FL Mom gets 20 years for warning shots - Zimmerman Walks...

reply to post by TinkerHaus


She was convicted because, as I understand it, she went outside to her car to get the gun before returning inside the house. Once she left the scene of the altercation, she could not re-enter and still claim STG/self-defense. And she was charged with endangering the lives of her children who were in the next room as she fired the shots through the wall. These are two different circumstances.

Even though these were 2 different cases:

1. 20 years had better be for a torturous death, not firing a shot into a roof, not accidental, manslaughter or anything like that. Not even for in the fit of emotion killing someone, its an extreme sentence and judges seem to have far too much power for my liking.

I consider anyone here making judgements like that to be a criminal and he instead should be doing time.

She should not even go to jail for 1 day for such a thing. Counseling. A better guaranteed income and more choices about being able to live well with her kids with education.

2. As for the stand your ground or self defense.

Only men defend themselves in the moment. We had politicians in Canada that were going to make battered wife syndrome self defense, and it should be. They failed women when they dropped it.

Many women would go back to ensure their children were safe.

3. If I was in that situation, went back, and had a gun, I'd probably have done what she did. Thats how I think, back off buddy, stay away from us. When you're in a situation like that you are rattled and cant think straight either.

4. As far as the police taking her away in the past. Here in BC, the police take away the victim in domestic violence and try to charge her. And its usually her. Over and over and over again this injustice has happened because they seem to be following some kind of agenda by the government and they are sick.

in the uk a woman can kill her spouse say it was her time of the month and he hit her and get away with it .

would hate to live over there i would be doing 1000 years with my temper

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Fromabove

 

You don't need to be suffering severe bodily harm - You need to have a legitimate fear for your physical well being or life. It's obvious that she did.

I love how you guys try to spin this by misinterpreting the law. =]

Except she fled the scene where the initial confrontation started...and then went back with a gun. Quite different really. She may very well have been in fear of her life but she reintroduced it by coming back with a weapon.

reply to post by Unity_99

She should not even go to jail for 1 day for such a thing. Counseling. A better guaranteed income and more choices about being able to live well with her kids with education.

Marissa Alexandr has an MBA. Are you serious? She chose the type of guy she's attracted to, apparently they are dicks.

Only men defend themselves in the moment. We had politicians in Canada that were going to make battered wife syndrome self defense, and it should be. They failed women when they dropped it.

Many women would go back to ensure their children were safe.

So women can hunt down and kill men if they are scorned? Huh what? Marissa Alexandr, for the millionth time, was on bail for assaulting Rico Gray, went to his house against judges orders, got in a fight with him, went to her vehicle, retrieved her gun and shot at him and his two kids. (Not the one she had with him).

3. If I was in that situation, went back, and had a gun, I'd probably have done what she did. Thats how I think, back off buddy, stay away from us. When you're in a situation like that you are rattled and cant think straight either.

I'd ask you, the same thing I'd ask her: Why'd you go there in the first place dummy?

4. As far as the police taking her away in the past. Here in BC, the police take away the victim in domestic violence and try to charge her. And its usually her. Over and over and over again this injustice has happened because they seem to be following some kind of agenda by the government and they are sick.

The police have taken the two of them away in the past. She was the most recent. Two people are not meant to be together some times.

And how god damned sexist is it to believe that only woman can be abused. Dear god man. The last incident they were involved in was her being charged for assault, the judge told her to stay away from him, she didn't, went to his place and shot at him.

End of story.

You cant spin this.

This is why the jury convicted in 12 minutes.

And him trying to save her in court by changing his tune in his deposition probably didn't play well. You want to get an honest account from him about the incident, listen to the 911 call.

'She took the gun, aimed at me and my kids fired.'

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

She was convicted because, as I understand it, she went outside to her car to get the gun before returning inside the house. Once she left the scene of the altercation, she could not re-enter and still claim STG/self-defense. And she was charged with endangering the lives of her children who were in the next room as she fired the shots through the wall. These are two different circumstances.

It was his kids, but yeah you are pretty much on the mark with the rest. You have to take into account she was on bail for assaulting him and not supposed to be there in the first place also.

They would have offered her probation if not for that, but they figured an alternative sentence wasn't appropriate because she already defied a judges order once.

Well ignoring all the bias, lies, and b.s. regarding the Zimmerman case I will say this. These cases are ignorant to compare.

The woman MAY have been overcharged, but she did commit a crime where Zimmerman did not.

First off you can't fire a weapon in city limits, second wreckless endangerment involving a firearm greatly increases the seriousness of the charge. Shooting a fire arm in the air has and does kill and injure innocent people. If it was TRULY self defense she should have shot her attacker rather than risk an innocent person.

Ow since your thread was filled with bias, racebaiting garbage ad lies regarding the Zimmerman case I don't know if you supplied this info but I feel you are obligated to do so if you are going to try t pull a ridiculous comparison like this.

The question you need to answer is did the woman legally own the firearm did she have an past felonies?

My advice for future threads? Try not to bait and make straw man arguments they never fix anything and usually make you look silly in the end.

EDIT after reading the facts of the case I realize my advice for making future threads was right on the nose. It was a horrible comparis. This woman was a criminal who endangered lives while Zimmerman is innocent. She will likely only do a few years, but she was NOT acting in self defense and she endangered lives.

Maybe they can put her in the cell next to Pussy Riot .

What a joke our legal system is .

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ThreeBears

 

There were restraining orders on both. She left, got a gun, came back and shot at him. There was no evidence she was in danger that day, and she shot towards her son who was standing near his father. I suppose all that was his fault too right? Because only men are dangerous and women are always victims, right?

Again, court testimony says she shot upward, and never aimed the firearm at a person.

The prosecution claims otherwise, but ALL testimony says this is the case. Even the husband admits this.

But, this thread isn't about the nitty gritty details of the case. The point is no one was harmed and she gets 20 years. Zimmerman stalks and KILLS a minor, and he walks.

Can we please talk about the glaring inconsistencies of these two cases?

You don't understand how self defense laws work. When she left the house and then came back with a gun, she lost her ability to claim self defense. You are comparing apples and cumquats.

reply to post by boncho


Your points are with shallow understanding of abuse. The abused person is guilty because they're with the bad guy, though there are no places to leave, womens shelters are closing down.

I've been in an abusive situation, strangled, and fearing for my life as soon as it was pregancy on. I have resolved it after being strangled, beaten and thrown in a hole in the road (during road construction), pressed charges, he did 15 weekends. Though the story has a happy ending for him and his son, but not for the relationship, due to a lot of effort on my part, and prayers and miracles, because I don't give up on people. The only time the work to help isn't effective is if you are personally vested, and are only wishing the miracles out of selfish wishes. If its selfless, he's a brother, you never want him back and only want a bigger world for your family instead of the shrunken world you're stuck in, your intentions are for the good of all, miracles happen. So he gained supervised access because I found a person to provide it, and then finally gained access, made some changes in his life, gained work out of province, off and on, a bit, then was going blind with diabetes and in the hospital, suicidal and I prayed, and talked to him in my heart reminding him of who he was, light inside, and a shared friend who died, visited him in his sleep, and he was healed, the hospital thought they had somehow made a huge mistake.

Then a wrong number got him a job in the oil wells.

People are people, don't objectify them. Feel for them and use a "what if that was my daughter and what would the most caring wonderful mother do in all situations" Use Love and Common Sense and Wisdom.

Any judge that does this or allows horrible miscarriages of justice is a criminal.

In any case, there was only one point in everything you said that was important that I missed.

The 9/11 call.

Even that does not give any judge or legal system the right to hand anyone a 20 year sentence for no maiming or killing.

This is a horrible miscarriage of justice.

reply to post by Unity_99


Someone can argue that he was the one abused. She was charged for assaulting him, when on bail went to his house, started a confrontation with him, then went to get a gun and fired at him.

How do you not see this? Because you were abused only a man can be an abuser...

Such a biased view.

Woman are abusers too and it's entirely underreported because there is more stigma for men to come forward an admit it.

Originally posted by boncho
Woman are abusers too and it's entirely underreported because there is more stigma for men to come forward an admit it.

For years I can remember only hearing one or two cases where a man was abused, and in all of them, the comments made about him were horrible (can't be repeated here due to T&C restrictions). I went through four years of brutal emotional abuse (long distance relationship), and could only see it as "well when we're finally able to get together, things are fine. When I can get her here, we'll be ok." I look back on it now, the things I've lost, the relationship with my family that was damaged, and the things it did to me, and I want to slap myself.

I did not read anything except things taken out of specific news articles, and word of mouth on this subject. Upon further reading, I realize that this lady is much more guilty than a short agenda-based story would depict. This is not at all related to the Zimmerman case, as the Zimmerman case is based on opinion, and this has some rather solid points.

Originally posted by deadlyhope
The punishment doesn't fit the crime at all, the way I see it. This guy was abusive, and although people say she didn't act like someone in fear for their life, but people have to know the responses for adrenaline ( being flight, and FIGHT ) not to mention the fact that she was used to this exact person being abusive. It's possible if it were someone off the street she had reason to fear, she might flee, but I really think this could be her standing up to someone, a person that deserves a lot more than a warning shot.

So why did she go there in the first place? Fight or flight does not last 4 months.

You might want to reread my posts before you respond.

reply to post by boncho


I wasn't replying to your posts, I gave no indication to that, I was responding to the original post only.

Further reading suggests my position should change, I did not look at the full article, presented in a non-censored, non-agenda way.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Now, I'm really tired of attempting to redirect this thread back on topic. In my opinion mods should delete about 1/2 of the posts here.

Yeah right.

All I see is a bunch of people coming forward with the facts, and you getting all butt hurt because it!

An appellate court on Thursday ordered a new trial for a Florida woman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a gun to scare off her allegedly abusive husband, ruling that a jury was improperly instructed on self-defense.

Marissa Alexander's case will be retried because the jury was wrongly told that -- for her to claim self-defense -- she needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her husband was about to seriously harm her, the appellate court said.

Rather, the appellate court pointed out, the prosecution had the burden to prove that Alexander herself was guilty of aggravated assault.

"Because the jury instructions on self-defense were fundamental error, we reverse" the conviction, a three-judge appellate panel said.

Link

Basically the jury was instructed "she is guilty until proven innocent". She should get a fair trial.

reply to post by roadgravel


Yeah, it is pretty sad how a lot of juries are instructed... Most cases that go like that and end in convictions, we will never even hear about.