This is how the UK handles domestic abuse that leads to brutal murder

a reply to: smurfy

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Charles Bronson was GOD in my day at the movies, Was it Branson who was the twat

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
a reply to: smurfy

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Charles Bronson was GOD in my day at the movies, Was it Branson who was the twat

ETA: Charles Milles Maddox as he was born in the 1930's

a reply to: chuck258

While a woman in the US got 20 years for firing a WARNING SHOT at her abuser.

There is no rhyme or reason to the legal system.

originally posted by: Cheddarhead
a reply to: chuck258

While a woman in the US got 20 years for firing a WARNING SHOT at her abuser.

There is no rhyme or reason to the legal system.

Again, depends on the proof

Deny Ignorance ....... cheers

a reply to: Cheddarhead

That is interesting, do you have any links to share?
I wouldn't want the UK justice system sending people to 20 years prison for a 'warning' shot.
Was the warning shot in his head or something?!

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Sorry, I'm a bit shakey on posting links, so here's a bit of cut & paste:


[BY Alejandro Alba

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Monday, November 24, 2014, 3:50 PM

Marissa Alexander has accepted a plea deal that shortens her time in prison to 65 days. She was initially sentenced to 20 years.

The Stand Your Ground defense was used by Alexander, but the judge denied her claim of self-defense. The judge said that Alexander could have escaped her abusive husband rather than retrieving the gun from the car and running back in the house to shoot him.

Alexander said she shot at the wall where her husband was standing near their two sons.



State Attorney Angela Corey, who stood by the handling of the case, believed that Alexander's shot could have possibly ricocheted and hit any of her two sons.

Alexander's case received considerable national attention from NAACP and domestic violence advocates and victims. The case also brought a lot of attention to the Stand Your Ground clause and how it's implemented. The case has been compared to the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The second count against Alexander is still an open plea, reports First Coast News, so she can still be sentenced to five years in prison at her Jan. 27 hearing.

In the meantime, Alexander has been ordered to a two-year house arrest following her jail term.]


I wasn't aware of the plea bargain, so that was news to me.

Now I'm off to enjoy 2/3 of the Memorial Day weekend (gotta work Monday-boo!). Corblimey, you have a good weekend yourself!

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: stumason

I think the OP got his butt hurt in that thread "This is how the UK handles police brutality", I think that's why he made this thread.

The guy in the story got charged with manslaughter, which, as horrific as what he did was, is still far less sentencing wise than murder.

Murder = you meant to do it, manslaughter = accidental through violent means (i think)

There are plenty of people who are violent offenders, but not murderers spending life behind bars here, Charles Bronson being one of them.

I think someone is butthurt right now for my calling out your ridiculous viewpoints. If you think a repeat domestic abuser who beats his girlfriend to death after she graciously gives him another chance rates only 7 years in jail, you are part of the problem.

You are right. I did make this thread, to point out the blatant hypocrisy of people like you who like to tar the American legal system ---- while not calling out your own SIGNIFICANT shortcomings. BEATING A WOMAN TO DEATH and 7 years in jail, of which he will probably get out early? That needs serious revamping.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Cheddarhead

That is interesting, do you have any links to share?
I wouldn't want the UK justice system sending people to 20 years prison for a 'warning' shot.
Was the warning shot in his head or something?!

No. She was able to plea it down to *only* 3 years. The reason her self defense defense was not allowed was because she got into an argument with her husband, but went OUTSIDE to her car, retrieved her gun (she was not being pursued), came BACK INTO the house and fired a 'warning shot'

While I don't agree with the verdict (3 years is a bit much), the way she defended herself (in court) was not a sound legal defense.

a reply to: Cheddarhead

Ah, not as dramatic as you initially asserted then. That's cool, plea deal 65 days is a bit different to 20 years.
The judge appears reasonable from the brief details you quoted.

a reply to: Cheddarhead

and to you too, sorry you have to work Monday. I have lived (UK) Criminal Justice System so i am entitled to comment purely on UK Law and experience, i'm sure that, had we have guns in the UK, i probably would be 6ft under rather than the 2nd or 3rd physical assault and me charged with GBH for being asleep, go figure.

# happens, its a # world these days ......... ETA, believe it or not, we are still together, and i am keeping a "Violence Diary" for future reference

Cheers for the weekend

originally posted by: chuck258
The reason her self defense defense was not allowed was because she got into an argument with her husband, but went OUTSIDE to her car, retrieved her gun (she was not being pursued), came BACK INTO the house and fired a 'warning shot'

Yep, she'd be screwed in a UK court for that, no clear threat which she was defending against, didn't call the cops, went outside to the car to grab a gun. Premeditated if she had killed him.
Sounds like she was lucky she didn't.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Cheddarhead

Ah, not as dramatic as you initially asserted then. That's cool, plea deal 65 days is a bit different to 20 years.
The judge appears reasonable from the brief details you quoted.

She got sentenced to an additional 65 days, she had already served more than 2 years while in custody and the judge gave her time served :/

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: chuck258
The reason her self defense defense was not allowed was because she got into an argument with her husband, but went OUTSIDE to her car, retrieved her gun (she was not being pursued), came BACK INTO the house and fired a 'warning shot'

Yep, she'd be screwed in a UK court for that, no clear threat which she was defending against, didn't call the cops, went outside to the car to grab a gun. Premeditated if she had killed him.
Sounds like she was lucky she didn't.

That and warning shots are just dangerous. If you are shooting at someone in the heat of the moment that is different. You don't shoot to warn, you shoot to at least hit your target. Rounds could go through drywall and glass and hit someone innocent, unless you are in a direct fight for your life, there is no justification to be shooting a 'warning' in the first place (in most places and in most cases.)

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Cheddarhead

Ah, not as dramatic as you initially asserted then. That's cool, plea deal 65 days is a bit different to 20 years.
The judge appears reasonable from the brief details you quoted.

She got sentenced to an additional 65 days, she had already served more than 2 years while in custody and the judge gave her time served :/

Still not too bad in my mind for leaving an argument while not being pursued, going to the car, retrieving a firearm, returning to the scene of the argument and firing a dangerously close 'warning' shot which could have injured children who were present.
The judgement seems sensible, even 2 years.
Perhaps you know more about the case than I do, but as I read it, it is lucky she she didn't kill the guy and she faced a premeditated murder charge.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Maxatoria

Yeah stereotypes are such a drag. Myself I'd look for humor in everything I do and everything I say. Because if not because of the state of the world today I would probably get up in the morning and cry all day.

I'm like that too, and Maxamatosia seems to be the same! and the Irish take the pee even more so. However we drift dangerously.
I think there hardly ever a case like this that all parties see justice as being done.
I don't know how the sentence went down, but I do think the judge should give a minimum serving sentence in cases like these, as in seven years should mean seven years where there is a maximum cut-off time, that is greater. If he got a 'determinate sentence' he could be on the street in three and a half years on parole, and that's in the realm of petty crime. The Emotive juggling should not be a part when someone beats someone to death.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Cheddarhead

That is interesting, do you have any links to share?
I wouldn't want the UK justice system sending people to 20 years prison for a 'warning' shot.
Was the warning shot in his head or something?!

LOL! That's funny, a bit of levity on this sombre eve'...I betcha in the annals of the law, there'll be something like that.

Okay I had a look, it turns out that the hubby, a big guy, (she is five foot nothing) said he was going to kill her and does have a history of violence..he admitted later, (i think) she was probably right in her action, as did his own son.
It caused a lot of concern at the time as to the impartiality of courts since the lady is black, since Zimmerman got off, as did another man who killed his wife's, (known) lover with three shots in the back at their home, when he woke up caught them embracing, saying he thought his wife was under attack!! Stand your ground Eh?

a reply to: smurfy

In all honesty I don't think seven years was enough by A long stretch. Maybe because I'm older but I hold women beaters in the same category as pedophiles. Both are the scum of the earth and choose defenseless targets. Any man who commits either offense is not truly a man.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: smurfy

In all honesty I don't think seven years was enough by A long stretch. Maybe because I'm older but I hold women beaters in the same category as pedophiles. Both are the scum of the earth and choose defenseless targets. Any man who commits either offense is not truly a man.

I'm very much inclined that way, always have been. I could also say that's the way my parents brought me up by example and not the spoken word, even though they had their differences and ultimately parted.
In this case from the OP, it appears the guy wanted to be in total control. He always denied murder, and got behind the law, he did go to trial and changed his plea to manslaughter, and was sentenced by the judge, and the jury was dismissed.
So it looks like the guy did get a 'determinate sentence' going by the press, with 50% remission according to behaviour, and parole. By changing plea in a trial is just 'bean counting' it's re-correcting a punishment, I don't think that's right if all salient facts are known.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: smurfy

In all honesty I don't think seven years was enough by A long stretch. Maybe because I'm older but I hold women beaters in the same category as pedophiles. Both are the scum of the earth and choose defenseless targets. Any man who commits either offense is not truly a man.

Why is a woman "defenceless"? A bit of a misogynistic view, no? This harps back to my original comment that not all domestic abusers are men.

Any unprovoked assault on a person should be treated equally, be it man v man, man vs woman, or whatever. All are to be condemned, but viewing one as worse than the other based solely on sex is sexist. I've known women who think it is perfectly ok to smack a bloke as "they can take it", but would cry bloody murder if the bloke fought back.

Equal rights and all that.

a reply to: stumason

You know as I typed that post I knew you were still holding a grudge and figured you would be the one to take offense to the whole post because of one word.


Substitute defenseless for weaker then reply.

a reply to: Greathouse

Huh?

It was a genuine question...

So, ok, why are they "weaker"? Same thing, really, as "defenceless". A misogynistic view of women if there ever was one. Women can be as strong as men, if not stronger. As my missus likes to point out on regular basis, they go through childbirth while us men can barely manage a common cold without moaning about it.