Marissa Alexander Stood Her ground...and was Denied by Florida
 

There has to be something in this story that must be missing but otherwise, this woman stood her ground and killed no one yet she faces 20 years in the same state that just may let George Zimmerman free.



Time's article detailing the story


And denied a retrial

That's sad. Women in domestic violence situations so rarely get the help they need. What happens to her children while she serves time for this victimless "crime"?

Stand Your Ground is a bullshit law that is unclearly stated and unclearly and unequally applied. Take that nonsense out of the books.

I disagree. A free American should have the ability to be able to defend himself with appropriate force wherever s/he is legally present.

HOWEVER, the deliberate misinterpretation and application of the law IS an issue ... as is the deliberate misinterpretation and application of any law.

I suspect that the linked article is giving a fairly biased account of events, much like some of the internet publications linked by SOM in the Martin case.

All that said, it may sound callous, but I don't feel all that bad when children are taken away from a mother who keeps going back to an abusive man who has children with 5 other women. It's partially her fault and partially the system's fault. It would be a great help if as part of receiving a restraining order or having one entered against you, the court would order victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to obtain counseling through the YWCA or other such organizations.

In a case like this, even absent a criminal charge against Alexander, Child Protective Services would certainly have cause to pick the children up and place them into foster care due to failure to protect.

because foster care is so great?

Hate to sound like a prick but these two deserve each other. It seemed like it was her word VS his at her trial and her going over to her ex's house to whoop his ass after she posted bail doesn't really jive with her battered wife story. I wouldn't be surprised if that incident was what lead the judge to his conclusion about her not being eligible for the Stand Your Ground law.

I'm pretty sure that's what DrPhil said. She was denigrating the law, not the actions Ms Alexander took.

Oh goody, a "what world does Kevin live in" post. We haven't had one of those for a while. Many many many times in abusive relationships, the abuser has cut the victim off from any outside help, up to and including forcing them to quit work or school, so they are financially dependent on the abuser. "Counseling at the YMCA" (that's another thing, not all YMCAs are created equal and some can barely stay open) isn't going to fix that.

It beats a mother who knowingly exposes her children to an abuser. If one of those children had been harmed (which easily could have happened), you'd be singing a different tune.

I mean, if you want to live life by the what ifs, it's going to be pretty complicated. And it isn't necessarily any better.

I'm not talking about what ifs. She definitely did expose her children to an abuser and failed to protect them. I actually do quite a bit of volunteer pro bono work representing kids often against their parents in the local Juvenile Court in juvenile deprived actions. I can tell you that under the circumstances, I'd have no problem seeking DHS custody for this lady's kids.

This man was abusive enough that she got a protective order. She then rescinded it and let him back into her house and bed despite the continued abuse. Her being in this situation is as much her fault as his as his abusive behavior is a constant/given and apparently she had been able to overcome that issue with a protective order which she voluntarily allowed to be gutted.

I'll agree that she likely suffered from battered woman syndrome, but that's something she needs to work on before she can be deemed a fit parent (assuming she doesn't go to the pen for 20 years for her apparent crime).

That's why I remarked earlier that I'd love to see mandatory or at least highly recommended classes provided to abusers and victims of abuse.

She rescinded it because she was pregnant with his child. I mean, obviously it wasn't the smartest thing, but I can totally see how a woman would feel it might be better to have the father around.

Ok, please explain how it's partially her fault...?


Sigh...some things I don't miss....

I think DGTess does not want the law to be denigrated which is highly correlated with how DGTess feels about gun control and the failures of law enforcement.

There is room for both faults in the law and in people's actions. However, I simply do not care about Ms. Alexander's story because the common denominator in some of the more recent news stories is the Stand Your Ground law. That perhaps means that it has gone way beyond this notion of self-defense and is confusing some people as to what constitutes lawful and unlawful behavior in certain contexts. That implies a potential error in the law itself and not just in human application. Afterall, laws are formal social control mechanisms that serve to direct and/or respond to human behavior.

Well, no; laws are mechanisms by which we punish people who go beyond societal norms. They prevent nothing.

Without getting in to your irrational hatred of my gun-control opinions, look at the meaning of a stand-your-ground law. It states that a person need not turn tail and run from attacks; that s/he may defend life and safety as necessary. Eliminating the law takes away personal responsibility for one's safety and implies the bigger, badder party will always win. I don't want to live in that world.

That doesn't seem to be the case here as she was able to obtain a restraining order against him. Also, the only side this article tells of the story is the side the article wants to portray as a victim.

A judge and jury heard the evidence. We didn't. They were in a much better position to judge her guilty.

Comparing this to the Zimmerman case is just impossible. Totally different set of facts.

YWCA... not YMCA. But there are programs everywhere.

"Direct" is not the same thing as "prevent."

Even your post acknowledges that many behaviors are a result of people (beforehand) misinterpreting and misapplying the law as it relates to their (present or future) behavior.

Read my post again.

And calm down.

"Stand your ground" laws exist in a few states and what it means to "stand your ground" can vary by state. The intent is supposedly to support the use of deadly force in self-defense where there is a reasonable perception of threat. However, what all of this means is where the confusion comes in. It is seen as going beyond the self-defense laws that some states already have. What is the difference between self-defense and "stand your ground"?

Sorry. I assumed you knew what you were talking about when you stated that stand-your-ground laws are bull**** and must be eliminated. FLORIDA's law, 2011 statutes, chapter 776, "Justifiable Use of Force" does not seem to me to be "unclearly stated." The operative section states: "(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Self-defense can be anywhere. Some jurisdictions permit the use of deadly force in self defense only after demonstrating submission by avoiding conflict and then taking steps to retreat and demonstrate an intention not to fight.

Stand-your-ground laws allow one to engage in self-defense, using appropriate force up to and including deadly force if required, anywhere s/he is legally permitted to be. There is no duty to turn tail and run. There is, in almost all if not all jurisdictions, a requirement not to initiate or escalate the encounter. Read the rest of the Florida statute section. It is not permissible to instigate or escalate the situation, then using deadly force.

Rhetorical question alert.

In other words, what "Stand Your Ground" means varies by state and it is an overstated and exaggerated version of self-defense which has sparked some people to misinterpret and misapply the law. Thanks for thinking you cleared that up. LOL. This is all one big gooblygoob of exaggeration and redundancy. Smells like bullshit.

It is already the case that what constitutes self-defense varies by jurisdiction and not all jurisdictions have "duty to retreat" for self-defense.

What does obtaining a restraining order have to do with a person's financial situation????? Or do you mean the "outside help" part? That is not the kind of "outside help" I meant.

You can have enough PFAs to paper your house with, but if your abusive partner has cut you off from family, friends, school and career to the point that you have no practical support system, they don't amount to jack shit as far as actually changing your situation. PFAs don't come with a $100 gift card to Target.

Depends on the state, I'm sure. Around here it sure as heck doesn't hurt to have an attorney fill out the paperwork and attend the hearing. That takes money.

There's nothing here to suggest that's the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/justice/florida-stand-your-ground-release/

She is set for a new trial. I believe her sentence was harsh for a "warning shot" but I also believe it is neither self-defense nor "stand your ground" (*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*) when you go to your car to get a gun. If you are free enough to go to your car to get a gun, you are potentially free enough to drive away or run away or something.

As for "stand your ground" and self-defense, in general, I was happy Trevor Dooley's dumbass was convicted. I just want these arrests, trials, and convictions to be equally applied across race and ethnicity. Joe Horn can still kiss my ass.