http://www.policymic.com/articles/65441/stand-your-ground-opponents-rejoice-as-marissa-alexander-gets-a-second-chance-at-freedom
7An appeal court has just granted a new trial for Marissa Alexander, an African American woman condemned to 20 years in prison for shooting a warning shot in her ceiling during a conflict with her husband in May 2012.
Alexander's lawyers maintained that she fired the shot into her ceiling out of self-defense because her husband physically assaulted and threatened to kill her. No one was actually shot; no one was hurt. Despite this, as Irin Carmon from MSNBC notes, it only took 12 minutes for the jury to convict her.
If you think it's wrong to give a 20 year sentence to a woman who tried to defend herself and who has no criminal history, you are not alone. Marissa Alexander's case received a lot of attention during the Trayvon Martin trial. Many used her story to point to the inconsistent use of "Stand Your Ground" in Florida and how it tends to discriminate along racial lines. Although George Zimmerman claimed self-defense under the law when he killed a black teenager, Alexander wasn't granted immunity using the same line of logic. Strangely enough, Angela Corey was the prosecutor for both cases.
this is great we don't get many second chances when we are under the thumb of those with questionable motive. one kills and exhibits racial motivation from the jump and goes free, another with a reported history of being abused and attempt to scare off the abuser and get 20 years, American is going to hell in that proverbial handbag, while the world watches and some still try to claim exceptionalism and greatness and richest, but the truth is when they think the door is closed and no one is listening,
Romney 47% no different then right wing extreme politicians they think they are still doing their dirt undercover of their sheets but too much usage will create holes and any passersby can see you in full effect.
James H. Daniel, the appeal court judge, says that he is giving Marissa Alexander a new trial because "the jury instructions on self-defense were erroneous." He maintains that she won't be granted immunity under "Stand Your Ground," but will be given another chance to defend her case.
this sounds like this judge has already killed a defense that the state seems to uphold where they want to and denying when they think legitimate use of the law happens so although this is good the judged prejudiced statement taints the new trial, are they throwing another bone?
