09-26-2013, 08:56 PM
I understand the gun laws, Six.
Alexander's ex has convictions for domestic abuse and admitted in deposition that he hit all but one of his five baby mamas. The court considered him a danger to Alexander and awarded her a restraining order against him. He admits that he was banging on the locked bathroom door and demanding that she come out that day. Alexander legally owned the gun.
I know that the relationship was tumultuous and she was part of the dysfunction too.
But, like in Zimmerman's case, under Florida law, the jury should have been instructed to consider whether SHE (the defendant) considered that the ex was a danger to her and represented a threat of great bodily harm when she fired what she claims was a warning shot. The judge, however, failed to instruct the jury accordingly. So, she goes back to trial and proper jury instructions will be given before verdict deliberations next time.
The self defense laws in the state should be applied equally and correctly across cases. That's the appellate issue at hand. Maybe the next jury will also feel that she violated the gun laws because she wasn't acting in self defense when she fired, and maybe they'll instead acquit her or convict her of a lesser charge (if one is put on the table in the next trial).
Alexander's ex has convictions for domestic abuse and admitted in deposition that he hit all but one of his five baby mamas. The court considered him a danger to Alexander and awarded her a restraining order against him. He admits that he was banging on the locked bathroom door and demanding that she come out that day. Alexander legally owned the gun.
I know that the relationship was tumultuous and she was part of the dysfunction too.
But, like in Zimmerman's case, under Florida law, the jury should have been instructed to consider whether SHE (the defendant) considered that the ex was a danger to her and represented a threat of great bodily harm when she fired what she claims was a warning shot. The judge, however, failed to instruct the jury accordingly. So, she goes back to trial and proper jury instructions will be given before verdict deliberations next time.
The self defense laws in the state should be applied equally and correctly across cases. That's the appellate issue at hand. Maybe the next jury will also feel that she violated the gun laws because she wasn't acting in self defense when she fired, and maybe they'll instead acquit her or convict her of a lesser charge (if one is put on the table in the next trial).