Simple restraining order not enough to end 2nd Amendment Rights.....

[M14 Shooter]

I posted the link. Check it out for yourself.

She was convicted for firing a warning shot, which is illegal.
Obey the law.

 

[SavannahMann]

She was convicted for firing a warning shot, which is illegal.
Obey the law.

She fired a warning shot. It would have been legal if her defense of Stand your Ground had been allowed. The Judge ruled it didn’t apply. She was subsequently convicted.

 

[2aguy]

Well then perhaps we should approach this from another direction. Let’s make it a most serious crime to violate a Restraining Order. If you do so you get 20 years minimum. If you actually assault the individual who took out the Restraining Order. It is Life without parole. If you murder them, death penalty.

And since one of the Supreme Court decisions regarding the duty of the police to protect the citizens was an Ex Husband and Father who took his kids and murdered them. If the police don’t enforce the Order they get no less than ten years in prison for dereliction of duty. How about that?

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This way the individual 2nd Amendment Rights are protected and even if the victim of Domestic Abuse is not, we insure the criminals are held accountable. Sound fair?

Yeah.......maybe we could make it so that if you murder someone you get life in prison or the death penalty....oh....that's right...we already do that......

If someone is willing to violate a restraining order, in order to commit murder......they aren't worried about prison....and the only thing that can save the woman is her having a gun and knowing how to use it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

She fired a warning shot. It would have been legal if her defense of Stand your Ground had been allowed. The Judge ruled it didn’t apply. She was subsequently convicted.

Here you go:
But a previous judge in the case rejected the request, saying Alexander’s decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety, according to the Florida Times Union newspaper.

Explains everything.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Woman in Florida was attacked by her Husband. She fired a warning shot to stop the attack. She was convicted of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and sentenced to 20 years. The Judge disallowed her claim of self defense and stand your ground.

Now. What more was she supposed to do?

No, she went back into the house AFTER leaving it. She could have exited through the garage on foot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

She fired a warning shot. It would have been legal if her defense of Stand your Ground had been allowed. The Judge ruled it didn’t apply. She was subsequently convicted.

Because she didn't "stand her ground" she reengaged the victim after disengaging.

 

[whitehall]

The 5th amendment creates a threshold for the removal of someone's rights.
A restraining order does not meet that threshold.
If it did, a restraining order would also be enough to pyt someone in jail.

The 5th Amendment does not mention firearms. There are hundreds of restrictions on purchasing and possessing firearms. The ruling was an opinion of certain appointed judges. Protecting the public from stalkers and protecting women from abusive husbands is far more important than the convenience of a person who is under a restraining order. Have a little flexibility for God's sake. Not everyone should be able to purchase a firearm. You open yourself for criticism when you celebrate lame decisions like this and it hurts everyone who is a proponent of 2nd Amendment freedom.

 

[SavannahMann]

No, she went back into the house AFTER leaving it. She could have exited through the garage on foot.

Her Baby was inside. I know you would expect your Mom to come for you.

 

[SavannahMann]

Here you go:
But a previous judge in the case rejected the request, saying Alexander’s decision to go back into the house was not consistent with someone in fear for her safety, according to the Florida Times Union newspaper.

Explains everything.

Except that her Baby was inside.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 5th Amendment does not mention firearms.

The 5th amendment mentions due process, which applies to the right to keep and bear arms.
The state cannot remove your right to keep and bear arms w/o due process; a retraining order does not qualify.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except that her Baby was inside.

Irrelevant to the point made.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Except that her Baby was inside.

There is no evidence the baby was in danger. She was prepared to abandon the baby when, per her own testimony, she went into the garage and found she had forgotten her car keys. So that excuse doesn’t fly. She should have kept going and called the cops, not taken the law into her own hands. SHE endangered the children by firing into a wall in their direction.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Her Baby was inside. I know you would expect your Mom to come for you.

The article mention TWO children, one of which testified at the trial and was eleven years old. It’s fairly unlikely that there would be a ten year gap between two siblings.

 

[SavannahMann]

The article mention TWO children, one of which testified at the trial and was eleven years old. It’s fairly unlikely that there would be a ten year gap between two siblings.

Timeline

TIMELINE FOR MARISSA ALEXANDER'S LEGAL CASE

www.freemarissanow.org

• August 1, 2010: Nine days after giving birth to a premature daughter, Marissa Alexander was attacked by her abusive estranged husband at their shared home. She writes, “In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave.” He attacked her while his sons were in the home. Marissa retrieved her lawfully registered gun and fired a warning shot upwards into a wall to prevent him from beating her to death. No one was injured by her warning shot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Timeline

TIMELINE FOR MARISSA ALEXANDER'S LEGAL CASE

www.freemarissanow.org

• August 1, 2010: Nine days after giving birth to a premature daughter, Marissa Alexander was attacked by her abusive estranged husband at their shared home. She writes, “In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave.” He attacked her while his sons were in the home. Marissa retrieved her lawfully registered gun and fired a warning shot upwards into a wall to prevent him from beating her to death. No one was injured by her warning shot.

That is a slanted article. You notice it fails to mention that she left the house, then reentered it to get her gun. She should have called the cops and her husband would have been put in jail.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That is a slanted article. You notice it fails to mention that she left the house, then reentered it to get her gun. She should have called the cops and her husband would have been put in jail.

Plus a nine-day-preemie wouldn't have been at home.

 

[whitehall]

There is no such thing as a "simple" restraining order. Restraining orders are the last ditch effort by people who seek government protection from stalkers or abusive spouses or angry neighbors or just plain crazies. Allowing the subjects of restraining orders to purchase a firearm while the restraining order is in effect is just plain crazy. The bodies of mostly women, famous and ordinary will attest to this insanity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no such thing as a "simple" restraining order. Restraining orders are the last ditch effort by people who seek government protection from stalkers or abusive spouses or angry neighbors or just plain crazies. Allowing the subjects of restraining orders to purchase a firearm while the restraining order is in effect is just plain crazy. The bodies of mostly women, famous and ordinary will attest to this insanity.

If these people are -so- dangerous they should not have a firearm, then they should be in custody.

 

[BlackSand]

The Woman in Florida was attacked by her Husband. She fired a warning shot to stop the attack. She was convicted of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and sentenced to 20 years. The Judge disallowed her claim of self defense and stand your ground.

Now. What more was she supposed to do?

,

Kill him ... Keep pulling the trigger until he is dead ... Reload if necessary.

Dead people make terrible eyewitnesses ... Their testimony can be a bit lacking in emotion ...
And one side of the story always sounds better if articulated properly.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

She fired a warning shot. It would have been legal if her defense of Stand your Ground had been allowed. The Judge ruled it didn’t apply. She was subsequently convicted.

.

A warning shot is a statement of intent ... And not necessarily self-defense.
Firearms are deadly ... I warning shot can be warranted if the intent of the other person is not known.

If one is being attacked ... Or in the actual threat of death or serious bodily injury ...
Shoot to kill ... That is self-defense.

.​