Self Defense Is a Right

Read Time:2 Minute, 14 Second

I have to wonder that the voices recently so quick to trot out the tattered signs and banners about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law aren’t making much noise about Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal’s decision to grant Marissa Alexander, the young mother who fired a harmless warning shot to dissuade her abusive husband, under a restraining order, from attacking her.

As some of us remember, her ‘Stand Your Ground’ claim to self defense under the allegedly racially motivated law was denied because she could have run away and under the more arguably racist minimum sentencing law was given 20 years in prison.

Last May, a jury took just 12 minutes to find her guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon because the judge instructed them that she was obliged to prove self defense to justify firing a gun in a house when in fact, Appeals Court judge Robert Benton in granting her a new trial, wrote:

“The defendant’s burden is only to raise a reasonable doubt concerning
self defense.”

Funny how the same people can mock the idea of reasonable doubt while almost simultaneously raise it as a point of justice in another case, but that’s people. That’s politics in 21st century America.

George Zimmerman did not need to and indeed did not plead that he was standing his ground because his claim that he was pinned to the ground raised reasonable doubt of his ability to retreat. Marissa Alexander was denied the right to use a gun in self defense and reasonable doubt was ignored because her judge did not understand this controversial law and incorrectly instructed the jury.

I would suggest that many examples often given in support of the danger of this law result from similar judicial misunderstandings and that SYG is designed to protect those who have successfully repelled a violent attack against prosecutors and juries and verdicts that often destroy their lives even if they are absolved of guilt in defending themselves.

Mandatory sentencing is, in my opinion and in the opinions of civil rights advocates, a slap in the face of justice; an attempt to blame crime on judges who try to make the punishment fit the crime. The NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the National Action Network have called for Florida Governor Rick Scott to pardon Alexander, but perhaps having her conviction overturned in light of her legal obligation only to raise reasonable doubt and not to “Prove” her innocence; — her right to defend herself against violent attack would be a better outcome; would be a legal precedent and not just a gift. Justice should never be a gift, It’s our right.

About Post Author

Glenn Geist

Glenn Geist lives in South Florida and wastes most of his time boating, writing, complaining and talking on the radio
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

15 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sue
10 years ago

This was a travesty of justice but it’s not the only one, it’s just the flavor of the day. Hundreds if not thousands of people fall prey to a broken criminal justice system.

Shalimar Two
10 years ago

the woman was not reading here bible and was not born again ad her husband wanted that so she deserve what she got.

Reply to  Shalimar Two
10 years ago

How do you know any of that?

Why do you never understand about spelling and capitalization? Maybe because it isn’t in the babble?

Norman Rampart
10 years ago

Hang about!!!! Let me read this again…Am I reading this right??? Marissa fired a gun to defend herself but didn’t shoot her abusive husband and she’s in prison????

I need to read this again…surely I’ve read it wrongly…

I didn’t??? Oh for fucks sake. What a screwed up world.

Bill Formby
10 years ago

I think what most of these folks are saying Glenn, is that those two cases have virtually nothing in common. The bare bone facts in Ms Alexander’s case were virtually undisputed. Her ex was in her house and she had retreated to her garage. He had beaten her before. While he may say he did not intend to harm her and she said he said he did intend to harm her, and that she feared for her life, she still did not take his life choosing to fire a warning shot which stopped her ex husband. She lost her case because of a racially insensitive justice system. All of the hoopla surrounding the Zimmerman case most likely helped her appeal and get her granted a new trial.
Zimmerman on the other hand did not use SYG because he literally forced and encounter with Martin. It became self defense in the eyes of the jury because Martin stuck first. I am one of those people who doesn’t question jury verdicts because those people did the best they could. But, I can question the way the prosecution pursued the case, which was awful. Just to be clear, if I am walking home one night and someone is stalking me, I am not going to give them a chance to get up to me to rob, shoot, or mug me or whatever. No if I can find a 2×4 lying around. As I said two different cases.

10 years ago

Zimmerman was right to do what he did being faced with the threat from an angry Trayvon Martin, and Marissa Alexander was also right. One had the better lawyer.

rowdy62 is an idiot
Reply to  rowdy62
10 years ago

False equivalence. Zimmerman was a man with a long history of violence and lawbreaking. It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense (and lack of racial prejudice) that Zimmerman stalked and murdered an innocent kid. His claims of self defense are bunk.

Melissa Alexander is a battered woman who didn’t hurt anyone by shooting her gun.

Reply to  rowdy62 is an idiot
10 years ago

Zimmerman did not have a long history of violence and lawbreaking. He had two very minor misdemeanor arrests. Secondly, according to a jury of his peers he didn’t stalk and murder anyone. Perhaps you should remember these words: NOT GUILTY.

Lyndon Probus
10 years ago

As mentioned in the article such an outrageous sentence can be blamed directly on mandatory sentencing laws. These are anachronisms and should be gotten rid of, soon.

E.A. Blair
10 years ago

While it’s true that justice should be a right, and very often it’s a gift, the reality is that it’s a commodity, to be bought, sold or traded to the highest bidder with a market value that constantly changes.

10 years ago

“Justice should never be a gift, it’s our right.” Therein lies the crux of the matter. It definitely SHOULD be our right. Unfortunately, it’s not a right equally applied to everyone.

Reply to  James Smith
10 years ago

So true James. It’s not a right applied to everyone and this is an ideal case to put the point on that statement…

Previous post Our Monday Morning Cartoon
Next post Scalia: The Devil is Real
15
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x