• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Stand your ground and mandatory sentences

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...rs-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

Here's an example of the same prosecutor as the Trayvon Martin case disallowing and a judge saying no to a "stand your ground defense".

It's also an indictment of mandatory sentencing.

How can the judge not allow the documented history of domestic violence into evidence when self-defense against domestic violence from of the parties is the entire case?
 
RJKarl said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...rs-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

Here's an example of the same prosecutor as the Trayvon Martin case disallowing and a judge saying no to a "stand your ground defense".

It's also an indictment of mandatory sentencing.

How can the judge not allow the documented history of domestic violence into evidence when self-defense against domestic violence from of the parties is the entire case?
Click to expand...

I don't follow you here. Please explain more clearly.
 
Did you read the article at all? Leaving to go get a gun, coming back, and firing a "warning shot" is not standing your ground. It's getting mad in the middle of an argument and trying to scare someone.

Also, if you self-describe or characterize something as a "warning shot," it's typically not going to be covered under any recognized self-defense exception anyway since people don't fire "warning shots" when they feel they are in imminent danger of death or bodily harm.
 
RJKarl said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...rs-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

Here's an example of the same prosecutor as the Trayvon Martin case disallowing and a judge saying no to a "stand your ground defense".

It's also an indictment of mandatory sentencing.

How can the judge not allow the documented history of domestic violence into evidence when self-defense against domestic violence from of the parties is the entire case?
Click to expand...


What law, state or federal, allows the firing of a warning shot?
 
ibleedgoldandblack said:
Did you read the article at all? Leaving to go get a gun, coming back, and firing a "warning shot" is not standing your ground. It's getting mad in the middle of an argument and trying to scare someone.

Also, if you self-describe or characterize something as a "warning shot," it's typically not going to be covered under any recognized self-defense exception anyway since people don't fire "warning shots" when they feel they are in imminent danger of death or bodily harm.
Click to expand...

I did. If the garage was locked and she was an excellent, firing a warning shot is good way to defend herself.
 
If you have an opportunity to escape and you do not escape, but rather leave the altercation and then come back to it with a weapon, then not only is it not 'stand your ground', you can't claim self defense or 'heat of passion' either.

You leave an altercation, then come back to it and escalate it, you are the aggressor. Stand your ground aside, this has been settled law for decades.

The facts are especially damning to her in this case, since she went to the garage and procured the gun from her car. She could have easily left in the car if she didnt want to escalate the conflict. OP's reasoning is misguided and off the mark. Again.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
I did. If the garage was locked and she was an excellent, firing a warning shot is good way to defend herself.
Click to expand...

1) The article indicates that the Judge and Jury both disbelieved that she could not have left through the garage. Stand your ground means that you have no duty to retreat. In this case, she retreated and removed herself from the situation completely. She then armed herself and returned to the situation to make threats. There is no iteration of stand your ground that I am familiar with that would recognize her actions as self-defense. Furthermore, the analysis above ignores the fact that she was able to leave the situation and go get the gun in the first place. Either way, its irrelevant because...

2) Firing a "warning shot" is never a good way to defend yourself. Ever. It is, however, (in most cases) a crime.
 
Wasn't there a case where someone went home, retrieved a gun, and went back to the original location to kill and was released on stand your ground? I believe it happened at a carnival?
 
200px-Lionel_Hutz.jpg
 
WFFaithful said:
Wasn't there a case where someone went home, retrieved a gun, and went back to the original location to kill and was released on stand your ground? I believe it happened at a carnival?
Click to expand...

Link or it didn't happen.
 
WFFaithful said:
Wasn't there a case where someone went home, retrieved a gun, and went back to the original location to kill and was released on stand your ground? I believe it happened at a carnival?
Click to expand...

Judge: "Oh...it was a carny? Case dismissed."
 
WFFaithful said:
Couldn't find that one, but here is a case where one left to retrieve a gun and returned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17693084
Click to expand...

I assume you're talking about the last case profiled? Seems like he was acquitted by a jury (vs. granted immunity by a judge) and the article doesn't really indicate if stand your ground was central to his defense.

ETA: Sounds like Stand Your Ground was part of his defense from looking at some other articles.
 
Last edited:
This Marissa Alexander case has nothing to do about race or stand your ground. Both were irrelevant in her case.

The one issue her case does bring up, though, is Florida's 10-20-Life law. As a general rule, I'm not a big fan of minimum mandatories, especially in drug cases. However, I have always been a big proponent of this law and I think other states should draft similar legislation. Given the easy access to guns in our country, I believe we should absolutely come down hard on gun crime. With one exception, however. The charge of aggravated assault should not be included. I have always had difficulty in justifying including this charge within the 10-20-Life construct.

Aggravated Assault with a Firearm carries a 3 year minimum mandatory sentence. In my opinion, that's fair. You point a gun at someone with the intent of instilling fear into them, you should get at least 3 years in prison. However, if you fire the gun that should not trigger the 20 year minimum mandatory. The reason why is this - if you fire a gun with the intent to injure someone then you wont be charged with agg assault. You'd be charged with attempted murder, and I'm fine with the 20 year min mand in that scenario. If you fire the gun with no intent to injure, then the intent behind the crime, to me, is no different than the original agg assault charge which carries the 3 year min mand.
 
I find it interesting that most of those killed in these cases were unarmed while most of those invoking stand your ground were carrying firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top