Having read the testimony, the only thing I can say with certainty is that they should both be locked up long enough that it's impossible for them to reproduce again.

Any report on what is going to happen to the kids? With the mom in jail and the dad an abusive jerk where will they go?

ambassador_ahab: Subby, it should read, "unless you're a black woman who fires..."

Yeah, seems to be a common refrain.

The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases.

Zimmerman: now 100% white!!!

At least this kind of thing helps identify the racists.

jaybeezey: BurnShrike: 20 years for firing a shot that didn't hit anyone?! The US penal system has become a farce. That's just ridiculous.

You could rape and murder someone and be back on the streets faster than that.

Really? Time to get my arse to Florida and get my rape on.

But it would only be date rape, not rape rape.

Go find that brain cell of yours. It's probably in the back yard chasing it's tail. Now re read what you just posted and then fire a warning shot point blank at your face.

After that feel free to post whatever you want.

Have a nice day...and some skittles.

Voiceofreason01: Cythraul:
Never fire a warning shot? Okay, quick scenario:

Guy with a butcher knife is coming towards me, threatening my life. I have a gun in my hand, but I think maybe if I just scare the shiat out of him, taking his life will not be necessary. If I can't fire a warning shot in the air, or the ground, do I menacingly show him my weapon without pointing it at him, or something?

Personally and morally I agree with you but firing a warning shot drastically increases your chances of going to jail pretty much anywhere in the US. Firing a warning shot is not legally self defense because if you have time to fire a warning shot you did not consider lethal force necessary to defend yourself and firing a gun(even a warning shot) is very likely to be interpreted as lethal force in a court room. Brandishing is also a bad idea(unless you're in your own house in a State with a strong castle law).

/this is like day 1 stuff in CC class

I blame Hollywood for this kind of thinking personally, warning shots and shooting to wound are all fictitious and have no bearing on reality, particularly the legal consequences. No one ever dies from wounds to extremities on TV, and warning shots never hit someone you weren't aiming at. Like you said, this is all basic stuff covered on any CCW or firearm instruction class.

LegacyDL: Actually Florida's SYG law means that you can use deadly force provided that a) you're not the initial aggressor, b)you've attempted to defuse the situation and c)after following the criteria in a and b and you're still under duress and your life is in grave danger then feel free to stand your ground.

And the what the hell is a warning shot? If you shoot, shoot to maim/kill.

No, no law doesn't say those things.

In Florida, you can stand your ground if you were the aggressor and fear for your life when your victim retaliates, and you have no duty to retreat or reconcile.

That's why it's a badly written law, and why the Zimmerman case is proceeding the way it is.

And yes, you never, ever pull a trigger unless your intent is to end a life.

Warning shots are for the movies.

This woman needs to be removed from society. I agree with the jury.

As soon as you miss your target, it's technically a warning shot -_-

abhorrent1: Only white people fire "warning shots", subby. Black people "get their gat on".

Rigggghhhhtttt... So let's all hold our guns sideways (because that's how it came in the box bro) and shoot up the club. It doesn't matter who we hit or if anyone at all. White people actually hit their targets more often than not.

Remember kids gun control means hitting your target.

Oops, blanket statement is blankety.

Never pull a trigger in a non-competition type situation unless you intend to end a life.

SweetSilverBlues: Oops, blanket statement is blankety.

Never pull a trigger in a non-competition type situation unless you intend to end a life.

Or if you're demonstrating the proper way to fire a gun for a class.

Magorn: None of which facts, in my professional opinion have even the slightest bearing on whether what happened that night was a criminal act or legitimate self-defense. Her later re-unification with him is especially irrelevant as it is an extremely common feature of domestic violence cases. Even the "shoot at children" aspect is extraordinarily subjective, especially since officers were no there when the shot was fired so it would be impossible to determine whehther the children were anywhere near the path of the bullter when it was fired.

What IS relevant is that the man was actually choking her minutes before she fired, and the 20 year is wildly excessive as a sentence even absent the violence inflicted on her.

The law isn't about your personal opinion, or the emotion you're putting into it.

I thought that black people & women were still considered "property" in Florida.

/just like the bible says.

schattenteufel: I thought that black people & women were still considered "property" in Florida.

/just like the bible says.

Who wants to own something that never works and knows only one English word which is racism.

SweetSilverBlues: Oops, blanket statement is blankety.

Never pull a trigger in a non-competition type situation unless you intend to end a life.

Or you've got to fend off some aggressive clay pigeons. Nasty buggers, those.

probesport: Warning shot is the issue. If you can fire just a warning then you are no longer in fear for your life.

This is not rocket surgery.

I've always wondered when that opinion became fact. Where was it proven that a warning shot is an indicator that one isn't in fear for their life? In courts by lawyers that spin it? Repeated ad nauseum as urban legend for so many years it's taken as gospel? I believed it for a long time but I wonder at it now. Maybe someone who fires a warning shot (possibly not this person) is in fear for their life but still hesitant to 'murder' a fellow human being. Maybe there is variation in people's fight or flight responses that can vary based upon a lifetime list of events and happenings that make us all different. I don't really buy anymore that it is a proven fact that someone who fires a warning shot isn't in fear for their life. To some people guns and/or violence is so foreign to them a warning shot might by the most aggressive action they've ever mustered in their life, and the step of shooting someone's face off just isn't in them, despite the fear for their life that caused them to fire a warning shot.

Voiceofreason01: Rule #1: Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destory
Rule #2: NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT

/if you're facing a real imminent threat to your life you do not have time to fire a warning shot
//plus a gun is not a precision weapon and you don't know where that bullet will end up

Hell, I would go so far as to place #2 ahead of #1.

Your slashies are spot-on.

Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: Rule #1: Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destory
Rule #2: NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT

/if you're facing a real imminent threat to your life you do not have time to fire a warning shot
//plus a gun is not a precision weapon and you don't know where that bullet will end up

Never fire a warning shot? Okay, quick scenario:

Guy with a butcher knife is coming towards me, threatening my life. I have a gun in my hand, but I think maybe if I just scare the shiat out of him, taking his life will not be necessary. If I can't fire a warning shot in the air, or the ground, do I menacingly show him my weapon without pointing it at him, or something?

2 courses of action, run, if you don't think you have the heart or will to take a life, or center of mass until the gun is empty or the other guy stops moving. Warning shots or brandishing a weapon as a threat merely escalate the issue.

nice five-head

rudemix: probesport: Warning shot is the issue. If you can fire just a warning then you are no longer in fear for your life.

This is not rocket surgery.

I've always wondered when that opinion became fact. Where was it proven that a warning shot is an indicator that one isn't in fear for their life? In courts by lawyers that spin it? Repeated ad nauseum as urban legend for so many years it's taken as gospel? I believed it for a long time but I wonder at it now. Maybe someone who fires a warning shot (possibly not this person) is in fear for their life but still hesitant to 'murder' a fellow human being. Maybe there is variation in people's fight or flight responses that can vary based upon a lifetime list of events and happenings that make us all different. I don't really buy anymore that it is a proven fact that someone who fires a warning shot isn't in fear for their life. To some people guns and/or violence is so foreign to them a warning shot might by the most aggressive action they've ever mustered in their life, and the step of shooting someone's face off just isn't in them, despite the fear for their life that caused them to fire a warning shot.

I understand why someone might want to do a warning shot, but it's just not a good idea as far as your survival or the possible legal outcome. If you don't think you could shoot someone to defend yourself, you should either get training and become more confident in yourself, or find some other means of defense.

you have pee hands: SweetSilverBlues: Oops, blanket statement is blankety.

Never pull a trigger in a non-competition type situation unless you intend to end a life.

Or you've got to fend off some aggressive clay pigeons. Nasty buggers, those.

That would fall under "intent to end a life".

Not that the little bastards don't deserve it.

Magorn: None of which facts, in my professional opinion have even the slightest bearing on whether what happened that night was a criminal act or legitimate self-defense. Her later re-unification with him is especially irrelevant as it is an extremely common feature of domestic violence cases. Even the "shoot at children" aspect is extraordinarily subjective, especially since officers were no there when the shot was fired so it would be impossible to determine whehther the children were anywhere near the path of the bullter when it was fired.

What IS relevant is that the man was actually choking her minutes before she fired, and the 20 year is wildly excessive as a sentence even absent the violence inflicted on her.

She didn't shoot the guy, so she didn't "stand her ground". One point my firearms instructor stressed is "NO WARNING SHOTS". If you shoot a warning shot it means you were not in actual fear of grievous bodily injury and/or death. If you are in enough fear to fire that gun then it needs to be enough fear to shoot the person. If you are scared just enough to fire a warning shot then you are not in enough danger to shoot the gun at all.

If she had shot the guy she could have used the SYG law and been out of jail by dinner time. This has nothing to do with race, sex, color, or even hairstyle. The article is a poorly written attempt at stirring up some sort of racial controversy where there is none.

At best this is a case where mandatory sentencing farked over someone who shouldn't be in jail that long.

SweetSilverBlues: This woman needs to be removed from society. I agree with the jury.

because she fired a gun in the air after her boyfriend beat and choked her? she is probably an idiot, sure, but twenty years in prison? seriously? not only do people frequently do less for manslaughter, they usually do less for manslaughter.

i suppose you'd also lock up every first offense DUI for 20 years, speeders and slow drivers for 10, and jaywalkers for 5.

Carousel Beast: The law isn't about your personal opinion, or the emotion you're putting into it.

THIS.

The law is about legislators' personal opinions, and the emotion they can get out of it.

shiat like this is why I only carry grenades.

ihatedumbpeople: jbuist: Cythraul: I didn't know firing a warning shot was illegal. Maybe some sort of violation of firearms code where you're not allowed to fire a weapon within city limits? But 20 years, for that? This just doesn't make any sense.

The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

Make a little more sense now?

jbuist: jbuist: If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court

Forgot to mention she was re-arrested on domestic battery charges during the trial.

So, yeah. Credibility shot.

does now...thanks. Was wondering...20 years for a warning shot??? wtf? but that makes sense...


Yup, came in here for the same reason, thinking that there just had to be more to this case, and I see that my suspicions were right.

Also.... I don't see anything wrong with the law itself. The law makes sense and the law seems to have been well written. The problem is in the application of the law. You have a bunch of predjudiced cops and DA's apply a good law poorly. Having lived in Florida for a few years... I'm not at all surprised.

rudemix: probesport: Warning shot is the issue. If you can fire just a warning then you are no longer in fear for your life.

This is not rocket surgery.

I've always wondered when that opinion became fact. Where was it proven that a warning shot is an indicator that one isn't in fear for their life? In courts by lawyers that spin it? Repeated ad nauseum as urban legend for so many years it's taken as gospel? I believed it for a long time but I wonder at it now. Maybe someone who fires a warning shot (possibly not this person) is in fear for their life but still hesitant to 'murder' a fellow human being. Maybe there is variation in people's fight or flight responses that can vary based upon a lifetime list of events and happenings that make us all different. I don't really buy anymore that it is a proven fact that someone who fires a warning shot isn't in fear for their life. To some people guns and/or violence is so foreign to them a warning shot might by the most aggressive action they've ever mustered in their life, and the step of shooting someone's face off just isn't in them, despite the fear for their life that caused them to fire a warning shot.

Because as I said to Magorn: the law is not about your personal opinion or emotions. It's (ideally) about reality. I see where you're coming from, and I understand the how/why of your inquiry, but you aren't thinking it through.

You may indeed be afraid for your life, but that doesn't mean your life is in danger. If we go on how people *feel* rather than what happened, society goes into anarchy pretty quickly (look at mob mentality for examples). One of the ways that's been determined to help decide if you were in imminent danger is if you have time to fire a warning shot. Why? Because an assailant can cover 14ish feet in a lunge lasting just over a second. If you have time to fire a warning shot, which takes about the same amount of time, then - usually - your "attacker" was not making that final, decisive escalation of the situation to call for deadly force. Now, your adrenalin may have been up and your fear in full force, but those are not justification for that use of deadly force.

vpb: Bit'O'Gristle: Ok, if i'm reading this right, she's getting 20 years for a WARNING SHOT that didn't even connect? Wtf is this sorcery?

Mandatory minimum sentience.

Many Floridians do not meet this qualification.

Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: Rule #1: Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destory
Rule #2: NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT

/if you're facing a real imminent threat to your life you do not have time to fire a warning shot
//plus a gun is not a precision weapon and you don't know where that bullet will end up

Never fire a warning shot? Okay, quick scenario:

Guy with a butcher knife is coming towards me, threatening my life. I have a gun in my hand, but I think maybe if I just scare the shiat out of him, taking his life will not be necessary. If I can't fire a warning shot in the air, or the ground, do I menacingly show him my weapon without pointing it at him, or something?

And that warning shot you fired in the air, where does it come down?

If you have to shoot, at least shoot the guy with the knife, not the innocent kid a couple miles away.

You sound like someone who learned about guns from TV and movies. That makes you dangerous.

In the real world, there's no such thing as a warning shot. Every shot hits something--a person, a wall, something. Often multiple somethings.

Better you know what you're aiming at than fire off randomly.

"The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases."

On the surface, it would appear that way, but I remember how wildly misreported the Zimmerman case was when it first happened, so I will reserve judgement. Was it really a warning shot or was she actually shooting to kill and her defense team is just saying "warning shot"? If she shot four feet over his head, it was a warning shot. If she missed his head by a couple of inches, she was trying to blow him away and just missed. It was no warning shot.

If even NBC will intentionally distort the thruth to get a salacious news story then I can't imagine there is a news organization that won't.

Pumpernickel bread: Was it really a warning shot

Was her attacker on the ceiling?

Cythraul: mcmnky: Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: Rule #1: Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destory
Rule #2: NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT

/if you're facing a real imminent threat to your life you do not have time to fire a warning shot
//plus a gun is not a precision weapon and you don't know where that bullet will end up

Never fire a warning shot? Okay, quick scenario:

Guy with a butcher knife is coming towards me, threatening my life. I have a gun in my hand, but I think maybe if I just scare the shiat out of him, taking his life will not be necessary. If I can't fire a warning shot in the air, or the ground, do I menacingly show him my weapon without pointing it at him, or something?

And that warning shot you fired in the air, where does it come down?

If you have to shoot, at least shoot the guy with the knife, not the innocent kid a couple miles away.

You sound like someone who learned about guns from TV and movies. That makes you dangerous.

In the real world, there's no such thing as a warning shot. Every shot hits something--a person, a wall, something. Often multiple somethings.

Better you know what you're aiming at than fire off randomly.

YES! I got it. Shoot people who you feel are a threat to your life.

If you'd put half as much effort into reasoned thought as you do into appeal to emotion, you'd be a better person.

Carousel Beast: rudemix: probesport: Warning shot is the issue. If you can fire just a warning then you are no longer in fear for your life.

This is not rocket surgery.

I've always wondered when that opinion became fact. Where was it proven that a warning shot is an indicator that one isn't in fear for their life? In courts by lawyers that spin it? Repeated ad nauseum as urban legend for so many years it's taken as gospel? I believed it for a long time but I wonder at it now. Maybe someone who fires a warning shot (possibly not this person) is in fear for their life but still hesitant to 'murder' a fellow human being. Maybe there is variation in people's fight or flight responses that can vary based upon a lifetime list of events and happenings that make us all different. I don't really buy anymore that it is a proven fact that someone who fires a warning shot isn't in fear for their life. To some people guns and/or violence is so foreign to them a warning shot might by the most aggressive action they've ever mustered in their life, and the step of shooting someone's face off just isn't in them, despite the fear for their life that caused them to fire a warning shot.

Because as I said to Magorn: the law is not about your personal opinion or emotions. It's (ideally) about reality. I see where you're coming from, and I understand the how/why of your inquiry, but you aren't thinking it through.

You may indeed be afraid for your life, but that doesn't mean your life is in danger. If we go on how people *feel* rather than what happened, society goes into anarchy pretty quickly (look at mob mentality for examples). One of the ways that's been determined to help decide if you were in imminent danger is if you have time to fire a warning shot. Why? Because an assailant can cover 14ish feet in a lunge lasting just over a second. If you have time to fire a warning shot, which takes about the same amount of time, then - usually - your "attacker" was not making that final, decisive escalat ...

Isn't a persons perception of fear absolutely opinion and feeling though? 14ish feet and matters of seconds are really the litmus this rests upon to decide if someone truly was scared for their life? And I've done a bit of googling (which I'm not good at) and have found no 'law' that states 'a warning shot fired removes the fear of life from being a defense'. I'm assuming there's been rulings that support it, but was there some evidential basis besides 'opinion and feeling' from experts who testified to it? I'm talking tests and hard data, not just how I feel or a jury at some point felt. Until there is hard data it truly is only opinion and feeling that at some point, or points, was sold to a jury that it wasn't fear of life anymore once a warning shot was fired.

Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: Rule #1: Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destory
Rule #2: NEVER FIRE A WARNING SHOT

/if you're facing a real imminent threat to your life you do not have time to fire a warning shot
//plus a gun is not a precision weapon and you don't know where that bullet will end up

Never fire a warning shot? Okay, quick scenario:

Guy with a butcher knife is coming towards me, threatening my life. I have a gun in my hand, but I think maybe if I just scare the shiat out of him, taking his life will not be necessary. If I can't fire a warning shot in the air, or the ground, do I menacingly show him my weapon without pointing it at him, or something?

I recall something about needing more than 9 feet between you and the knife attacker...

Cythraul: rudemix: probesport: Warning shot is the issue. If you can fire just a warning then you are no longer in fear for your life.

This is not rocket surgery.

I've always wondered when that opinion became fact. Where was it proven that a warning shot is an indicator that one isn't in fear for their life? In courts by lawyers that spin it? Repeated ad nauseum as urban legend for so many years it's taken as gospel? I believed it for a long time but I wonder at it now. Maybe someone who fires a warning shot (possibly not this person) is in fear for their life but still hesitant to 'murder' a fellow human being. Maybe there is variation in people's fight or flight responses that can vary based upon a lifetime list of events and happenings that make us all different. I don't really buy anymore that it is a proven fact that someone who fires a warning shot isn't in fear for their life. To some people guns and/or violence is so foreign to them a warning shot might by the most aggressive action they've ever mustered in their life, and the step of shooting someone's face off just isn't in them, despite the fear for their life that caused them to fire a warning shot.

Not that I disagree with you, but others in this thread have already made it very clear to me You shoot their face off, and ask questions later.

I'd probably never be in the situation as I don't carry but if I was in the situation and managed to get someone's gun who was trying to use it on me, it would be pew pew pew time!!!

Aarontology: jbuist: The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

thanks, I was having a hard time reading those skinny little letters

jbuist: Cythraul: I didn't know firing a warning shot was illegal. Maybe some sort of violation of firearms code where you're not allowed to fire a weapon within city limits? But 20 years, for that? This just doesn't make any sense.

The "warning shot" was in the general direction of the abusive husband and children. Not up into the ceiling which is what they initially told police.

If you shoot at children, lie about it, then hook back up with the abusive husband after the trial starts despite being told not to by the court... well, yeah, the jury ain't gonna be nice to you.

Make a little more sense now?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Do you really expect me to believe that an American news organization would cherry-pick details about a story, leave out all of the facts that don't support their conclusion, and then sensationalize it to work people into a lather over a story full of half-truths and missing facts!? Well sir, I will have you know that I have the utmost faith in our fine propaganda media institutions, and I will not stand for this completely unwarranted slander! Good day, sir!

BurnShrike: 20 years for firing a shot that didn't hit anyone?! The US penal system has become a farce. That's just ridiculous.

You could rape and murder someone and be back on the streets faster than that.

Slight tangent here, but I never understood the argument that someone should not be punished as severe if they were a poor shot. If the person was intent on murder and they failed, they should still serve the same time as a murderer.

Well, we imagine her prosecutor Angela Corey (who's also charging George Zimmerman) and her team, have the unfulfilling answers. The Florida Times Union's Charles Broward reported on April 21, "A judge denied [Alexander] immunity in a Stand Your Ground hearing. And after a jury found her guilty, she faces a mandatory term of 20 years in prison." Yes, there's the rage-inducing fact that Zimmerman who allegedly pursued and (not allegedly) killed Trayvon Martin was allowed to walk free that night while Alexander is going to spend 20 years of her life in prison for a single warning shot while in her own home.


Ones been tried in court and found guilty....ones out on bail pending trial.....I hope that helps, you stupid race baiting journalists.

What an actual African-American might look like...



I don't understand the widespread misuse of this term.