• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Fla. woman who fired "warning-shot" could get 60 years

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obligatory:

Bugs%20Bunny%20Florida.gif
 
I am calling it the "Liberal" media because they are only telling you parts of the story that they want you to hear to suit their agenda and create controversy.

I think a better adjective for that is "American" or, perhaps, "Mass" media.
 
60 years is way too much and whoever decided that should be fired. However warning shots are full on retard and she should get punished for doing so just not for 60 fucking years.
 
I like how you gave liberal proper noun status. Like a guy I knew that always made sure to include Barack Obama's middle name when talking about him.

Here is another example of the Liberal media running with a story.

A man named Zimmerman shoots an unarmed teenager. Zimmerman? Holy crap, a white guy shot an unarmed teen and got away with it.

-> Front Page News. White kills Black.

Then it comes out that Zimmerman is Hispanic. The media is already in too deep, so they continue with the story anyways/ White Hispanic Kills Black.

It's all B.S. what the media feeds us. All they are out for is to create controversy/ They wanted some type of rioting retaliation to come from that so they could continue to beta the story into the ground.
 
YUP. Sounds like Florida to me!!

I don't care what state you're in, but if you run away from your attacker, get a gun, and then GO BACK and fire a shot at them - you're going to get charged. The original charge is not another example of Florida's ridiculousness, but the 60 year sentence is.
 
If you read the police report on this case, it paints a completely different picture than what the Liberal media is telling you.

Someone just seriously called our media liberal. :lol :lol :lol

Try to compare our media to other media outlets around the world and tell me ours is liberal. Stop using fox news buzzwords to spew your BS. Always the random junior who does this.

Anyways, standing your ground is not leaving, coming back with a gun and discharging it with children around. Had she done it at the time, no issue. But she left and came back. That's a different matter entirely. 60 years is absurd, but she did leave and come back.

People can't just ignore this for the sake of moral outrage.

Edit: mammoth brings up a good point. If she came back for the kids instead of simply to fire off a shot, that would be different. Coming back for the kids, feeling threatened and firing a warning shot would be a lot easier to defend than her just coming back with a gun after and firing a warning shot.
 
This is a trial by jury correct? If so that should instantly make it a "not guilty" verdict.

And even if the Jury finds her guilty, the judge gets to determine the sentence, correct? So long as he's reasonable he could give her probation and call it a day, right?
 
Yes. And then fired a shot towards her ex and her own children.

The only person saying this was a warning shot is the woman who fired the gun. The bullet went into the room behind her ex and kids, so she didn't shoot it up in the air.

Even shooting up in the air is stupid and reckless. what comes up must come down.
 
I am calling it the "Liberal" media because they are only telling you parts of the story that they want you to hear to suit their agenda and create controversy.

This is what media is today, with a few exceptions not yet to daylight on television. Mass media my friend.
 
Here is another example of the Liberal media running with a story.

A man named Zimmerman shoots an unarmed teenager. Zimmerman? Holy crap, a white guy shot an unarmed teen and got away with it.

-> Front Page News. White kills Black.

Then it comes out that Zimmerman is Hispanic. The media is already in too deep, so they continue with the story anyways/ White Hispanic Kills Black.

It's all B.S. what the media feeds us. All they are out for is to create controversy/ They wanted some type of rioting retaliation to come from that so they could continue to beta the story into the ground.
I'm a white Hispanic. Hispanic does not refer to a specific skin tone.
 
This is a trial by jury correct? If so that should instantly make it a "not guilty" verdict.

And even if the Jury finds her guilty, the judge gets to determine the sentence, correct? So long as he's reasonable he could give her probation and call it a day, right?

Mandatory minimum sentencing in this case, which are a bad idea because of situations like this.
 
Hold on everyone with their panties in a bunch.

I remember getting upset initially when I read this story last year. I read the actual police report and this was no warning shot. She shot at him with horrible aim with the intent to kill and also had plenty of time to leave the house. If I recall correctly she also shot at him while her kids were next to the husband.
 
Mandatory minimum sentencing in this case, which are a bad idea because of situations like this.

seriously?! thats F'd up.

Hold on everyone with their panties in a bunch.

I remember getting upset initially when I read this story last year. I read the actual police report and this was no warning shot. She shot at him with horrible aim with the intent to kill and also had plenty of time to leave the house. If I recall correctly she also shot at him while her kids were next to the husband.


Now if this is true, then it changes it all. But still, laws like these should not have minimum sentences, as they leave no room for judges to actually determine the severity of the crime and apply reasonable punishment for it.
 
And even if the Jury finds her guilty, the judge gets to determine the sentence, correct? So long as he's reasonable he could give her probation and call it a day, right?

Not when minimums are set by law. Florida sentencing has mandatory minimums when guns are involved.
 
Just to expand on the "she left and came back" comments. She never left the house and claims the garage she fled to was locked, not allowing her to escape that way.
 
I think a better adjective for that is "American" or, perhaps, "Mass" media.

The Liberal media source is the one who creates the initial controversial stories and the rest just run with it.

Like this knock-out game that was the flavor of the week. This has been going on for years all over and nothing was said. I had seen videos of this barbaric behavior since the mid 2000's when it was just called knockout or the one hitter quitter.

Then some Jewish people were attacked in New York and this "game" is all over the news and internet.

The media tried to sugar coat it, so they called it The Knock-out Game.
 
Maybe this is being intentionally done so the case gets thrown out?

No it's not. This is the same state attorney, Angela Corey, who tried to put her in jail for 30 years in the first place. It also happens to be the very same person responsible for the Zimmerman case and was all smiles in the press conference after she lost the case.

It's obvious that she has political ambitions and gives zero fuck for justice.
 
Now if this is true, then it changes it all. But still, laws like these should not have minimum sentences, as they leave no room for judges to actually determine the severity of the crime and apply reasonable punishment for it.
Found a summary of the court documents

FACTS OF THE ALEXANDER CASE

According to court documents, on July 31, 2010, Alexander left her newborn child in the hospital days after giving birth to visit the home of Rico Gray, her husband. Although Gray and Alexander had just been married in May of 2010, Alexander had not lived in Gray’s home for the two months prior to the shooting. When Alexander arrived at the home, Gray was not there. She parked her car in the garage, spent the night in the home, but did not see Gray until he returned home the next morning with his two sons.

When Gray returned, the family ate breakfast together without incident. The trouble began when Alexander gave her phone to Gray so he could see pictures of their newborn, who was still in the hospital. After giving the phone to Gray, Alexander went to use the bathroom in the home’s master bedroom. While looking at the pictures, Gray noticed text messages between Alexander and her ex-husband, Lincoln Alexander, which prompted Gray to confront Alexander about whether the baby was his or Lincoln Alexander’s.

An argument then ensued between Gray and Alexander, and Gray initially prevented Alexander from leaving the bathroom during the altercation. Alexander eventually managed to get around Gray to exit the bathroom.

Alexander’s actions following that moment are what differentiate her case from that of George Zimmerman.

After Alexander exited the bathroom and re-entered the master bedroom, Gray left the bedroom and headed to the living room where his sons were located. At that point, Alexander left the master bedroom, passing Gray, his two children, and the unobstructed front and back doors of the house on her way to the garage. Once in the garage, she retrieved a handgun from her vehicle’s glove box and then went back into the kitchen, where she “pointed it in the direction of all three [v]ictims.” Although Gray put his hands in the air, Alexander fired the gun, “nearly missing [Gray's] head” and sending a bullet “through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room.”

Gray and his sons fled the home and immediately called 911. Alexander stayed in the home and never called 911.

First, although she had ample opportunity to exercise non-lethal options when she claimed to believe her life was at risk — exiting through the front door, back door, or garage — Alexander chose to remain in the home. She later claimed that the garage door was broken, eliminating her ability to leave when she initially entered the garage, but officers found no evidence to suggest that it was not working.

Second, Alexander’s claim that she fired only a warning shot, as opposed to firing at Gray and merely missing, also rings somewhat hollow. Her claim that she fired a warning shot, instead of a shot at center mass to stop the aggressor’s attack, suggests that she did not believe that deadly force was actually necessary.

Third, the fact that Alexander never called the police after the incident also suggests that she did not reasonably fear for her life. A victim of a near fatal attack would almost certainly alert authorities so that they might apprehend the attacker.

Fourth, the fact that Alexander voluntarily returned to Gray’s home repeatedly after the incident — against explicit court orders which Alexander promised to obey — also suggests that she may not have actually feared for her life when she fired at Gray.

Fifth, and finally, Alexander’s behavior before and after her arrest in December of 2010 — while she was still awaiting trial for the previous incident — also calls into question whether she actually believed the use of deadly force was necessary to defend herself from Gray in August of 2010. Alexander never called police (in both the August and December encounters, it was Gray or his children who contacted the police) and initially lied about even being present at Gray’s home.

Given Alexander’s behavior and interactions with Gray in the months following her initial arrest, it is not difficult to see why both a judge and a jury may have been skeptical of her claim that the use of deadly force was reasonable and that no other options were available.
 
The very first line of this article says that she fired a gun in the direction of two children. That should instantly be life in prison. There should be no trial and the only problem with 60 years is that it might not be long enough.
 
Someone just seriously called our media liberal. :lol :lol :lol

Try to compare our media to other media outlets around the world and tell me ours is liberal. Stop using fox news buzzwords to spew your BS. Always the random junior who does this.

Not all of the media is Liberal, but when one only gives you certain colors to paint the picture with, you can't deny their shadiness.

It's amazing how people refuse to check into the entire story before jumping to conclusions.
 
I am calling it the "Liberal" media because they are only telling you parts of the story that they want you to hear to suit their agenda and create controversy.

The bottom line here is this:

A woman got into a dispute and then left that dispute and returned with a gun and fired a shot towards the person she had a dispute with.

I don't think this woman should do hard time because I would like to see her children raised properly, but facts are facts.

So your saying that the version you heard is true but the version we are hearing is fake because of liberal news. Guy Wtf!? That's his side of the story, not hers. And we've already picked the holes in his story over hers.
 
I am calling it the "Liberal" media because they are only telling you parts of the story that they want you to hear to suit their agenda and create controversy.

The bottom line here is this:

A woman got into a dispute and then left that dispute and returned with a gun and fired a shot towards the person she had a dispute with.

I don't think this woman should do hard time because I would like to see her children raised properly, but facts are facts.

Oh boy. Please tell us more about how the Liberal Media is lying to us to trump up unwarranted sympathy for the negroes.

edit: Thank you, enzom. This case is only still ongoing because she's black. Courts would've packed it up months ago if it was a white woman defending herself.
 
Warning shot get you more time than actual murder. Wut?

Read my post. This wasn't a warning shot. Also if memory serves me correct her sons testified against her.

Here's some more details

Self-defense claim

Alexander’s own actions were ultimately used against her self-defense claim. While she was out on bail, awaiting trial on her aggravated assault charges, Alexander was arrested for domestic battery against Gray. Although her bail contract specifically prohibited any contact between her and Gray, Alexander went to her husband’s house -- where she wasn’t living at the time -- and after an altercation, he ultimately called police.

When the police contacted Alexander about the incident, she first said she didn’t know what they were talking about, and she hadn’t been at the house, but later she stated that Gray attacked her because she wouldn’t stay with him overnight. Alexander never called police and later stated she was scared. According to police reports, Alexander had no injuries, but Gray had a bloody swollen eye and told police Alexander had punched him.

In Gray’s initial deposition to police, he said he would have hit Alexander if she had really tried to threaten him, in an effort to help her and get her potential sentence reduced. Alexander and Gray collaborated on that story while she awaited trial, but Gray later admitted that it wasn’t true and that she really did threaten him and did fire a shot at him.

In 2009, Alexander filed charges against Gray, claiming he tried to choke her, but she went to the Florida District Attorney’s Office and said that wasn’t really what happened and then all charges were dropped. According Richard Kuritz, attorney for Gray and his two children, Gray has never been convicted of any violent act toward Alexander. Kuritz said the only time Gray has been arrested for domestic violence was an incident involving his brother and those charges were also dropped.

The 'warning shot': Out of fear ... or anger?

Alexander stated she did not attempt to exit the house through any other door and said it was her right to stay and stand her ground in her own defense.

The problem with her defense was “she chose to come back in the house,” said Kuritz.

Alexander said when Gray threatened her, she felt her life was in danger, so she shot a “warning shot” in his direction, with his kids just around the wall behind him.

“A warning shot is when you shoot into the air, you shoot down on the ground, you don’t shoot straight at somebody 6 feet off the ground,” said Kuritz, in an interview with HLN’s Vinnie Politan on “HLN After Dark.” “[The shot] was at eye level with my client, right above his 12-year-old. When you have a 12-year-old child who testified to a jury that ‘I thought I was fixin’ to die,’ I’m sorry that is not a misdemeanor…When you shoot a gun that puts a 12-year-old child in fear for his life, that changes things and I think it was prosecuted appropriately.”

Considering Alexander’s actions leading up to firing the gun, on top of her decision to voluntarily contact Gray while awaiting trial, the judge rejected the use of “Stand Your Ground.”

Alexander would have had to prove there was a reasonable fear of severe bodily harm in order to prove the use of the “Stand Your Ground” law, however her actions may not have supported the idea that she had no other option than to shoot at Gray. Plus, legal experts have questioned why she would only fire a “warning shot” if she felt the use of deadly force was necessary. Alexander also never called police after the incident, which could have also been used against her claim that she feared for her life, especially when a judge considered that Alexander voluntarily continued to visit Gray’s home after she agreed to the no-contact restriction in her bail contract
 
"stand your ground is like bleach: it works wonders for whites but makes your colours run."

- daily show
 
The very first line of this article says that she fired a gun in the direction of two children. That should instantly be life in prison. There should be no trial and the only problem with 60 years is that it might not be long enough.
Don't agree with this. But I'm all for stringent gun penalties. What she did was FUCKED.
 
You assume the prosecution wanted to win the Zimmerman case.

Are you implying that they wanted to tarnish their careers forever in public national humiliation on purpose? Why would they want to possibly ruin their own lives forever, and what else could they have done?
 
Unfortunately this case has become a platform for commentary on institutional racism and bad laws, to the detriment of that discussion and that of the case itself. Unfortunate not because those things don't require discussion, but because they deserve thoughtful consideration outside the context of a case that itself demands the same. I feel like both subjects suffer when you tie them inexorably together.
 
She got in the car. How can one get in the car, but not be able to open the garage door?

Garage was connected to the house. She claims the garage door wouldn't open, so she grabbed her gun to escape through the only means she had available: the house. Feeling threatened, she fired toward but not hitting her S.O., in order to scare him and clear a path for her escape. Who knows?
 
She got in the car. How can one get in the car, but not be able to open the garage door?

Not only that but she passed several exits before heading to the car. If she feared for her life she had plenty of opportunities to run. He also didn't chase her around the house he was with the kids when she approached him with her gun. The police also found zero evidence the garage was broken.
 
Wasn't there a super thread of this case with all the police documents and everything in it? I'm on mobile so it's kind of difficult to find. All these other stories I'm hearing sound completely different than what some of those documents were saying.
 
The police reports/court documents really make the whole thing sound different than how the news likes to portray this.

It is different and everyone is ignoring the facts of the case to be outraged about racism.

Going out of the room, fetching a gun, coming back and discharging it in the direction of someone with kids around is not standing your ground.
 
It is different and everyone is ignoring the facts of the case to be outraged about racism.

Yeah, there's more to this case than the race of the accused:

This is one of those stories that becomes embedded in popular culture despite good reason to disbelieve it. Here's how the court described Marissa Alexander's conduct when ruling on her motion seeking immunity from prosecution, claiming to have acted in self-defense:
The Defendant had not been living in the marital home for the two months leading up to the shooting. On the evening of July 31, 2010, the Defendant drove herself to the marital home and parked in the garage, closing the garage door after parking her vehicle. The Defendant stayed the night in the marital home.

…

After breakfast, the Defendant went into the master bedroom. Before entering the bathroom, the Defendant handed her phone to [______] to show him pictures of their newborn baby [______], who was still in the hospital. At that point, the Defendant went into the master bathroom while [______] looked through the phone. While going through the phone, [______] observed texts from the Defendant to her ex-husband Lincoln Alexander prompting [______] to question whether the newborn baby was his. At this point, [______] opened the bathroom door to confront the Defendant regarding the texts. A verbal argument ensued between the Defendant and [______]. For this reason, [______] stepped out of the bathroom and yelled for his sons to put their shoes on because they were leaving. [______] returned to the bathroom and demanded that the Defendant explain the texts and the verbal argument continued. During the verbal argument, [______] stood in the doorway to the bathroom and the Defendant could not get around him. Either [______] moved from the doorway or the Defendant pushed around him to exit the bathroom.

[______] 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 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 [______] 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 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. [______] put his hands in the air. The Defendant shot at [______], 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 lesson here is clearly that you need to kill the person and just say they were pulling a weapon on your and you felt threatened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom