Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall in 2010 when she felt her estranged husband was threatening her. She had already filed a restraining order against him.
Nobody was hurt, but in May a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.
More
16 comments:
That's our great system! Screw the law abiding citizens by holding them to ridiculous laws yet somehow they always find loopholes in the laws to defend real criminals.
I do not think it has anything to do with the person's race.
Marissa left the scene and returned with a gun. Big difference. Plus, she didn't have an eye witness to back her story up.
She didn't need an eye witness. She didn't shoot anybody let alone kill someone. She shot a hole in the ceiling for goodness sake. 20 years? Really?
It was her husband not some attacker in the night beating her head into the side walk. Slight difference.
She has the right to an appeal, she should call Jesse and Al.
has she shot him she may have gotten off. firing a warning shot is often a negligent discharge
It's nothing short of silly to even attempt to compare this in any way shape or form to the Zimmerman/Martin incident.
This woman clearly without a doubt fired the gun out of anger and not out of fear. She left the home, went to her vehicle, retrieved the firearm, returned to the home and fired the gun.
She had ample time to leave if she felt threatened.Any comparison there may be can be made to Martin who also instead of leaving the area chose to stay and confront Zimmerman due to his anger.
She should of shot him.Dead men tell no lies...
She felt like he was threatening her... Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. Looks like a big difference to me.
500-She left the scene, retrieved her gun, then shot. Big difference.
Shooting your husband to make him do what you want is not the answer.
If it was an apartment it is owned by someone else.
"She felt like he was threatening her..."
Hardly. If so she would have gone to the vehicle and immediately left but instead chose to not only get a firearm from the vehicle but also walked back into the house and fire it. She was mad as hell at him and was going to show him is what happened here. It's not rocket science.
Sounds like the kids were still in the house since they "may" have been hit. And that's why she went back in.
The issue is more likely that she is female than it being an issue of race.
There are women of the Eastern Shore who are dead because the restraining didn't do squat.
What we read in the media is never enough fact to make a judgment. Their 10-20-Life law sounds like it was misapplied here. She probably should have gotten a "reckless endangerment" charge or something.
she had children in the house, she endangered the kids.
The 20 years was a mandatory sentence. She was offered 3 in a plea bargain. Her lawyer should have advised her to take the plea.
I think the mandatory sentence is the problem here. It takes away the judges ability to consider the mitigating circumstances i.e. her husband violating a restraining order and the ongoing history between the two.
3:37-She violated the restraining order. According to the article she went to her former home to retrieve some things "thinking" he wasn't home. Restraining orders work both ways-though she filed for it- she's isn't allowed to go near him either.
While I think the sentence is ridiculous I can understand why thinking she felt threatened is a stretch.
Post a Comment