand for a new trial because the jury instructions on self-defense were erroneous.""

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2013/sep/26/florida-stand-your-ground-marissa-alexander

[BainsBane]

115. That doesn't matter

SYG has changed Florida self defense law. The jury instruction did not conform to the law.

SYG had two major implications: A SYG hearing, in which Alexander did not prevail.
The other is how it rewrites self defense law so that the shooter does not have the duty to retreat.

I don't like SYG, but if it is the law it must be upheld consistently.

The jury instruction, however, was even worse. The linked article says that the jurors were told that Alexander had to prove self defense beyond "a reasonable doubt." That is not the standard in any state in the union.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. You accuse others of having an incomplete grasp of the facts?

This post suggests a tenuous grasp on *reality*.

You posted the above after reading this.

Rico Gray Sr. moved to the living room where his
children were. Subsequently, the Defendant emerged
from the master bedroom and went into the garage where
her car was parked. The Defendant testified she was
trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage
door to open. (The Court notes that despite the
Defendant’s claim she was in fear for her life at that point
and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave
the house through the back or front doors which were
unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked
previously and there was no evidence presented to
support her claim.) The Defendant then retrieved her 1
firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. The
Defendant returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her
hand and pointed it in the direction of all three Victims.
Rico Gray Sr. put his hands in the air. The Defendant
shot at Rico Gray Sr., nearly missing his head.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

Ignorance on your part is no longer a reasonable assumption. She knew they were there because she could see them in her sights.

[BainsBane]

110. The difference is I'm not clamoring to convict someone

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 10:18 PM - Edit history (1)

You are the one outraged her conviction was overturned. That entire testimony is based on the batterer, who changed his story between the incident and the trial. Hardly a surprise you believe him.

I have said the new trial will determine the facts. You have said she should be convicted. You claim to know what happened, when you were not there and base your conclusion on perjured testimony. You continue to site documents from a trial now thrown out, based on evidence from a man who admits to repeatedly beating the mothers of his children. When someone changes their story, it puts his testimony into question. When a trial is invalidated, it means those documents count for nothing.

Moreover, your assumption that I read anything you post is flawed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Yet you're doing exactly that.

His first paragraph is absolutely accurate. While out on bail for shooting at him, she went to HIS house and beat him up. He called 911, the cops came and her bail was rescinded. She pleaded no contest, so she is therefore an actual (not alleged) domestic abuser.

[BainsBane]

67. What a bunch of garbage

He admitted to beating all of the women he had children with except one. He is on tape admitting it.

Now I really am not interested in discussing this or anything else with you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. She, on the other hand, has been convicted of it.

The prosecutor will probably offer her the same plea deal as last time. As a repeat offender, I suggest she takes it.

I'm not quite so selective about who deserves punishment for being a domestic batterer.

[BainsBane]

78. YOU suggest she take it

Because of your expert legal knowledge?

This is a self defense case, something some apparently think women have no right to do. Her crime was in not allowing an abusive man to kill her, clearly an unforgivable offense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. In that case

Please, oh please don't put me on ignore.

If not me, she should listen to her lawyer since mulligans do not get offered every day.

[BainsBane]

80. self defense

Look up the meaning in Florida law. Amazingly, it doesn't say a woman's life is so worthless she can't protect it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. That's true.

However, it does say that to claim self defense, you
a) must actually be defending yourself
b) must not leave the place of the argument, come back with a gun and shoot at the person and his children.

And please explain "warning shot" in the context of self defense. If you're in mortal peril, you don't fire a warning shot.

She's going back to jail, not just because she still has a domestic assault conviction she hasn't yet been punished for, and not just because witness tampering and perjury are frowned upon, but because there is no doubt that when she decided to return to the living room with her gun she had no reasonable immediate fear for her life.

She didn't shoot at him because she was afraid, she did it because she was pissed.

[BainsBane]

94. Which is the point of the hew trial

which you object to, in spite of a clearly illegal jury instruction.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. I want her to be convicted after a fair trial.

In general I don't like mandatory minimums and wish the judge had the discretion to apply a more appropriate sentence to the crimes of which she is guilty.

My guess is that she'll get a light sentence after a plea bargain.

[BainsBane]

98. As three battered women are killed in the US everyday

While a woman is beaten every 9 seconds. Meanwhile, the idea that they have the right to defend themselves is abhorrent.

Wanting her to be convicted after a "fair trial" means you want a trial that is anything but fair.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. Are you suggesting that to make the world fair, women shouldn't be convicted?

If you've lost the will to discuss the merits of this case, and want to argue that point instead, we can discuss that too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

Oops. It turns out that sentencing men to 63% longer sentences is already the accepted practice.

[BainsBane]

107. Jesus

You never stop whining about male privilege. Poor you.

What I'm suggesting is the trial will determine the facts, not you. The jury instruction was clearly illegal.

[tammywammy]

73. Yes, he admitted to it, but she was convicted of it as well.

She pled no contest to domestic battery of him. During that incident, she went to HIS house and when he said she couldn't spend the night she attacked him. And again in that instance just like the gun incident, HE called 911 on her.

Look neither one of these people are angels, but ignoring her actions isn't helping things either.

[BainsBane]

76. A trial is going to determine the facts

Not random people on the internet. She was granted a new trial because of an illegal jury instructions. Now some here seem to think she should not get that trial because. . . why, I'm not sure. It looks to me like it comes down to believing she should have been killed instead of defend herself because what you all are arguing is she had no right to protect her own life.

[tammywammy]

81. She pled no contest to domestic battery. That's not in dispute. n/t

[BainsBane]

83. So that means she should allow the man to kill her on a separate occasion

and she has no right to protect her life? That seems to be what you are arguing, since you have no interest in the nature of the appeal that overturned her conviction or the fact that this is a self defense case.

[tammywammy]

87. Please, keep putting words in my mouth.

I think her story has holes, since the police didn't have trouble openig the garage door. And the night before she had no problem opening the garage.

I think she shot and missed his head. And as soon as she returned into the house she became the aggressor. She didn't call 911, he did.

I think neither of these people are angels. I think both have been aggressive toward each other. I think since she shot and missed near his head while children were present she should serve time. I think if offered the 3 year deal, she should take it. And she should stay away from him. Her domestic battery offense was initiated when she went to his house.

[BainsBane]

92. Guess what?

You're not on the jury, and you're not the judge. Nor were you there. But that doesn't keep you from making allegations the DA's office never did, that she tried to kill him. The ballistics would have shown quite clearly whether the shot was a near miss, and the POS batterer would certainly have alleged attempted murder if he believed that is what she was doing.

You've invented a scenario that has no relation to the charges of evidence in the case. Whatever your issue is that prompts this sort of prejudice against an abused woman, resolve it elsewhere.

[tammywammy]

97. MY PREJUDICE?

Excuse me? I shouldn't feel the need to tell you this, but I'm not only an active donor (money straight out of my paycheck each week) but an active volunteer at the local women's shelter.

So you can take your assumption that I'm "prejudiced" against battered women and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

[BainsBane]

102. You have some reason for alleging that she tried to kill him

that is clearly not based on the evidence or charges.

If you read, I said you were prejudiced against "an abused woman," meaning Alexander. Clearly that is the case since you have invented from whole cloth an allegation that she deliberately attempted to kill the man. The prosecutors never made that claim.

[zappaman]

112. Your jury results

At Tue Oct 1, 2013, 07:12 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

MY PREJUDICE?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3762957

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"shove it where the sun doesn't shine" is a personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 1, 2013, 07:29 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yeah let's keep it civil
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No it's not; it's a colorful description.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No.."you are prejudiced" is a personal attack. "Shove it" is a retort. while it may be rude, it doesn't seem hide-worthy
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Actually, it looks like a pretty legitimate response to the personal attacks and misinterpretations of tammywammy's posts that are scattered throughout this subthread.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Her claim is easily debunked perjury.

She shot at him and the kids, the bullet narrowly missed his head, went through the kitchen wall (behind his head) and into the living room ceiling. Are all shots that miss "warning shots"?

Some people will obviously go to great lengths to defend, excuse and rationalize domestic assault.

And it wasn't her home... and you know it. She hadn't lived there for two months.

It took the previous jury 12 minutes to return a guilty verdict. Will justice be served if it takes the new jury 13 minutes to convict her this time?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

At that point, the Defendant went into the master
bathroom while Rico Gray Sr. looked through the phone.
While going through the phone, Rico Gray Sr. observed
texts from the Defendant to her ex-husband Lincoln
Alexander prompting Rico Gray Sr. to question whether
the newborn baby was his. At this point, Rico Gray Sr.
opened the bathroom door to confront the Defendant
regarding the texts. A verbal argument ensued between
the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr. For this reason, Rico
Gray Sr. stepped out of the bathroom and yelled for his
sons to put their shoes on because they were leaving.
Rico Gray Sr. returned to the bathroom and demanded
that the Defendant explain the texts and the verbal
argument continued. During the verbal argument Rico
Gray Sr. stood in the doorway to the bathroom and the
Defendant could not get around him. Either Rico Gray
Sr. moved from the doorway or the Defendant pushed
around him to exit the bathroom.
Rico Gray Sr. moved to the living room where his
children were. Subsequently, the Defendant emerged
from the master bedroom and went into the garage where
her car was parked. The Defendant testified she was
trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage
door to open. (The Court notes that despite the
Defendant’s claim she was in fear for her life at that point
and trying to get away from Rico Gray she did not leave
the house through the back or front doors which were
unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked
previously and there was no evidence presented to
support her claim.) The Defendant then retrieved her 1
firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. The
Defendant returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her
hand and pointed it in the direction of all three Victims.
Rico Gray Sr. put his hands in the air. The Defendant
shot at Rico Gray Sr., nearly missing his head. The
bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the
ceiling in the living room. The Victims fled the
residence and immediately called 911. The Defendant
stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911.
The Defendant was arrested on the date of the incident.
The Defendant posted bail prior to arraignment and was
ordered by the Court and signed a document through
Pretrial Services stating she was to have no contact with
the Victims in the instant case. However, the Defendant
continued to have contact with the Victims in this case,
more specifically with Rico Gray Sr. Prior to Rico Gray
Sr.’s deposition, the Defendant and Rico Gray Sr.
discussed what he should say at deposition.
Shortly after Rico Gray Sr.’s deposition, the Defendant
drove to Rico Gray Sr. ‘s new house where his two
children [] were staying (not the Defendant’s home).
While there, the Defendant physically attacked Rico
Gray Sr., causing injury to Rico Gray Sr.’s face. Again,
Rico Gray Sr. immediately called 911 after the incident
and the Defendant did not. The Defendant was arrested
on new charges and her bond was revoked.

[BainsBane]

62. Yes, Jeff

We know it's horrible that man didn't kill her. One more evil woman walking the planet.

[msanthrope]

70. I think inconsistency regarding domestic violence based on gender is pretty horrible.

Her actions were serious, violent, and life threatening.

[BainsBane]

74. 1) she was a victim of domestic violence

She was not the perpetrator. The man has admitted on tape to beating several women, including Alexander 2) the new trial is based on a an illegal jury instruction. Now if you believe self dense law should vary according to gender and race, take it with the Florida courts. Evidently the court did, since they required her to prove self defense beyond reasonable doubt, which is the legal standard in no state in this country, let alone SYG states.

Alexander's major crime here is living, something that many clearly think abused women have no right to do.

[msanthrope]

82. I've never heard of a 'victim' of violence who breaks a restraining order to assault the person

they are accused of shooting at.

There is no doubt in my mind that these two engaged in mutual combat. No doubt this guy is abusive. But if you leave a situation of danger...and return with a gun, you've upped to ante to a felony.

[BainsBane]

84. well you've settled it

The Florida court had no right to grant her a new trial because you've never "heard of something." Based on what? Your experience as an advocate for battered woman? A domestic abuse survivor?
Obviously not.

She was in her own home at the time. The abuser is a piece of shit scum with allies in the police force. He changed his story completely from the incident to the trial.


We don't need trials when people here feel entitled to judge, convict, and execute based on something they read in . .. let me guess, The Daily Mail.

I don't suppose you would actually address the nature of the appeal. How do you justify a jury instruction that clearly doesn't conform to the law? On what legal basis? You've "never heard" of something before?

[msanthrope]

85. Your hyperbole precludes substantive discussion, and the finding of facts indicates she did not live

there at the time of the shooting. I did not opine on the court's decision to grant her a new trial.

[BainsBane]

89. That is the point of this subthread

Objecting to granting her a new trial. Perhaps you could pay attention to the content of a discussion when you enter it.

Your version of substantive discussion leaves out everything that matters, principally the entire notion of Alexander's right to self defense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. I can't speak for anyone else on this subthread, but I don't object to the new trial.

The facts haven't changed. At worst, new jury instructions might cause them to deliberate for more than 12 minutes before reaching the same verdict.

[msanthrope]

91. But neither Jeff nor I object to the new trial. We just both think she'll be convicted again, and

rightly so.

[BainsBane]

95. Amazing. Who needs trials

when people with too much time on their hands already know everything.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. The difference between us is that the things I know are not demonstrably false.

To wit: firing "a warning shot into the ceiling"... of the adjacent room... via the wall behind the target's head.

You can't be against domestic violence and for its perpetrators. One of the two positions is a head-fake.

[BainsBane]

100. The DA never charged that kind of intent

She said the action was reckless, not deliberately homicidal. So the difference is you attribute malice simply because the defendant is female.

[BainsBane]

101. and you are defending a man who has admitted to beating multiple women

and you have not expressed the slightest concern for them. You consistently invade every thread on domestic violence to argue we don't have a right to talk about it. It's pretty obvious what your motives are. You make them clear each and every day.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. The reason for your personal vitriol is because neither the facts nor the law support you.

http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/395583_lawyers-rule-when-the-law-is-against-you-argue-the-facts.html

The Rule of Law:
When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, call the other lawyer names

[BainsBane]

113. You have ignored the law completely

In favor of arguing how evil the woman was. You have paid no attention to the jury instruction or the self defense issue, which is the heart of the case. You would convict her based on a past conviction, that probably isn't even admissible in court. And you continue to site evidence from the batterer's testimony, as though that isn't subject to dispute.

My so-called vitriol is an observation on your behavior, which anyone can confirm by looking through my journal for OPs on violence against women.

[Stargazer09]

27. GOOD!

It was a stupid conviction, especially in light of Zimmerman getting away with murder.

[NM_Birder]

34. Did I read it correctly, that she did not live at the residence anymore ?

[Jenoch]

37. Her sentence of 20 years did seem

a bit harsh, but the judge was following Florida law. I read a comment from a Florida legislator said the law was meant for someone using a gun in crimes such as robbing a liquor store or in a mugging. The woman in this case seems to have placed herself in that situation by going into her husband's home.

[TheKentuckian]

38. Good

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. YES!

[kelliekat44]

56. Some good news at last. nt

[LittleBlue]

66. Hope the prosecutors offer her the same deal.

With time served, a 3 year prison sentence is only one more year.

[City Lights]

75. This is excellent news!

Thanks, Triana!

[Uncle Joe]

77. Kicked and recommended, 20 years was a ridiculous sentence whether the jury had proper instructions

or not.

Thanks for the thread, Triana.

[gopiscrap]

86. Excellent

[valerief]

93. Wonderful. Now put Zimmerman behinds bars forever. nt