An absolutely SPECTACULAR case of stupid in Tallahassee

[Adam]

The Tampa Bay Times is all lathered up over the idea that maybe people who are innocent of crimes should not have their personal lives poured out all over the courthouse steps. Amazingly (not), they COMPLETELY fail to deal with the actual facts of a case that they cite and never bother to explore what an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation would do.

Amendment to bill expanding 'stand your ground' would limit access to court records

TALLAHASSEE — Changes adopted Wednesday to a House bill expanding the scope of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law would severely limit access to court records in the self-defense cases.

People found to have used justifiable force in a "stand your ground" hearing could apply to have all court records related to their case expunged and made unavailable to the general public, according to an amendment filed by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach.

Gaetz said the purpose of the amendment is to provide more privacy for those cleared of charges.

The Times' position is clearly that they, the vaunted press, have some divine right to get access to court records of people who were affirmatively adjudicated as not having committed a crime. Why do they think that they have such a right? Well, because that way they can continue to try to trumpet how terrible it is that people can defend themselves against criminals without the government's help, and worse yet, even without the permission of Leftists! Teh howwa! Ohs noes!





But media arrogance is not really the heart of the issue here. Further down in the article:

He has until today, when the full House votes on HB 89, sponsored by Neil Combee, R-Bartow, which would allow people to fire warning shots in self-defense without worrying about getting locked up for 20 years.

THAT is the stupidest idea ever. This guy Combee, whoever the hell he is, has clearly spent entirely too much time watching movies and not enough time learning about how real life works. And, of course, we know why someone is pushing such an idiotic bill:

Supporters, including most Democrats, think the proposal could provide a more fair application of the "stand your ground" law in cases like the one of Marissa Alexander. The Jacksonville woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a shot at her estranged husband. An appeals court has ordered her to have a new trial.

This is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated upon the public by the media, a media desperate to push the "Southern racists kill Black people at will" meme in the midst of the Trayvon Martin trial. Here's how the media are portraying the Marissa Alexander event:

Marissa Alexander, a perfectly normal, sane Black woman, was just sitting at home minding her own business when suddenly her estranged husband, against whom she had a restraining order, came along and tried to steal her children from her and he beat her mercilessly. Left with no other choice, she fired a warning shot to scare away the big, mean male person, and because of that, the racist police showed up and took her to jail and the racist prosecutor's office charged her with a crime and wouldn't listen to her telling the whole world that she was just standing her ground, and then the racist jury convicted her in only 13 minutes and now this poor, poor woman, horribly oppressed by all of the racism that there is in the South, is rotting away on an unjust 20-year term.


Here's what actually happened:

Marissa Alexander had a history of domestic disputes with her husband, who was not estranged at all. They had a mutually-agreed-to "non-violence order" from the court, but they were living together and there was no restraining order at all; that part the media just made up. In the course of an argument, her husband told the two young children in the house to get their shoes on because they were leaving. In other words, he was leaving the house to avoid escalating the argument further. Alexander then shouted "I've got something for your ass!" and left the house, went out to the garage, opened up her car. opened up her locked glove compartment, retrieved her gun and ammunition, went back into the house, passed through two rooms to approach her husband, who by this time had the children each by their hand, loaded her gun and then fired her "warning shot" at her husband's head, narrowly missing him. Rico then left the house immediately, taking the (doubtless now terrified) children with him, and Marissa Alexander proceeded to barricade herself inside the house and engaged in a seven-hour standoff with police.

That is not "stand your ground." Stand your ground says that you don't have a duty to retreat. That does not mean that you get to retreat and then come charging back.

Here is a good breakdown of the actual facts in the case.




If the people at the Tampa Bay Times had bothered researching some of those court documents that they're so irritated about, then they would have found out the actual facts of the Alexander case instead of just spewing idiotic rumor about it.

[Billy Jingo]

People found to have used justifiable force in a "stand your ground" hearing could apply to have all court records related to their case expunged and made unavailable to the general public, according to an amendment filed by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach.

Does that apply to all cases where the accused is acquitted? Or is this a special carve out for people who shoot someone?

[Norm dePlume]

and then fired her "warning shot" at her husband's head, narrowly missing him

How many inches did she miss by, and how do you know?

[Adam]

People found to have used justifiable force in a "stand your ground" hearing could apply to have all court records related to their case expunged and made unavailable to the general public, according to an amendment filed by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach.

Does that apply to all cases where the accused is acquitted? Or is this a special carve out for people who shoot someone?

If I'm understanding it correctly, it's for any affirmative defense in which one is adjudicated to have not committed a crime. As such, I think that this would apply to things such as insanity pleas (in the case of "not guilty by reason of mental defect;" I think Maine is the only state in which one can be found "guilty but insane"), but would not necessarily apply to, for example, the Zimmerman case.

[Adam]

How many inches did she miss by, and how do you know?

When Gray saw her put a round in the chamber, he yelled "no" and tried to scoop his boys under his arm to protect them, at which time she fired a shot into the wall, at head level - 5'8", where Gray and his sons were still standing.

It doesn't specify the exact number of inches away from his head by which the round missed, but it clearly wasn't many.

[Norm dePlume]

According to this site:

In the process of Gray leaving the home, Alexander told her husband, “I’ve got something for your ass” and left the living room. Ms. Alexander then walked through the kitchen, through the laundry room, and then into the garage, where she retrieved her 9mm handgun from the glove compartment of her car. Ms. Alexander had ample time and opportunity to leave the home. (Rico Gray never left the living room area where he and his sons were about to exit via the front door.) Alexander then walked back through the laundry room and into the kitchen. When Gray saw her put a round in the chamber, he yelled “no” and tried to scoop his two boys under his arm to protect them, at which time she fired a shot into the wall, at head level – 5’8”, where Gray and his two sons were still standing. The bullet passed through the kitchen wall – bullet hole photo - exited the other side, and then entered the ceiling of the living room. Gray and his two sons then ran for their lives from their home and called 911 – Aug. 2010 call. Alexander then locked herself inside the home.

Here's the floor plan:



And here's the bullet hole photo:



So, he's in the living room and she's in the kitchen. He can see her load the gun, so presumably there is clear line of sight through the doorway. And the bullet hole is about 18" or so to the right of the doorway. So, if he is up against the right side of the doorway, she missed by 18". If he's 5 feet back from the doorway, she missed him by several feet. That doesn't seem like she's actually trying to hit him.

[Adam]

According to this site:



Here's the floor plan:



And here's the bullet hole photo:



So, he's in the living room and she's in the kitchen. He can see her load the gun, so presumably there is clear line of sight through the doorway. And the bullet hole is about 18" or so to the right of the doorway. So, if he is up against the right side of the doorway, she missed by 18". If he's 5 feet back from the doorway, she missed him by several feet. That doesn't seem like she's actually trying to hit him.

In the movies, sure. In real life? No way in hell. That's undeniably an attempt to shoot someone.

You have a bullet miss you by 18" and see if you think someone isn't trying to hit you. You have a bullet miss you by several feet and see if you think someone isn't trying to hit you. Any time you fire a weapon even vaguely in the direction of someone whom you know is there, then you're trying to hit that person. That's just not even subject to question.

This was no warning shot. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was not any warning shot. She specifically acted with malice aforethought to attempt to murder her husband.

[Norm dePlume]

In the movies, sure. In real life? No way in hell. That's undeniably an attempt to shoot someone.

You have a bullet miss you by 18" and see if you think someone isn't trying to hit you. You have a bullet miss you by several feet and see if you think someone isn't trying to hit you. Any time you fire a weapon even vaguely in the direction of someone whom you know is there, then you're trying to hit that person. That's just not even subject to question.

This was no warning shot. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was not any warning shot. She specifically acted with malice aforethought to attempt to murder her husband.

If you're 5 feet from a doorway that's 30" wide and trying to hit something you can see through the doorway, and you hit 18" to the right of the doorway, you're 15-30 degrees off target. That's not a movie -- it's geometry. Nobody is that bad a shot.

[Novaheart]

If you're 5 feet from a doorway that's 30" wide and trying to hit something you can see through the doorway, and you hit 18" to the right of the doorway, you're 15-30 degrees off target. That's not a movie -- it's geometry. Nobody is that bad a shot.

The issue in the Marissa Alexander case was the mandatory minimum sentence, despite the " black leaders" in Tallahassee trying to portray it as a case of SYG is denied to blacks. I have been round and round with black people on this on a black site, and they simply refuse to be objective. Now they have moved on to some guy who is in for 20 after firing his gun outside (perhaps inside) a night club.

Marissa Alexander went and got a gun and fired it in the direction of her whatever. That's not SYG.

Football guy went from the club to his car, got a gun, went back to the club, and shot someone an hour later. That's not SYG.

Now do I think these two should be serving 20 year sentences? No. In the first place, Marissa didn't actually kill her whatever. The football guy should have been able to carry the gun with him, and if he had shot someone in some other venue assuming it was a credible threat, then he would have been OK. Now who took the discretion away from the judges? Who accuses the justice system of racism? Who used to claim that judges sentenced blacks more severely?

The Tampa Bay Times is upset because they have been waging a pathetically inept war on SYG. They maintain a website which shows you a sea of black faces labeled "victim" regardless of whether the "shooter" was exonerated or not. And the funny thing is that the information they give actually makes the case that SYG is not favoring whites, or white on black shootings. Of course, the Times doesn't analyze the information, they just show the sea of black faces and it works like a charm to convince people who aren't terribly interested in facts to start with.

So here's what happens when you refine the information.

Black on Nonblack (shooter innocent) 6 cases
Nonblack on Black (shooter innocent) 9 cases
Black on Black (shooter innocent) 18 cases
Nonblack on Nonblack (shooter innocent) 43


So it's 6 Black to 9 Nonblack in a state that is 16% Black.

I used "nonblack" rather than white because if you go through the cases you will find people designated "white" whom certain liberals would call "people of color" and there are a handful of other designations which breaking them out would favor whites, but for our purposes black and nonblack are fine.

[Adam]

If you're 5 feet from a doorway that's 30" wide and trying to hit something you can see through the doorway, and you hit 18" to the right of the doorway, you're 15-30 degrees off target. That's not a movie -- it's geometry. Nobody is that bad a shot.

You've never actually been to a scene where someone has fired shots in anger, have you?

[Adam]

Now do I think these two should be serving 20 year sentences? No. In the first place, Marissa didn't actually kill her whatever.

Pity meter is pegged at negative infinity for Alexander. She was offered a plea deal for three years. She would have been out by now if she had just taken the plea deal. Her attorneys begged her to take the deal. She was under charged, charged only with one count of aggravated assault instead of assault with a deadly weapon or what she actually did, which was attempted murder. This deal was on the table even after she violated her bond and went to Rico's home and beat him in the face four months after the shooting incident.

There's a reason why the jury decided this in twelve minutes, and it wasn't racism. The jury knew what the penalty would be (20 years), and so did Alexander.

Now that she's getting a new trial, she's being charged with three counts of aggravated assault, with 20-year terms to be served consecutively. Good. 60 years in prison is exactly what this dangerous, unhinged woman needs, not a pity party for her to go out and try to kill someone again, possibly succeeding this time.

[Norm dePlume]

You've never actually been to a scene where someone has fired shots in anger, have you?

Oh, not like you, Inspector.

The point is, she missed him far enough for the "warning shot" story to be reasonable. It can't be proven either way, but a reasonable person could believe it was a warning shot. But who knows, maybe she gets a severe palsy in stressful situations. Or maybe she has 20/1800 vision. But if she really intended to kill the man, you'd think she might squeeze off a second shot at least.

[Gingersnap]

So, he's in the living room and she's in the kitchen. He can see her load the gun, so presumably there is clear line of sight through the doorway. And the bullet hole is about 18" or so to the right of the doorway. So, if he is up against the right side of the doorway, she missed by 18". If he's 5 feet back from the doorway, she missed him by several feet. That doesn't seem like she's actually trying to hit him.

How often do you go to the range? Most women never do. I've taken a lot of women shooting and when they are calm, in a friendly environment with a friend they know well (me), and the goal is simply to get used to target shooting, they're all over the place for the first 15 or 20 minutes.

Most police officers who are required to qualify on a range miss their target in a real-life situation by a wide margin.

Anger, fear, or any adrenaline-pumping situation will degrade whatever skill most people have and most people have none - because they never practice or they don't practice enough.

Using a firearm in self-defense is still a good option despite all this because most people are so rattled by being shot at that they break off whatever they were doing.

[Adam]

Oh, not like you, Inspector.

The point is, she missed him far enough for the "warning shot" story to be reasonable. It can't be proven either way, but a reasonable person could believe it was a warning shot. But who knows, maybe she gets a severe palsy in stressful situations. Or maybe she has 20/1800 vision. But if she really intended to kill the man, you'd think she might squeeze off a second shot at least.

Tell ya what: you go find your friendly neighborhood cop and the squeeze off a shot that misses him by five feet. See if he (or anyone else) believes that you were "just firing a warning shot" and "didn't mean to hit him."

[Norm dePlume]

How often do you go to the range? Most women never do. I've taken a lot of women shooting and when they are calm, in a friendly environment with a friend they know well (me), and the goal is simply to get used to target shooting, they're all over the place for the first 15 or 20 minutes.

Most police officers who are required to qualify on a range miss their target in a real-life situation by a wide margin.

Anger, fear, or any adrenaline-pumping situation will degrade whatever skill most people have and most people have none - because they never practice or they don't practice enough.

Using a firearm in self-defense is still a good option despite all this because most people are so rattled by being shot at that they break off whatever they were doing.

I haven't been there in years. But 15 degrees off target would be like hitting four lanes (19 feet) over at 25 yards. Do they miss their target that far?