Stand your Ground - Not if you are a black woman?

I read that story.

Mandatory penalties have a lot to answer for. The certainty that they will deliver bad law ahead of justice on many occasions means they must logically be eliminated from the system. We have some sort of three strikes law in NZ now. Something grim will happen.
 
The way I understand most Stand Your Ground laws, and also self defense laws, it is illegal to fire a warning shot, because that means you didn't really think your life was in danger. I'm not sure I agree with that philosophy, but I certainly don't want people running around firing warning shots without imminent danger either.

I can also see a case (although not those sentences) against her since most home walls are not bullet proof, so firing a warning shot into a home wall, especially with a baby home, unnecessarily put additional people at risk.

To me, this case also demonstrated the absurdity of minimum sentencing. What I don't get is how her being a black woman has anything to do with things.
 
Is she shot him, even with a history of domestic violence, the odds are pretty high that she would have been charge with assault (if he lived) or murder (if he died.)

It is almost a no win situation where you can only sit there and take the abuse in many cases if you are a female victim of domestic abuse.

As far as the ability of the bullet to penetrate, I really would need to know both what she was carrying and what the construction is. A wall will at least vastly slow down a round so it may injure instead of kill.
 
SleepingWeasle said:
The way I understand most Stand Your Ground laws, and also self defense laws, it is illegal to fire a warning shot, because that means you didn't really think your life was in danger. I'm not sure I agree with that philosophy, but I certainly don't want people running around firing warning shots without imminent danger either.

I can also see a case (although not those sentences) against her since most home walls are not bullet proof, so firing a warning shot into a home wall, especially with a baby home, unnecessarily put additional people at risk.

To me, this case also demonstrated the absurdity of minimum sentencing. What I don't get is how her being a black woman has anything to do with things.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, she texted a photo of her new baby to the father of a couple of halflings. The new father went through her phone, went ballistic, she tried to escape but car or garage door wouldn't operate. Back in the house and he is likely to beat her to a pulp. She is experienced with guns, her father is a militiary man, she fires a warning shot through the wall above his head. The other two children are elsewhere in the house. He scarpers, and the police are surrounding the house shortly. Feeling regretful for her plight he admits beating his five previous mamas, but eventually rescinds that.
The warning shot would seem safe to other house occupants, by the obvious angling, certainly way safer than she was.

(my precis is from one reading, it is worth reading the story)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the summary, I've been looking it up on the web since I read the OP. It truly is a horrible case, and I agree that there was no good way out for her. Are the odds really that high that she would have most likely have been charged? If so, something really needs to change to remedy that. It looks to me like it should be a clear cut case of self defense, but I'm quite far from an expert.
 
Well, if I were dictator, I'd probably have given her a medal or at least a free pizza. But I'm not.

But "stand your ground" means "stand your ground." It means you don't have to retreat, or apologize, or offer money, or any of those things that were expected before you could mount a defense on the grounds of self-defense.

It doesn't mean that you can take a single step forward. It doesn't mean you can fire a warning shot. It doesn't mean that you can shoot because of something that happened yesterday or last week. It doesn't mean that you won't get charged. It doesn't mean that you can shoot to protect someone else. Though there may be other laws, they aren't "stand your ground" laws.

It means that you don't have to withdraw, and if you are in a position where you, personally, don't think you can get away, and you are still threatened, you can shoot to disable or kill.

This is why they are called "stand your ground" laws. They are about standing your ground. It is one of the few instances where laws are named appropriate. So you can tell by reading the words "stand your ground," which can be convenient for readers.
 
Is this the one that was prosecuted by Angela Corey? If it isn't, there's another one out there with the same basic parameters.
 
Kaosium said:
Is this the one that was prosecuted by Angela Corey? If it isn't, there's another one out there with the same basic parameters.
Click to expand...
Her office issued a statement, so answer probably yes.
 
epepke said:
Well, if I were dictator, I'd probably have given her a medal or at least a free pizza. But I'm not.

But "stand your ground" means "stand your ground." It means you don't have to retreat, or apologize, or offer money, or any of those things that were expected before you could mount a defense on the grounds of self-defense.

It doesn't mean that you can take a single step forward. It doesn't mean you can fire a warning shot. It doesn't mean that you can shoot because of something that happened yesterday or last week. It doesn't mean that you won't get charged. It doesn't mean that you can shoot to protect someone else. Though there may be other laws, they aren't "stand your ground" laws.

It means that you don't have to withdraw, and if you are in a position where you, personally, don't think you can get away, and you are still threatened, you can shoot to disable or kill.

This is why they are called "stand your ground" laws. They are about standing your ground. It is one of the few instances where laws are named appropriate. So you can tell by reading the words "stand your ground," which can be convenient for readers.
Click to expand...

One thing about laws in the legal sense is that they are not like mathematical laws. . . .Often the letter is really hard to follow.

If you remember the West Memphis 3 appeal based on new evidence, the Arkansas AG tried to in effect cut the teeth out of the new evidence statute based on a literal reading of the law.

I would argue that based on the laws intent, Marissa Alexander followed the law.
 
As I recall, where she went wrong was in retreating, retrieving her gun, and then coming back into the house to confront her ex.
 
Metullus said:
As I recall, where she went wrong was in retreating, retrieving her gun, and then coming back into the house to confront her ex.
Click to expand...

That was how I understood that case as well. It's not self-defense when you go back to confront, although the OP seems to imply that she couldn't otherwise leave.
 
Metullus said:
As I recall, where she went wrong was in retreating, retrieving her gun, and then coming back into the house to confront her ex.
Click to expand...

She went to her car inside of a closed garage where she then could not open the door. . . .Simple way that could happen, he just flicked off the circuit breaker.
 
Desert Fox said:
She went to her car inside of a closed garage where she then could not open the door. . . .Simple way that could happen, he just flicked off the circuit breaker.
Click to expand...
So you just open the door by hand.

Bottom line is she retreated to safety, then went back to not only confront but fired shots through the wall and into the room where her children were.

One thing you learn in any basic defensive pistol course is you never, ever fire a "warning shot". If the threat is imminent you fire at the threat, if it's not you don't fire at all. She's lucky her children were not hit.
 
WildCat said:
So you just open the door by hand.

Bottom line is she retreated to safety, then went back to not only confront but fired shots through the wall and into the room where her children were.

One thing you learn in any basic defensive pistol course is you never, ever fire a "warning shot". If the threat is imminent you fire at the threat, if it's not you don't fire at all. She's lucky her children were not hit.
Click to expand...

She was taught by her father how to use a weapon and he was in the military. The military does teach soldiers that under certain situations one should fire warning shots. Not quite as cut and dry as you would like to argue.

Second, from what I have found, usually it takes me a few minutes to get a garage type door open manually. She also had only recently given birth prematurely and was probably not at her best physically.

Put yourself in her shoes. . . .Small woman, big man, seemingly* trapped in a garage. You have a firearm and you want to get out of the building. What would you do. Would you not be tempted to get your way to the door to get out?

*I write "seemingly" because when you are a fear situation, your brain is not firing right. There might have been no actual problems with the door.

Edit: There is also this thing called compassion. Compassion for a woman who was in fear for her life. Maybe she chose the wrong course but nobody died or even got hurt. One should always apply laws with compassion.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
So you just open the door by hand.

Bottom line is she retreated to safety, then went back to not only confront but fired shots through the wall and into the room where her children were.

One thing you learn in any basic defensive pistol course is you never, ever fire a "warning shot". If the threat is imminent you fire at the threat, if it's not you don't fire at all. She's lucky her children were not hit.
Click to expand...
Prepostorous. If the OP is correct she was a stone cold victim of the worst treatment that American justice can deliver, and I say that as an outside observer.
 
Desert Fox said:
She was taught by her father how to use a weapon and he was in the military. The military does teach soldiers that under certain situations one should fire warning shots. Not quite as cut and dry as you would like to argue.
Click to expand...
This isn't the military and she wasn't in a war, much different rules.

Desert Fox said:
Second, from what I have found, usually it takes me a few minutes to get a garage type door open manually. She also had only recently given birth prematurely and was probably not at her best physically.
Click to expand...
It takes 15 seconds, pull the handle on the string dangling from the track and lift the door. If the door is properly hung it takes very minimal effort to lift it, the spring does most of the work.

Desert Fox said:
Put yourself in her shoes. . . .Small woman, big man, seemingly* trapped in a garage. You have a firearm and you want to get out of the building. What would you do. Would you not be tempted to get your way to the door to get out?
Click to expand...
The man wasn't in the garage, she was safe there. If he tries to enter the garage then it's a much different story, fire away.

Desert Fox said:
*I write "seemingly" because when you are a fear situation, your brain is not firing right. There might have been no actual problems with the door.

Edit: There is also this thing called compassion. Compassion for a woman who was in fear for her life. Maybe she chose the wrong course but nobody died or even got hurt. One should always apply laws with compassion.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but I think passing a law specifically allowing warning shots is going to have some unintended effects and went a bit far. I just don't see the need for warning shots, in spite of crazy Joe Biden's advice.
 
Desert Fox said:
Now, granted she did eventually get a plea for time served but even with that she cannot even work and she seems to have been a reasonably productive member of society.

She originally got twenty years and from another article found out that the prosecutor wanted sixty years. Nobody wins, not society and nobody involved.

http://www.essence.com/2015/03/04/marissa-alexander-exclusive/
Click to expand...

If she had been trying to kill him she probably would never have been charged. Warning shots are not exactly legal.
 
Desert Fox said:
She was taught by her father how to use a weapon and he was in the military. The military does teach soldiers that under certain situations one should fire warning shots. Not quite as cut and dry as you would like to argue.
Click to expand...

Just an FYI regarding this staement.

Warning shots aren't trained, they're sometimes included in specific mission briefings and ROIs, and are not in any way, shape, or form standard. While there is a place for warning shots, this would never have been one of them. Warning shots are used as a warning, NOT when you are not threatened with imminent danger. Examples are vehicles or people that do not have obvious ill-intent, but have ignored verbal warnings about (for example) entereing a restricted area. Even then, warning shots are the exception, rather than the rule; much more likely is verbal warning, then calling the QRF and attempting physical restaint. If you use your weapon, it's because they've just drawn a weapon on you, and you're shooting to kill.
 
Desert Fox said:
She was taught by her father how to use a weapon and he was in the military. The military does teach soldiers that under certain situations one should fire warning shots. Not quite as cut and dry as you would like to argue.
Click to expand...

The military is also deployed in other jurisdiction. It may have to do with that?
The permissive attitude towards shooting to kill is probably quite unusual.
 
WildCat said:
I agree with this, but I think passing a law specifically allowing warning shots is going to have some unintended effects and went a bit far. I just don't see the need for warning shots, in spite of crazy Joe Biden's advice.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that and maybe even charge her with something but not something involving 60 years in prison.
 
Desert Fox said:
She was taught by her father how to use a weapon and he was in the military. The military does teach soldiers that under certain situations one should fire warning shots. Not quite as cut and dry as you would like to argue.

Second, from what I have found, usually it takes me a few minutes to get a garage type door open manually. She also had only recently given birth prematurely and was probably not at her best physically.

Put yourself in her shoes. . . .Small woman, big man, seemingly* trapped in a garage. You have a firearm and you want to get out of the building. What would you do. Would you not be tempted to get your way to the door to get out?

*I write "seemingly" because when you are a fear situation, your brain is not firing right. There might have been no actual problems with the door.

Edit: There is also this thing called compassion. Compassion for a woman who was in fear for her life. Maybe she chose the wrong course but nobody died or even got hurt. One should always apply laws with compassion.
Click to expand...

We're also taught to use suppressive fire and supporting fires, two other tactics that have no place in a discussion of civilian defensive gun use.

The general rule in civilian and LE use of defensive force is that if you need to use a firearm at all, it must be used to stop an immediate threat to life, and if the victim has time and space to fire warning shots the situation at hand didn't rise to a lethal force incident until the would be victim brought a firearm into it.
 
BStrong said:
We're also taught to use suppressive fire and supporting fires, two other tactics that have no place in a discussion of civilian defensive gun use.

The general rule in civilian and LE use of defensive force is that if you need to use a firearm at all, it must be used to stop an immediate threat to life, and if the victim has time and space to fire warning shots the situation at hand didn't rise to a lethal force incident until the would be victim brought a firearm into it.
Click to expand...

Do you think that police never bend the rules and never fire "warning shots?"
Look, I am not advising it but I understand the reluctance of any person to shoot another human being.

I have not fired a firearm at or near a human being but I have draw a firearm on another human being. I was working security at a convenience store years ago and was attempting to get a large black male out of the store. He grabbed a bottle and prepared to charge. I drew my weapon, he dropped the bottle, and ran. A firearm does have a way of showing the other person that they better desist.
 
Desert Fox said:
Do you think that police never bend the rules and never fire "warning shots?"
Look, I am not advising it but I understand the reluctance of any person to shoot another human being.

I have not fired a firearm at or near a human being but I have draw a firearm on another human being. I was working security at a convenience store years ago and was attempting to get a large black male out of the store. He grabbed a bottle and prepared to charge. I drew my weapon, he dropped the bottle, and ran. A firearm does have a way of showing the other person that they better desist.
Click to expand...

Not in my agency - and since my corner of the LE universe all started in firearms training I never once taught any individual that a warning shot constituted sound tactics or departmental policy - if you need to draw the weapon, do so, if you need to fire the weapon it had better be for a legally justifiable reason and you'd better hit your target and stop it.

Second bolded, I have always preferred to have folks run away from me than me having to shoot them - it's a bunch easier to write up a foot chase than a shooting incident.
 
BStrong said:
Not in my agency - and since my corner of the LE universe all started in firearms training I never once taught any individual that a warning shot constituted sound tactics or departmental policy - if you need to draw the weapon, do so, if you need to fire the weapon it had better be for a legally justifiable reason and you'd better hit your target and stop it.

Second bolded, I have always preferred to have folks run away from me than me having to shoot them - it's a bunch easier to write up a foot chase than a shooting incident.
Click to expand...

You know the best reports as far as police is 5 shots per hit right?

Now, my argument is not that there is an official policy of warning shots but many departments look the other way when officers do it. I suspect in many cases where nobody was hit, the discharge will never be recorded. Pretty humorous that I know of an officer who holstered his weapon and managed to shout himself in the gluteus maximus.

The thing is that I don't think the law she was charged under was meant for this situation. When charging her, they should have found a lesser charge/ For example, in Virginia, I think she could have been charged as a class 6 felony which involve 1 to 5 years in prison and minor fines. We can then argue this in court.
 
Desert Fox said:
You know the best reports as far as police is 5 shots per hit right?

Now, my argument is not that there is an official policy of warning shots but many departments look the other way when officers do it. I suspect in many cases where nobody was hit, the discharge will never be recorded. Pretty humorous that I know of an officer who holstered his weapon and managed to shout himself in the gluteus maximus.

The thing is that I don't think the law she was charged under was meant for this situation. When charging her, they should have found a lesser charge/ For example, in Virginia, I think she could have been charged as a class 6 felony which involve 1 to 5 years in prison and minor fines. We can then argue this in court.
Click to expand...

National averages are a little misleading, because in some well documented instances you have a whole slough of individual officers going cyclic and going through mag changes, when maybe only two officers out of the bunch have any good angle on the threat - which deters the rest of the bunch not at all, and they continue to shoot until common sense breaks out or somebody with a little rank gets the shooting party under control.

It never happened in my agency on my watch.

It would be near impossible for officers in our department to get away with firing rounds off w/o reporting 1) Our city was an early adopter of the "shot-spotting" system and 2) we were early adopters of the dash cam as well. Officer would have to work pretty hard to get away with shooting w/o being detected one way or another.

It may have gone on before I came along, but we never had an on-duty negligent discharge during my service - ND's on the live fire range are a different issue, and during training with new officers or in quals or requals guys did put more than a few holes in the ground in front of them and before the target stand - such things do happen, but again such incidents never showed up in a shooting investigation.
 
BStrong said:
The general rule in civilian and LE use of defensive force is that if you need to use a firearm at all, it must be used to stop an immediate threat to life, and if the victim has time and space to fire warning shots the situation at hand didn't rise to a lethal force incident until the would be victim brought a firearm into it.
Click to expand...

That's the situation in the US. I'd be surprised if this was generally the general rule.
 
BStrong said:
National averages are a little misleading, because in some well documented instances you have a whole slough of individual officers going cyclic and going through mag changes, when maybe only two officers out of the bunch have any good angle on the threat - which deters the rest of the bunch not at all, and they continue to shoot until common sense breaks out or somebody with a little rank gets the shooting party under control.

It never happened in my agency on my watch.

It would be near impossible for officers in our department to get away with firing rounds off w/o reporting 1) Our city was an early adopter of the "shot-spotting" system and 2) we were early adopters of the dash cam as well. Officer would have to work pretty hard to get away with shooting w/o being detected one way or another.

It may have gone on before I came along, but we never had an on-duty negligent discharge during my service - ND's on the live fire range are a different issue, and during training with new officers or in quals or requals guys did put more than a few holes in the ground in front of them and before the target stand - such things do happen, but again such incidents never showed up in a shooting investigation.
Click to expand...

You post comes halfway to admitting that it may have happened before new rules came into place and very well may still be happening in other jurisdictions. We have had some pretty recent incidents of police not following the rules.

Now here is a question for you. Let us assume that a police officer does discharge his firearm and it seems to have been something more like a warning shot, what are the odds of him or her actually being charged? I suspect that he or she might be disciplined but not even fired.

Often, it can be a case where the cop kills somebody in a bad shooting and gets charged with a low level manslaughter charge. Good odds Virginia would try to put a needle in a normal person's arm.

What I am arguing for is some kind of sane charge.
 
WildCat said:
The man wasn't in the garage, she was safe there. If he tries to enter the garage then it's a much different story, fire away.
Click to expand...

This, to me, is the critical point. She wasn't "standing her ground"; she armed herself and went back in to confront him. Garage doors can be opened manually if necessary; she should have just done that and left. If he comes in the garage in the meanwhile, let him have it.
 
jhunter1163 said:
This, to me, is the critical point. She wasn't "standing her ground"; she armed herself and went back in to confront him.
Click to expand...
This alone should have been enough to prosecute her. Pointing a loaded gun at someone and threatening to shoot them is just as bad, whether a 'warning' shot is fired or not - even if you are inside your own home trying to repel an uninvited 'guest'.

200,000 times a year, women use a gun to defend against sexual abuse. In every single case (unless they kill the attacker) those women should be prosecuted and receive at least 60 years in prison.

The message is clear - if your ex is harassing you then don't delay, shoot him on sight!
 
jhunter1163 said:
she armed herself and went back in to confront him.
Click to expand...
This is why everybody should carry a gun at all times. if an intruder gets into your home then it's OK to stand your ground. But if you have to get your gun from where you stored it then you will be the one serving 60 years.

Unless you shoot to kill. Dead men can't tell tales...
 
Desert Fox said:
There are plenty of cases where female domestic abuse victims are tried for murder for defending themselves.

Look for "Sins by Silence"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEY95Uc_zE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naGlCwdvVx8
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/women-in-prison-for-fighting-back-against-domestic-abuse-ray-rice
Click to expand...
Killing them in their sleep, as opposed to when they're actually attacking you, makes a bit of a difference as far as legal self defense goes.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
This is why everybody should carry a gun at all times. if an intruder gets into your home then it's OK to stand your ground. But if you have to get your gun from where you stored it then you will be the one serving 60 years.

Unless you shoot to kill. Dead men can't tell tales...
Click to expand...
Shoot to kill. That woman would have been just fine, a pure heroine. America is one crazy place.
I must have read a different OP to everyone else. She fired a very safe warning shot and the big boy ran away. It worked. He never got to beat up the sixth mama.
 
Samson said:
Shoot to kill. That woman would have been just fine, a pure heroine. America is one crazy place.
I must have read a different OP to everyone else. She fired a very safe warning shot and the big boy ran away. It worked. He never got to beat up the sixth mama.
Click to expand...

I am hoping that Roger Ramjets is being facetious :rolleyes:
 
I made a lot of assumptions about this case, which turned out to not be true. That's what I get for not doing my homework. I assumed the door was broken, and unable to be opened and that the guy eventually followed her in there and had her cornered. I was obviously wrong, and now believe she was wrong.

Samson said:
Shoot to kill. That woman would have been just fine, a pure heroine. America is one crazy place.
I must have read a different OP to everyone else. She fired a very safe warning shot and the big boy ran away. It worked. He never got to beat up the sixth mama.
Click to expand...

In what way was the warning shot very safe? It was reckless and incredible irresponsible.
 
SleepingWeasle said:
I made a lot of assumptions about this case, which turned out to not be true. That's what I get for not doing my homework. I assumed the door was broken, and unable to be opened and that the guy eventually followed her in there and had her cornered. I was obviously wrong, and now believe she was wrong.

In what way was the warning shot very safe? It was reckless and incredible irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I agree that she was wrong but does her level of wrong justify 60, 20, or even 3 years in prison?
 
SleepingWeasle said:
I made a lot of assumptions about this case, which turned out to not be true. That's what I get for not doing my homework. I assumed the door was broken, and unable to be opened and that the guy eventually followed her in there and had her cornered. I was obviously wrong, and now believe she was wrong.



In what way was the warning shot very safe? It was reckless and incredible irresponsible.
Click to expand...
Above the head in a high stud home. She was trained and could have shot the apple on William Tell's kid's head. Very safe. She knew where her baby was for pity's sake.
 
Desert Fox said:
I agree that she was wrong but does her level of wrong justify 60, 20, or even 3 years in prison?
Click to expand...
Sorry if I gave that impression. No, I think all of those are much too steep. But, firearms should not be taken lightly. I'm quite thankful I don't have the responsibility to hand out sentences.

Samson said:
Above the head in a high stud home. She was trained and could have shot the apple on William Tell's kid's head. Very safe. She knew where her baby was for pity's sake.
Click to expand...
How is that safe? Babies move (or could have been moved by the man), and bullets can react quite unpredictably when they encounter solid objects.
 
Desert Fox said:
You post comes halfway to admitting that it may have happened before new rules came into place and very well may still be happening in other jurisdictions. We have had some pretty recent incidents of police not following the rules.

Now here is a question for you. Let us assume that a police officer does discharge his firearm and it seems to have been something more like a warning shot, what are the odds of him or her actually being charged? I suspect that he or she might be disciplined but not even fired.

Often, it can be a case where the cop kills somebody in a bad shooting and gets charged with a low level manslaughter charge. Good odds Virginia would try to put a needle in a normal person's arm.

What I am arguing for is some kind of sane charge.
Click to expand...

Everything depends on context, and like everything else in LE (and politics too for that matter) there are certain variables that can't be accounted for, but any use of a firearm on duty that isn't justifiable that does not result in injury or death could be anything from a letter to file, to time off w/o pay to dismissal, depending on agency standards.

I'll tell you where the real punishment comes in.

If you're one of the guys and you screw up with anything related to self gun handling or use the shame of it (it doesn't need to involve injury or death either) will follow you around like a tail for the rest of your LE career.

Case in point. When a local CLEO retired I was asked to speak at his retirement dinner, and before I could even say yes or no I knew why.

When this officer was a young guy. 30 + years back he was part of his departmental shooting team, and at some point there was a team photo taken where the officers were turned out in dress uniforms with their revolvers held muzzle up in the strong hand.

He was the only guy that had his finger inside the trigger guard, on the trigger...

I built a whole comedy routine around a blown up version of that photo, and as is my prerogative as a long time certified firearms instructor I critiqued his technique, training, skill and family background. What he whispered in my ear when he was finished would be auto-censored heavily, but we're on friendly terms.

A less funny example is a particular officer that was known to me that negligently discharged a firearm he was showing to a fellow officer off duty where the round passed through the calf of the officer w/o doing major structural damage but ending up around 200K in medical bills, which the negligent shooter was responsible for but wasn't disciplined past some TOWO, but not to many fellow officers wanted anything to do with him and he found other employment.

Officers that accidentally injure innocent members of the public in a similar fashion would face much harsher action in agency and in civil court as well, although the municipality would most likely foot the bill if the incident occurred on-duty.

Second bolded - The problem in charging any LEO with duty related 1st degree murder is the requirement for a "premeditated" killing - if the encounter is happenstance, and pretty much every encounter an officer is involved with is happenstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom