Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Fearing Her Husband, She Took His Guns To Police. They Arrested Her. [View all]Igel
(35,317 posts)Not the least of which was that she went to his place and entered without his permission. "Stand your ground" presupposes that in some sense it's *your* ground. Just don't break and enter and there's no problem--otherwise every armed invasion robbery would qualify.
The black woman you're speaking of fits that description. She went to his place. They argued. The kids were there. She felt threatened, and *left the house* (going to the garage). There she got a firearm, *returned* to the interior of his house, and fired a shot. Now, even then the round wasn't aimed at him but a "warning shot" The shot could have hit the kids. The details matter. The details *always* matter, if only because they can dispel any "but what if" counter-assertions. However, they also keep people from taking the feel-good-but-wrong side. Alexander's husband was no gem, but victim status doesn't confer sovereign immunity on all further or past actions by the victim. The problem is that the half-truth forms a nice narrative, one that we empathize with (synonymous with "biased towards" . Half a truth is worse than a lie.
The article, and the court hearing the abused woman heard, told her what to do. He was barred from possessing firearms under court order. She should have contacted the police, sworn out an affidavit alleging he was in possession of firearms, and asked the police to enforce the court order. They'd have knocked on his door (before or after getting a warrant--I'm guessing "after" and he would have been found in default of the court order. His pretrial release would have been suspended, he'd be in jail, the police would be in possession of his weapons. Instead, *she* decided she was the law-enforcement officer and officer of the court and took the law, so to speak, into her own hands. Sometimes with "due process" you also need to just "do process."