1 man died and Sweet was acquitted of murder. It was less than a month before the first gun control bill showed up in the Michigan state legislature. It resulted in a law creating the first "gun boards" and registration in the state.
Posted on 07/21/2013 7:32:49 AM PDT by marktwain
Here is a case that the liberal point to in arguing against Stand Your Ground laws. To me, assuming that the facts are accurate, it certainly looks like Marissa behaved properly and I have stated that before in interviews. From Salon.com:
On Aug. 1, 2010, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, with a master’s degree and no criminal record, was working for a payroll software company in Jacksonville. She was estranged from her abusive husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him. Thinking he was not at home, she went to their former house to get some belongings. The two got into an argument. Alexander says that Gray threatened her and she feared for her life. Gray corroborates Alexander’s story: “I was in a rage. I called her a whore and bitch and … I told her … if I can’t have you, nobody going to have you,” he said, in a deposition. When Alexander retreated into the bathroom, Gray tried to break the door. She ran into the garage, but couldn’t leave because it was locked. She came back, he said, with a registered gun, which she legally owned, and yelled at him to leave. Gray recalls, “I told her … I ain’t going nowhere, and so I started walking toward her … I was cursing and all that … and she shot in the air.” Even Gray understands why Alexander fired the warning shot: “If my kids wouldn’t have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her. Probably hit her. I got five baby mommas and I put my hands on every last one of them, except for one … I honestly think she just didn’t want me to put my hands on her anymore so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn’t get hurt, you know. You know, she did what she had to do.” And Gray admits Alexander was acting in self-defense, intending to scare and stop but not harm him: “The gun was never actually pointed at me … The fact is, you know … she never been violent toward me. I was always the one starting it.” Ultimately nobody was hurt. Nobody died. On May 12, 2012, it took a jury 12 minutes to find Alexander guilty of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison. . . .
One case doesn't prove discrimination. But if there is discrimination, it seems to me that the solution is to fix the discrimination, not to banThey go on to claim:
The Tampa Bay Times found that defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more successful if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty. Only 59 percent of those who killed a white person got off. The Urban Institute determined that in “stand your ground” states, when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable. When black shooters kill white victims only 3 percent of the deaths are ruled justifiable. . . .
The Daily Caller aggregated the Tampa Bay Times numbers a little differently and came to this:
But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white. . . .
So I looked at the data and I think that the Daily Caller made a mistake. At least for decided cases, 69 percent of blacks who have claimed the Stand Your Ground law as a justification were not convicted (24 out of 35).
For whites, the percentage is actually lower. 62 percent of whites who claimed Stand Your Ground as justifying their actions were not convicted (40 out of 65).
For Hispanics, 78 percent successfully rely on the Stand Your Ground law (7 out 9 cases).
There are other ways to break things down.
In 78 percent of cases, whites who killed blacks were considered justified under Stand Your Ground. In 67 percent of the cases, blacks who killed whites were considered justified. While this is considered to be discrimination against blacks the difference is too small to be considered any where near to be statistically significant with this small sample.
In 59 percent of cases, blacks who killed blacks were considered justified under Stand Your Ground. In 65 percent of the cases, whites who killed whites were considered justified. Again, these are small differences.
Yet, just accounting for race doesn't account for other important factors, such as the facts of the cases. There is a lot of information in the files and some more careful empirical work would be useful.
Additional information: The Urban Institute also has a report on justifiable homicides (it received a lot of publicity such as here), but the problem is that it assumes that there is a consistent measure by the FBI of justifiable homicides. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Heavily Democratic and minority areas are less likely to record this data. So let's assume that blacks are more likely to use guns defensively in areas where there are more likely to be in heavily Democratic and black areas. If so, you will get a lot of defensive gun uses by blacks that won't be recorded as such because those jurisdictions simply don't record the data.
Totally different from the accounts that I have read as well.
What is really desired by those protesting is a “don't shoot blacks, no matter what” law.
She sure married a POS. What Effing prosecutor makes a case of this? Oh wait...it’s Florida.
Trying to reason with racebaiter reverends is like trying to negotiate with a rabid wolf, it goes nowhere, and they’re not going to listen anyway.
As long as rioting and racecard rules prevail, and work for them, they’ll keep using them.
The states with SYG laws need to stand THEIR ground and refuse to eradicate these laws because of community organizers are pitching tantrums.
Cowardly politicians issuing piecemeal concessions are blind to the incrementalism that is destroying our nation.
The states need to tell the reverends Jackson, Sharpton, Holder, and Obama to F-off, and leave the laws in place. There’s a reason the majority of states have these laws, and the right to self defense is as old as mankind, and the animal kingdom. It’s natural, it’s instinctive, and it’s right.
Trying to neuter our right to self defense in lieu of succeeding to disarm us is what despots and dictators do, not Americans.
I don’t imagine there is a person in America that wishes Zimmerman had not got out of that care more than Zimmerman himself. The events that followed happened, and we all know the results. He was railroaded by political pressure into a trial that should not have been, and STILL found not guilty based on the facts.
But the piglets of the left want to wallow in their bitterness as long as they can in an effort to reverse the verdict to their liking, not to get back at Zimmerman as much as winning the battle of division and strife.
Sounds like the rallies should be for justice for Mariisa Alexander, not Trayvon Martin.
When she fired the shot, his hands were supposedly up and the gun was supposedly pointed right at him. Use of deadly force - which is what a warning shot is - requires reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death, which someone with their hands up does not present.
She didn't "stand her ground," she either assaulted him or attempted to murder him.
Appropriate use of overly attached girlfriend sir! I love it.
I question her story. In other articles, they said that despite the restraining order, which works both ways, she went to her husbands house.
He claims that he was holding one of his children (by a previous marriage) by his side when she pointed the gun at them, not the ceiling. He also claimed that his deposition was false, at the request of his wife, who said that if he lied she would not go to prison.
She also rejected a deal that would have reduced her sentence by 17 years. He expressed remorse that she would now be separated from their children for 20 years, and said he wished she had taken the deal.
This case gets murkier by the moment.
I hate you. ;-p
LOL, I felt I had no choice. :)
She has migraines and is crazy. /s
You should have used Alan Grayson.
Oh God... I forgot about that goon.
The Tampa Bay Times found that defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more successful if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty. Only 59 percent of those who killed a white person got off. <<
Self defense as an affirmative defense to homicide is one of those misunderstood legal terms. It literally means the defendant is claiming to be the victim of a crime. The deceased is never charged...LOL...if the claim is successful, that is where the law should go next. The victim in successfully argued SYG cases is still alive.
I like the idea of it’s either Stand Your Ground or Retreat From Evil...which law would be backed?
DK
Good post and I concur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.