September 26th, 2013 07:16 PM
Florida case overturned
Anyone else post this, I'm sorry...found the story interesting.
New trial ordered in Fla. warning shot case | News - Home
September 26th, 2013 07:34 PM
When she was arrested, there was (and still remains a large thread here on this). This is new.
...."Because the jury instructions on self-defense were fundamental error, we reverse" the conviction, a three-judge appellate panel said.
So, regardles of her guilt or crazy acts, she is let off on the first trial on a technicality. Chances are that she will be found guilty on the second trial.
September 26th, 2013 08:00 PM
Its like this; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt their case/that the defendant did it. NOT the defendant must prove a dayum thing.
September 26th, 2013 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by ANGLICO
It's not a technicality but apparently a rule of law in Florida. The state must make the self defnese laws avaialbe to the jury...sound like the prosecutor failed to do so.
"Marissa Alexander's case will be retried because the jury was wrongly told that -- for her to claim self-defense -- she needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her husband was about to seriously harm her, the appellate court said.
Rather, the appellate court pointed out, the prosecution had the burden to prove that Alexander herself was guilty of aggravated assault."
Since when under any American xcriminal law does the defense have to prove anything ??
September 26th, 2013 08:14 PM
... and there's her biggest hurdle. I'm not sure she's going to be able to get over it at the next trial.
But a judge in the pretrial immunity hearing rejected the request, saying Alexander's decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety.
"Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
"Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis
September 26th, 2013 09:23 PM
SO, what I'm hearing the courts /Judge say, is that it would be better for you to shoot someone if they are strangling you, than to fire a warning shot.
If it is about the fact that she went outside the house, and back in, then shot him, why are they throwing all this gobble-D-guuk out in the mix?
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn
September 26th, 2013 09:48 PM
Self defense is an affirmative defense. You admit to an act that would otherwise be criminal but claim that your actions were necessary to defend your life. At that point the onus falls on you to prove that you were actually in danger. Pretty basic stuff from a legal view.
Originally Posted by USM1976
"The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
- Lt. Col. Oliver North
September 26th, 2013 10:58 PM
From everything I've read she said the garage was locked (IE: she was unable to exit that way) so she got the gun out of the vehicle and was going to exit the house.
Originally Posted by blitzburgh
Every garage I've ever seen has at least one exterior hinged door and at least one vertically opening garage door though. Guess the specifics will apply here.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
September 26th, 2013 11:08 PM
A defendant does not have to prove anything in a self defense case. The prosecution has to disprove the claim that the defendant was in fear for their life. Not the other way around. NO defendant ever has to prove anything in any trial. They are presumed not guilty until found guilty by a court of law. Every time. Regardless
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
September 26th, 2013 11:14 PM
Marissa Alexander's case will be retried because the jury was wrongly told that -- for her to claim self-defense -- she needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her husband was about to seriously harm her, the appellate court said.
Me wonders how a jury instruction gets so mucked up. Usually there are model instructions that start as boilerplate, and the sides quibble regarding language for certain facts. But that.....whoopsi-daisy!
-PEF, a Framer with a Steelie...
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
September 26th, 2013 11:20 PM
20yrs in prison for warning off an assailant? Had there actually been material harm, I could almost understand a stiff sentence, if guilty. One of the effects of a mandatory 10-20-life (three strikes) type sentencing structure.
"But a judge in the pretrial immunity hearing rejected the request, saying Alexander's decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety."
A good lesson for us all, right there. It's not merely how we see it; it's how others are going to read it that'll matter in the end.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
September 27th, 2013 12:40 AM
Well, she also gets another chance for a jury to say "screw it, good for her"
September 27th, 2013 12:58 AM
Not in the state in which I live and according to the U.S. Constitution...it is not criminal to defend one's self...I'm speaking generally now and not specifically about this woman's issue.
Originally Posted by Echo_Four
The onus NEVER falls on the accused to prove anything. It is the requirement of the state to prove you were not in line with the law (in whatever jurisdiction). This issue is basic constitutional law. You have it quite reversed.
September 27th, 2013 01:32 AM
No, the prosecution must still prove your self defense claims false beyond all reasonable doubt.
Originally Posted by Echo_Four
Like any other case, though, not being able to 100% prove your defense make the prosecution proving theirs that much easier. But they DO still have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
But if a given jury member cannot ascertain 100% certainty of either side's story, then innocent vote it is, because innocent until proven guilty. Always.
September 27th, 2013 07:00 AM
It is not a 3-strike law. It's 10 years (for using a firearm in commission of a crime)-20 years (for firing a firearm in commission of a crime)-life (for injuring/killing someone, with a firearm in commission of a crime).
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Time will tell if this helps her case.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
"For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
Search tags for this page
florida case over turned
florida case overurned
marissa alexander case overruled
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors