Any of you Fla residence familiar with this story?

[shooterX]

One of my more liberal FB friends posted this, I was wondering if any of you heard or knew anything about this story. I did a search and didn't find anything.

Marissa Alexander: Shoot to Kill Or You Must Not Be Scared Enough | Addicting Info

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[apvbguy]

I am vaguely familiar, as I understand it the reason she wasn't allowed to claim that she was standing her ground was because she was able to leave the room where the attacks were taking place and then she returned with a weapon, SYG doesn't work that way.
a similar case was at a waffle house restaurant where there was some kind of fight and one of the fighters went to his car, got a gun and shot the other, he claimed he was defending himself, the courts said since he was able to get away to his car, he should have gotten in an driven away rather than return to the fight.
what point was your libertard friend trying to make? The article provided was written by a moron who is making huge assumptions based on hearsay and nonsense.

[shooterX]

The unfairness compared to the Zimmerman case is all.

Wouldn't "Castle Doctrine" cover her going into another part of the house and returning with a weapon to defend herself with?

[sigs]

I believe the article I read (actual news story not opinion with an obvious agenda) stated there were witnesses there during the whole incident who stated that she was the attacker who then escalated by going to get a gun. The anti-SYG people are trying to have it both ways with this one.

[shooterX]

I believe the article I read (actual news story not opinion with an obvious agenda) stated there were witnesses there during the whole incident who stated that she was the attacker who then escalated by going to get a gun. The anti-SYG people are trying to have it both ways with this one.

I'm going to try and find an actual news story about this and see what I can learn.

[shooterX]

Well so far everything I can find is the same and is saying that she was attacked, unprovoked, by her ex-husband and the reason she was denied protection under "SYG" was that she went into the garage and retrieved the gun and then returned to confront her ex. Should've just shot him instead of firing a warning shot, IMO.

[sigs]

Well so far everything I can find is the same and is saying that she was attacked, unprovoked, by her ex-husband and the reason she was denied protection under "SYG" was that she went into the garage and retrieved the gun and then returned to confront her ex. Should've just shot him instead of firing a warning shot, IMO.

Here is the article I mentioned.

This is the evidence and witness info at the trial by jury. Also note that she had the same prosecutor, Angela Corey.

"Police have withheld Alexander’s address and it is unclear if the couple were living together.

But authorities, on the accounts of her husband and her two stepsons, have said it was Alexander who began the violence, “hitting on” Gray. In her arrest report, all three said she pointed the gun in their direction before the shot was fired.

Less than five months later, Alexander was arrested, again, on a domestic battery charge involving her husband"

Read more at Jacksonville.com: NAACP weighs in on what they say is a 'Stand Your Ground' case against Jacksonville woman | jacksonville.com

[shooterX]

Thanks Sigs

[Rock and Glock]

Alexander was arrested, again

That about wraps it up, eh?

[apvbguy]

Well so far everything I can find is the same and is saying that she was attacked, unprovoked, by her ex-husband and the reason she was denied protection under "SYG" was that she went into the garage and retrieved the gun and then returned to confront her ex. Should've just shot him instead of firing a warning shot, IMO.

wrong, she was convicted because once she made it to the garage she should have continued her escape, by returning to shoot her attacker she lost any protections afforded by a castle doctrine or syg law. once she was away from the danger she was obliged not to go back into danger

[shooterX]

wrong, she was convicted because once she made it to the garage she should have continued her escape, by returning to shoot her attacker she lost any protections afforded by a castle doctrine or syg law. once she was away from the danger she was obliged not to go back into danger

Thanks, this was the conclusion I came to after I posted this question.

[DeathRales]

The only problem I see is the "leaving the room to retrieve the weapon". Hell, why not just carry it all the time? When the question comes up, I had my weapon and used it.

[barstoolguru]

The only problem I see is the "leaving the room to retrieve the weapon". Hell, why not just carry it all the time? When the question comes up, I had my weapon and used it.

agreed; going for a weapon and not retreating to a safe area and returning was her downfall

[apvbguy]

The only problem I see is the "leaving the room to retrieve the weapon". Hell, why not just carry it all the time? When the question comes up, I had my weapon and used it.

could it be that she didn't have any kind of permit to carry a gun? she had a bit of criminal history.

not too much has come out about the gun itself, I wouldn't be surprised if the gun had an "interesting" history of it's own