Comments on: Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground?
Add a Comment
- She could have served three years for assault. It was her choice
to face a jury and they did not believe her. That is why so many
cases are settled with a guilty plea for less time. The jury is
usually just a backup which the prosecutor uses to gain a plea. - Reply to this comment
- She should have shot him. 20 years for a young mother IS like getting the death penalty or life.
I now understand better the prison overcrowding predicament Florida is facing. - Reply to this comment
- This 20 sentence is far far far too harsh and just another stupid misused Florida law.
She should have gotten probation or fined. Locking her up for up 10-20 yrs is just what the Prison Unions love as it means Job Security. This whole police state our country has become is awful.
CA, LA, FL, and other States are nothing but Prison States. This is because all these private prisons need prisoners to keep them profitable. This is about all the wrong things.
The people deserve better. This election break ranks and VOTE OUT ever incumbent running for re-election. EVERY LAST ONE. Take back America.. Vote out every incumbent next two elections and send a clear message to Congress. That means no-more of this stupid Party Line voting that they use to keep us separated from one another.. Lets get together people and take back our Country from those we have elected to serve us.. and we end up serving. VOTE and VOTE for AMERICA.. GET RID of this whole Congress. They don't care about you and me. They are self-serving and need to go. ALL of them. Both sides of the isle. If we do this the rest will get the message and things WILL change. Have courage and Vote then ALL out. Stop this political 'sides' bull-crap.. It is killing America and Lady Liberty is being raped in front of us all... God Bless America. - Reply to this comment
- Why do people lie and say she had a criminal record. SHE HAD NO CRIMINAL RECORD!!!! I love the rationale of some people for this sentence. They are digging around for how she deserves this. It's completely ludicrous. The double standard here couldn't be more glaring. So what - if she had killed him, then she would have been standing her ground, but since she only fired a warning shot, she should be in prison? HUH!?????????????????????????????
- Reply to this comment
- We cannot use a weapon to "MAKE A STAND". If you feel that you must confront someone over this or that, leave the weapon.
If you get out of your car to confront someone... leave the weapon.
If you leave the safety of your home to confront someone leave the weapon.
Oh My Gosh I live with a slew of cowards. Seems that we cannot do anything with out a weapon. - Reply to this comment
- Let's read between the lines. CBS gave you the clues, but telling you all the facts wasn't on their agenda....
1. ***SHE*** was on parole and was court ***ORDERED*** to not go near that house.
2. ***SHE*** was on parole and should ***NOT*** have been in possession of a firearm.
Knowing these 2 facts, ask yourself who is probably the violent one in their relationship. Ask yourself why she's a criminal with a gun... Ask... Ask... Ask.
She got busted displaying her violent tendencies. Her kids were near the husband when she shot at ALL OF THEM. If she's the saint, why were the kids hiding by daddy (stepdaddy). Why? Because she's a violent sociopath who made it very clear she was going to go get her gat and teach that man to not read her infidelity ridden text messages.
She belongs BACK in prison where her hand scribed prison tats give the other innocent women (heh) fair warning about her violent tendencies.
Think and read people. The truth NEVER comes out of a convicted criminals mouth... They say whatever needs to be said in order to keep them from going back to the big house. Abusive husband was convenient... Then "stand your ground (or is it go get your illegal gun and come back in like a cowboy?).... If all else fails, there's always race.
Yeah, that's it. She's black.... That's why she shouldnt answer for multiple crimes of a violent nature.
This is the woman all of you see at a Walmart cutting in line, yelling and threatening to get her way, acting like a fool because no one will stop her.
Go ahead, set her free... Maybe one of your relatives will be the next one she "warns"... Maybe then she'll be the better shot that dear daddy promises his angel can be.
Suckers. - Reply to this comment
- I would have gone back in the house bc my children were there. Maybe that is why she didnt run. I don't care if she's trashy or what, the manwas abusive and maybe she didn't shoot him between the eyes is bc she didn't want to kill someone so that is why she fired a warning shot, That part is a fact. Maybe she did not realize a bullet could ricochte. Maybe she knew nothing about guns and thought a warning shot would scare the man enough that he would RUN. SET THIS WOMAN FREE. NO JAIL TIME! AND 20 YEAR SENTENCE IS UNBEIVIEVABLE, AND WRONG. FLORIDA JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS OFF THEIR CHAINS. A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.
- Reply to this comment
- Stone says that people lobbying to repeal mandatory minimums are in the "extreme minority."
Until you or a family member are the victim of one. - Reply to this comment
- People need to understand that laws like the stand your ground aren't going to be used by your $150K a year computer programmer living in their gated community. They are going to be used by the white and black trash who are barely one step ahead of the law. Say what you want it's pretty clear that's what Marissa and Rico are. She went and has a baby with a second husband who has a history of beating her? And while married she's busy screwing her first ex-husband, while pregnant? In my book that's trashy.
This is they kind of people who are mostly going to use this law.
Poor people who make poor decisions and have a lot of guns floating around. Normal women would be throwing the husband out the door the FIRST DAY he beats them up. - Reply to this comment
- Please have someone write these reports that understands the law. If you believe your life is in danger you do not shoot the wall. You shoot the aggressor. It's the first thing I was taught about carrying a gun. If you do not understand it you certainly do not need a gun. You are the type that would have the gun taken from you and suddenly be viewing the opposite end. If you do not understand the law, do not carry a weapon and - most of all do not report on it.
- Reply to this comment
