"Stand your ground" law in Florida is applied differently according to defendant's race/ethnicity.

[Flubber]

MRfun

While your assertion may be correct there is hardly any evidence for it here. Two data points with very different fact situations and one of them yet to be determined by the courts, is hardly conclusive of anything. A few thoughts

1. The biggest problem here seems to be the mandatory sentence-- If there was sentencing discretion the judge could say guilty but next to no punishment.

2. How does the Florida "stand your ground law" differ from common law or statutory rules that permit self defense?? -- I assume it strengthens it somehow by making flight less required somehow (hence the name)?

3. As others have said-- the fact that she could have the time and forethought to fire a warning shot instead of "needing" to fire at him IS, on its face, evidence that the threat to her was not imminent.

4. I read nothing into the Trayvon case until we have a decision. A delay in prosecution doesn't mean a whole lot as there could be multiple reasons for such a delay.

Bottom line-- Florida justice may be racially biased-- It is not uncommon for racial biases to exist. But the evidence here doesn't prove anything at all other than Florida has a definite legal bias against the concept of a "warning shot"-- Its better to shoot at someone and miss

[Flubber]

.[/q]

That's where she screwed up. Once you flee, you're no longer "standing your ground." Should people be allowed to run away from an ass kicking, and then come back with a gun and shoot their attacker? Maybe. But Florida law apparently says no.

That would be the law most places I suspect. Once you have escaped, call the police .

[rah]

Yeah, mandatory sentences are usually designed to make sure someone doesn't get off easy, but this one seems to be set a tad high. I think something considerably less would still be considered harsh for a threatening warning shot where the intent was not to harm anyone and no harm was the result.

[Felch]

MRfun

While your assertion may be correct there is hardly any evidence for it here. Two data points with very different fact situations and one of them yet to be determined by the courts, is hardly conclusive of anything. A few thoughts

1. The biggest problem here seems to be the mandatory sentence-- If there was sentencing discretion the judge could say guilty but next to no punishment.

2. How does the Florida "stand your ground law" differ from common law or statutory rules that permit self defense?? -- I assume it strengthens it somehow by making flight less required somehow (hence the name)?

3. As others have said-- the fact that she could have the time and forethought to fire a warning shot instead of "needing" to fire at him IS, on its face, evidence that the threat to her was not imminent.

4. I read nothing into the Trayvon case until we have a decision. A delay in prosecution doesn't mean a whole lot as there could be multiple reasons for such a delay.

Bottom line-- Florida justice may be racially biased-- It is not uncommon for racial biases to exist. But the evidence here doesn't prove anything at all other than Florida has a definite legal bias against the concept of a "warning shot"-- Its better to shoot at someone and miss

1, 3, & 4. You're absolutely right about that.

2. Stand your ground extends traditional common law self defense rights (castle doctrine) beyond the home. Since this was in her home, it's irrelevant.

[DaShi]

Based on two data points? Impressive.

How ironic.

[Berzerker]

she shoulda got a medal

wtf kind of jury would convict her knowing she'd get 20 years?

or did they know?

Alexander had no prior criminal record and possessed a court-issued protective order against her husband at the time of the attack.

Alexander’s husband, Rico Gray, was arrested in 2006 and 2009 on charges of domestic battery.

Hmm...those victims (Alexander?) should have just got away too...

And now this same prosecutor has George Zimmerman in her sights? Judges who hand out sentences like this for "any" reason should resign before taking blood money.

[regexcellent]

Gov. Scott should pardon her.

[Berzerker]

that douchebag appointed the same prosecutor to the Zimmerman case

[DinoDoc]

wtf kind of jury would convict her knowing she'd get 20 years?
Judges who hand out sentences like this for "any" reason should resign before taking blood money.

How dare these people follow the law!

rah: I think something considerably less would still be considered harsh for a threatening warning shot where the intent was not to harm anyone and no harm was the result.
She rejected a 3 year plea deal and chose to roll the dice.

[Berzerker]

How dare these people follow the law!

Exactly! How dare them! The "law" is morally bankrupt... Following it is immoral... Why do you think the judge had a problem handing down that sentence? And yet thats what he did. How dare him!

[DinoDoc]

Exactly! How dare them! The "law" is morally bankrupt... Following it is immoral... Why do you think the judge had a problem handing down that sentence? And yet that's what he did. How dare him!

It's not the judges duty to put his/her judgement in place of the law. If a judge wants to put his/her own sense of morality above the law, he's in the wrong job. If the defendant wants to to try for nullification. that chance for that is with the jury. Seriously though Berz, she didn't present any concrete evidence to support the Stand your ground claim according to the judge.

[Berzerker]

It's not the judges duty to put his/her judgement in place of the law. If a judge wants to put his/her own sense of morality above the law, he's in the wrong job. If the defendant wants to to try for nullification. that chance for that is with the jury. Seriously though Berz, she didn't present any concrete evidence to support the Stand your ground claim according to the judge.

I said the judge should have resigned, but nullification aint legal. Jurors are told to determine the facts and not impose their morality on the law - just like the judge. And when everyone "follows the law" we end up with mindless BS like this, 20 years for warding off an ******* with priors for domestic abuse and a restraining order. How's that for concrete? And now the prosecutor responsible for this catastrophe has been rewarded with hanging George Zimmerman.

[The Mad Monk]

DinoDoc, this is a travesty.

[DinoDoc]

How's that for concrete?

She fled to the garage (a place with an exit). got a gun, and then went back to confront the husband.

[Zevico]

She fled to the garage (a place with an exit). got a gun, and then went back to confront the husband.

Incidentally, she's in her own home. Stand your ground doesn't strictly apply. "Castle" doctrine does. I speak in terms of justification not legal principle as I don't know whether an independent castle doctrine exists by statute or common law in this State.

I still think we don't have sufficient facts, not least of which is, at the least, a copy of the decision.

As you point out, going away to get a gun and coming back and firing it does not necessarily indicate an immediate fear of death or physical harm or threat. It may weaken that inference, to the contrary. But I can't make any conclusion without the full facts. What we have now might as well amount to a press release from her PR agent.