A battered wife gets charged for standing up for herself?

[Tamara-B]

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-11/story/jacksonville-woman-sentenced-20-years-prison-stand-your-ground

[thekillingwax]

There's a lot that went on with this case, mainly  she fired "warning shots". Guns are deadly weapons and their only function is to kill- you cannot warn or intent to maim with them. Her kids were present. What if her warning shot had gone through a wall and hit them? From what I understand, she was able to leave the house and get away and came back in to confront him again with the gun. It also doesn't help that she attacked him again while she was out on bail for this trial. The plea bargain was for 3 years and she wanted to take it to trial and she lost, so I don't really see why it's such a big deal.

[Dog Walker]

It's a big deal because of the excessive sentence that is a result of the stupid mandatory sentencing laws.  What she did was stupid and excessive, but doesn't rise to the level that it should result in 20 years.

[ChriswUfGator]

There's a lot that went on with this case, mainly  she fired "warning shots". Guns are deadly weapons and their only function is to kill- you cannot warn or intent to maim with them. Her kids were present. What if her warning shot had gone through a wall and hit them? From what I understand, she was able to leave the house and get away and came back in to confront him again with the gun. It also doesn't help that she attacked him again while she was out on bail for this trial. The plea bargain was for 3 years and she wanted to take it to trial and she lost, so I don't really see why it's such a big deal.

Then why's it legal to go hunting? Skeet shooting? Target shooting? Didn't realize gun ranges were really crime scenes. If their only purpose is to kill...

Back in reality-land, the woman fired into a floor (not at him) to stop what she believed was an impending attack. Classic self-defense, and the outcome goes to show how dumbass mandatory sentencing laws and tightening the definitions of what and isn't a crime have removed the common sense failsafes from the judicial system.

[thekillingwax]

Don't take me as anti-gun, I own plenty and use them often but in that scenario, it's only purpose is as a deadly weapon. Shooting into the floor is stupid, in what way is that classic self defense? So from now on, anytime you feel threatened, it's okay to just fire wildly at a potential threat- if someone gets hit, that's their fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Bullets gotta go somewhere, that's why they're never to be used to "warn" someone. I may not agree with mandatory sentencing but what she did was beyond idiotic and if someone had gotten killed from her "warning shot", we'd all be hearing about how the evil gun companies are to blame and that tighter controls are needed to prevent this type of incident.

[ChriswUfGator]

That's a lot of "ifs" there, isn't it? Once again back in reality-land, nobody did get killed (or even injured) but the woman is doing 20 years anyway. Really, you can't see any problem with this?

[thekillingwax]

I already said I don't really agree with the sentence. It has zilch to do with stand your ground, which was why they dragged it back into court for just because of the Trayvon Martin mess, that's the part I found insane and I think the only reason this case got so much attention. I personally believe that she was clearly wrong in her actions and should have taken the plea bargain because such an overkill sentence was hanging over her head- but I also don't know all the minute details of the case, I've just read about it online and seen discussion of it on TV.

Maybe one day we'll have more sensible laws but I'm sure that'll be well beyond our times.

[carpnter]

The biggest problem was that she walked out of the house, retrieved her gun, and walked back in then fired the warning shots.  That is not standing your ground.  She also had a deal on the table that would have given her much less time in jail had she taken it but she chose to go to trial and lost so the mandatory sentencing guidelines had to be applied. 
There is quite a bit more to this story than what that article covers.   

[ChriswUfGator]

The biggest problem was that she walked out of the house, retrieved her gun, and walked back in then fired the warning shots.  That is not standing your ground.  She also had a deal on the table that would have given her much less time in jail had she taken it but she chose to go to trial and lost so the mandatory sentencing guidelines had to be applied. 
There is quite a bit more to this story than what that article covers.   

Who cares what the plea deal was. Some people have principles in this day and age still, believe it or not. She obviously believed in principle or she'd have taken what by all accounts was a good deal. And who cares whether she walked to the car, the bottom line is the woman is serving a sentence longer than many actual homicide charges.

[officerk]

I do not know the ins and out of this case however as law enforcement I can tell you a little bit about what has been said here: 
- even some Law Enforcement Agencies train their Officers to do warning shots (in a safe direction - i.e ground) when time and safety permits.
- As a civilian: if you are able to remove yourself from the danger and then CHOOSE to go back into danger with a firearm or other weapon (as has been reported here) that is not stand your ground, that is premeditation.
 
Based on the "issues" that were brought up on the thread - I would say that the fact that she removed herself from danger and chose to return with the weapon was the heaviest of concerns with regards to her sentencing.  Her children being present did not help and Florida having the 10-20-Life sentencing Sunk her. She should have taken the 3-year deal...

[Tamara-B]

I do not know the ins and out of this case however as law enforcement I can tell you a little bit about what has been said here: 
- even some Law Enforcement Agencies train their Officers to do warning shots (in a safe direction - i.e ground) when time and safety permits.
- As a civilian: if you are able to remove yourself from the danger and then CHOOSE to go back into danger with a firearm or other weapon (as has been reported here) that is not stand your ground, that is premeditation.
 
Based on the "issues" that were brought up on the thread - I would say that the fact that she removed herself from danger and chose to return with the weapon was the heaviest of concerns with regards to her sentencing.  Her children being present did not help and Florida having the 10-20-Life sentencing Sunk her. She should have taken the 3-year deal...

I see what you're saying. I think this woman may have just finally snapped and was sick of all the abuse. Unfortunately, she let that cloud her judgement considering her kids were present. I always have mixed emotions about cases like these because some abused wives feel trapped, especially when they have children with their abusers.

[carpnter]

I do not know the ins and out of this case however as law enforcement I can tell you a little bit about what has been said here: 
- even some Law Enforcement Agencies train their Officers to do warning shots (in a safe direction - i.e ground) when time and safety permits.
- As a civilian: if you are able to remove yourself from the danger and then CHOOSE to go back into danger with a firearm or other weapon (as has been reported here) that is not stand your ground, that is premeditation.
 
Based on the "issues" that were brought up on the thread - I would say that the fact that she removed herself from danger and chose to return with the weapon was the heaviest of concerns with regards to her sentencing.  Her children being present did not help and Florida having the 10-20-Life sentencing Sunk her. She should have taken the 3-year deal...

I see what you're saying. I think this woman may have just finally snapped and was sick of all the abuse. Unfortunately, she let that cloud her judgement considering her kids were present. I always have mixed emotions about cases like these because some abused wives feel trapped, especially when they have children with their abusers.

This time was a bit different.  There was another article in the TU (You'll probably have to dig to find it, jacksonville.com has been rather slow lately) that had quite a few more details about the events in the house and this was not a case of her snapping.
For the record I think there needs to be some discretion allowed to judges in applying mandatory sentencing in cases like this. 

[officerk]

As I said - I don't know the details of this case other than that it happened.. I also know that the media tends to report what is most "interesting" or enraging.... unfortunately....

The meat of the matter is that if you have removed yourself from harm and knowingly returned to it - armed, it is definitely not stand your ground...

[ChriswUfGator]

Who cares about silly equivocations. This woman is serving a sentence that's 33% longer than the max for, as one example, DUI Manslaughter without leaving the scene. Which is an actual homicide, where someone actually died. How do you keep missing the point, that here nobody was even injured, much less died, and the woman is in jail for a sentence longer than some actual homicide charges? How does that make sense to you? Such an arbitrary justice systems discredits and embarrasses us all.

[I-10east]

^^^+100