From what I’m reading here I wouldn’t vote to convict.
Did the same prosecutors have her case?
I would.
From what I understand, She ran out to car to get her pistol, then ran back in to fire her “warning shot.”
Once she was out, she wasn’t in danger any more. Running BACK to danger is what made it something other than “stand your ground” or “self defense.”
She tried to kill her husband and he and the kids had to flee for their lives.
That’s why it makes me cringe when right-minded people try to get out of jury duty. We have the power to nullify a law.
You're not looking at who published this and what their agenda is. "Marissa Alexander ran out of her house into a garage to escape her abusive husband. Once there, she found that she did not have her keys and that the garage door was broken. She armed herself and went back into the house."
The Judge stated; “Maybe I would be agreeing to a new Stand Your Ground motion, which highlights some of the difficulties we are struggling with procedurally implementing this new law,” he wrote, “but ultimately the motion is denied.” In his opinion, Alexander’s decision to re-enter the house was “inconsistent with a person in genuine fear of his or her life.”
PMSNBC isn't giving the whole truth because it doesn't fit their agenda.
Her problem was she was at her ex-husband's home (she apparently had moved out). They got into a fight, and she felt threatened, and went outside to get her gun. At that point, she was no longer in danger, so self-defense was no longer a valid claim. She then went back into the house, placing herself back into a "threatening" situation, this time with her gun. In those circumstances, it was no longer a self-defense situation. If as I read she had moved out of the house, it can be argued that she was not in a location where she had a legal right to be in the first place, eliminating SYG as a defense. Even if that is not true, once she went back into a situation that she felt was threatening after arming herself, she became the aggressor.