Marissa Alexander case - warning shot = 60 years

veinglory · Mar 3, 2014

elinor said:
I think that is what really bothers me about this case; regardless of self defense or not, trying to prosecute for a 60 year sentence is very disturbing given what little we really know of the case.

We know quite a lot about the case given that the trial records are online.

veinglory · Mar 3, 2014

Celia Cyanide said:
Then what is someone who killed someone by accident guilty of?

Something from nothing at all to negligent homicide.

Lyv · Mar 3, 2014

I'm not saying there is or isn't racial bias in Stand Your Ground, but I think it's more complex than just how many white people or black people have used it successfully in court. For one thing, police can decide on the spot whether to arrest someone based on Stand Your Ground. Might there be racial bias in that? Further in the process prosecutors can have their say. And the race of the victim should also be examined.

I'm Googling a bit, but am sick so I don't know how far I'll get.

robjvargas · Mar 3, 2014

As much as SYG is a controversial legal defense, it really does turn out that the facts in this case as presented at court don't make this case very relevant to the SYG issue. She tried to claim it. A judge rejected the claim, and a jury rapidly returned a guilty verdict.

She was sentenced to a 20 year term for each instance of firing a gun at people. Two of them children. And the judge ordered her to serve the sentence consecutively, instead of concurrently. She seems to have torpedoed her own case when she violated her bond to confront Mr Gray later. While I'm shocked by the sentencing, she seems to have done everything she could to show that she wants this man dead, and has no remorse for firing at the children.

This case is not a good vehicle for a discussion of SYG or its flaws.

nighttimer · Mar 3, 2014

SYG double standards

K.B. Parker said:
Let's be real fucking honest here, the reason Stand Your Ground doesn't apply to here is because she's black.

William Haskins said:
florida fatal 'stand your ground' cases as of 12/31/13:

accused white:
26 - convicted
42 - ruled as justified
9 - pending

accused black:
14 - convicted
25 - ruled as justified
6 - pending

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

raburrell said:
Interesting data, William - thank you.

Would be interesting to see the results broken down by jury makeup, socioeconomic factors, etc. (I think the data is there, but not really tabulated that way). It's certainly not a pure race-based thing IMO, but there may be some trends buried somewhere.

William Haskins said:
i'll have to find the article, but there was some parsing of the data that suggested blacks who "stood their ground" against whites were disproportionately convicted, but i can't speak to the statistical veracity.

i'm not suggesting for a moment that the american (much less, the floridian) justice system is color-blind, i was simply posting the high-level stats to counter the unnecessarily lazy and provocative "reason stand your ground doesn't apply to her is because she's black" crap.

I disagree. Stand Your Ground is a bad lawn and effectively a "Get Out of Jail" card if the shooter is White and the victim is Black.

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

Among the findings:

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.
• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.
• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.
• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back.In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.
• Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury.
• A comprehensive analysis of "stand your ground" decisions is all but impossible. When police and prosecutors decide not to press charges, they don't always keep records showing how they reached their decisions. And no one keeps track of how many "stand your ground" motions have been filed or their outcomes.

Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, describes "stand your ground" as a "malleable" law being stretched to new limits daily.

"It's arising now in the oddest of places,'' he said.

That's unlikely to change any time soon, according to prosecutors and defense attorneys, who say the number and types of cases are sure to rise.

"If you're a defense counsel, you'd be crazy not to use it in any case where it could apply,'' said Zachary Weaver, a West Palm Beach lawyer. "With the more publicity the law gets, the more individuals will get off.'

Tampa Bay Times

In the cases of George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn and Marissa Alexander, the prosecutor in all three was one Angela Corey, a witless and bumbling buffoon who has a history of overcharging in cases and then blowing them.

Donald Jones, a law professor at the University of Miami, said trials like Michael Dunn’s and George Zimmerman’s serve as barometers of where the community is on race relations, and the verdicts in both cases are troubling.

“These verdicts say that even when you have strikingly powerful evidence that jury will still hesitate to convict a white man who is accused of killing a black man,” Jones said.

“There is a presumption of guilt on young black men, and this verdict only makes sense based on race.”

Jones’ opinion was contradicted by Creshuna Miles, one of the jurors in the trial who is black. Miles, who favored convicting Dunn for second-degree murder, said race had nothing to do with the case or the verdict.

Jones said a lot of the blame rests with State Attorney Angela Corey, who personally prosecuted Dunn and served as the special prosecutor when George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder charges in the death of Trayvon Martin.

“It’s as if she doesn’t know how to prosecute a case like this,” Jones said.

Mark O’Mara, the attorney who represented George Zimmerman and served as a legal analyst for the Times-Union during the Dunn case, said Corey’s problem is that she overcharges.

Dunn should have been charged with second-degree murder, not first-degree, because this was not a premeditated murder, O’Mara said.

“Overcharging is a threat to the defendant,” he acknowledged. “You have that fear of being convicted, and it motivates you to take a lesser plea.”

But Corey’s tendency to do it backfired with Dunn because prosecutors spent a lot of their time trying to prove the killing was premeditated, and a lot of that time could have been better spent arguing for a lesser charge that was barely touched on, O’Mara said.

Corey whiffed on the Zimmerman and Dunn cases and is now attempting to regroup by throwing the book at Alexander with the threat of a 60-year sentence though nobody was harmed or killed in this shooting!

A Florida woman who won a retrial after being sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a “warning shot” in the direction of her violent husband has been told that her jail term could be tripled if she is convicted again.

Marissa Alexander could be sent to prison for a minimum of 60 years if she is found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault at her second trial in Jacksonville in July, after state prosecutors confirmed they would seek for the sentences to be served consecutively.

Activists from the Free Marissa Now advocacy group, which has campaigned for the release of Alexander, 33, and raised money for her legal costs, described the move as a “stunning abuse of power” by the state attorney, Angela Corey.

“When Marissa Alexander fired her warning shot to save her own life, she caused no injuries. Now she’s facing the very real possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison for that act of self-defence,” Sumayya Fire, a spokeswoman for the group, said in a statement.

“That should send a chill down the back of every person in this country who believes that women who are attacked have the right to defend themselves.”

Prosecutors said they were merely following directions from state authorities. An appeals court in Tallahassee ruled last year that when convicting a defendant of multiple counts of the same crime under the state’s “10-20-life” mandatory minimum sentencing rules on gun crime, judges must make the sentences consecutive.

“Absent a plea agreement, if convicted as charged, the law of the State of Florida fixes the sentence,” Richard Mantei, one of Corey’s assistant state attorneys, told the Florida Times-Union. “At this time, Ms Alexander has rejected all efforts by the State to resolve the case short of trial.”

Odd that Corey couldn't nail Zimmerman and Dunn's asses to the wall for killing two Black teens, but is going scorched earth on Alexander for firing a warning shot into a wall that traveled through the ceiling.

Oh wait. Were the ceiling tiles white?

I'd like someone to try and explain how giving a mother 60 years in jail for making the mistake of firing a shot into a wall instead of in the chest of the man threatening her is any sort of "justice."

I don't think anyone can make that case. It would just be amusing to see someone try to.

Arcadia Divine · Mar 3, 2014

nighttimer: You realize Zimmerman isn't 100% white right?

kuwisdelu · Mar 3, 2014

Arcadia Divine said:
nighttimer: You realize Zimmerman isn't 100% white right?

He's a white hispanic. That's white.

Arcadia Divine · Mar 3, 2014

I think an important lesson to take from this heated debate is to not let other people's actions control your emotions.

nighttimer · Mar 3, 2014

Arcadia Divine said:
nighttimer: You realize Zimmerman isn't 100% white right?

Right. Zimmerman self-identifies as a "White Hispanic."

You realized that, right?

Arcadia Divine said:
I think an important lesson to take from this heated debate is to not let other people's actions control your emotions.

Depending on what the actions are by other people there is a direct impact on how it controls your emotions.

A lot of folks believe George Zimmerman got away with murdering Trayvon Martin and Michael Dunn got away with murdering Jordan Davis while being convicted of failing to kill three other Black teens.

Being the father of a young man who could have been Trayvon or Jordan, you bet I'm extremely emotional about it and have no need for anybody telling me I shouldn't be.

Arcadia Divine · Mar 3, 2014

I should point out too that I'm not telling anyone they don't have the right to be angry. What I am saying if you are in a potential decision making position, including public speaking (such as a forum on the internet), then you should be clear minded. For example, people full of anger tend to make angry decisions or decisions they otherwise would never make when they are calm. If people find themselves getting this way it's usually recommended to take a breather and calm down before saying or doing anything.

PS: I'm not in any way pointing the finger at you nighttimer. I just feel this needs to be said so people don't say or do anything they might later regret.

K.B. Parker · Mar 3, 2014

William Haskins said:
i'll have to find the article, but there was some parsing of the data that suggested blacks who "stood their ground" against whites were disproportionately convicted, but i can't speak to the statistical veracity.

i'm not suggesting for a moment that the american (much less, the floridian) justice system is color-blind, i was simply posting the high-level stats to counter the unnecessarily lazy and provocative "reason stand your ground doesn't apply to her is because she's black" crap.

Lazy? Provocative? Give me a break. I don't even think it's refutable that the system works against black citizens.

robjvargas · Mar 3, 2014

K.B. Parker said:
Lazy? Provocative? Give me a break. I don't even think it's refutable that the system works against black citizens.

But that isn't what you said. You said it doesn't apply *to her* because she's black. That's far more difficult to assert in light of the evidence presented in court.

Cyia · Mar 3, 2014

nighttimer said:
In the cases of George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn and Marissa Alexander, the prosecutor in all three was one Angela Corey, a witless and bumbling buffoon who has a history of overcharging in cases and then blowing them.

This was something I read yesterday, but hadn't realized - namely that all three cases involve the same prosecutor. It's a startling detail for anyone who doesn't live close enough to realize that the same woman was/is involved in the major SYG proving grounds in recent news. And, IMO, speaks volumes about the law's major flaw, which is interpretive leeway.

Given the number of states with SYG laws, and the exceptionally tight grouping of these cases within one, small territory, it would seem that part of the issue could be cleared up with a new prosecutor. One who doesn't see SYG as a defense only against murder, but as a law meant to keep someone innocent from dying in the first place.

Myrealana · Mar 3, 2014

According to studies by the National Bureau of Economic Research, castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws account for an 8% net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters. However, they have no net effect on deterring attempted burglary, robbery or assault. They also account for between 28-33 additional white males killed each month.

SYG laws are also correlated with a higher rate of accidental gun injuries and emergency room visits.

Because, when you try to return to the wild west, you have wild west problems - shoot first, shoot second and after everybody's dead, try and find a justification or two.

He threw something at me.
I was losing the fight.
I saw something that might have been a gun.

Whatever will convince people you were the "victim."

William Haskins · Mar 3, 2014

K.B. Parker said:
Lazy? Provocative? Give me a break. I don't even think it's refutable that the system works against black citizens.

yes. further exemplified by this post.

K.B. Parker · Mar 3, 2014

robjvargas said:
But that isn't what you said. You said it doesn't apply *to her* because she's black. That's far more difficult to assert in light of the evidence presented in court.

Which is the same thing.

William Haskins said:
yes. further exemplified by this post.

What are we going by? Word count? Lazy capitalization? I made a statement, which you are allowed to agree or disagree with. I got the same point across as others in many less words. Thank my editor for that.

"I don't even think it's refutable that the system works against black citizens." If you think that's a provocative statement then I guess we have very different opinions on what provocative is. If truth is provocative, and that is the truth, then I'll wear the title without a fuss.

William Haskins · Mar 3, 2014

of course the system works against black citizens.

i suspect you're being deliberately obstinate. if so, go for it.

if not, it's probably not worth attempting to point out your gross generalizations and how they are counter-productive to remedying the very wrongs that have led you to such broadbrushing.

nighttimer · Mar 3, 2014

Arcadia Divine said:
I should point out too that I'm not telling anyone they don't have the right to be angry. What I am saying if you are in a potential decision making position, including public speaking (such as a forum on the internet), then you should be clear minded. For example, people full of anger tend to make angry decisions or decisions they otherwise would never make when they are calm. If people find themselves getting this way it's usually recommended to take a breather and calm down before saying or doing anything.

PS: I'm not in any way pointing the finger at you nighttimer. I just feel this needs to be said so people don't say or do anything they might later regret.

What exactly is it you fear someone is going to say or do in this particular forum on the internet, Arcadia Divine?

I don't believe you mean to come off as being condescending, but you seem to be suggesting a heated response to cases as egregious as the prosecution/persecution of Marissa Alexander is a greater threat to the social order than the incident that provoked it.

Personally, as a writer and a journalist, I strive to be both precise in the words I use and accurately employ the right words for the right situation. I don't say something is "sadly unfortunate" when it's really "grossly fucked up."

I don't make rash decisions fueled by the fiery passions of the moment, but allowing anger to be expressed instead of suppressed allows a healthy venting of emotions and as a writer it doesn't hurt the writing to write angry. Better to spew rage and resentment and invective on the printed page or illuminated screen that overturning cars and burning shit up.

There were dire predictions that if George Zimmerman walked free, mobs of angry Blacks would take to the streets lashing out at any White person unfortunate to cross their path. Didn't happen. That doesn't mean the anger wasn't present. It was. But that anger was channeled and directed in other ways that didn't involve the splitting of skulls.

Passivity frightens me in a way anger never does. Everything wrong doesn't become right by taking a breather and calming down. There are things worth being mad as hell about and vicious way the State of Florida is persecuting Marissa Alexander makes me extremely mad as hell and I don't apologize for it. I've had months to take a breather and calm down over how this woman is being screwed over and guess what? I'm still mad about it.

Properly channeled anger can be the tool that shakes the world to its foundations and anger in action over gross miscarriages of justice is as good a reason as any to raise some hell.

El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (Malcolm X) called it, “Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.”

Or if you prefer, Aristotle: “Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.”

Nothing I've said or written about Marissa Alexander, Jordan Davis or Trayvon Martin whether in calm reflection or raging anger isn't clear-minded and reasoned out. Others may consider otherwise, but I regret nothing.

kuwisdelu · Mar 3, 2014

Sometimes it's more difficult to be angry than to be indifferent. Sometimes we should strive to be angry.

Williebee · Mar 3, 2014

William Haskins said:
i'll have to find the article, but there was some parsing of the data that suggested blacks who "stood their ground" against whites were disproportionately convicted, but i can't speak to the statistical veracity.

i'm not suggesting for a moment that the american (much less, the floridian) justice system is color-blind, i was simply posting the high-level stats to counter the unnecessarily lazy and provocative "reason stand your ground doesn't apply to her is because she's black" crap.

Not for nothing but, the stats for fatal cases,from the Tampa Bay link:

accused white:
26 - convicted
42 - ruled as justified
9 - pending

accused black:
14 - convicted
25 - ruled as justified
6 - pending

don't reflect any significant difference.

It's like, 55% justified to 54% justified (that's with adding the pending into the overall total.)

It's possible that adding in the non-fatal cases throws that in the trash. It certainly doesn't reflect the 73% to 59% quoted in NT's post. But even then, a 14 point swing may be only a few people. Depends on the total number of cases.

That does NOT make it a good law, imo. But slinging numbers to try to validate flammable words is politics and salesmanship, not problem solving.

Myrealana · Mar 3, 2014

Williebee said:
Not for nothing but, the stats for fatal cases,from the Tampa Bay link:

accused white:
26 - convicted
42 - ruled as justified
9 - pending

accused black:
14 - convicted
25 - ruled as justified
6 - pending

don't reflect any significant difference.

It's like, 55% justified to 54% justified (that's with adding the pending into the overall total.)

It's possible that adding in the non-fatal cases throws that in the trash. It certainly doesn't reflect the 73% to 59% quoted in NT's post. But even then, a 14 point swing may be only a few people. Depends on the total number of cases.

On the other hand, if you look at the race of the victims using that same data:

White victims:
33 - convicted
41 - justified
7 - pending

Black victims:
9 - convicted
27 - justified
7 - pending

That shows the killer has been convicted in 41% of incidents involving a white victim, and only convicted in 21% of incidents involving a black victim.

Would you call that significant?

That's basically the same numbers quoted by Nighttimer:

Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

kuwisdelu · Mar 3, 2014

Myrealana said:
Would you call that significant?

Code:

> sessionInfo()
R version 3.0.2 (2013-09-25)
Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 (64-bit)

locale:
[1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8

attached base packages:
[1] stats     graphics  grDevices utils     datasets  methods   base
> x1 <- 9/43
> x2 <- 33/81
> n1 <- 43
> n2 <- 81
> x12 <- (9+33)/(43+81)
> z <- (x1 - x2)/(sqrt(x12*(1-x12))*sqrt(1/n1 + 1/n2))
> z
[1] -2.21846
> pnorm(z)
[1] 0.01326174

Yes.

Williebee · Mar 3, 2014

Myrealana said:
On the other hand, if you look at the race of the victims using that same data:

White victims:
33 - convicted
41 - justified
7 - pending

Black victims:
9 - convicted
27 - justified
7 - pending

That shows the killer has been convicted in 41% of incidents involving a white victim, and only convicted in 21% of incidents involving a black victim.

Would you call that significant?

That's basically the same numbers quoted by Nighttimer:

I might. It certainly looks it. But significant of what? It is also still incomplete. That's kind of my point. The numbers we're looking for might be waiting behind the comparison of white on black/black on black vs. white on white/black on white numbers.

And what that is significant of, imho, is larger than the fact that SYG is a crappy law.

RedRajah · Mar 4, 2014

Out of curiosity, is there anything breaking down the gender of accused/victims in SYG cases?

Myrealana · Mar 5, 2014

RedRajah said:
Out of curiosity, is there anything breaking down the gender of accused/victims in SYG cases?

It's not calculated for you, but you can get the information from the data given at that same link. Just too tedious for me to go through.

Marissa Alexander case - warning shot = 60 years

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

I meant to do that.

No Gods No Masters

Revolutionize the World

No Gods No Masters

I've lost my mind

Rewriting My Destiny

I aim to misbehave

poet

I've lost my mind

poet

No Gods No Masters

Revolutionize the World

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

I aim to misbehave

Revolutionize the World

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Special Snowflake? No. Hailstone

I aim to misbehave