PDA

View Full Version : Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for firing warning shot after Stand Your Ground defen


mykarma
May 11th, 2012, 11:21 PM
Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for firing warning shot after Stand Your Ground defense fails
By Gil Aegerter, msnbc.com

Marissa Alexander, whose case brought allegations that Florida's Stand Your Ground law is being unfairly applied, was sentenced to 20 years in prison Friday after being convicted of three counts of aggravated assault after firing a warning shot during a dispute with her husband.

The case sparked a confrontation between a congresswoman and the prosecutor after the sentencing in Jacksonville, Fla., WJXT-TV reported.

Alexander, 31, claimed she fired a shot from a handgun into the wall to protect herself during a confrontation with her husband, who she said had abused her, WJXT reported. Two children were with him when she fired a shot in his direction, and she was charged with three counts of aggravated assault.
Advertise | AdChoices

Her attorneys claimed self-defense and cited the state's Stand Your Ground law, which gives people some protection from prosecution for using potentially deadly force in cases in which they feel their life is threatened. The law came under nationwide scrutiny during the Trayvon Martin case, when neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot an unarmed teen and authorities waited weeks before charging him.

theGrio: Allegations of abuse

But a jury agreed with prosecutors that the law didn't apply because she left during the argument, got a gun and returned to confront him, WJXT reported.

Watch the most-viewed videos on msnbc.com

Last week, State Attorney Angela Corey, who is also handling the Zimmerman case, said she personally met with Alexander and reviewed the evidence in the case, WJXT reported. She said she offered Alexander a three-year sentence before trial, despite the case qualifying for a 20-year minimum mandatory sentence.

The case has sparked rallies on Alexander's behalf, and WJXT described a heated scene outside the courtroom after the sentencing:

"Three years is not mercy and 20 years is not justice," U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown told Corey in an animated confrontation in the hallway. "If there ever was a stand-your-ground case, it was this one."

... She said she has been in contact with some of the best domestic violence attorneys in the country and will be involved in the appeals process.

"This is the beginning, not the end," Brown said of Alexander case. "Clearly there is institutional racism."

At issue in the case were Alexander's actions leading up to the firing of the shot.

Alexander has said that 36-year-old Rico Gray had physically abused her in a dispute on Aug. 1, 2010. She testified that she fled into a garage and got a gun, but was unable to leave the home because the garage door was stuck. She testified that she went back into the house, where Gray was with his two sons, and fired the shot.

But Corey argued that Stand Your Law did not apply because Alexander acted in anger. The judge agreed, saying that by returning to the house, she showed she was not in fear for her life.

Gray had been arrested twice on domestic battery allegations, but Alexander had been charged with domestic battery four months after the shooting, Jacksonville.com reported.

The 20-year sentence was a mandatory minimum under Florida's "10-20-Life law," which mandates sentences for crimes involving a firearm, the Grio.com reported.

After the hearing, Alexander's attorney, Kevin Cobbin, said the Stand Your Ground law isn't always applied fairly, NBC station WLTV reported.

"The law was made for people like Ms. Alexander," Cobbin said. "They did not make it for people running around on the streets shooting people. They made it for women intheir homes trying to defended themselves against abusive mean men."
For the life of me I just don't understand our justice system. This young lady an ex-Marine with a masters degree never been in trouble before, with three kids with the youngest being nine days old and not only not kills anyone but doesn't even wound the proven abusive boyfriend who she had a restraining order against gets twenty years. The judge claimed that the "stand your ground law" doesn't apply to her while Zimmerman's ass doesn't even get arrested. WTF!!! Where were all the "stand your ground advocates supporting her, where was the NRA. She claims she fired a warning shot and the dude has a record of domestic violence again four of his five baby mamas. This dude is still around to abuse another woman while Marissa's will spend 20 years in prison her three children won't have their mother and will probably end up a statistic following in their moms footsteps to prison. Of course the state of Florida will only give the kids crumbs if that. They may have to be separated and by the time she gets out of prison her nine day old will be an adult. This is so sad on so many levels.

Sammo
May 11th, 2012, 11:34 PM
What a country :facepalm:

Ryan
May 11th, 2012, 11:51 PM
Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, how the hell does firing a gun (and NOT injuring anyone) get you 20 years?

mykarma
May 12th, 2012, 12:00 AM
Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, how the hell does firing a gun (and NOT injuring anyone) get you 20 years?

And it's someone you have a restraining order against with a history of abuse. This dude has even admitted to beating four of his five baby mamas. Where is the justice or is it just us?

Ryan
May 12th, 2012, 12:07 AM
If its just us, I want out of this society. :tape:

TheDream
May 12th, 2012, 12:28 AM
I don't believe for a second that was a warning shot. Even if it was, this is not stand your ground considering she left, and returned with a gun.

Just Do It
May 12th, 2012, 12:46 AM
US is the new China. Steal a chocolate and you will get a year, fire a shot and don't wound anyone and you will get 20 years.

Pops Maellard
May 12th, 2012, 01:01 AM
That's messed up :facepalm:.

mykarma
May 12th, 2012, 02:52 AM
I don't believe for a second that was a warning shot. Even if it was, this is not stand your ground considering she left, and returned with a gun.

She went to the garage and couldn't get out that way so she had to go back in. What was she suppose to do, go back and get her ass kicked. She's a ex-marine so I'm sure if she wanted to shot him she could have. Even so she didn't shoot or kill him.

Helen Lawson
May 12th, 2012, 03:01 AM
Terrible story, but why bring Zimmerman into this?

tennisbum79
May 12th, 2012, 04:09 AM
Terrible story, but why bring Zimmerman into this?
Because he killed someone and could get less then 20 years.

With that said, I don't know it is the Florida residents or their politicians, but some of the law they have enacted do not seem to have gone go through a rigorous process, debate and the writing of the law itself.

It seems to me, once a little light shines on these laws, the reading is so vague anybody can apply it as they see fit.
Even the judges have trouble interpreting the text, applying it unevenly and raising more questions.

tennisbum79
May 12th, 2012, 04:19 AM
What a country :facepalm:
When I comes to guns, it is an obsession which is very hard to understand, not only from outside looking in, but even when you are in the country.

People have convinced themselves and intimidated their representatives that assault rifles with 30 rounds of ammunition are considered as "sporting" riffles

tennisbum79
May 12th, 2012, 04:27 AM
US is the new China. Steal a chocolate and you will get a year, fire a shot and don't wound anyone and you will get 20 years.
... pursuit someone walking away from you, fire shot and kill him and you are were danger, so you were defending yourself

delicatecutter
May 12th, 2012, 04:42 AM
Only in Florida. :o

plantman
May 12th, 2012, 05:39 AM
She went to the garage and couldn't get out that way so she had to go back in. What was she suppose to do, go back and get her ass kicked. She's a ex-marine so I'm sure if she wanted to shot him she could have. Even so she didn't shoot or kill him.

In the article that I read, she left the house choosing to return in anger with a gun. She proceeded to shoot at her husband while 2 children stood by him.

She was offered a deal of 3 years but turned it down to use the stand your ground defense.

She should have shot him during one of the supposed abuse moments and she might have had a different outcome. She played the game & lost. Is it fair? No....But she chose the path that took her to the place she finds herself at today.

tennisbum79
May 12th, 2012, 05:41 AM
Only in Florida. :o
Yeah, Florida has issue, always. It always Florida with unusual stories

Child abduction, parents killing their kids and blaming others( a black man)

Helen Lawson
May 12th, 2012, 11:13 AM
Yeah, Florida has issue, always. It always Florida with unusual stories

Child abduction, parents killing their kids and blaming others( a black man)

Wasn't that Susan Smith in South Carolina?

Mary Cherry.
May 12th, 2012, 02:08 PM
If that happened in Britain, she'd get half an hour in prison but would be let out after 5 minutes for good behaviour.

JN
May 12th, 2012, 03:19 PM
This is some straight-up :bs: and needs to be appealed until Marissa Alexander receives justice. Hopefully this is not a preview of what to expect from cold-blooded killer George Zimmerman's murder trial.

I don't believe for a second that was a warning shot. Even if it was, this is not stand your ground considering she left, and returned with a gun.

She went into the garage thru a door in the house and couldn't get out due to a faulty outside garage door, thus, she was never able to leave the overall enclosure of the house.

Helen Lawson
May 12th, 2012, 04:47 PM
Even if it wasn't stand your ground, she didn't even shoot anyone. 20 years??

Sean.
May 12th, 2012, 05:44 PM
Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, how the hell does firing a gun (and NOT injuring anyone) get you 20 years?

Even if it wasn't stand your ground, she didn't even shoot anyone. 20 years??

This! She basically went to gaol for firing a gun. That's ridiculous.

King Halep
May 12th, 2012, 06:03 PM
:haha:

mykarma
May 12th, 2012, 06:45 PM
In the article that I read, she left the house choosing to return in anger with a gun. She proceeded to shoot at her husband while 2 children stood by him.

She was offered a deal of 3 years but turned it down to use the stand your ground defense.

She should have shot him during one of the supposed abuse moments and she might have had a different outcome. She played the game & lost. Is it fair? No....But she chose the path that took her to the place she finds herself at today.
Until you post an article or website with the article I'll take this article as the truth to what happened.
Alexander has said that 36-year-old Rico Gray had physically abused her in a dispute on Aug. 1, 2010. She testified that she fled into a garage and got a gun, but was unable to leave the home because the garage door was stuck. She testified that she went back into the house, where Gray was with his two sons, and fired the shot. Even if what you say is true the time doesn't meet the crime.

Helen Lawson
May 12th, 2012, 08:26 PM
Until you post an article or website with the article I'll take this article as the truth to what happened.

Please don't try to silence posters who have original thoughts over the blindness and brainless copy and paste jobs you do.....

King Halep
May 12th, 2012, 08:37 PM
Please don't try to silence posters who have original thoughts over the blindness and brainless copy and paste jobs you do.....

if its plantman its fine to tell him to shut the fk up

Helen Lawson
May 12th, 2012, 08:48 PM
From you, yes, from the brainless copy and paste queen, no!

ivanban
May 12th, 2012, 09:54 PM
USA justice system :help:

plantman
May 13th, 2012, 02:22 AM
Until you post an article or website with the article I'll take this article as the truth to what happened.

Where is the link to the quoted article that you posted?

plantman
May 13th, 2012, 02:26 AM
if its plantman its fine to tell him to shut the fk up

So is telling you to fuck off then!

mykarma
May 13th, 2012, 02:30 AM
Where is the link to the quoted article that you posted?
I posted the article and the author so not difficult to find if you so choose.

plantman
May 13th, 2012, 02:41 AM
I posted the article and the author so not difficult to find if you so choose.

You did indeed as I just found it. Sorry.... I overlooked it before.

msnbc.com :lol: No need to look any further. That tells me all I need to know!

pov
May 13th, 2012, 02:48 AM
Another idiotic, pathetic travesty of "justice." Some have been saying racism (when don't they) but unless her husband was of another race I don't see how that applies.

mykarma
May 13th, 2012, 04:22 AM
Another idiotic, pathetic travesty of "justice." Some have been saying racism (when don't they) but unless her husband was of another race I don't see how that applies.

Ever heard of institutional racism? Probably not since it doesn't exist.

mykarma
May 13th, 2012, 04:26 AM
You did indeed as I just found it. Sorry.... I overlooked it before.

msnbc.com :lol: No need to look any further. That tells me all I need to know!
So you think this statement gives credence to your post. :lol:

wild.river
May 13th, 2012, 05:07 AM
In the article that I read, she left the house choosing to return in anger with a gun. She proceeded to shoot at her husband while 2 children stood by him.

She was offered a deal of 3 years but turned it down to use the stand your ground defense.

She should have shot him during one of the supposed abuse moments and she might have had a different outcome. She played the game & lost. Is it fair? No....But she chose the path that took her to the place she finds herself at today.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/12/opinion/roland-martin-mandatory-minimums/
i think this is the article you read.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html
i can see where the 10-20-life law comes from...strict gun control is definitely good and seems to have merit in reducing violent crime. but clearly judges should be able to rule otherwise in extenuating circumstances such as this. she was no thug terrorizing a convenience store owner :weirdo:

plantman
May 13th, 2012, 05:47 AM
So you think this statement gives credence to your post. :lol:

Yep!

plantman
May 13th, 2012, 05:56 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/12/opinion/roland-martin-mandatory-minimums/
i think this is the article you read.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html
i can see where the 10-20-life law comes from...strict gun control is definitely good and seems to have merit in reducing violent crime. but clearly judges should be able to rule otherwise in extenuating circumstances such as this. she was no thug terrorizing a convenience store owner :weirdo:

Not the article that I read, but somewhat similar. I did say in another post I thought it wasn't fair, but as the law stands, it is what it is. I also agree that the judge should have/could have ruled otherwise in this instance.

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 10:39 AM
Ever heard of institutional racism? Probably not since it doesn't exist.

What is institutional racism?

We know she can't answer......

ys
May 13th, 2012, 10:46 AM
Terrible story, but why bring Zimmerman into this?

Because our racists have their instincts of having to bring home every piece of stinky shit from the dump.

ys
May 13th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, how the hell does firing a gun (and NOT injuring anyone) get you 20 years?

Unfortunately, that's the law. The law left judge with no choice. It's either full acquittal or 20 years. Existing law leaves no middle ground. Many of our laws are not designed to reabilitate the criminal. They are designed to scare the potential criminals. And effective scaring is only possible in strict "no exception" enforcement. The law is very effective, but it does create a collateral damage :(

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 11:00 AM
Because our racists have their instincts of having to bring home every piece of stinky shit from the dump.

The one you really have to laugh about is when the system produces a result they like, you can't question it, a grand jury is a grand jury, an acquittal is an acquittal, etc. When the system produces a result they don't like, racism has tainted every step of the process. This knee-jerk view of the world really does disservice to their own cause.

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 11:05 AM
Ever heard of institutional racism? Probably not since it doesn't exist.

But wait, this woman was charged and convicted in Jacksonville....who is the state attorney overseeing this case in Jacksonville? Angela Corey!! So, wait, she runs a racist shop in Jacksonville but her murder charges against Zimmerman are hailed by you and she's saving the day down in Sanford?!? :rolleyes:

Ryan
May 13th, 2012, 02:24 PM
Unfortunately, that's the law. The law left judge with no choice. It's either full acquittal or 20 years. Existing law leaves no middle ground. Many of our laws are not designed to reabilitate the criminal. They are designed to scare the potential criminals. And effective scaring is only possible in strict "no exception" enforcement. The law is very effective, but it does create a collateral damage :(


Yeah, definitely lots of collateral. Honestly, it seems like her lawyers were stupid for not advising her to take the 3 years. I'd take that, over 20, if it was "all or nothing". They should have known that SYG was shaky/not a slam dunk in this case.

Mynarco
May 13th, 2012, 02:32 PM
Strange, why does it take that long for lawyers or lawmakers to spot this loophole(I am not sure if loophole is the correct word)?

That's really unfortunate. And there should be some leeway/flexibility when coming to sentencing.
This woman getting 20 years is just ridiculous :o

mykarma
May 13th, 2012, 03:40 PM
Yeah, definitely lots of collateral. Honestly, it seems like her lawyers were stupid for not advising her to take the 3 years. I'd take that, over 20, if it was "all or nothing". They should have known that SYG was shaky/not a slam dunk in this case.
Perhaps because she believe she was innocent and was trying to defend herself. A friend of mine's son was arrested because he was the first black kid walking down the street after a robbery. Hadn't thought about it until now but he was also wearing a hood because it had been raining and this was many years ago. Anyhow he was offered a plea deal which his lawyer and mom wanted him to take but he refused. It cost his family a lot of money including using all her 401k money but at trial he was found innocent and the cops were shown to be the liars that they were. If he had accepted the plea deal for something he didn't do he would now be deemed a felon and life flushed right down the toilet.

plantman
May 13th, 2012, 04:37 PM
Perhaps because she believe she was innocent and was trying to defend herself. A friend of mine's son was arrested because he was the first black kid walking down the street after a robbery. Hadn't thought about it until now but he was also wearing a hood because it had been raining and this was many years ago. Anyhow he was offered a plea deal which his lawyer and mom wanted him to take but he refused. It cost his family a lot of money including using all her 401k money but at trial he was found innocent and the cops were shown to be the liars that they were. If he had accepted the plea deal for something he didn't do he would now be deemed a felon and life flushed right down the toilet.

What's your friend's son's name. I'd like to read about this story before commenting on the cops being liars. Could it be simply that there wasn't enough evidence to convict, or that the case was presented by an incompetent prosecutor. :shrug:

We know how you and others vilify the police at every opportunity. Could this be just another one of those times? It's like crying wolf so many times when not deemed warranted and then howl when no one pays attention when it is.

mykarma
May 13th, 2012, 05:26 PM
What's your friend's son's name. I'd like to read about this story before commenting on the cops being liars. Could it be simply that there wasn't enough evidence to convict, or that the case was presented by an incompetent prosecutor. :shrug:

We know how you and others vilify the police at every opportunity. Could this be just another one of those times? It's like crying wolf so many times when not deemed warranted and then howl when no one pays attention when it is.
Coming from you that's hysterical.

pov
May 13th, 2012, 05:35 PM
Ever heard of institutional racism? Probably not since it doesn't exist.
:lol: I've heard of the term. Have you ever figured out what it means? Interesting that you're so bulldogged onto anything that think you can cast as racism that you ignored my main point - which is that the sentence is a twisted travesty.

pov
May 13th, 2012, 05:44 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/12/opinion/roland-martin-mandatory-minimums/
Shame of mandatory minimums shows in Marissa Alexander case
By Roland Martin, CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- There is no reason Marissa Alexander should spend the next 20 years in prison.

If you are the most hardened law-and-order person in the world, even you should have some compassion for Alexander, the Jacksonville, Florida, woman who has been struck by the ridiculous Florida law known as 10-20-life.

The law requires anyone convicted of an aggravated assault when a firearm is discharged to serve a minimum of 20 years in prison with no regard to extenuating circumstances.

Alexander says that on August 1, 2010, her husband went into a rage and tried to strangle her after reading some text messages she sent to her ex-husband. She fled the family home, got to the garage and realized she didn't have her keys. Fearing for her life, she says she grabbed a gun and went back into the home to retrieve her keys.

She says her husband threatened to kill her, and to keep him at bay, she fired a warning shot into a wall.

Why was she charged, convicted and sentenced? Because State Attorney Angela Corey, the same prosecutor leading the Trayvon Martin case, said the gun was fired near a bedroom where two children were and they could have been injured.


Did the bullet hit the children? No. Did Alexander point the gun at her husband and hit him? No. She simply fired a warning shot, and according to Florida's shameful law, that's enough for a minimum 20-year sentence.

Corey offered Alexander a three-year sentence in a plea bargain, but Alexander felt she had done nothing wrong and so rejected the plea.

In sentencing her, the judge made it clear that, despite all the pleas for mercy, including one from Alexander's 11-year-old daughter who took the stand, he was left with no choice but to send Alexander to jail for at least 20 years.

Alexander tried to invoke Florida's controversial stand your ground law in her defense, but that was rejected. Critics of the law's role in the Martin case have said this shows how the law is applied unevenly.

But the real issue here isn't the faulty stand your ground law. It's the ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences that have been approved by countless state legislatures and Congress.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (PDF) that the federal sentencing guidelines in some types of cases should not be seen as mandatory but as "advisory," giving judges the leeway (PDF) to consider multiple factors before sentencing someone.

In a 2003 speech to the American Bar Association, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy railed against federal mandatory minimums, saying, "Our resources are misspent, our punishment too severe, our sentences too long."

"I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences," Kennedy said. "In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise or unjust."

Unfortunately, on the state level, far too many law-and-order legislators, most with no courtroom or law enforcement experience, enact such laws without giving any thought to potential cases like Alexander's.

The 10-20-life policy has no business in the laws of Florida or any other state.

Judges should have the discretion to consider a variety of factors in sentencing, and I have no doubt had this judge been given flexibility, Alexander wouldn't be going to prison for 20 years.

These types of injustices are common in our legal system, and it is necessary for everyone with a conscience to stand up and decry these so-called legislative remedies that end up as nightmares.

Alexander was a woman trying to flee an enraged husband. She could have easily pointed the gun at him and pleaded self-defense, and like George Zimmerman, the shooter in the Martin case who was not initially charged, Alexander might never have been arrested.

Our prison systems are overcrowded, and folks like Marissa Alexander do not belong in them.

One hopes that Florida Gov. Rick Scott will find some compassion and grant Alexander a pardon, and the Florida Legislature will revise the law to prevent future miscarriages of justice.

Florida elected officials and residents should be ashamed of this law and do all they can to change it.

pov
May 13th, 2012, 05:45 PM
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html
10-20-LIFE


Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon
Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 06:16 PM
What's your friend's son's name. I'd like to read about this story before commenting on the cops being liars. Could it be simply that there wasn't enough evidence to convict, or that the case was presented by an incompetent prosecutor. :shrug:

We know how you and others vilify the police at every opportunity. Could this be just another one of those times? It's like crying wolf so many times when not deemed warranted and then howl when no one pays attention when it is.

She read about it on some left-wing site and had tried to make the story her own, you'll never get the link because there isn't one.

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 06:19 PM
:lol: I've heard of the term. Have you ever figured out what it means? Interesting that you're so bulldogged onto anything that think you can cast as racism that you ignored my main point - which is that the sentence is a twisted travesty.

Not in her mind. If something unfair happens to a black person = racism. Period.

*JR*
May 13th, 2012, 06:52 PM
A lot of mandatory minimums (and applying things like the life sentence in CA's "three strikes" law to what are individually fairly minor crimes) seem to clearly violate the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, below. Its one whole sentence long, but quite clear, and applies to the states per the Fourteenth.

U.S. Constitution

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(emphasis added to both - JR)

But I realize that my pointing this out doesn't readily lend itself to charges and countercharges of bad intentions between posters here. :shrug:

Yes ys, it IS "collateral damage". And needs conservatives demanding change; just like dubya's 2000 recount lawyer Ted Olson partnered with Gore's (David Boies) in handling a major gay rights lawsuit.

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 07:33 PM
A lot of mandatory minimums (and applying things like the life sentence in CA's "three strikes" law to what are individually fairly minor crimes) seem to clearly violate the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, below. Its one whole sentence long, but quite clear, and applies to the states per the Fourteenth.

U.S. Constitution

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(emphasis added to both - JR)

But I realize that my pointing this out doesn't readily lend itself to charges and countercharges of bad intentions between posters here. :shrug:

Yes ys, it IS "collateral damage". And needs conservatives demanding change; just like dubya's 2000 recount lawyer Ted Olson partnered with Gore's (David Boies) in handling a major gay rights lawsuit.


Angela Corey should not have charged her knowing there was a mandatory minimum. Maybe she's racist. :help:

*JR*
May 13th, 2012, 08:03 PM
Angela Corey should not have charged her knowing there was a mandatory minimum. Maybe she's racist. :help:

No, if the facts were as reported (spouse trapped with serial batterer, and only fires warning shot to boot) Angela Corey should not have charged her, knowing those things.

And either the Governor should now grant a pardon, or else she should get pro bono representation for a Federal appeal, based on the clear Constitutional issues I cited.

But as posters in NT (ITT, the Trayvon Martin thread, and the US political one) seem far more interested in proving that eachother are evil than in factual matters, I'm probably wasting my time saying this.

Besides, as NY's Draconian "Rockefeller Drug Laws" are ova 40 years old, and have only been somewhat eased in all that time (including when the SCOTUS had a less conservative majority) there have probably been challenges.

This kind of question (along with various ones in the Trayvon Martin case) are yet one more reason why the Admins should have re-instated Denise (a quite sharp lawyer, whether one agrees with her on something or not).

I hope that someone who keeps in touch with her has told her (or will) that I've raised this with them several times going back months (including once joined by Edward). And that they should finally "get off their high horses" and do so.

mykarma
May 13th, 2012, 08:09 PM
:lol: I've heard of the term. Have you ever figured out what it means? Interesting that you're so bulldogged onto anything that think you can cast as racism that you ignored my main point - which is that the sentence is a twisted travesty.
Yes I know what it means and what have I cast as racism that you disagree with? I only posted the article and find it interesting that it's the people that aren't affected by racism know the most about it. Instead of getting all huffy with me perhaps you could have thought that you weren't clear.

darrinbaker00
May 13th, 2012, 08:22 PM
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=459103

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 08:25 PM
No, if the facts were as reported (spouse trapped with serial batterer, and only fires warning shot to boot) Angela Corey should not have charged her, knowing those things.

And either the Governor should now grant a pardon, or else she should get pro bono representation for a Federal appeal, based on the clear Constitutional issues I cited.

But as posters in NT (ITT, the Trayvon Martin thread, and the US political one) seem far more interested in proving that eachother are evil than in factual matters, I'm probably wasting my time saying this.

Besides, as NY's Draconian "Rockefeller Drug Laws" are ova 40 years old, and have only been somewhat eased in all that time (including when the SCOTUS had a less conservative majority) there have probably been challenges.

This kind of question (along with various ones in the Trayvon Martin case) are yet one more reason why the Admins should have re-instated Denise (a quite sharp lawyer, whether one agrees with her on something or not).

I hope that someone who keeps in touch with her has told her (or will) that I've raised this with them several times going back months (including once joined by Edward). And that they should finally "get off their high horses" and do so.

I got along great with Denise, but these mugs who've replaced her have to go, really stinking up the joint if you ask me.

I think the woman deserves a pardon as well, but I doubt Lex Luther will do this. The woman was charged with and I think at least convicted of one battery count on this same creep, if I wanted to be really evil, I could post all about this and imply her past criminal convictions show her guilt in this case, as you have done on George Zimmerman.

Be happy she broke free of this place, even if it wasn't voluntary.

*JR*
May 13th, 2012, 08:56 PM
I got along great with Denise, but these mugs who've replaced her have to go, really stinking up the joint if you ask me.

I think the woman deserves a pardon as well, but I doubt Lex Luther will do this. The woman was charged with and I think at least convicted of one battery count on this same creep, if I wanted to be really evil, I could post all about this and imply her past criminal convictions show her guilt in this case, as you have done on George Zimmerman.

Be happy she broke free of this place, even if it wasn't voluntary.

You want to call ppl mugs, I don't care. Nor who insults you, me, or anyone else here (so long as its not based on inherited characteristics like race, gender, orientation, etc).

Rick Scott can be pressured (as the Trayvon case shows) though he would have lost in 2010 if his fall opponent Alex "Sink like a stone" hadn't been such a pathetic candidate. (She reminded me of Martha Coakley's losing Senate campaign in MA).

In terms of priors being relevant, I don't believe you charge a serious felony in circumstances like these, even if the one who fired the fateful (warning shot only) was lets say Susan Smith of "drown your kids and say it was a black guy" infamy.

The principle is the same as why I consider CA's 3 strikes law blatantly unconstitutional as above (with ppl getting the "3rd strike" for some ridiculously minor crimes). Whereas Zimmerman didn't fire a warning shot, he fired (once) into a kid's chest, fatally.

Regarding "Denny", as I sometimes called her, if they invite her to return and she says no, that's her right. But what they permabanned her for (so far as I know) did not merit that, and the Admins should stop acting like :baby:s on this.

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 09:18 PM
Alex Sink ran a horrible campaign. She's thinking of running again!

mykarma
May 13th, 2012, 10:33 PM
No, if the facts were as reported (spouse trapped with serial batterer, and only fires warning shot to boot) Angela Corey should not have charged her, knowing those things.

And either the Governor should now grant a pardon, or else she should get pro bono representation for a Federal appeal, based on the clear Constitutional issues I cited.

But as posters in NT (ITT, the Trayvon Martin thread, and the US political one) seem far more interested in proving that eachother are evil than in factual matters, I'm probably wasting my time saying this.

Besides, as NY's Draconian "Rockefeller Drug Laws" are ova 40 years old, and have only been somewhat eased in all that time (including when the SCOTUS had a less conservative majority) there have probably been challenges.

This kind of question (along with various ones in the Trayvon Martin case) are yet one more reason why the Admins should have re-instated Denise (a quite sharp lawyer, whether one agrees with her on something or not).

I hope that someone who keeps in touch with her has told her (or will) that I've raised this with them several times going back months (including once joined by Edward). And that they should finally "get off their high horses" and do so.
Thanks *JR* but Denise is no longer interested in returning here and the way things are now she'd only get banned again because she would't stand for some of the nonsense spewed here. Agree with your post especially the bolded part.

Gonna go call or text and wish her a Happy Mothers Day.

Helen Lawson
May 13th, 2012, 10:35 PM
Thanks *JR* but Denise is no longer interested in returning here and the way things are now she'd only get banned again because she would stand for some of the nonsense spewed here.

More reason for you to take an extended break!

PhilePhile
May 14th, 2012, 12:09 AM
In the article that I read, she left the house choosing to return in anger with a gun. She proceeded to shoot at her husband while 2 children stood by him.

She was offered a deal of 3 years but turned it down to use the stand your ground defense.

She should have shot him during one of the supposed abuse moments and she might have had a different outcome. She played the game & lost. Is it fair? No....But she chose the path that took her to the place she finds herself at today.

She can return to her own house as many times as she pleases to "stand her ground". She returned in anger ... :lol: .. prove it!

It appears that Marissa Alexander turned down the "deal" because she is a person of principle.


In his deposition Gray admitted he “had told her if she ever cheated on me I would kill her” and during the fight said, “If I can’t have you, nobody can.”

He conceded he “was going towards her” when Alexander fired a single shot, high and to his right, that went through the kitchen wall and lodged in the living room ceiling. Finally he left, along with his two sons.

“The gun was never pointed at me,” Gray said. “She just didn’t want me to put my hands on her anymore, so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn’t get hurt.”

But at the July 2011 hearing where Alexander argued that the charges against her should be dismissed because she had acted in self-defense, Gray — who immediately after the fight portrayed her as the aggressor, then said in his deposition three months later that he had lied out of anger — changed his story again, saying he had lied in his deposition to protect her. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt rejected Alexander’s motion to dismiss, saying she could have escaped through the front or back door instead of going to the garage.

- JACOB SULLUM (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12247708-452/abused-wife-stands-her-ground-gets-20-years.html) jsullum@reason.com May 1, 2012 9:12PM, suntimes.com

*JR*
May 14th, 2012, 02:15 AM
First, the correct link, then my comments on it:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12247708-452/abused-wife-stands-her-ground-gets-20-years.html

As the guy admitted he changed his story twice, he's not a believable witness. The jury took 12 minutes to convict? :speakles: (In other words, enough time to elect a foreman or forewoman and vote, not to discuss the case).

As with the Trayvon Martin case, I have a few questions:

--- Did she have another place to go (with the kids, presuming custody) or did the Prosecutor just mean: "You could have gotten out then"? In other words, was Ms. Alexander in effect asked to just "roll the dice" on the system protecting her, when batterers (of which Mr. Gray was a serial one) routinely ignore protective orders?

--- If she did (relatives or friends) would he have known where she was staying or worked? Did HE have the right to stay in this house during whatever possible legal proceedings if she did not, especially as she likely needed the space to care for 2 kids? (Whose house was it to begin with?)
:confused:

--- Did the Prosecutor take action against Mr. Gray for battering any of his "baby mamas"? Did she even have them interviewed, or asked to testify in this case? (Relevant regarding Gray's pattern of conduct with "his" women).

--- Were there police reports of earlier abuse by either party in this couple, OR by other "baby mamas" of Mr. Gray? Were there medical records ala doctors, ER's, etc? Or by social services, regarding the kids present in any of the cases?

(As with Zimmerman) was there possible "police disinterest", albeit with Mr. Gray I mean B4 this incident? Did Ms. Alexander have competent counsel? I might well have more questions as this plays out, as I did about George Zimmerman.

plantman
May 14th, 2012, 05:20 AM
Coming from you that's hysterical.

Care to explain your basis for finding my claim hysterical?

plantman
May 14th, 2012, 05:44 AM
She can return to her own house as many times as she pleases to "stand her ground". She returned in anger ... :lol: .. prove it!

It appears that Marissa Alexander turned down the "deal" because she is a person of principle.




- JACOB SULLUM (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12247708-452/abused-wife-stands-her-ground-gets-20-years.html) jsullum@reason.com May 1, 2012 9:12PM, suntimes.com


I don't need to prove anything!:shrug: As for your claim above regarding "stand her ground"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/marissa-alexander-sentenced_n_1510113.html

A judge and a jury disagreed.

Angela Corey, the state attorney who oversaw the case against Alexander, said that justice was indeed served and that Alexander was angry and reckless, not fearful, on the night of the shooting. Just because no one was harmed in the incident doesn't make the shooting any less a punishable crime, Corey said.

"I feel like when someone fires a loaded gun inside of a home with two children standing in the direction where the bullet was fired, we have to have tough laws that say you don't do that," Corey told HuffPost. "Justice, with the laws of the state of Florida, was served. But I don't believe her supporters will ever believe that."

PhilePhile
May 14th, 2012, 06:11 AM
I don't need to prove anything!:shrug: As for your claim above regarding "stand her ground"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/marissa-alexander-sentenced_n_1510113.html

A judge and a jury disagreed.

Angela Corey, the state attorney who oversaw the case against Alexander, said that justice was indeed served and that Alexander was angry and reckless, not fearful, on the night of the shooting. Just because no one was harmed in the incident doesn't make the shooting any less a punishable crime, Corey said.

"I feel like when someone fires a loaded gun inside of a home with two children standing in the direction where the bullet was fired, we have to have tough laws that say you don't do that," Corey told HuffPost. "Justice, with the laws of the state of Florida, was served. But I don't believe her supporters will ever believe that."


Since when is being angry and/or reckless on its own is against the law? And how do you confirm "angry and reckless"? Is Angela Corey playing God ... because God said "I feel like"... then it must be justice.

plantman
May 14th, 2012, 06:43 AM
Since when is being angry and/or reckless on its own is against the law? And how do you confirm "angry and reckless"? Is Angela Corey playing God ... because God said "I feel like"... then it must be justice.

On their own hardly ever if never, but when combined with a lethal weapon it's a whole different matter. Since I wasn't privy to the facts I can't comment on how they arrived at the angry & reckless claim.

Perhaps the jury will speak up as this story gains momentum. In doing so we might hear the answer to the questions that you've asked.

The State Attorney isn't standing by & letting what she deems misinformation to be spread either....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/marissa-alexander-sentenced_n_1510113.html

in the past week, Angela Corey, the state attorney (who also is prosecuting Zimmerman in the Martin case), has launched a media offensive to combat what she has called "misinformation" being spread by the family about the circumstances of the shooting.

About four months after Alexander was released on bail, on orders to have no contact with Gray, she got into an altercation with him at his home that gave him a black eye, Corey said. Alexander was arrested and charged with battery, to which she pleaded no contest.

Corey said that Alexander's actions -- engaging with a man of whom she claimed to be deathly afraid, and assaulting him -- "didn't show much of her being remorseful" or "being a peaceful person."

"Everybody is still ignoring that she got out on bond and chose to go back over there and hit him a second time," Corey said. "That was kind of an indication of where putting her on probation, where you might have been able to do that before, was off the table since she disregarded a judges order."

Helen Lawson
May 14th, 2012, 08:37 AM
On their own hardly ever if never, but when combined with a lethal weapon it's a whole different matter. Since I wasn't privy to the facts I can't comment on how they arrived at the angry & reckless claim.

Perhaps the jury will speak up as this story gains momentum. In doing so we might hear the answer to the questions that you've asked.

The State Attorney isn't standing by & letting what she deems misinformation to be spread either....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/marissa-alexander-sentenced_n_1510113.html

in the past week, Angela Corey, the state attorney (who also is prosecuting Zimmerman in the Martin case), has launched a media offensive to combat what she has called "misinformation" being spread by the family about the circumstances of the shooting.

About four months after Alexander was released on bail, on orders to have no contact with Gray, she got into an altercation with him at his home that gave him a black eye, Corey said. Alexander was arrested and charged with battery, to which she pleaded no contest.

Corey said that Alexander's actions -- engaging with a man of whom she claimed to be deathly afraid, and assaulting him -- "didn't show much of her being remorseful" or "being a peaceful person."

"Everybody is still ignoring that she got out on bond and chose to go back over there and hit him a second time," Corey said. "That was kind of an indication of where putting her on probation, where you might have been able to do that before, was off the table since she disregarded a judges order."

Wait a minute...I thought Angela Corey was their heroine? :confused:

*JR*
May 14th, 2012, 12:05 PM
Bingo. The HuffPo article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/marissa-alexander-sentenced_n_1510113.html) leads to a key question, and the possible correct penalty:

"About four months after Alexander was released on bail, on orders to have no contact with Gray, she got into an altercation with him at his home that gave him a black eye, Corey said. Alexander was arrested and charged with battery, to which she pleaded no contest."

In other words, Ms. Alexander could have been jailed for a far shorter period (kind of a "wake-up call" by the original judge, for Contempt of Court). And her No Contest plea might have included probation, which also could have landed her in jail for a far shorter period.

Meanwhile, I still want to know if Gray's other abuse victims filed police reports, if they didn't because he threatened them (a crime, of course) etc. One of these decades Helen, you'll look @ a full picture. :shrug:

And to Palinista Plantman re. the :hysteric: smilie response to Helen's "bet" that I got Ms. Karma to quote Huey Newton: if she ever quotes your former Governess on anything, maybe then I would have. :p

JN
May 14th, 2012, 03:08 PM
Wait a minute...I thought Angela Corey was their heroine? :confused:

Most of what you think is wrong, so why should this be any different? :shrug:

Helen Lawson
May 14th, 2012, 03:51 PM
Most of what you think is wrong, so why should this be any different? :shrug:

Wait, you said in the Trayvon Martin thread that Angela Corey was rooting out all the racism in Sanford (police, detectives, hospital, prosecutors office, city council, etc.), but now her office has put away an innocent black woman for 20 years due to racism. Which is it? In your view, is Angela Corey a race activist or racist stool pidgeon??