http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Warning shots are always a stupid idea... You are either in fear of grievous harm or not

If I read it right it sounds like she was sentenced because of the backlash prior in the martian case and or because that corey person is anti gun. Its also cases like this which to make manditory sentences unconstitutional.

20 years seems to be a bit excessive.

she said she was in fear of her life, but decided to go back inside the house. I think the prosecution's argument here was she became the agressor when she went back in the house with a gun.

she said she was in fear of her life, but decided to go back inside the house. I think the prosecution's argument here was she became the agressor when she went back in the house with a gun.

 

Technically she never left the house..

Florida has a law called 10-20-life

 

Pull a gun in commission of any crime, mandatory 10 years.

 

Discharge a gun in commission of any crime, mandatory 20 years.

 

Kill someone with said gun in commission of any crime, mandatory life sentence.

 

The only question is whether she was in commission of ANY crime. They offered her a three year plea and she turned it down.

 

Clearly there is a difference between fearing her partner in general because of abuse and eminent fear of death or injury and death as is presented in the Zimmerman defense.

Twenty years out of her life for that? Seems like something out of a Russian novel. I can see why she did not agree to plea bargain for three years. That's still a hell of a long time in jail for someone who believes she did not commit a crime.

She got 20 years because her warning shot was fired in the direction of children in another room. She got what she deserved!

Yep, 12 minutes of deliberation, she definitely had a fair and unbiased jury! Glad to see the people of Florida take life altering decisions with so much thought...

 

I also love how a judge can simply decide whether or not they will even allow the defense to simply present an argument if they don't feel it applies, before they even make the argument. Got to love our justice system.

 

20 years, even if guilty of some crime, does not fit said crime in this situation. I guarantee that had the situation gone the other way, and her husband actually did assault her, and injure her (but not kill), he would have gotten less than half the sentence she got.

I also love how a judge can simply decide whether or not they will even allow the defense to simply present an argument if they don't feel it applies, before they even make the argument. Got to love our justice system.

 

You have an example of a better non-theoretical system?

We don't have all the facts in this case. The jury did.

You have an example of a better non-theoretical system?

 

Let the defense present the case and have the jury decide if it applies maybe?

Technically she never left the house..

 

I don't think it matters, she was able to walk away from the initial argument, nothing said he tried to stop her from leaving. She then knowingly re-entered the argument with a gun. She may not have instigated the situation, but she knew that by going back into the house from the garage an argument would instill. She could have simply walked to a neighbors house to call the police once she realized she didn't have her keys. So SYG doesnt apply since she technically left the argument and then re-entered it on her own.

I also love how a judge can simply decide whether or not they will even allow the defense to simply present an argument if they don't feel it applies, before they even make the argument. Got to love our justice system.

 

 

That is the job of the judge.... They look at the facts and decided if an argument meets the law. You cant have people arguing SYG in a court room when she was able to walk away, you start introducing emotional responses and remove law from the court room. Yes, it can be biased, and a judge can stricken an argument in court and tell the jury to disregard it, but that doesn't mean they do. It keeps the defense AND the prosecution on point and relevant to the case. It works both ways. You cant make a SYG argument if the facts and testimony of the defendant don't meet the SYG statute.

I took my Florida CCW course in Florida, and they made it VERY clear that there is no such thing as a warning shot - you either have a justifiable fear for you life or not. Also, they said you may not use a firearm to gain the upper hand in an argument, or you become the aggressor. 20 years does seem pretty harsh though.

That is the job of the judge.... They look at the facts and decided if an argument meets the law. You cant have people arguing SYG in a court room when she was able to walk away, you start introducing emotional responses and remove law from the court room. Yes, it can be biased, and a judge can stricken an argument in court and tell the jury to disregard it, but that doesn't mean they do. It keeps the defense AND the prosecution on point and relevant to the case. It works both ways. You cant make a SYG argument if the facts and testimony of the defendant don't meet the SYG statute.

 

Not to mention if the judge tosses the defense and you lose, you can appeal and try the defense with a new judge. Assuming they don't think you are making too big a stretch too.

She rejected a plea deal for 3 years. She rolled the dice and lost.