Another misguided case

I

icedog88

New member
This one is interesting

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ot-after-stand-your-ground-defense-fails?lite

This not only speaks to firing warning shots but also Stand your ground with a little Castle doctrine thrown in. The woman's lawyer at the end of the article confuses SYG with castle doctrine laws I believe. Another point brought up by the defense is institutionalized racism. I don't see it. What I don't understand is did both parties have a legal right to be in the dwelling? Any restraining orders in place? Seem to me the prosecution got this one right. Anyone follow this case? First time I am hearing about it.
 
Last edited:
20 years seems kind of harsh but I do agree with what she did was wrong.

She never should have returned to the house with the gun unless she thought her children were in danger.
If she stayed in the garage and her husband followed her into the garage and attempted to psychically harm her, then she would be in the right for firing the warning shot. Correct? :confused:

Lastly, she should never have fired the warning shot in her husbands direction while he was by the kids. This puts her kids in danger, if she felt the need to she should have shot the ground or ceiling or out a window, depending on the layout of their home.

On a side note. She should have left this guy ALONG time ago AND got a restraining order. Only a poc would ever beat a girl. I just don't understand some women lol :p
 
Not sure if it really makes a difference but I understand the 2 boys were his from a previous relationship and she had one child with him a short while before this incident. On a different note, an inside warning shot? There are only some extenuating circumstances where I see a warning shot to be applicable. Inside is not one of them. She also had turned down a plea bargain which would have given her 3 yrs instead of 20. I also believe both parties to have domestic cases against each in which case, was the firearm legal? I know here in CT, a domestic violence on your record prevents you from owning a firearm legally.
 
She left...Went into the garage...Retrieved a gun...Went back into the house...Then fired a 'warning shot'...

How is that SYG, Castle Doctrine, or anything other than premeditated assault?

:confused:
 
But a jury agreed with prosecutors that the law didn't apply because she left during the argument, got a gun and returned to confront him, WJXT reported.
Click to expand...
From the way the article describes it, I'm not at all convinced it was a warning shot. It sounded to me like she shot at him and missed.

In any event, I agree with the prosecution that SYG does not apply. She should have taken the three years.
 
Question: If she did not have a key to the locked garage door, or a cell phone (part of her defense was she could only exit the garage by going back into the house), then how long would you all say she should have stayed in the garage?

If you could not call 911, how long would you wait?

Note: the link within the article goes to an article that says Alexander plead no contest to a domestic charge four months after the shooting incident. Nothing indicates she could not legally have owned the weapon at the time.
 
MLeake, I understand thatshe may have owned a gun legally, but if he had domestics on his record and they both lived in the home, I was under the impression that violates the access to firearms part of the law. Meaning, if there were firearms in the home he could access, he would be in violation and therefore could not be in residence. If that is the case, would Castle Doctrine come into play? I understand this is speculation on my part as I don't have the particulars of the case in front of me.
 
As I understand it, she could still have firearms; they would have to be secured in such a manner that he could not access them, if they were not on her person.

I don't know how she had her gun stored, but I would be surprised if it had any bearing in this instance.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen this raised anywhere, and it may not have been a factor - but something else to consider: People are saying she shouldn't have gone back in and put the kids at risk. But she had just been assaulted by the father; what if she thought he posed a risk to the kids, in his present state? Would people then say she should not have re-entered the home?

IE, would you (as a parent) leave your kids alone with a person who had just physically attacked you?

I can see several reasons that could have justified her re-entering the home and shooting at the man. They haven't been raised in the articles I've seen, so maybe they did not exist, but it struck me that nobody who has posted in this thread has considered those possibiliities.

Also, the fact they don't seem to have been raised does not mean that they did not exist. I don't know the quality of reporting nor level of media attention on the case (so details could have been overlooked), I don't know the competence of the defense attorney (so he could have put all his eggs in the SYG basket and not paid enough or any attention to more pertinent factors), and I don't know how well the defendant understood the law, or the things she should have brought to light with regard to her thought process.

I will be surprised if there is no appeal.

If there is an appeal, I'll be curious to see if any of these points come up.
 
There is a certain irony that the two signal cases now involved in the debate of SYG versus duty to retreat do not involve questions about the appropriateness of retreat. This is not surprising, as those attacking SYG laws are conflating issues of Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and immunity into a simplistic portrayal of a supposed get-out-of-jail-free card that is bestowed capriciously by an allegedly corrupt system.
 
IMO, there are several things about this case that smell funny. I consider the garage as part of the living space of the home (especially when the wife is ticked-off:D). I’m assuming there would be no difference between going to a closed garage and any other room the house. Leaving the room where the confrontation occurred was the sticking point.

Castle doctrine doesn’t apply when both parties have a right to be in the castle… And … Stand your ground applies inside the house with respect to those having a right to be there … but … each separate area of the house becomes "different ground". Stand your ground doesn’t apply if you’re advancing, only defending … so … she needs a legally justified reason to advance.
The warning shot was a stupid move, and carries a stupidly high sentence, but doesn’t enter the argument for/against justification.

Why the claim of advancing to defend the kids was apparently not made is curious… I suspect th+ere’s a lot more to the domestic side of the story than has been reported. Also suspect the kids might contradict that story.:confused:
 
In all fairness, I've raised points that could potentially have contributed to a defense, but in theory there could be unreported facts that would have supported the prosecution's side, too.

All I know is that the reporting seems very incomplete, and that the defense reportedly used didn't make much sense.
 
MLeake said:
Meanwhile, I haven't seen this raised anywhere, and it may not have been a factor - but something else to consider: People are saying she shouldn't have gone back in and put the kids at risk. But she had just been assaulted by the father; what if she thought he posed a risk to the kids, in his present state? Would people then say she should not have re-entered the home?
Click to expand...
It's a thought, but I don't think it's a persuasive argument. Consider the way it was reported in the article:

She testified that she went back into the house, where Gray was with his two sons, and fired the shot.
Click to expand...
This tells me that the kids were not HER kids -- and the article doesn't tell us how old the "kids" were. The husband was 36 years old -- that's old enough for the "kids" to be adults.
 
I’m kinda leanin’ towards the defense not making much sense … ‘cause there wasn’t much of a defense ;)… just sayin’ …

and getting up at arms about this as an example of SYG failure … doesn’t do us any good.
 
Out of curiosity, who in this thread has argued that SYG failed? I think we all agree that SYG didn't apply; Castle Doctrine probably didn't apply; and that reporting and legal defense tactics seem questionable.
 
Realistically, without transcripts, we are speculating on only what was reported. As I had stated in an earlier post, the 2 children were his and not the couple's. They had a child together but I'm not sure where that child was at the time of the incident. Too many ifs in this case. If their child was in the home,and If she had a restraining order, I feel Castle Doctrine would have had a stronger play. Does anyone know where you can view transcripts?
 
From the little bit I just read, the 9-day-old premature baby she'd had was still in the hospital. The two children in the house were his and were near him when she returned to the house and fired the shot.

I don't think the transcripts are available.

You know, she could have shot her way out of the garage if she couldn't get the door unlocked. :o
 
I read some of the transcript and I have to say that I think I have changed my opinion of this case. Somebody screwed up. I will continue reading but SYG may not apply but some sort of self defense surely does.

Thanks for the link gc70.
 
icedog88,

I don't think there are any actual trial transcripts or prosecution documents on the woman's website, so bear in mind that you are only reading a presentation of the case favorable to the defendant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top