All Forums | Politics

This might help you understand the stand your ground law

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 1072
Posts: 31
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #1
here's a case where a lady was being abused by her husband.  the article says one day, he was strangling her, she got away and went for a gun, the guy came after her and she fired a shot in the air to scare him away.  no one was injured.  she tried to use the stand your ground law to defend her actions.  she was denied and now she will do 20 years in prison. 

so, what does the stand your ground law mean?  whatever that particular jury says it means. 

20 years in prison may seem like a lot for just firing a gun in the air, but that's the law so that's what she'll do.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #2

Shows that we have stupid jurors in some cases IMO.

The prosecutor should have never let this get to trial.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2005
Posts: 9261
Posted: #3

Angela Corey, the special prosecutor assigned to the Trayvon Martin murder case, is seeking a 20-year prison sentence for Alexander.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 12821
Posted: #4
possible 20 yrs for firing a gun in the air??  
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #5
Quote Originally Posted by captjohn67:

possible 20 yrs for firing a gun in the air??  


most of the time, when a story reports that a person can get up to X years for a crime, they are just reporting the maximum penalty which most people don't get.  they can say a person faces up to 20 years for whatever crime and a person can get straight probation, 2 days in jail, etc. 

in this case, the article is not accurate.  the judge has to give her 20 years in prison for firing the gun in the air.  there is no discretion.  20 years in prison is the minimum mandatory sentence.  that's how some state's guns laws are. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 12821
Posted: #6

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



most of the time, when a story reports that a person can get up to X years for a crime, they are just reporting the maximum penalty which most people don't get.  they can say a person faces up to 20 years for whatever crime and a person can get straight probation, 2 days in jail, etc. 

in this case, the article is not accurate.  the judge has to give her 20 years in prison for firing the gun in the air.  there is no discretion.  20 years in prison is the minimum mandatory sentence.  that's how some state's guns laws are. 

 that's nuts  

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2003
Posts: 32362
Posted: #7
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



most of the time, when a story reports that a person can get up to X years for a crime, they are just reporting the maximum penalty which most people don't get.  they can say a person faces up to 20 years for whatever crime and a person can get straight probation, 2 days in jail, etc. 

in this case, the article is not accurate.  the judge has to give her 20 years in prison for firing the gun in the air.  there is no discretion.  20 years in prison is the minimum mandatory sentence.  that's how some state's guns laws are. 



I find this very difficult to believe. 
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #8
some states have a lot of minimum mandatory penalties for certain crimes.  it's your typical legislature overreaction to specific situations.  they get mad when one judge in miami gives a light sentence in a case where a judge in tampa gave a much higher sentence for ostensibly the same thing.  then, the legislators, who don't know shit about the facts of the case or the background of the defendant, get all fired up over "activist" judges and decide to take their discretion away. 

but, like most things legislators do, they overreact and fuck the situation up more.  they do take the discretion away from the judges, who are supposed to be impartial, but they put that discretion firmly in the hands of the various prosecutors around the state.  so, when you get one like the one who took over the zimmerman case, people go to prison for 20 years for firing a gun in the air to scare her abusive husband because the prosecutor insisted on pursuing the charge with the 20 year minimum penalty. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #9
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:




I find this very difficult to believe. 


that's what happens when legislatures provide for mandatory minimum penalties.  you can search 10-20-life in florida to see that this is true.  basically, if you possess a gun while committing certain felonies, it's a 10 year minimum prison sentence, if you fire the gun while committing a felony, which this lady did, it's a 20 year minimum prison sentence, if someone is injured or killed, then it's 25 years to life. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 2098
Posted: #10
just goes to show you.,...she should have killed the asshole then there would not have been a problem!
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #11
Every village needs and idiot.  As I've said TIMEI AND TIME again, the smart person does not inject themselves into a conflict.  She already escaped from him once........she obviously had enough time to go out to the car...he wasn't following her.  She should have sat in her car and called the &*(^%# police....or drove away to a parking lot and called the police.  But no, she has to walk back in the house with the gun and put herself in a BAD situation.

People are so stupid.  
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 2098
Posted: #12
if you draw the gun be DAMN PREPARED to use it for the purpose it was made for!!!!!!


 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #13
Mandatory sentencing is an abomination of justice. I never understood it. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #14
it is interesting that certain groups of people want mandatory sentencing and harsher penalties... especially because the net result means more and more draining of money/resource devoted towards jail/prison and all involved... Follow the money trail...

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2008
Posts: 7507
Posted: #15

That doesn’t seem to be the law.

 

The jury obviously got this wrong.

 

I vaguely remember a judge overruling a jury once when their decision was outrageously unjust and illogical.

 

Not sure the jury system of laymen is the best way to handle cases.

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #16
Amazing.....people complaining about the law.  People saying, "if you're going to pull a gun, be prepared to use it."  People saying how the fact that she had access to a gun means another person died who should not have.  

WTF is wrong with people?  Blame the guns.  Blame the law. Blame the guy who was allegedly choking her (who she got away from and had an opportunity to GO GET THE GUN WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED).  

How about blaming the gal?  Not for potentially being choked, but for handling the situation like a complete idiot.  She gets away from the supposedly abusive guy.  Doesn't leave the scene (she could have)....doesn't call the cops (she could have).....does the WORST THING POSSIBLE.....brings a gun into a volatile situation.  The gun wasn't the problem here....her stupidity was.  I really can't believe people don't see this. 

She deserves what she gets. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 12821
Posted: #17
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:

Amazing.....people complaining about the law.  People saying, "if you're going to pull a gun, be prepared to use it."  People saying how the fact that she had access to a gun means another person died who should not have.  

WTF is wrong with people?  Blame the guns.  Blame the law. Blame the guy who was allegedly choking her (who she got away from and had an opportunity to GO GET THE GUN WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED).  

How about blaming the gal?  Not for potentially being choked, but for handling the situation like a complete idiot.  She gets away from the supposedly abusive guy.  Doesn't leave the scene (she could have)....doesn't call the cops (she could have).....does the WORST THING POSSIBLE.....brings a gun into a volatile situation.  The gun wasn't the problem here....her stupidity was.  I really can't believe people don't see this. 

She deserves what she gets. 

of course it is her fault. But let me make sure i understand you, you're saying 20 yrs mandatory is an appropriate sentence for the crime??

 

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #18
Quote Originally Posted by captjohn67:

of course it is her fault. But let me make sure i understand you, you're saying 20 yrs mandatory is an appropriate sentence for the crime??

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate.  But if she was even close to smart, she never would have been in that situation.  She went out, got the gun, CAME BACK, and CONFRONTED HIM.  WTF was she thinking?  Know anything about abuse?  That is the WORST thing she could have done by far.  

Another idiot who had a gun and either wasn't educated as to how and when you can use it or was educated and didn't care.  Either way, it's completely on her.  If you're going to have a gun, you better make sure you know what your rights and responsibilities are. There are no excuses.    


 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #19
And I may not agree with the law, but she should have researched the law before she decided to buy and have a gun.  If she would have known she could have gotten 20 years, she might have driven down the road and called the police.  I could probably count on one hand the number of people I know who understand what their rights and responsibilities are when it comes to carrying a gun and using one for self defense.  
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2008
Posts: 7507
Posted: #20
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:

Amazing.....people complaining about the law.  People saying, "if you're going to pull a gun, be prepared to use it."  People saying how the fact that she had access to a gun means another person died who should not have.  

WTF is wrong with people?  Blame the guns.  Blame the law. Blame the guy who was allegedly choking her (who she got away from and had an opportunity to GO GET THE GUN WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED).  

How about blaming the gal?  Not for potentially being choked, but for handling the situation like a complete idiot.  She gets away from the supposedly abusive guy.  Doesn't leave the scene (she could have)....doesn't call the cops (she could have).....does the WORST THING POSSIBLE.....brings a gun into a volatile situation.  The gun wasn't the problem here....her stupidity was.  I really can't believe people don't see this. 

She deserves what she gets. 

Doesn't leave the scene (she could have)....doesn't call the cops (she could have).

 

Those are good points. That might have been the practical thing to do.

 

But does one have to run away when attacked?

 

Shouldn’t one be able to stand one’s ground?

 

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 12821
Posted: #21
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate.  But if she was even close to smart, she never would have been in that situation.  She went out, got the gun, CAME BACK, and CONFRONTED HIM.  WTF was she thinking?  Know anything about abuse?  That is the WORST thing she could have done by far.  

Another idiot who had a gun and either wasn't educated as to how and when you can use it or was educated and didn't care.  Either way, it's completely on her.  If you're going to have a gun, you better make sure you know what your rights and responsibilities are. There are no excuses.    


clearly she wasn't thinking and it seems as if we are actually in agreement fwiw

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #22
"She didn't want to kill him, she just didn't want him to kill her. In America we have the right to bear arms. She did everything right that she was supposed to do and she ended up behind bars facing 20 years. I don't know what that says. Does that tell men it's OK to beat your wives? I haven't heard anything about that." 
___________________

Such a COMPLETE joke.  Protect herself?  She grabbed the gun and went back in to the house.  Protecting herself means driving away and calling the police.  

Typical B.S.  Changing the subject to wife beating.  Of course, no one ever said that was OK.  But did she remove herself from the situation, call the authorities, and file a compaint? Nope. 


In America, we have the right to bear arms.  

Yeah, but there are laws that apply to when you can use them. 

Another gun carrying idiot.  



 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #23
Quote Originally Posted by glenndef62:

Doesn't leave the scene (she could have)....doesn't call the cops (she could have).

 

Those are good points. That might have been the practical thing to do.

 

But does one have to run away when attacked?

 

Shouldn’t one be able to stand one’s ground?

She got away, went out to the car, grabbed the gun, and injected herself BACK into the situation.  How is that standing your ground? 

That's a little different than carrying a gun and then pulling it when you are in the process of being beat up and fear for your life (I agree you should be able to stand your ground in this situation, but that's NOT what happened here).


Are people really this ignorant?  



 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2008
Posts: 7507
Posted: #24

I was ignorant of exactly what went down.

 

I agree she shouldn’t have went back in the house.

 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #25
captain understands the primary point in post #17 and i'm not necessarily disagreeing with hutch but one area hutch is way off is in suggesting that calling the police in a domestic violence situation solves anything.  police are a disaster when they show up to a domestic violence situation.  i can't tell you how many domestic violence situations i've seen where the cops arrest the wrong person, arrest both, arrest neither and just move on.  they don't investigate, they just take the easy way out, like most government employees.  the police would be the last people i'd call in the domestic violence case unless there was a life or death situation.  i'd probably call the DMV before the police.   
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.