Marrisa Alexander gets 20 years, George Zimmerman gets off am I missing something?
We all know about George Zimmerman being found not guilty because he fired in self defense but on Friday a Florida woman Marrisa Alexander was sent to prison for atempted murder for firing warning shots at her husband (she already had a protective order out against the man) who was planning on giving her a beating.
She says she was acting in self defense and that Florida's stand your ground law should apply. To me it sounds like she was acting in self defense so why has she received a 20 year sentence for attempted murder when George Zimmerman has been found innocent they were both afterall acting in self defense the main difference is George killed his attacker, I admit I don't know a lot about Florida law so am I missing something, maybe there's part of the case that hasn't been reported in the UK but it has intrigued me can someone enlighten me please.
|
Well self-defence is a difficult legal issue. If it were the UK the test would be: Did she use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, ." This has to be read in the light of what she believed the circumstances to be. Therefore, if she really did fear that she was going to be killed them the jury would be entitled to find that it was reasonable for her to use equal force to that which she feared (e.g. to kill him). Therefore, assuming that USA law is the same, the jury must have found that 1) she didn't believe there was a risk to her life or 2) that she did believe there was a risk but not so grave as to warrant the taking of that persons life. In the Zimmerman case I can see how the jury was satisfied. The guy was on top of him, assaulting him, and (if Zimmerman is to believed) making a threat to kill. 2
points
her husband who was planning on giving her a beating. If this occurred in a place of living that wasn't in his name, I have no problem with her killing him. Otherwise "planning on giving a beating" isn't a good reason to shoot at someone, you have to wait until they actually attempt something. She didn't actually shoot him from what I read she just fired warning shots and according to the stand your ground law from what I have been able to find out states "that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first". Its the reasonable belief part that I think upholds her case, she believed he meant to do her harm so fired warning shots, if it wasn't for this I would totally agree with you but from the reports I have read and from what I understand of this law it sounds like she has been unjustly convicted, I just wondered if there was something I'd missed. Hmmm... I guess my question is this: According to the stand your ground law, would you have been legally justified to shoot him? If yes I am confused, she is essentially being charged for missing. If no, I completely understand and she is guilty of a crime under the law you described. |
