FL: Marissa Alexander's sentence could triple in 'warning-shot' case...60 years?!

[babylonsister]

Marissa Alexander's sentence could triple in 'warning-shot' case
Already a figure of sympathy over 20 years in first trial, she faces 60 years in retrial
Posted: March 1, 2014 - 6:23pm | Updated: March 2, 2014 - 10:40am

By Larry Hannan


A Jacksonville woman whose case generated outrage when she was sentenced to 20 years in prison may end up behind bars for 60 years for the same crime.

The Office of State Attorney Angela Corey will seek to put Marissa Alexander in prison for 60 years, essentially a life sentence, if it succeeds in convicting her for a second time for firing a shot in the direction of her estranged husband and two of his children. Her trial is scheduled to begin on July 28.

Alexander, 33, was previously convicted in 2012 of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 20 years in prison by Circuit Judge James Daniel under the state’s 10-20-life law. Daniel actually imposed three separate 20-year sentences on Alexander but ordered that they be served concurrently, which meant Alexander would get out in 20 years.

The conviction was thrown out after the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee ruled that Daniel made a mistake in shifting the burden to Alexander to prove she was acting in self-defense. During jury instructions, Daniel said she must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was battered by her husband.


more...

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-03-01/story/marissa-alexander-sentence-could-triple-warning-shot-case

[RC]

1. From what I remember about this, these sentences are way excessive.

Maybe if she were a rich white woman, maybe then they could put the husband in prison for making her fire the warning shot at him. Makes as much sense.

[pnwmom]

2. If she were a man, she could shoot him in the yard and claim self-defense. n/t

[RC]

3. Yeah, even if his back were turned.

[Igel]

4. Mandatory, if convicted.

Don't know about the consecutive versus concurrent business.

She should have taken the plea bargain the first time around. Would have been better for everybody--herself, her family, and public opinion.

The rich white woman would still have trouble explaining how she wound up in her husband's kitchen when she had a restraining order against him, left the kitchen, couldn't get out of the garage that she had no right to have parked in, and returned with a firearm instead of escaping out another door or pulling the emergency release.

Or why she fired a gun in the general direction of her kids and husband not to hit but to warn, only to be fortunate enough for it to richochet in a safe direction--although I guess the stereotype of rich white women being so stupid as to not know or care about the law would apply here.

[NaturalHigh]

6. I think a lot of people are unaware...

or intentionally ignore the fact that she was in her husbands house, left, and came back. It's not like he was kicking down her front door. If she had a restraining order, she should have stayed away.

Yes, she should have taken the three-year deal.

[rocktivity]

7. The consecutive vs concurrent business (click the pic):

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2018, 09:01 PM - Edit history (5)

(link)

Though Florida prosecutors have the power to waive the mandatory minimums, Florida law makes it mandatory that multiple sentences run consecutively if a gun is involved. (Michael Dunn got sixty years for attempted murder because there were three people the car who were not hit by his bullets).

It's not the prosecutor's fault that the judge's instructions were ruled to have been incorrect. Has she decided to go for 60 years because it "worked" with Dunn, or purely out of spite?


rocktivity

[hack89]

14. That is the problem with minimum mandatory sentences for gun crimes

It leaves no room for nuance, flexibility or common sense.

People here scream that the gun laws are not tough enough, yet here we see what happens when they are made really tough.

[hack89]

5. She was offered a three year plea deal by Corey before her first trial

She should have taken it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. why? that is bullshit doing prison time for shooting a warning shot

the fucking state of Florida justice system is racist. pretty fucking obvious.

[hack89]

9. She goes to his house. She leaves the bedroom. Walks past the front door

Goes into the garage to get her gun. She leaves the safety of the garage to confront him. She shoots at his head and barely misses. Her kids are standing next to him.

You really think this is self defense?

[Lost_Count]

10. If I shoot at you and miss is that a warning shot?

Should a shot that is "just meant to scare" a man and children be allowed?

How do you think the woman is in the right other than her skin color?

[rocktivity]

11. Because of the restraining order, that's why.

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:56 PM - Edit history (3)

She had been living with her mother, and the baby was still in the hospital. She had no business being at that house without a police escort. Also, we only have her word for it that it was a warning shot -- maybe the jury decided that she had actually fired at him and missed.

On Edit: For the plea deal, it looks like prosecutor used her power to waive the mandatory minimum on the aggravated assault charge, reducing it from 3 years to one. The judge had no power to run the sentences concurrently -- they had to be run consecutively because a gun was used. Her twenty-year sentence consisted of 6-2/3 years for each victim.


rocktivity

[Logical]

13. Have you even fucking read the story? n-t

[Logical]

12. If the husband fired the shot many here would want him locked up. n-t

[B Calm]

15. Another story about Florida. Did you see yesterday where a woman drove her mini van

into the Atlantic Ocean trying to drown her kids?