View Full Version : New Trial Ordered for Florida Woman Who Got 20 Years
jillian
09-26-2013, 01:05 PM
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?form=MSNNDL&q=Tallahassee, Florida, United States) — A Florida appeals court is ordering a new trial for a woman sentenced to 20 years to prison after she fired a warning shot in a wall during a dispute with her husband.
The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a judge did not properly instruct the jury handling the case of Marissa Alexander.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/new-trial-ordered-for-fla-woman-who-got-20-years
Cigar
09-26-2013, 01:06 PM
They must have imported some Adults
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:09 PM
the rest of the story
But the appeals court also said the judge was right to block Alexander from using the state's "stand your ground" law as a way to defend her actions.
Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. But the judge at her trial said her conviction on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon carried a mandatory 20-year sentence under state law.
We need more information
jillian
09-26-2013, 01:11 PM
the rest of the story
We need more information
on what? we know she left the room, went and got her gun, and fired into the ceiling of her own home to make her abusive spouse leave.
they found her guilty because she left the room to get the gun... finding that there was no imminent threat when she fired into the air.
i'd need to look at the decision because i'm not quite sure how the court says she shouldn't have used stand your ground when she really didn't fall into classic definitions of self-defense.
so i'm not sure what the new trial is for then. under the same instructions, she'd be just as guilty.
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:14 PM
on what? we know she left the room, went and got her gun, and fired into the ceiling of her own home to make her abusive spouse leave.
they found her guilty because she left the room to get the gun... finding that there was no imminent threat when she fired into the air.
The jury found her guilty not the judge.
What did the judge get wrong with his instructions that would cause a mistrial?
This little bit of an article doesn't give us that.
The Xl
09-26-2013, 01:16 PM
Good.
jillian
09-26-2013, 01:17 PM
The jury found her guilty not the judge.
What did the judge get wrong with his instructions that would cause a mistrial?
This little bit of an article doesn't give us that.
you're right. but... it says that stand your ground wasn't appropriate... yet somehow they thought it was ok when the perp followed the victim for no reason at all, leading to a dispute.
so if that was ok... how was it not ok to fire into the air of your own home?
should be interesting to see the whole decision.
nic34
09-26-2013, 01:19 PM
Great news....
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 01:21 PM
on what? we know she left the room, went and got her gun, and fired into the ceiling of her own home to make her abusive spouse leave.
they found her guilty because she left the room to get the gun... finding that there was no imminent threat when she fired into the air.
i'd need to look at the decision because i'm not quite sure how the court says she shouldn't have used stand your ground when she really didn't fall into classic definitions of self-defense.
so i'm not sure what the new trial is for then. under the same instructions, she'd be just as guilty.
This is correct. Further, I believe many of the news reports have been wrong about the "shot into the ceiling". It was actually into the wall behind where her husband, and I believe their two kids, were standing. That also was important at the trial.
I think the verdict and sentence were a bit harsh though.
jillian
09-26-2013, 01:22 PM
This is correct. Further, I believe many of the news reports have been wrong about the "shot into the ceiling". It was actually into the wall behind where her husband, and I believe their two kids, were standing. That also was important at the trial.
I think the verdict and sentence were a bit harsh though.
i haven't seen anything about her shooting at her husband.
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:23 PM
you're right. but... it says that stand your ground wasn't appropriate... yet somehow they thought it was ok when the perp followed the victim for no reason at all, leading to a dispute.
so if that was ok... how was it not ok to fire into the air of your own home?
should be interesting to see the whole decision.
Stand your ground wasn't appropriate, the judge did get it right. If memory serves me, she walked pasted one if not two doors leading outside. Instead on leaving she went to her car for her gun.
In other words she had at least two-three ways to remove herself from the situation and call for help, instead she grabbed her gun and went back inside to fire a warning shot. That is why she can't use stand your ground as a defence. Hell, going by that information alone I can see why self defence didn't work either.
Stand your ground wasn't appropriate, the judge did get it right. If memory serves me, she walked pasted one if not two doors leading outside. Instead on leaving she went to her car for her gun.
In other words she had at least two-three ways to remove herself from the situation and call for help, instead she grabbed her gun and went back inside to fire a warning shot. That is why she can't use stand your ground as a defence. Hell, going by that information alone I can see why self defence didn't work either.
SYG, in Florida, means no duty to retreat.
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:26 PM
This is correct. Further, I believe many of the news reports have been wrong about the "shot into the ceiling". It was actually into the wall behind where her husband, and I believe their two kids, were standing. That also was important at the trial.
I think the verdict and sentence were a bit harsh though.
The sentence was mandatory. State law.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 01:26 PM
i haven't seen anything about her shooting at her husband.
... and you won't either :rollseyes:
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:28 PM
i haven't seen anything about her shooting at her husband.
Something about the projectile of the bullet. The bullet ended up in the ceiling of another room, only way for that to happen is if she fired at him not up.
Sorry, trajectory of the bullet
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:34 PM
SYG, in Florida, means no duty to retreat.
She did retreat and instead of call the cops she came back with a gun.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 01:37 PM
The moral of the story ... if you're going to shoot ... shoot to kill ... explain later.
The Florida-Way
She did retreat and instead of call the cops she came back with a gun.
No, that isn't retreating. If someone can get away with using SYG for chasing down and killing someone that stole a radio she should be afforded the same defense.
The Xl
09-26-2013, 01:38 PM
20 years for intentionally missing a shot is ridiculous, no matter how you try and justify it.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 01:40 PM
20 years for intentionally missing a shot is ridiculous, no matter how you try and justify it.
Justify ... they will .. :wink:
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:46 PM
20 years for intentionally missing a shot is ridiculous, no matter how you try and justify it.
Change the law.
Gun control laws at there finest.
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:46 PM
No, that isn't retreating. If someone can get away with using SYG for chasing down and killing someone that stole a radio she should be afforded the same defense.
The judge and appeals court doesn't agree with you.
nic34
09-26-2013, 01:48 PM
Change the law.
Gun control laws at there finest.
You mean .... NO control.
Venus
09-26-2013, 01:50 PM
You mean .... NO control.
Call it whatever you want. But because she used a gun, mandatory 20 years. State law.
Thank Jeb Bush for that.
Cigar is right. In Florida, you can't fire a warning shot. You must shoot to kill if you hope to avoid jail time.
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:05 PM
Thank Jeb Bush for that.
Cigar is right. In Florida, you can't fire a warning shot. You must shoot to kill if you hope to avoid jail time.
The "warning" shot was a missed shot to the head.
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:05 PM
Call it whatever you want. But because she used a gun, mandatory 20 years. State law.
how about we call it the wild west?
cool
Mainecoons
09-26-2013, 02:09 PM
Thank Jeb Bush for that.
Cigar is right. In Florida, you can't fire a warning shot. You must shoot to kill if you hope to avoid jail time.
Could you cite Florida law on this?
Or is it just more of your and Cigar's usual exaggeration and distortion?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 02:16 PM
how about we call it the wild west?
cool
Not enough blacks shooting each other for getting their shoes stepped on for it to be the "wild west."
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:16 PM
how about we call it the wild west?
cool
Go right ahead.
Feel better?
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:17 PM
Could you cite Florida law on this?
Or is it just more of your and Cigar's usual exaggeration and distortion?
It's almost comical.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:32 PM
No, that isn't retreating. If someone can get away with using SYG for chasing down and killing someone that stole a radio she should be afforded the same defense.
False. First off, she was not under attack by her ex-husband. He was there to either get the kids, or drop off the kids. I believe that she had some kind of order against him, but this was merely her telling him he must leave, or an argument. Again, he was not attacking her. She went and got the gun to threaten him with it, and fired it at the wall behind him.
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:34 PM
False. First off, she was not under attack by her ex-husband. He was there to either get the kids, or drop off the kids. I believe that she had some kind of order against him, but this was merely her telling him he must leave, or an argument. Again, he was not attacking her. She went and got the gun to threaten him with it, and fired it at the wall behind him.
may i ask where you're getting your information? because every report i've read said that he was threatening her.
additionally, if she had a restraining order, he shouldn't have been there at all for any reason.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:34 PM
Could you cite Florida law on this?
Or is it just more of your and Cigar's usual exaggeration and distortion?
Cigar is somewhat correct. A big problem is that she fired in the general direction of her husband, although apparently not right at him. It was key at the trial.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:36 PM
may i ask where you're getting your information? because every report i've read said that he was threatening her.
additionally, if she had a restraining order, he shouldn't have been there at all for any reason.
I live down here, I followed the case at that time. Doesn't matter about the retraining order. You cannot threaten them with a gun if they are not threatening you, or in the commission of a felony.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 02:36 PM
may i ask where you're getting your information? because every report i've read said that he was threatening her.
additionally, if she had a restraining order, he shouldn't have been there at all for any reason.
Does this give her the right to fire off random shots in your opinion now that there has been an order from an overreaching government for him to stay away from her?
False. First off, she was not under attack by her ex-husband. He was there to either get the kids, or drop off the kids. I believe that she had some kind of order against him, but this was merely her telling him he must leave, or an argument. Again, he was not attacking her. She went and got the gun to threaten him with it, and fired it at the wall behind him.
She had a restraining order against him. Also:
A judge threw out Alexander’s “stand your ground” self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside. Alexander claimed she did try to escape (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/marissa-alexander-florida-stand-your-ground_n_1472647.html) through the garage, but after finding the garage door was jammed, grabbed her gun before going back.
Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence and chose to go to trial. A jury deliberated 12 minutes before convicting her.
“The irony of the 10-20-life law is the people who actually think they’re innocent of the crime, they roll the dice and take their chances, and they get the really harsh prison sentences,” Newburn said. “Whereas the people who think they are actually guilty of the crime take the plea deal and get out (of prison) well before. So it certainly isn’t working the way it is intended.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/
A total bullshit trial.
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:39 PM
She had a restraining order against him. Also:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/
A total bullshit trial.
exactly.
i'm wondering who this is advancing a totally different version of what happened from the public record.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 02:40 PM
She had a restraining order against him. Also:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/
A total bullshit trial.
Don't waist your time ... they'll defend this to the death. :grin:
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 02:41 PM
She had a restraining order against him. Also:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/
A total bullshit trial.
Once again:
Does this give her the right to fire off random shots in your opinion now that there has been an order from an overreaching government for him to stay away from her?
And in addition: What if she had hit a black "child?" :laugh:
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:42 PM
She had a restraining order against him. Also:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/
A total bullshit trial.
Funny how the garage door was jammed only during the time she "tried" to escape.
She should have taken the plea deal.
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:42 PM
Does this give her the right to fire off random shots in your opinion now that there has been an order from an overreaching government for him to stay away from her?
in florida?
she actually did have the right to stand her ground. she was also probably protected under all kinds of homestead statutes...
she didn't aim at him. she shot into the ceiling. i'd call that a warning shot and he should have left.
the sad part is, under florida law, if she killed him and said she felt threatened, she'd have walked.
that sound about right to you?
Don't waist your time ... they'll defend this to the death. :grin:
Some of them will of course, because she is black and a woman. But out there on the great interwebs are people from both sides that think she got railroaded.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:42 PM
may i ask where you're getting your information? because every report i've read said that he was threatening her.
additionally, if she had a restraining order, he shouldn't have been there at all for any reason.
I was correct in all that I said. The status of the "restraining order" is also explained.
In September 2009, Alexander, a 31-year-old divorcée, obtained a restraining order against Rico Gray, 37, after he beat her so badly that she had to go to the hospital. Six months later, they married. In July 2010, two months after walking down the aisle, Alexander gave birth to their first child. During the preceding two months Alexander had not been living with Gray, but on the evening of July 31, just over a week after giving birth, Alexander left her newborn daughter at the hospital and went to Gray’s home, where she stayed the night. The next morning, Gray arrived at the house with his two sons, 9 and 13, and the family had a pleasant breakfast.
The trouble began when Alexander gave Gray her cell phone so that he could see pictures of their new daughter. On the phone he spotted text messages from Alexander to her ex-husband, arousing Gray’s suspicions about the true father of the baby. A “verbal argument ensued,” according to court documents, and Alexander went into the garage.
Here is where things get messy. According to Alexander, she went to the garage to flee Gray, who was threatening her. So why did she go back into the house? Alexander has been less than consistent on this point. She has claimed that the garage door would not open, forcing her back inside, and also that she had forgotten her keys in the house. In either case, she grabbed her handgun from the glove compartment (the gun was legal, and Alexander had a concealed-carry permit) and went back inside.
And here things get messier. Alexander says that Gray threatened to kill her, so she fired a “warning shot.” But according to the court order denying Alexander’s motion to dismiss, she had pointed the gun in the direction of “all three victims” — Gray and his two young sons — and fired a shot “nearly missing [Gray’s] head.”
Gray’s account aligns with this — and adds a bit of color. Gray says that just before heading into the garage, Alexander told him, “I got something for your ass.” When she came back in with the gun, he put his hands in the air. After the shot, he fled out the front door with his sons and called 911. “She said she’s ‘sick of this sh*t,’” he told the dispatcher. “She shot at me, inside the house, while my boys were standing right next to me. Lord have mercy.” Alexander never called the police.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354178/real-marissa-alexander-story-ian-tuttle
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:43 PM
Funny how the garage door was jammed only during the time she "tried" to escape.
She should have taken the plea deal.
why? she didn't do anything wrong.
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:44 PM
Don't waist your time ... they'll defend this to the death. :grin:
isn't that funny?
let's see... white guy follows unarmed kid doing nothing, starts a fight and kills the kid. not so much as a ticket for disturbing the peace or a conviction for assault.
black woman actually defends herself from an abusive spouse by shooting into a ceiling of HER OWN HOME... 20 years and the wingers defend it.
hmmmm... which of these things is not like the other?
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:45 PM
in florida?
she actually did have the right to stand her ground. she was also probably protected under all kinds of homestead statutes...
she didn't aim at him. she shot into the ceiling. i'd call that a warning shot and he should have left.
the sad part is, under florida law, if she killed him and said she felt threatened, she'd have walked.
that sound about right to you?
You don't let facts get in the way of your truth, do you.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:45 PM
in florida?
she actually did have the right to stand her ground. she was also probably protected under all kinds of homestead statutes...
she didn't aim at him. she shot into the ceiling. i'd call that a warning shot and he should have left.
the sad part is, under florida law, if she killed him and said she felt threatened, she'd have walked.
that sound about right to you?
This is false. While she claimed it was only a warning shot and she thought she aimed at the ceiling, the facts are different. Would be nice if folks would read-up on it before just assuming some internet forum is fact.
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:47 PM
why? she didn't do anything wrong.
Apparently she did, she was found guilty. The only reason that we know of for the mistrial is because of the judge's instructions. And we still don't know what was wrong or missing from his instructions to jury.
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:47 PM
This is false. While she claimed it was only a warning shot and she thought she aimed at the ceiling, the facts are different. Would be nice if folks would read-up on it before just assuming some internet forum is fact.
interestingly, the public record of the case, and i believe, the findings at trial say what i said. you keep making the claim that the facts are different but have posting nothing to show that.
link to your claims. we already have.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 02:47 PM
in florida?
she actually did have the right to stand her ground. she was also probably protected under all kinds of homestead statutes...
she didn't aim at him. she shot into the ceiling. i'd call that a warning shot and he should have left.
the sad part is, under florida law, if she killed him and said she felt threatened, she'd have walked.
that sound about right to you?
Yep.
Don't shoot a gun unless you intend for the bullet to kill something.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:48 PM
interestingly, the public record of the case, and i believe, the findings at trial say what i said. you keep making the claim that the facts are different but have posting nothing to show that.
link to your claims. we already have.
I did.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 02:49 PM
Some of them will of course, because she is black and a woman. But out there on the great interwebs are people from both sides that think she got railroaded.
:shocked: Nooooooooooooo Really?
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:49 PM
Apparently she did, she was found guilty. The only reason that we know of for the mistrial is because of the judge's instructions. And we still don't know what was wrong or missing from his instructions to jury.
so you think the finding of guilt automatically means she did something wrong.
the innocence project has gotten 311 people exonerated since 1989 who were sentenced to death.
juries can be, and often are, wrong.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_people_have_been_exonerated_through_DNA_t esting.php
tell me, you think OJ was innocent? the jury sure found him not guilty.
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:49 PM
Some of them will of course, because she is black and a woman. But out there on the great interwebs are people from both sides that think she got railroaded.
YES! This is all about keeping the black man, or in this case, the black women down.
Your powers of perception are amazing. Amazing I tell you.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 02:54 PM
YES! This is all about keeping the black man, or in this case, the black women down.
Your powers of perception are amazing. Amazing I tell you.
I didn't even notice that she was black in the picture.
Hard to tell unless you really take note of such things.
I know how important skin color is to Liberals.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:54 PM
interestingly, the public record of the case, and i believe, the findings at trial say what i said. you keep making the claim that the facts are different but have posting nothing to show that.
link to your claims. we already have.
My link is thorough. If you read the entire Blaze piece, it shows both that she had apparently waived her restraining order by voluntarily meeting with her husband. And that she most certainly fired in their direction, not at the ceiling.
I got the facts. Show me yours.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 02:56 PM
YES! This is all about keeping the black man, or in this case, the black women down.
Your powers of perception are amazing. Amazing I tell you.
POP QUIZ: Name the White Women who was sentience to 20 years in prison for the same thing.
... and don't tell me only Black Women or Black people have ever shot through a roof.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:56 PM
so you think the finding of guilt automatically means she did something wrong.
the innocence project has gotten 311 people exonerated since 1989 who were sentenced to death.
juries can be, and often are, wrong.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_people_have_been_exonerated_through_DNA_t esting.php
tell me, you think OJ was innocent? the jury sure found him not guilty.
Would be nice if we could start with the facts of the case, and not conjecture. You have not provided facts. And the strawman doesn't work either.
Do try the facts.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 02:57 PM
I didn't even notice that she was black in the picture.
Hard to tell unless you really take note of such things.
I know how important skin color is to Liberals.
Give a generation or two and we'll all have some flavor :laugh:
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:57 PM
so you think the finding of guilt automatically means she did something wrong.
the innocense project has gotten 311 people exonerated since 1989 who were sentenced to death.
juries can be, and often are, wrong.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_people_have_been_exonerated_through_DNA_t esting.php
tell me, you think OJ was innocent? the jury sure found him not guilty.
Good for them.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 02:58 PM
POP QUIZ: Name the White Women who was sentience to 20 years in prison for the same thing.
... and don't tell me only Black Women or Black people have ever shot through a roof.
She shot in the direction of her husband and his two kids. Not the ceiling. Read the links.
jillian
09-26-2013, 02:58 PM
My link is thorough. If you read the entire Blaze piece, it shows both that she had apparently waived her restraining order by voluntarily meeting with her husband. And that she most certainly fired in their direction, not at the ceiling.
I got the facts. Show me yours.
i didn't see that before. but your link is to the far right national review...and doesn't even match what the abusive spouse said in his sworn depositon:
According to a sworn deposition (http://www.scribd.com/doc/90595503/Marissa-Alexander-Alleged-Victim-Disposition#download) taken in November 2010, Gray, 36, said that on August 1, 2010, he and Alexander began fighting after he found text messages to Alexander's first husband on her phone. The two were already estranged - according to her father, Alexander had been living at her mother's since the birth of the couple's daughter nine days earlier, and Gray, a long-haul trucker, said he spent the night before in his tractor-trailer. Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.
Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment.
Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
now you know why your source is BS... try actual facts.
Venus
09-26-2013, 02:59 PM
I didn't even notice that she was black in the picture.
Hard to tell unless you really take note of such things.
I know how important skin color is to Liberals.
What else could this possible be about? If this happened to a white women or man we wouldn't be talking about it.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 02:59 PM
POP QUIZ: Name the White Women who was sentience to 20 years in prison for the same thing.
Oh great racist, what does "sentience" mean in this context?
jillian
09-26-2013, 03:00 PM
I didn't even notice that she was black in the picture.
Hard to tell unless you really take note of such things.
I know how important skin color is to Liberals.
yeah, you're color blind... like stephen colbert you only know you're white because people tell you that you are.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 03:01 PM
What else could this possible be about? If this happened to a white women or man we wouldn't be talking about it.
I had no idea she was black. This changes everything.
That woman is oppressed. A victim.
Let her go, drop all the charges.
Because she is black.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 03:01 PM
i didn't see that before. but your link is to the far right national review...and doesn't even match what the abusive spouse said in his sworn depositon:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
now you know why your source is BS... try actual facts.
At trial, the ballistic analysis showed the wall strike of the bullet.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 03:02 PM
yeah, you're color blind... like stephen colbert you only know you're white because people tell you that you are.
No, jillian.
I just don't focus on race all day long like you people do. I don't see a picture and immediately look at skin color to decide whether or not I like the person in the photo.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 03:03 PM
She shot in the direction of her husband and his two kids. Not the ceiling. Read the links.
I bet that was a ground breaking legal precedent ... hence the 20 years
jillian
09-26-2013, 03:12 PM
She shot in the direction of her husband and his two kids. Not the ceiling. Read the links.
Your link is contradicted by sworn deposition of the abuser
jillian
09-26-2013, 03:13 PM
Good for them.
Yeah, just what I figured.
Venus
09-26-2013, 03:14 PM
Yeah, just what I figured.
What did you figure, Jillian?
Don't hold back now.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 03:43 PM
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/new-trial-ordered-for-fla-woman-who-got-20-years
I was very excited to see this one. Very excited.
Venus
09-26-2013, 03:44 PM
I was very excited to see this one. Very excited.
Why very excited?
jillian
09-26-2013, 03:44 PM
I was very excited to see this one. Very excited.
i was pretty pleased, too.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 03:48 PM
Why very excited?
Because the equal application of justice is important to me. There was a track record of domestic abuse and according to transcripts on the case she asked him to leave first. In this case, she had every right to fire a warning shot and no one was hurt. In other cases where people were not given warning shots and people ended up dead, they walked.
Twenty years is not an equal application of justice.
Of course I only have court transcript excerpts not the whole thing, but from what I read (I'll admit I haven't read it all) it appears she had an unfair application of the law. Castle Doctrine should apply regardless of whether or not they are familiar.
Matty
09-26-2013, 03:53 PM
Your link is contradicted by sworn deposition of the abuser
What? YOu've never known of anybody lying under oath?
jillian
09-26-2013, 03:53 PM
Because the equal application of justice is important to me. There was a track record of domestic abuse and according to transcripts on the case she asked him to leave first. In this case, she had every right to fire a warning shot and no one was hurt. In other cases where people were not given warning shots and people ended up dead, they walked.
Twenty years is not an equal application of justice.
Of course I only have court transcript excerpts not the whole thing, but from what I read (I'll admit I haven't read it all) it appears she had an unfair application of the law. Castle Doctrine should apply regardless of whether or not they are familiar.
Compliments on your consistency.
Matty
09-26-2013, 03:56 PM
Because the equal application of justice is important to me. There was a track record of domestic abuse and according to transcripts on the case she asked him to leave first. In this case, she had every right to fire a warning shot and no one was hurt. In other cases where people were not given warning shots and people ended up dead, they walked.
Twenty years is not an equal application of justice.
Of course I only have court transcript excerpts not the whole thing, but from what I read (I'll admit I haven't read it all) it appears she had an unfair application of the law. Castle Doctrine should apply regardless of whether or not they are familiar.
what you may not understand is that uder Fla. law and the stand your ground and the CCW permits, you are not allowed to pull out a gun, wave it around and fire warning shots. If you draw that gun and you better aim and shoot or you better keep it holstered.
jillian
09-26-2013, 03:56 PM
What? YOu've never known of anybody lying under oath?
He would have lied to his detriment. The worse her actions seemed, the better he'd have looked. He also wasn't the one charged. and given the existence of a protective order, it was probably an admission against interest.
So yes, people lie. The alleged victim had no reason to lie. And I'll pick his credibility and the credibility of everyone else who reported the story over the national review's piece which isn't substantiated well... By anything
but why don't we wait and see what the appellate decision says on the issue of the facts. (Notwithstanding how that decision was reported)
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:08 PM
what you may not understand is that uder Fla. law and the stand your ground and the CCW permits, you are not allowed to pull out a gun, wave it around and fire warning shots. If you draw that gun and you better aim and shoot or you better keep it holstered.
She was in her home, thus Castle Doctrine applies. If you've asked an intruder to leave your home you may fire warning shots or just shoot the fuck out of them
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:20 PM
She was in her home, thus Castle Doctrine applies. If you've asked an intruder to leave your home you may fire warning shots or just shoot the fuck out of them
You cannot take a gun out and willy nilly fire shots around wherever you please.
That's just not responsible firearm use. Should be a lot more than 20 years if you ask me.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:23 PM
You cannot take a gun out and willy nilly fire shots around wherever you please.
Can you cite the legal code that says you may not fire a gun "willy nilly" on your own property?
Regardless, that is not what she did. Someone who had been physically violent with her in the past was in her home. She asked him to leave. He refused to leave so she shot.
You are allowed to do that in your home.
That's just not responsible firearm use. Should be a lot more than 20 years if you ask me.
I didn't ask you.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:25 PM
Can you cite the legal code that says you may not fire a gun "willy nilly" on your own property?
Regardless, that is not what she did. Some who had been physically violent with her in the past was in her home. She asked him to leave. He refused to leave so she shot.
You are allowed to do that in your home.
I didn't ask you.
What if that shot hadn't gone into a wall or the ceiling? What if it flew out a window and came down on some innocent bystander instead?
Who's to say that won't be the case next time if we let this irresponsible gun-owner walk?
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:27 PM
What if that shot hadn't gone into a wall or the ceiling? What if it flew out a window and came down on some innocent bystander instead?
But it didn't. Have you ever swerved in your car? What if you'd swerved and hit someone?
We have both the 2nd amendment and the Castle Doctrine as part of our legal tradition.
Who's to say that won't be the case next time if we let this irresponsible gun-owner walk?
Who's to say it will?
Is that justice now? Incarcerating people for what might happen instead of what did happen?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:30 PM
But it didn't. Have you ever swerved in your car? What if you'd swerved and hit someone?
We have both the 2nd amendment and the Castle Doctrine as part of our legal tradition.
Who's to say it will?
Is that justice now? Incarcerating people for what might happen instead of what did happen?
No, but what happens when that DOES happen? We say "oh well she was in her own home and there was someone threatening her so she fired off a warning shot and it came down on a mother and her baby?"
No. When you shoot you need to shoot to kill and not wherever you feel like shooting.
It's just common sense.
Matty
09-26-2013, 04:36 PM
Can you cite the legal code that says you may not fire a gun "willy nilly" on your own property?
Regardless, that is not what she did. Someone who had been physically violent with her in the past was in her home. She asked him to leave. He refused to leave so she shot.
You are allowed to do that in your home.
I didn't ask you.
why don't you cite the Fla law that says you may pull out a gun wave it around and shoot wily nilly in your own home. I'll wait patiently.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:36 PM
No, but what happens when that DOES happen? We say "oh well she was in her own home and there was someone threatening her so she fired off a warning shot and it came down on a mother and her baby?"
When or if? You cannot jail someone or take away a right for what might happen, only what happens. You're starting to sound like the Feinstein on this one.
Do you want to require all gun owners take classes at the range to ensure it could NEVER HAPPEN in a MILLION YEARS to someone? Even that won't work.
Same with vehicles. You cannot every promise that every driver will drive well at all times.
No. When you shoot you need to shoot to kill and not wherever you feel like shooting.
Can you not see where she would be frightened, want him out, show him she means business but not want to kill the father of her child?
It's just common sense.
Not at all. It's nanny state thinking. I'd rather deal with some risks than lose some freedom.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:39 PM
why don't you cite the Fla law that says you may pull out a gun wave it around and shoot wily nilly in your own home. I'll wait patiently.
Do you understand what a law is? Laws tell you what is wrong behavior, not what you're allowed to do. I do dabble in it from time to time and I can tell you out of the 60 books or so I have in my possession not a single one tells you what things you are allowed to do in your home. Just what you can't do.
I honestly cannot believe I'm having this conversation with conservatives. Bizarre.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:40 PM
Uh ((taps glass))
jillian
I feel weird defending the 2nd amendment and the Castle Doctrine with conservatives. Can you come argue with them or me?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:41 PM
Alright well when you set this woman free and we have a legal precedent for anyone who has "felt threatened" by someone with a violent history in their home to be allowed to wave their guns around and fire wherever they please and people may or may not be dropping dead in the streets I don't want to hear you complaining that we should be able to lock people like that up.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:42 PM
Uh ((taps glass))
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)
I feel weird defending the 2nd amendment and the Castle Doctrine with conservatives. Can you come argue with them or me?
She will lose your argument for you. Can't lose your argument yourself? Jillian is no better at debating me than you have been so far.
Matty
09-26-2013, 04:43 PM
Do you understand what a law is? Laws tell you what is wrong behavior, not what you're allowed to do. I do dabble in it from time to time and I can tell you out of the 60 books or so I have in my possession not a single one tells you what things you are allowed to do in your home. Just what you can't do.
I honestly cannot believe I'm having this conversation with conservatives. Bizarre.
so you don't know what you're talking about. that's nice. cause that's why that lady was arrested tried and convicted, for pulling out a firearm, waving it around and firing it willy nilly. That ought to be a clue that it's against the law. She's getting a new trial because the usual suspects are making it about race.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:43 PM
Alright well when you set this woman free and we have a legal precedent for anyone who has "felt threatened" by someone with a violent history in their home to be allowed to wave their guns around and fire wherever they please and people may or may not be dropping dead in the streets I don't want to hear you complaining that we should be able to lock people like that up.
They will be locked up when people are dead. Not for precrimes. If she were out on the street firing, that's different. Lock her ass up.
I want the right to fire a warning shot in my home at an intruder. What if they aren't leaving and I want to give them one last chance before killing them?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:43 PM
so you don't know what you're talking about. that's nice. cause that's why that lady was arrested tried and convicted, for pulling out a firearm, waving it around and firing it willy nilly. That ought to be a clue that it's against the law. She's getting a new trial because the usual suspects are making it about race.
^^^^
Hitting the nail right on the head.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:44 PM
so you don't know what you're talking about. that's nice. cause that's why that lady was arrested tried and convicted, for pulling out a firearm, waving it around and firing it willy nilly. That ought to be a clue that it's against the law. She's getting a new trial because the usual suspects are making it about race.
No, she was convicted because she had a shit attorney who used Stand Your Ground and got stuck instead of the Castle Doctrine and I assure you I do know what I'm talking about and what I am doing. I've done this as my job for about 5 years now.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 04:44 PM
She was in her home, thus Castle Doctrine applies. If you've asked an intruder to leave your home you may fire warning shots or just shoot the fuck out of them
While frowned upon, it is quite possible. However, I wonder, would convincing a jury it was castle law related be a problem? Or would the prosecutor just say that your mood changed and you decided to kill him in cold blood?
Either way, the state has circumstantial evidence at best it would seem. Pretty rough it all you have is one guys account and no witnesses right?
The fact that they even tried her at all seems a little off to me. Years for not hurting someone? Odd.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:44 PM
They will be locked up when people are dead. Not for precrimes. If she were out on the street firing, that's different. Lock her ass up.
I want the right to fire a warning shot in my home at an intruder. What if they aren't leaving and I want to give them one last chance before killing them?
Just fucking kill them.
Why shoot randomly and waste ammo instead of just killing them?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:47 PM
Back when I had my short bit of experience with firearms THE FIRST THING I WAS TAUGHT was don't shoot even close to anyone else unless you plan on killing them. Because there's always a chance that will happen.
"Warning shots" is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Warn them verbally. That doesn't cost money and it won't kill someone you don't intend to kill.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:48 PM
She will lose your argument for you. Can't lose your argument yourself? Jillian is no better at debating me than you have been so far.
No, I just feel better arguing with Democrats over why gun rights shouldn't be infringed than arguing with conservatives over it. It feels...wrong...that you guys don't see where gun rights restrictions--especially in your own home--leads.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:49 PM
Back when I had my short bit of experience with firearms THE FIRST THING I WAS TAUGHT was don't shoot even close to anyone else unless you plan on killing them. Because there's always a chance that will happen.
"Warning shots" is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Warn them verbally. That doesn't cost money and it won't kill someone you don't intend to kill.
I think they are dumb ideas, too. I'd just shoot someone. But I've never had my ex-husband break in so I might fire a warning shot rather than shoot him dead in front of the kids.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 04:50 PM
Just fucking kill them.
Why shoot randomly and waste ammo instead of just killing them?
Has it occurred to you that some value life and do not want to simply kill if they can avoid it?
I would rather wing someone to discourage them from returning depending on the violation - hurt those I love, and I kill you, but stealing my car or my dog? I would rather not.
But the legal environment provides diabolical incentive to kill him, and double tap to be sure. Perhaps driving a stake through him and filling his head with holy wafers for extra added measure.
Matty
09-26-2013, 04:50 PM
Here's a reading list.l You should avail yourself to it.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=after+you+shoot
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:51 PM
No, I just feel better arguing with Democrats over why gun rights shouldn't be infringed than arguing with conservatives over it. It feels...wrong...that you guys don't see where gun rights restrictions--especially in your own home--leads.
You can have the gun all you want. I'm not infringing nor introducing ideas that would be infringing on anyone's gun rights. What you cannot do and what the constitution does not protect is any right to randomly fire off shots however you please with a gun. Because that would be idiotic. Everyone has the right to bear arms, but nobody has the right to abuse that right by being stupid with them. Firearms are not toys, they're pretty serious.
Matty
09-26-2013, 04:56 PM
Back when I had my short bit of experience with firearms THE FIRST THING I WAS TAUGHT was don't shoot even close to anyone else unless you plan on killing them. Because there's always a chance that will happen.
"Warning shots" is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Warn them verbally. That doesn't cost money and it won't kill someone you don't intend to kill.
yep! while she's screwing around firing warning shots, the intruder is gonna walk over knock her ass out take her gun and pop one into her head. warning shots are just plain stupid.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 04:57 PM
Has it occurred to you that some value life and do not want to simply kill if they can avoid it?
I would rather wing someone to discourage them from returning depending on the violation - hurt those I love, and I kill you, but stealing my car or my dog? I would rather not.
But the legal environment provides diabolical incentive to kill him, and double tap to be sure. Perhaps driving a stake through him and filling his head with holy wafers for extra added measure.
Yes I know some people value life and don't want to kill if they can avoid it, but the woman we are talking about here is claiming she feared for her life. That's not the time to fire off warning shots. That's the time to shoot to kill, ESPECIALLY if you've got kids in the house with you.
Matty
09-26-2013, 04:57 PM
if you feel threatened you better shoot first and shoot to kill. deal with the courts later, at least you'll be alive to do so.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 04:57 PM
You can have the gun all you want. I'm not infringing nor introducing ideas that would be infringing on anyone's gun rights. What you cannot do and what the constitution does not protect is any right to randomly fire off shots however you please with a gun. Because that would be idiotic. Everyone has the right to bear arms, but nobody has the right to abuse that right by being stupid with them. Firearms are not toys, they're pretty serious.
So you'd lock up a woman for 20 or so years for not having killed somebody? Or even hurt somebody?
I'm seeing a disconnect here.
Of course you are, it is plain as day.
I am trying to point out that he is wrong, but doing it tactfully. Brute force saying 'you're wrong!' doesn't usually work.
Neither does subtlety to those who won't perceive it.
How do you know?
Wait for it...
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 04:58 PM
You can have the gun all you want. I'm not infringing nor introducing ideas that would be infringing on anyone's gun rights. What you cannot do and what the constitution does not protect is any right to randomly fire off shots however you please with a gun. Because that would be idiotic. Everyone has the right to bear arms, but nobody has the right to abuse that right by being stupid with them. Firearms are not toys, they're pretty serious.
Yes, you have the right to fire shots off on your own property UNLESS that area has specific legal codes against it. You are not allowed to do so in public.
We don't arrest people for what they might do. Do you even want to live like that? Arrest someone because they might smoke pot later? Arrest someone because they might have almost hit someone when they were in a daze and their car swerved?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:01 PM
So you'd lock up a woman for 20 or so years for not having killed somebody? Or even hurt somebody?
No, I'd lock her up for 20 years or so for breaking the law and 20 years or so being the sentence for the way she broke the law.
The reason I'm here is to defend the law from those who wish to free this woman because when you free her you set up a legal precedent.
jillian
09-26-2013, 05:02 PM
Uh ((taps glass))
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)
I feel weird defending the 2nd amendment and the Castle Doctrine with conservatives. Can you come argue with them or me?
Its funny that a lib has to defend the the 2nd. But really, there is no reason th s woman should have been convicted. Interestingly, women defending themselves from their batterers get convicted a good deal of the time.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:03 PM
No, I'd lock her up for 20 years or so for breaking the law and 20 years or so being the sentence for the way she broke the law.
What law did she break? Or what law do you think she broke?
The reason I'm here is to defend the law from those who wish to free this woman because when you free her you set up a legal precedent.
I hesitate about going into the specifics as to what legal precedence is and how it is set. You wouldn't necessarily, but...
She had a poor attorney. That's all.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:04 PM
Its funny that a lib has to defend the the 2nd. But really, there is no reason th s woman should have been convicted. Interestingly, women defending themselves from their batterers get convicted a good deal of the time.
She didn't defend herself, though. Or her kids. If she truly felt threatened she failed herself and her children by NOT defending them.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:04 PM
Its funny that a lib has to defend the the 2nd. But really, there is no reason th s woman should have been convicted. Interestingly, women defending themselves from their batterers get convicted a good deal of the time.
It's all about who calls first. Once the process starts, they keep rolling with it. I used to handle probably 5-10 DV cases a month and it seriously boils down not even to who is injured but who called the cops first.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:05 PM
She didn't defend herself, though. Or her kids. If she truly felt threatened she failed herself and her children by NOT defending them.
He left the residence. I'd say "problem solved".
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 05:07 PM
yep! while she's screwing around firing warning shots, the intruder is gonna walk over knock her ass out take her gun and pop one into her head. warning shots are just plain stupid.
Yes I know some people value life and don't want to kill if they can avoid it, but the woman we are talking about here is claiming she feared for her life. That's not the time to fire off warning shots. That's the time to shoot to kill, ESPECIALLY if you've got kids in the house with you.
I'd like to introduce to two newest graduates of the Academy of Justified Conservative Blood Lust.
...They have a valid point. It is tactically sound after all.
You just want to kill, with convenient conditions to absolve yourself of personal responsibility and restraint. I am aware of the tactics, but I am also a man of restraint. Killing when you don't have to, even when you are afraid is not the best course of action.
Obviously...I have never hidden that - I'm Evil, but that doesn't change the fact they have a valid point. And you're a wimp.
There is a time and place for warning shots, but most don't have the temperance or wisdom to do so.
True, which is why it is just easier to slay them outright and let the chips fall where they may - haggle it out in court, you'll be alive to do it.
Dead men learn nothing. Although their corpses to provide strong incentive to not undertake their works. Although you not acknowledging that you're going to court anyways, may as well not give them any reason to suspect wanton manslaughter.
Who says I care about living men, let alone learning men?
Point taken...
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:08 PM
What law did she break? Or what law do you think she broke?
I hesitate about going into the specifics as to what legal precedence is and how it is set. You wouldn't necessarily, but...
She had a poor attorney. That's all.
The link tells you exactly what law she broke and what she was convicted of. This next one is free: it even tells you why she got 20 years. I know how a legal precedence is set, don't piss me off by acting like I don't. If we free her people with similar cases will have to be let free, too, and there's simply too much risk and irresponsibility in this case to do that.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 05:10 PM
No, I'd lock her up for 20 years or so for breaking the law and 20 years or so being the sentence for the way she broke the law.
The reason I'm here is to defend the law from those who wish to free this woman because when you free her you set up a legal precedent.
I can't say I agree with you here.
But I sure do...
Of course you would.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:12 PM
I can't say I agree with you here.
But I sure do...
Of course you would.
You don't have to agree. I'm just defending my stance on this issue. It's much better if you don't agree for this to work. :wink:
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:14 PM
The link tells you exactly what law she broke and what she was convicted of. This next one is free: it even tells you why she got 20 years. I know how a legal precedence is set, don't piss me off by acting like I don't. If we free her people with similar cases will have to be let free, too, and there's simply too much risk and irresponsibility in this case to do that.
I'll be more careful in the future when I'm trying to lead someone somewhere. ((sigh)) She was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Not firing a gun willy nilly.
Let me be more clear. IF she didn't know that man, I guarantee she would have not been charged with aggravated assault. She would have been some woman discharging a weapon as a warning shot and that would have been covered under Castle Doctrine.
They didn't snag her for the gun, but for self-defense against someone she knew.
Venus
09-26-2013, 05:17 PM
Because the equal application of justice is important to me.
What is equal application of justice? As for equal application of the law, I think we can all agree it's important and essential.
Justice is rarely equal.
There was a track record of domestic abuse and according to transcripts on the case she asked him to leave first.
Agreed, we know about their history of violence and abuse and she did ask him to leave. He didn't, instead he went into the other room with the children.
In this case, she had every right to fire a warning shot and no one was hurt.
Forensics suggests she fired at him not the ceiling. Is that a warning shot or did she try to kill him and miss? That something for the jury to decide.
Why would she need to fire a warning shot if she had to go to the garage and retrieve the gun? She was out of immediate danger. Why didn't she get in her car and leave? Yes, she said the door jammed but it was also shown that the door worked before and after. Why didn't she walk out the door she pasted on her way to the garage and call the cops? These are things for the jury to consider given the information both sides presents.
In other cases where people were not given warning shots and people ended up dead, they walked.
Can you cite these cases?
Twenty years is not an equal application of justice.
She was found guilty and according to state law it's a mandatory 20 years sentence. The judge's hands were tied. It's a shitting law but we expect judges to following all laws not the only the ones we agree with.
Of course I only have court transcript excerpts not the whole thing, but from what I read (I'll admit I haven't read it all) it appears she had an unfair application of the law.
How was 10-20-life state law unfairly applied in this case?
Castle Doctrine should apply regardless of whether or not they are familiar
If that is the case, hopefully with this new trial her lawyers will use it.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:17 PM
I'll be more careful in the future when I'm trying to lead someone somewhere. ((sigh)) She was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Not firing a gun willy nilly.
Let me be more clear. IF she didn't know that man, I guarantee she would have not been charged with aggravated assault. She would have been some woman discharging a weapon as a warning shot and that would have been covered under Castle Doctrine.
They didn't snag her for the gun, but for self-defense against someone she knew.
Sorry, as a true alpha male I am not lead very well. :wink:
The 20 years was given to her automatically for the use of a gun.
/edit:
Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody was hurt, but the judge in the case said he was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison after she was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Alexander has maintained that the shot fired was a warning shot.
That's getting snagged for the gun, not self defense against someone she knew.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:22 PM
Sorry, as a true alpha male I am not lead very well. :wink:
The 20 years was given to her automatically for the use of a gun.
/edit:
That's getting snagged for the gun, not self defense against someone she knew.
No. Aggravated assault with a weapon means that they believed she was the aggressor and she used a weapon of some type. The "gun" being added instead of say her fists made it aggravated assault with a weapon is just a more serious crime than assault or aggravated assault.
You're thinking of brandishing a firearm and that is a public safety charge and is not relegated to the home.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:24 PM
No. Aggravated assault with a weapon means that they believed she was the aggressor and she used a weapon of some type. The "gun" being added instead of say her fists made it aggravated assault with a weapon is just a more serious crime than assault or aggravated assault.
You're thinking of brandishing a firearm and that is a public safety charge and is not relegated to the home.
I'm thinking of this case which has nothing to do with "public safety charge," not sure where you're getting that from, but I can assure you it was not me.
Right, it may not specifically be the gun, but the "deadly weapon" they talk about in this case was the gun she used.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:29 PM
What is equal application of justice? As for equal application of the law, I think we can all agree it's important and essential.
Equal justice under the law is a precept of our legal system. Even the smallest child has some concept of it. It's not fair! When Bobby did it he just got a time out!
Justice is rarely equal.
So we don't strive for it?
Agreed, we know about their history of violence and abuse and she did ask him to leave. He didn't, instead he went into the other room with the children.
Yes. A violent person who didn't leave was in the room with her children.
Forensics suggests she fired at him not the ceiling. Is that a warning shot or did she try to kill him and miss? That something for the jury to decide.
Had I been her attorney I would have stated that she tried to kill him because he was a violent intruder. I would have used legal precedence. SYG laws and their "newness" screwed the pooch for her and her attorney probably didn't charge enough to go the CD route.
Why would she need to fire a warning shot if she had to go to the garage and retrieve the gun? She was out of immediate danger. Why didn't she get in her car and leave? Yes, she said the door jammed but it was also shown that the door worked before and after. Why didn't she walk out the door she pasted on her way to the garage and call the cops? These are things for the jury to consider given the information both sides presents.
Not really. Someone's in your home that you asked to leave.
Can you cite these cases?
Google: Castle Doctrine Used as a Defense
She was found guilty and according to state law it's a mandatory 20 years sentence. The judge's hands were tied. It's a shitting law but we expect judges to following all laws not the only the ones we agree with.
I think minimum mandatory sentencing (and most judges agree with me) is wrong and unconstitutional. It just saves a state money.
How was 10-20-life state law unfairly applied in this case?
Had he been a complete stranger I do not believe she would have been charged.
If that is the case, hopefully with this new trial her lawyers will use it.
It's an appeals. Appeals are trials of the trial. You don't submit a new defense in an appeals case.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:30 PM
I'm thinking of this case which has nothing to do with "public safety charge," not sure where you're getting that from, but I can assure you it was not me.
Right, it may not specifically be the gun, but the "deadly weapon" they talk about in this case was the gun she used.
Let's pretend this isn't her husband. It's some guy she doesn't know and she asked him to leave. He goes in a room with her kids and she fires at him and misses.
Does she deserve 20 years?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:33 PM
Let's pretend this isn't her husband. It's some guy she doesn't know and she asked him to leave. He goes in a room with her kids and she fires at him and misses.
Does she deserve 20 years?
It's not that she missed, it's that she fired without intending to kill with both her kids and someone she perceived to be a "threat" in the vicinity. Too irresponsible.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:35 PM
It's not that she missed, it's that she fired without intending to kill with both her kids and someone she perceived to be a "threat" in the vicinity. Too irresponsible.
I'm asking you a scenario. Respond to that one. Honestly, we don't know what really happened. We just know she asked him to leave, he didn't, she fired and missed.
So, I'm saying if the cops came, if she had a lawyer present, the lawyer would have said STFU and she would have and the evidence would be only that she asked him to leave, he didn't, and he was shot at after not leaving her home.
If that were a stranger, do you think the cops would have arrested her on charges of aggravated assault?
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:38 PM
I'm asking you a scenario. Respond to that one. Honestly, we don't know what really happened. We just know she asked him to leave, he didn't, she fired and missed.
So, I'm saying if the cops came, if she had a lawyer present, the lawyer would have said STFU and she would have and the evidence would be only that she asked him to leave, he didn't, and he was shot at after not leaving her home.
If that were a stranger, do you think the cops would have arrested her on charges of aggravated assault?
In that case, no probably not, but let the record shot that now you are the one arguing from "ifs."
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 05:52 PM
In that case, no probably not, but let the record shot that now you are the one arguing from "ifs."
Let the record show it, because it is my initial premise which is equal application of law and justice. Had he been anyone but someone she knew the Castle Doctrine would have stood and she would not have been charged with aggravated assault.
IF it had been anyone other than her ex he would have gone to jail, not her.
GrassrootsConservative
09-26-2013, 05:55 PM
Let the record show it, because it is my initial premise which is equal application of law and justice. Had he been anyone but someone she knew the Castle Doctrine would have stood and she would not have been charged with aggravated assault.
IF it had been anyone other than her ex he would have gone to jail, not her.
Probably. But there are other variables that matter too.
Venus
09-26-2013, 05:58 PM
Equal justice under the law is a precept of our legal system. Even the smallest child has some concept of it. It's not fair! When Bobby did it he just got a time out!
But that's not what you said. You want equal application of justice. And even the smallest of child learns the first time that justice is rarely equal.
So we don't strive for it?
Of course we can and we do. But human nature is what it is and while you may find equal justice was applied your neighbor may not.
Yes. A violent person who didn't leave was in the room with her children.
Correct.
Had I been her attorney I would have stated that she tried to kill him because he was a violent intruder. I would have used legal precedence. SYG laws and their "newness" screwed the pooch for her and her attorney probably didn't charge enough to go the CD route.
Maybe she should hire you.
Not really. Someone's in your home that you asked to leave.
Right, he didn't leave.
Google: Castle Doctrine Used as a Defense
No thanks, at least not today. You are the one using Castle Doctrine as a defense, if you want to prove your point, link it.
I think minimum mandatory sentencing (and most judges agree with me) is wrong and unconstitutional. It just saves a state money.
Besides the point. We all have to do things we don't agree with or like. Change the law if it's unconstitutional. I think the ACA is unconstitutional, can we change that law as well?
Had he been a complete stranger I do not believe she would have been charged.
But we don't know.
It's an appeals. Appeals are trials of the trial. You don't submit a new defense in an appeals case
Thumbs up.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 06:04 PM
She was in her home, thus Castle Doctrine applies. If you've asked an intruder to leave your home you may fire warning shots or just shoot the fuck out of them
This is false. He was not an intruder. She had invited him in, as he was her estranged hubby, and they had a baby together. They shared a meal. It was only when an argument ensued that she went crazy, fetched her gun, and fired a shot in the direction of he and his two other kids. She also never called the cops. Although her hubby did. Two months later she also plead to aggravated assault in a different incident where she attacked the same guy.
Being as you completely do not know the law, much less the case, what were you saying again ?
:afro:
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:08 PM
But that's not what you said. You want equal application of justice. And even the smallest of child learns the first time that justice is rarely equal.
That is what I said. Equal justice under the law. It means that there is an equal application of that justice. Just because it is rarely equal doesn't mean that it is not that which we strive for.
Of course we can and we do. But human nature is what it is and while you may find equal justice was applied your neighbor may not.
So we give up?
No. We do not give up trying.
No thanks, at least not today. You are the one using Castle Doctrine as a defense, if you want to prove your point, link it.
It's a legal defense and you asked to cite cases. I'm not going to cite hundreds of cases. If you are curious you look it up. It's not that hard.
Besides the point. We all have to do things we don't agree with or like. Change the law if it's unconstitutional. I think the ACA is unconstitutional, can we change that law as well?
Yes.
But we don't know.
Hence why I said "I do not believe" because I've seen this before in my job. When its a stranger it's a clear intruder.
Matty
09-26-2013, 06:09 PM
This is false. He was not an intruder. She had invited him in, as he was her estranged hubby, and they had a baby together. They shared a meal. It was only when an argument ensued that she went crazy, fetched her gun, and fired a shot in the direction of he and his two other kids. She also never called the cops. Although her hubby did. Two months later she also plead to aggravated assault in a different incident where she attacked the same guy.
Being as you completely do not know the law, much less the case, what were you saying again ?
:afro:
She got what she deserved.
Matty
09-26-2013, 06:11 PM
I'd like to introduce to two newest graduates of the Academy of Justified Conservative Blood Lust.
...They have a valid point. It is tactically sound after all.
You just want to kill, with convenient conditions to absolve yourself of personal responsibility and restraint. I am aware of the tactics, but I am also a man of restraint. Killing when you don't have to, even when you are afraid is not the best course of action.
Obviously...I have never hidden that - I'm Evil, but that doesn't change the fact they have a valid point. And you're a wimp.
There is a time and place for warning shots, but most don't have the temperance or wisdom to do so.
True, which is why it is just easier to slay them outright and let the chips fall where they may - haggle it out in court, you'll be alive to do it.
Dead men learn nothing. Although their corpses to provide strong incentive to not undertake their works. Although you not acknowledging that you're going to court anyways, may as well not give them any reason to suspect wanton manslaughter.
Who says I care about living men, let alone learning men?
Point taken...
If your life is threatened you have but two choices. Kill the bastard. Or, stand there like an idiot and let him kill you.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:12 PM
This is false. He was not an intruder. She had invited him in, as he was her estranged hubby, and they had a baby together. They shared a meal. It was only when an argument ensued that she went crazy, fetched her gun, and fired a shot in the direction of he and his two other kids. She also never called the cops. Although her hubby did. Two months later she also plead to aggravated assault in a different incident where she attacked the same guy.
Being as you completely do not know the law, much less the case, what were you saying again ?
:afro:
I do know the law, actually. She was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. I don't think it should apply.
There was a man in her house--does not matter how he came in==and he became aggressive and was asked to leave. He has a violent history and previous criminal assault charges. Had it been someone who came in to talk about the Jehovah's Witnesses and went crazy under the same set of circumstances I highly doubt she would have been charged.
Lastly, not I nor you are the criminal counsel on the case. I said I was not entirely familiar with this case, only what I've read. If someone shoved transcripts around me I would then make a more clear recommendation or more informed opinion.
I am calling it as I see it. You disagree. We are at an impasse.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 06:12 PM
She got what she deserved.
And your compelling reasoning for this assertion?
Why do you ask for things you know will not come to pass?
Because.
That's not much of an answer.
Because it is not much of a question. That's what I think of you.
Ouch, for being an creature of eternal darkness - that stung.
Mission Accomplished.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 06:13 PM
If your life is threatened you have but two choices. Kill the bastard. Or, stand there like an idiot and let him kill you.
Or wing him and let him consider his options.
The choice is not as binary as you're telling the class, it is a trinary option.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:17 PM
If your life is threatened you have but two choices. Kill the bastard. Or, stand there like an idiot and let him kill you.
If she gets aggravated assault with a deadly weapon when the guy lived to tell the cops that she asked him to leave and he refused, what do you think she'd get in Florida, a DP state, when she killed him?
Matty
09-26-2013, 06:20 PM
On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days earlier. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.
An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle to get the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.
she wasn't even in her damn home. they got in an argument and she walked to her car to pull out her gun. She could have gotten into the car and driven away. She deserved the sentence she got.
Matty
09-26-2013, 06:23 PM
Or wing him and let him consider his options.
The choice is not as binary as you're telling the class, it is a trinary option.
If someone threatens you life, you just go right ahead and "wing him" leave your wife enough money to bury you though.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:23 PM
On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days earlier. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.
An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle to get the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.
she wasn't even in her damn home. they got in an argument and she walked to her car to pull out her gun. She could have gotten into the car and driven away. She deserved the sentence she got.
How is this similar? In this case, she went back into her husband's home (OOP included) with a weapon from her car, in the other she's in her own home.
Venus
09-26-2013, 06:29 PM
That is what I said. Equal justice under the law. It means that there is an equal application of that justice. Just because it is rarely equal doesn't mean that it is not that which we strive for.
So we give up?
No. We do not give up trying.
It's a legal defense and you asked to cite cases. I'm not going to cite hundreds of cases. If you are curious you look it up. It's not that hard.
Yes.
Hence why I said "I do not believe" because I've seen this before in my job. When its a stranger it's a clear intruder.
That is what I said. Equal justice under the law. It means that there is an equal application of that justice. Just because it is rarely equal doesn't mean that it is not that which we strive for.
That isn't what you said. You said
Because the equal application of justice is important to me.
Yes we continue to strive for equal justice but human nature is what it is. Everyone's sense of justice is a different as we are as free thinking human beings.
So we give up?
No. We do not give up trying.
Did I say we give up? No I didn't.
So, who gets to decide when justice is equal?
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:31 PM
That isn't what you said. You said
RIGHT. The equal application of justice. That is what "equal justice under law" is all about, the equally applied application of justice within the legal system.
It's a philosophical precept upon which common law is grounded.
Matty
09-26-2013, 06:31 PM
How is this similar? In this case, she went back into her husband's home (OOP included) with a weapon from her car, in the other she's in her own home.
what in the sam hill are you talking about? I pulled that paragraph from the OP that was posted to start this thread. We're talking about the same damn woman. Sheesh! Are you sure you're a conservative?
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 06:32 PM
If someone threatens you life, you just go right ahead and "wing him" leave your wife enough money to bury you though.
You're ignoring the fact that I would continue firing unless he left. There are many variables that are accounted for when the decision to pull the trigger is made.
This "I could possibly be in danger so I can blow the other guy away" mentality is just as dangerous with civilians as it is police forces in America. Police think they can blow you away should you present them with a potential hangnail, where do you think this mentality stems from?
Sure some of it is training, but it goes deeper than that-
JS-M 1: 10, 30
10 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold;
• • •
30 And again, because iniquity shall abound, the love of men shall wax cold; but he that shall not be overcome, the same shall be saved.
Matt. 24: 12
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
D&C 45: 27
27 And the love of men shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound.
Repeated exposure...leads to desensitization...which leads to action. The acronymn is RDA.
We are all...I believe aware of what pornography does to make someone cold....but aren't....I believe as on top of the dangers of exposure to violence.
Ezra Taft Benson mentioned in "Watchmen Warn the Wicked" that one of the contributing factors to the fall of Rome was "sports becoming every year more and more exciting and brutal."
Much like how one can become addicted to pornography...addiction to violence can likewise happen.
One way that I see this happening now is through little movie clips that are emailed around and paraded on the internet. There are a host of videos where you can watch an individual...one of our brothers and sisters...being maimed by animals...falling off of cliffs....being severely beaten...and so on. There are many who watch these videos and stand back and chortle saying "Man...that dude got jacked up!!!! Sucks to be him!!!" As opposed to crying and saying "That poor fellow" turn that filth off!!!"
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=722
It is a spiritual disease which many suffer from. The cure is the gospel of peace.
Matty
09-26-2013, 06:34 PM
You're ignoring the fact that I would continue firing unless he left. There are many variables that are accounted for when the decision to pull the trigger is made.
This "I could possibly be in danger so I can blow the other guy away" mentality is just as dangerous with civilians as it is police forces in America. Police think they can blow you away should you present them with a potential hangnail, where do you think this mentality stems from?
Sure some of it is training, but it goes deeper than that-
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=722
It is a spiritual disease which many suffer from. The cure is the gospel of peace.
I can tell ya, those who mean to take your life ain't studying no darn gospel of peace!
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 06:38 PM
I can tell ya, those who mean to take your life ain't studying no darn gospel of peace!
And for them I would share the gospel of Sam Colt - it is a language they understand and will adhere to under pain of death if need be. Not out of my personal preference.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 06:39 PM
I do know the law, actually. She was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. I don't think it should apply.
There was a man in her house--does not matter how he came in==and he became aggressive and was asked to leave. He has a violent history and previous criminal assault charges. Had it been someone who came in to talk about the Jehovah's Witnesses and went crazy under the same set of circumstances I highly doubt she would have been charged.
Lastly, not I nor you are the criminal counsel on the case. I said I was not entirely familiar with this case, only what I've read. If someone shoved transcripts around me I would then make a more clear recommendation or more informed opinion.
I am calling it as I see it. You disagree. We are at an impasse.
Incorrect. Both articles linked, and perhaps more, show that she exited the house, Not pursued. Retrieved the gun from her car. Came back in, and shot in the direction of her husband and his two other kids. She did NOT call the cops. He did not assault her that night, He did not pursue her. All that is in evidence.
What she plead to was a completely separate incident. She refused a plea deal on this.
You are wrong that castle doctrine applied here. If you "know the law", then show evidence of it.
jillian
09-26-2013, 06:42 PM
How is this similar? In this case, she went back into her husband's home (OOP included) with a weapon from her car, in the other she's in her own home.
she went to the garage to get the gun. if it was in the car in the garage, it was still in her home.
and he still violated the restraining order.
and he was still dangerous.
and he's lucky she didn't shoot him instead of the ceiling.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 06:43 PM
On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days earlier. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.
An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle to get the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.
she wasn't even in her damn home. they got in an argument and she walked to her car to pull out her gun. She could have gotten into the car and driven away. She deserved the sentence she got.
You left out the part that they had dinner together, and that the argument resulted from what transpired there.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 06:44 PM
she went to the garage to get the gun. if it was in the car in the garage, it was still in her home.
and he still violated the restraining order.
and he was still dangerous.
and he's lucky she didn't shoot him instead of the ceiling.
No, he did not. They had dinner together. She was not forced to do that.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:45 PM
what in the sam hill are you talking about? I pulled that paragraph from the OP that was posted to start this thread. We're talking about the same damn woman. Sheesh! Are you sure you're a conservative?
I am not a conservative. The OP is misleading.
According to this:
The case dates from 1 August 2010, when Alexander and Gray got into a fight at their home after he found text messages to Alexander's ex-husband on her phone.
At some point during the altercation, Alexander went into the garage. She claims she could not flee because the garage door was not working and she did not have the keys to her car. Alexander grabbed her handgun from inside the glove compartment and went back into the house. She fired a single shot at Gray, who was standing in the living room with his sons, ages nine and 13. The shot missed.
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2013/sep/26/florida-stand-your-ground-marissa-alexander
Those were not the facts of the case. She did not go outside the home to her car. She was in her home when he threatened to kill her--which he did not deny. She asked him to leave. He refused. There was an OOP. She went into her garage within the home to leave. The garage door wouldn't open. She never stepped outside the house.
Those are two different scenarios. She didn't go outside, meaning on the street to rush off. The car is in the garage. She's stuck in the house with a guy who just threatened to kill her. Her house.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:46 PM
Incorrect. Both articles linked, and perhaps more, show that she exited the house, Not pursued. Retrieved the gun from her car. Came back in, and shot in the direction of her husband and his two other kids. She did NOT call the cops. He did not assault her that night, He did not pursue her. All that is in evidence.
What she plead to was a completely separate incident. She refused a plea deal on this.
You are wrong that castle doctrine applied here. If you "know the law", then show evidence of it.
When you are in an attached garage you are in your home. What part of in your home do you not understand?
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:48 PM
You left out the part that they had dinner together, and that the argument resulted from what transpired there.
Right, threatening to kill someone tends to make people you've just beaten up feel like you might kill them.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:50 PM
FYI, and ask any police officer if you don't believe me.
If someone has an order of protection filed against you, and they call you and you answer or you visit at their request you are still in violation of it. The court put that order on you. You are in defiance of the judge. No one but a judge can lift it.
Therefore, he was in "her" house whether they had a nice dinner or not.
Mainecoons
09-26-2013, 06:53 PM
I am not a conservative. The OP is misleading.
According to this:
Those were not the facts of the case. She did not go outside the home to her car. She was in her home when he threatened to kill her--which he did not deny. She asked him to leave. He refused. There was an OOP. She went into her garage within the home to leave. The garage door wouldn't open. She never stepped outside the house.
Those are two different scenarios. She didn't go outside, meaning on the street to rush off. The car is in the garage. She's stuck in the house with a guy who just threatened to kill her. Her house.
Sounds like the FL courts made another right decision in reopening this case.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:53 PM
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/24/montana-man-cleared-by-castle-doctrine-law-after-shooting-unarmed-husband-who-confronted-him-about-an-affair-with-his-wife/
In the garage:
On Sept. 22, Fredenberg walked into the garage to confront Harper about the alleged romantic relationship with Fredenberg’s younger wife. He was unarmed, but Harper shot Fredenberg three times. The fact that the shooting occurred in the garage rather than a few feet away on the sidewalk made all the difference. The Flathead County attorney Ed Corrigan declared that Montana’s “castle doctrine” law allowed Harper to use lethal force.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:55 PM
More
Under the current castle doctrine statute, the armed citizen in his or her own home is presumed to be acting in self defense when shooting someone who has no right to be there, i.e., "if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force." The shooting must still be in self defense. The shooter must still be in reasonable fear of great bodily harm for self or another in the residence, or the shooting will not be justifiable. The presumption of self defense may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. A warning before shooting is not required, but the lack of a warning is a fact, taken with all other facts that may bear on whether there was a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.
...
Note that the definition of dwelling "includes but is not limited to, an attached porch...." An attached garage would not seem much different from an attached porch. Specific cases will have to decide that later. There is a duty to retreat when attacked on one's own driveway outside the home. Cleveland v. Hill, 63 Ohio App.3d 194, 578 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio App. 8 Dist., 1989). I found no Ohio case addressing the duty to retreat from an unattached garage.
http://www.cuhlaw.com/guns.html
Garages count
But this didn't happen in the garage anyway.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 06:57 PM
It’s been said that a man’s home is his castle, but what rights does this afford a homeowner in defense of this castle?
The Castle Doctrine (also known as castle law or make my day law) gives citizens in their homes – and in some states – cars or workplaces the right to protect themselves, other people, and their property by force – in some instances even deadly force.
- See more at: http://source.southuniversity.edu/castle-doctrine-from-state-to-state-46514.aspx#sthash.UXdxnFzL.dpuf
The state of Florida has such a strong Castle Doctrine that the dwelling being protected does not need to have a roof; can be mobile or immobile; and can be as temporary as a tent. -
From Wiki:
A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force)) to defend against an intruder—free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#cite_note-njsd-1) Typically deadly force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force) is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide) applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_peril) of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#cite_note-njsd-1)1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#cite_note-njsd-1) The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.
jillian
09-26-2013, 07:10 PM
More
http://www.cuhlaw.com/guns.html
Garages count
But this didn't happen in the garage anyway.
no it didn't.
but she's conflating issues.
and if stand your ground and the castle doctrine are the law in florida, they should apply to a black woman same as with a white man.
(and that's really what is up their noses... let them claim otherwise).
what's interesting to me is we have two people... a man... who had no reason to follow another person but did.. (let's leave the color issue out of it)... and ends up in a fight with said other person...and shot and killed that unarmed person who wasn't in the killer's home, wasn't approaching him, wasn't committing any crime...
and then the other is a woman... her abusive husband comes to HER home. she has a protective order against that person. we know that domestic violence is one of the most volatile things that any police officer responds to because of the emotions and danger involved)... we know this man had no business in this woman's home... she, to make him leave, not to cause him harm, shoots her gun to scare him away.
which of the above is more deserving of our support? which of the above is more deserving of the protection of the legal system?
i vote the second person.
why would people defend the first person but think it's ok for the second to go to jail?
Cigar
09-26-2013, 07:17 PM
Isn't it ironic to read in this thread that there are people defending an abusive Black man who beats Wemen, being defended.
Hummmm I wonder how long that last?
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 07:22 PM
I do not understand why she's been so shit on by people and GZ is praised.
There was an order of protection so he was in violation of the law. She was in her home while threatened. He was holding her cell phone and pointing at the text messages on it, so she couldn't use it to call the cops. She went to her garage in the house to leave but couldn't so she got a gun and threatened him to leave.
With his history of violence this should be clear cut.
I am probably missing something because I try not to stay on the Florida Crime watch because its the craziest state in the US for crime, but it doesn't seem complicated.
But then I don't think George should have been charged with murder in the 2nd either. Manslaughter or Florida's version of negligent homicide at the most.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 07:25 PM
Isn't it ironic to read in this thread that there are people defending an abusive Black man who beats Wemen, being defended.
Hummmm I wonder how long that last?
You are trying to distract people with a useless racial component.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqkY2nCf2xU
But I guess you're used to it by now, likely having a lifetime of experience under your belt.
Cigar
09-26-2013, 07:29 PM
I do not understand why she's been so shit on by people and GZ is praised.
There was an order of protection so he was in violation of the law. She was in her home while threatened. He was holding her cell phone and pointing at the text messages on it, so she couldn't use it to call the cops. She went to her garage in the house to leave but couldn't so she got a gun and threatened him to leave.
With his history of violence this should be clear cut.
I am probably missing something because I try not to stay on the Florida Crime watch because its the craziest state in the US for crime, but it doesn't seem complicated.
But then I don't think George should have been charged with murder in the 2nd either. Manslaughter or Florida's version of negligent homicide at the most.
A certin hero on this forum felt threatened and killed the person who threatened him. Maybe the Woman should have done the same then she would be a hero also?
Cigar
09-26-2013, 07:30 PM
You are trying to distract people with a useless racial component.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqkY2nCf2xU
But I guess you're used to it by now, likely having a lifetime of experience under your belt.
You responded, does that mean you are distracted? :)
Mainecoons
09-26-2013, 07:31 PM
It sure doesn't take the new people very long to figure you out, does it Cigar?
:rofl:
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 07:35 PM
You responded, does that mean you are distracted? :)
I'm the type of guy who will point out shit so that other people won't step in it.
Social altruism, a trait you lack.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 07:35 PM
It sure doesn't take the new people very long to figure you out, does it Cigar?
:rofl:
He wasn't exactly a Rubics cube to figure out. Scent carries...
jillian
09-26-2013, 07:36 PM
I do not understand why she's been so shit on by people and GZ is praised.
There was an order of protection so he was in violation of the law. She was in her home while threatened. He was holding her cell phone and pointing at the text messages on it, so she couldn't use it to call the cops. She went to her garage in the house to leave but couldn't so she got a gun and threatened him to leave.
With his history of violence this should be clear cut.
I am probably missing something because I try not to stay on the Florida Crime watch because its the craziest state in the US for crime, but it doesn't seem complicated.
But then I don't think George should have been charged with murder in the 2nd either. Manslaughter or Florida's version of negligent homicide at the most.
you're not missing anything. she had, imo, every right to defend herself...particularly with the very limited steps she took.
george should have been charged with manslaughter. they overcharged him.
Mainecoons
09-26-2013, 07:40 PM
you're not missing anything. she had, imo, every right to defend herself...particularly with the very limited steps she took.
george should have been charged with manslaughter. they overcharged him.
I've said that all along.
jillian
09-26-2013, 07:40 PM
I've said that all along.
i know i said it during the trial. i don't remember the first time i said it.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 07:48 PM
FYI, and ask any police officer if you don't believe me.
If someone has an order of protection filed against you, and they call you and you answer or you visit at their request you are still in violation of it. The court put that order on you. You are in defiance of the judge. No one but a judge can lift it.
Therefore, he was in "her" house whether they had a nice dinner or not.
Doesn't matter. That does not constitute a legal threshold to pull a gun. To even suggest otherwise is absurd. Its stupid.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 07:51 PM
Doesn't matter. That does not constitute a legal threshold to pull a gun. To even suggest otherwise is absurd. Its stupid.
I'm suggesting it. People get off all the time with less justification than that. Just takes a good attorney and a prosecutor on a budget.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 07:52 PM
you're not missing anything. she had, imo, every right to defend herself...particularly with the very limited steps she took.
george should have been charged with manslaughter. they overcharged him.
Take the Zimmerman BS to a Zimmerman thread. You have no clue about SYG in Florida. Numerous SYG defenses have been rejected down here in the last 2 years, where they had a more compelling case than this woman, who was never in danger.
This woman's situation does not come close to the Statutory requirements.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 07:54 PM
I'm suggesting it. People get off all the time with less justification than that. Just takes a good attorney and a prosecutor on a budget.
As noted, neither you, nor any other poster in this thread, has come close to making this a valid SYG case. It is also not why the case is being reviewed. All I see is a bunch of uninformed rehashing of Zimmerman by folks who know neither the law, much less the facts of the case.
jillian
09-26-2013, 07:55 PM
Doesn't matter. That does not constitute a legal threshold to pull a gun. To even suggest otherwise is absurd. Its stupid.
in florida? absolutely incorrect.
The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases (http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm).]
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 07:55 PM
Take the Zimmerman BS to a Zimmerman thread. You have no clue about SYG in Florida. Numerous SYG defenses have been rejected down here in the last 2 years, where they had a more compelling case than this woman, who was never in danger.
This woman's situation does not come close to the Statutory requirements.
It's not SYG. There is no way I would have tried to use it.
Alyosha
09-26-2013, 07:56 PM
in florida? absolutely incorrect.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
jillian
i'm losing consciousness finally. I hand the floor to you.
Mainecoons
09-26-2013, 07:57 PM
SYG, if you invite a guest into your home and that guest then turns violent, you do have a right to defend yourself.
I trust the court to sort this one out. Just as another one did in rejecting Zimmerman's overkill, race-based prosecution.
jillian
09-26-2013, 07:57 PM
Take the Zimmerman BS to a Zimmerman thread. You have no clue about SYG in Florida. Numerous SYG defenses have been rejected down here in the last 2 years, where they had a more compelling case than this woman, who was never in danger.
This woman's situation does not come close to the Statutory requirements.
i think it does. but it's not up to me
and it certainly falls within the castle doctrine set forth above.
you come here misstating the facts of the case. claim this woman is a criminal... and seem to be defending a horrific miscarriage of justice.
and it's really a pity you don't like the discussion including zimmerman. it's a logical offshoot of this one.
jillian
09-26-2013, 07:57 PM
SYG, if you invite a guest into your home and that guest then turns violent, you do have a right to defend yourself.
I trust the court to sort this one out.
i hope you're right. and so far so good.
jillian
09-26-2013, 07:58 PM
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)
i'm losing consciousness finally. I hand the floor to you.
lol.. i got it.
but i'm not really sure there's anything left to say on this.
and hopefully a miscarriage of justice gets righted.
what you may not understand is that uder Fla. law and the stand your ground and the CCW permits, you are not allowed to pull out a gun, wave it around and fire warning shots. If you draw that gun and you better aim and shoot or you better keep it holstered.
Doesn't that seem mildly retarded to you, Willow? I have no desire to kill anyone but I sure would like to have it within my rights to fire a warning shot.
What if that shot hadn't gone into a wall or the ceiling? What if it flew out a window and came down on some innocent bystander instead?
Who's to say that won't be the case next time if we let this irresponsible gun-owner walk?
Good point. Maybe we shouldn't let battered women own guns.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:07 PM
Good point. Maybe we shouldn't let battered women own guns.
isn't it funny that the person who is for unfettered gun ownership is suddenly so concerned about gun safety?
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 08:10 PM
Good point. Maybe we shouldn't let battered women own guns.
Intelligence. Your post has none.
Why remove a proven method of defense from those who obviously need it? Since you obviously don't care about women, who do you care for?
Male abusers?
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:11 PM
in florida? absolutely incorrect.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
What do you not understand ?
It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home
A criminal did not forcibly enter her home ! I live down here for chrissakes. I know the actual Statute almost by heart after the Zimmerman case. I also know this case very well. Now, your own link, which is a paraphrase, is easily shown to not apply to this case.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:14 PM
SYG, if you invite a guest into your home and that guest then turns violent, you do have a right to defend yourself.
I trust the court to sort this one out. Just as another one did in rejecting Zimmerman's overkill, race-based prosecution.
Correct. But you no longer have the right to just shoot them unless it is self-defense. Huge difference. This woman was never facing what is a self-defense situation.
Her garage door was shown to be working, btw.
I'm kind of freaking out that me and MC seem to agree on this topic.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:15 PM
What do you not understand ?
It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home
A criminal did not forcibly enter her home ! I live down here for chrissakes. I know the actual Statute almost by heart after the Zimmerman case. I also know this case very well. Now, your own link, which is a paraphrase, is easily shown to not apply to this case.
so you're dishonest, too, huh? you left out the words "or intrudes into your home"
someone entering who has a protective order against him is intruding.
someone who enters and won't leave when told to is intruding.
that is the POINT of the castle doctrine. she is exactly who that law is intended to protect... not some guy who fires a shot at the back of someone running away.
so what is it *you* don't understand.
Intelligence. Your post has none.
Why remove a proven method of defense from those who obviously need it? Since you obviously don't care about women, who do you care for?
Male abusers?
I see that you are irony challenged. Pity.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:16 PM
Intelligence. Your post has none.
Why remove a proven method of defense from those who obviously need it? Since you obviously don't care about women, who do you care for?
Male abusers?
surely you're smart enough not to need her to do the little /sarcasm thing, right?
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:17 PM
Doesn't that seem mildly retarded to you, Willow? I have no desire to kill anyone but I sure would like to have it within my rights to fire a warning shot.
You do have the right to fire a warning shot down here. However, it requires a valid threat. The circumstances of this case did not rise to that. As documented.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 08:17 PM
I see that you are irony challenged. Pity.
Well, it is difficult to discern sarcasm when all I have is text to work with.
But I do confess to be irony challenged. It happens more frequently than I care to admit. I'll go stand in the corner now.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:17 PM
You do have the right to fire a warning shot down here. However, it requires a valid threat. The circumstances of this case did not rise to that. As documented.
no. but you have the right to blow away anyone who is an intruder into your home.
you done yet? or are you going to keep repeating untruths?
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:19 PM
I'm kind of freaking out that me and MC seem to agree on this topic.
i'm having the same problem. but every time i have a horrible premonition that we're all going to start singing kumbaya i do the reality check and look at the 2nd amendment and healthcare threads.
Cthulhu
09-26-2013, 08:19 PM
surely you're smart enough not to need her to do the little /sarcasm thing, right?
I can only detect sarcasm in those I have known for some time. I usually take people for what they say quite literally. It is the cause of many frustrations in life for me.
I have many skills, social interaction is not one of them.
Mainecoons
09-26-2013, 08:20 PM
Correct. But you no longer have the right to just shoot them unless it is self-defense. Huge difference. This woman was never facing what is a self-defense situation.
Her garage door was shown to be working, btw.
Weren't her children in the home? I wouldn't expect her to flee them.
Like Zimmerman, this case is made difficult to understand because we all are able to look at from a distance and not under the duress of a perceived immediate threat. Given what I've already seen about this case I can't conceive of how this offense warrants 20 years in jail. It looks to me like a misapplication of a law designed to put the hammer down on real criminals, not someone who over-reacts in a stressful and seemingly threatening moment.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:20 PM
so you're dishonest, too, huh? you left out the words "or intrudes into your home"
someone entering who has a protective order against him is intruding.
someone who enters and won't leave when told to is intruding.
that is the POINT of the castle doctrine. she is exactly who that law is intended to protect... not some guy who fires a shot at the back of someone running away.
so what is it *you* don't understand.
I'm dishonest ? Then you are a fool !
The court already determined that he was not intruding !! DUH !!!
The "intruder" must present either an immediate threat, or be commiting a felony. Those thresholds were not met at trial. Yet you, sitting god knows where, know better ? Are you that pompous ? Or just stupid ?
Mainecoons
09-26-2013, 08:22 PM
The determination of not intruding is going to be reviewed as part of this retrial, isn't it?
I believe the threshold determinations are exactly what is to be reviewed.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:23 PM
I'm dishonest ? Then you are a fool !
The court already determined that he was not intruding !! DUH !!!
The "intruder" must present either an immediate threat, or be commiting a felony. Those thresholds were not met at trial. Yet you, sitting god knows where, know better ? Are you that pompous ? Or just stupid ?
what court said he wasn't intruding? the one that was reversed by the appellate court?
seems not only do you misstate the known facts of the case, but you seem not to understand the rulings either.
and what are you talking about? you're confusing SYG with the castle doctrine and aren't focusing on what either is. they are different and have different requirements.
you have a problem with protective orders? i wonder why.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:24 PM
The determination of not intruding is going to be reviewed as part of this retrial, isn't it?
I believe the threshold determinations are exactly what is to be reviewed.
i haven't read the decision. but the court did say SYG was not appropriate. but still said the court below gave incorrect jury charges. i won't speculate, but it makes sense that the jury wasn't given the information it needed.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:24 PM
Weren't her children in the home? I wouldn't expect her to flee them.
Like Zimmerman, this case is made difficult to understand because we all are able to look at from a distance and not under the duress of a perceived immediate threat. Given what I've already seen about this case I can't conceive of how this offense warrants 20 years in jail. It looks to me like a misapplication of a law designed to put the hammer down on real criminals, not someone who over-reacts in a stressful and seemingly threatening moment.
No. The man had two children by a prior marriage that were with him. She had one child, a baby, and this man was the supposed Father.
I agree, and noted such early on, that 20 years seemed harsh. It is also mandatory sentencing down here, as in the end, she was nailed with assault via handgun. But a lesser sentence is a far cry from the armchair idiots here claiming it was SYG, and that she was innocent.
It was not. She was not.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:26 PM
what court said he wasn't intruding? the one that was reversed by the appellate court?
seems not only do you misstate the known facts of the case, but you seem not to understand the rulings either.
and what are you talking about? you're confusing SYG with the castle doctrine and aren't focusing on what either is. they are different and have different requirements.
you have a problem with protective orders? i wonder why.
Post links and facts, as otherwise your opinions here, much less your desire to go personal as you did, is the stuff of ignorance.
What do you not understand ?
It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home
A criminal did not forcibly enter her home ! I live down here for chrissakes. I know the actual Statute almost by heart after the Zimmerman case. I also know this case very well. Now, your own link, which is a paraphrase, is easily shown to not apply to this case.
I would imagine it depends on how one defines "intrude" and live here you might, but I bet you can't give a convincing argument as to why her stand your ground defense was dismissed out of hand.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:28 PM
Post links and facts, as otherwise your opinions here, much less your desire to go personal as you did, is the stuff of ignorance.
i have posted links. you're just not comprehending. i particularly don't like dishonesty like leaving out a pertinent section of a law.
You do have the right to fire a warning shot down here. However, it requires a valid threat. The circumstances of this case did not rise to that. As documented.
Not true. If he battered her in the past she is always going to be under threat when she is around him.
Weren't her children in the home? I wouldn't expect her to flee them.
Like Zimmerman, this case is made difficult to understand because we all are able to look at from a distance and not under the duress of a perceived immediate threat. Given what I've already seen about this case I can't conceive of how this offense warrants 20 years in jail. It looks to me like a misapplication of a law designed to put the hammer down on real criminals, not someone who over-reacts in a stressful and seemingly threatening moment.
Damn.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:31 PM
No. The man had two children by a prior marriage that were with him. She had one child, a baby, and this man was the supposed Father.
why is that relevant?
I agree, and noted such early on, that 20 years seemed harsh. It is also mandatory sentencing down here, as in the end, she was nailed with assault via handgun. But a lesser sentence is a far cry from the armchair idiots here claiming it was SYG, and that she was innocent.
we are discussing the castle doctrine. *you* are continuing to discuss SYG.
It was not. She was not.
you have a personal sensitivity to this case. why?
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:36 PM
why is that relevant?
I was clarifying the post that I quoted.
we are discussing the castle doctrine. *you* are continuing to discuss SYG.
Do you understand that SYG is an expansion of the castle doctrine ? The key principle is actually known as a "duty to retreat", or lack thereof.
you have a personal sensitivity to this case. why?
Are you smoking crack ?
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 08:38 PM
Not true. If he battered her in the past she is always going to be under threat when she is around him.
She voluntarily had dinner with him. She married him AFTER the initial restraining order. Testimony indicated that he and his kids were the ones put at imminent risk, and not the other way around. Evidence, and the jury, agreed.
She voluntarily had dinner with him. She married him AFTER the initial restraining order. Testimony indicated that he and his kids were the ones put at imminent risk, and not the other way around. Evidence, and the jury, agreed.
That she continued to see him is not relevant. Allowing interaction with a batterer is a mental issue.
And you seem to have missed his admission to threatening her that very night.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:47 PM
That she continued to see him is not relevant. Allowing interaction with a batterer is a mental issue.
And you seem to have missed his admission to threatening her that very night.
he keeps making that statement. i haven't seen anything substantiating it except for his one article that appears to get none of the facts correct.
jillian
09-26-2013, 08:49 PM
I was clarifying the post that I quoted.
Do you understand that SYG is an expansion of the castle doctrine ? The key principle is actually known as a "duty to retreat", or lack thereof.
Are you smoking crack ?
you seem not to understand anything.
you seem to be making things up.
you certaily don't understand the legal issues involved.
which of us is smoking crack, again?
because it sure isn't me.
but i'd like to thank you for the absurdity of your posts bringing posters who can't even agree on the color of the sky together.
btw, if anything you said were true, she wouldn't be getting a new trial.
now go chew on that.
Matty
09-26-2013, 09:13 PM
The point is she went to the car and got a gun, she could just as easily have driven away! She's getting a new trial because the same set of race baiters that inserted themselves into the Zimmerman case have made this about "race".
jillian
09-26-2013, 09:15 PM
The point is she went to the car and got a gun, she could just as easily have driven away! She's getting a new trial because the same set of race baiters that inserted themselves into the Zimmerman case have made this about "race".
under florida law, you don't have to leave your home... under any circumstances.
but zimmerman certainly had no reason to follow trayvon martin.
again, why is the latter ok... but you'd have this woman, who was protected by an order of protection, leave her home rather than fire a warning shot to make him leave?
Mr Happy
09-26-2013, 09:16 PM
The point is she went to the car and got a gun, she could just as easily have driven away! She's getting a new trial because the same set of race baiters that inserted themselves into the Zimmerman case have made this about "race".
I don't think the issue is what she did. I think everybody agrees that she needed to be punished. it's the time that they've given her in the pokie that is the issue IMO...
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 09:18 PM
That she continued to see him is not relevant. Allowing interaction with a batterer is a mental issue.
And you seem to have missed his admission to threatening her that very night.
What do you not understand about the law ? Having an argument does not invoke Castle Doctrine, SYG, or self defense. If it did , the next time you argued with your spouse, they could shoot you dead !
The point is she went to the car and got a gun, she could just as easily have driven away! She's getting a new trial because the same set of race baiters that inserted themselves into the Zimmerman case have made this about "race".
Or called the cops. Which she NEVER did. Her husband did. The Trayvonistas will never give up. "Stupid is forever."
Matty
09-26-2013, 09:23 PM
I don't think the issue is what she did. I think everybody agrees that she needed to be punished. it's the time that they've given her in the pokie that is the issue IMO...
How much time would you give her? 30 days?
Common
09-26-2013, 09:28 PM
Strangely enough if she had shot and killed him she probably would have gotten off with no time, with stand your ground.
You cant use a gun in florida to threaten someone, you cant pull it and not use it. You can only pull a gun when you believe your life is in jeopardy and that doesnt include a verbal threat of Ill kill you.
Shoot the Goose
09-26-2013, 09:38 PM
Strangely enough if she had shot and killed him she probably would have gotten off with no time, with stand your ground.
You cant use a gun in florida to threaten someone, you cant pull it and not use it. You can only pull a gun when you believe your life is in jeopardy and that doesnt include a verbal threat of Ill kill you.
That is possible, but there are still the two teenage kids there as witnesses, and other difficulties as well. But him being alive to tell his story, which was then supported by the evidence, made it easier for the Prosecution than had he been dead.
They are likely to find a way to get her out on time served. Despite my debating with the constantly misinformed Trayvonistas here, I also argued that the sentence was quite excessive when rendered last year. Regardless, stupid is not only forever, but it is strong with the Travonistas.
roadmaster
09-26-2013, 10:57 PM
In September 2009, Alexander, a 31-year-old divorcée, obtained a restraining order against Rico Gray, 37, after he beat her so badly that she had to go to the hospital. Six months later, they married. In July 2010 This is something no one brought up. How much time did he do after beating her?????? He beat her, put her in the hospital and served what for assault and battery? Because it looks like he didn't serve any time and she just obtained a restraining order. Now she was wrong to marry him but women don't learn. It said she went to his house to show pictures and everything was fine until an argument started and he threatened her. This woman just had a child!!!!!!!!!!!!! His threats must have been real for her to get a gun and stated before looks like he didn't get punished the first time. She was scared, got the gun and probably had good reason to fire it. Many women won't kill someone especially with his two children watching. So she fired a warning shot to get him away from her so she wouldn't be in the hospital again. Did she make some big mistakes yes. First letting him back into her life and not thinking he would hurt her again. They still weren't living together so something had to have happened again. 20 years for being stupid, NO. This guy is dangerous and the cops failed to do something the first time and yes I am sure he has a history of this with other women. I think she should get a retrial and let go for time served but if she goes back to him, put her back in jail.
GrassrootsConservative
09-27-2013, 04:02 AM
isn't it funny that the person who is for unfettered gun ownership is suddenly so concerned about gun safety?
Where the hell did I say I'm for unfettered gun ownership, jillian ?
Keep making stuff up. It really shows the forum who you truly are.
jillian
09-27-2013, 04:33 AM
What do you not understand about the law ? Having an argument does not invoke Castle Doctrine, SYG, or self defense. If it did , the next time you argued with your spouse, they could shoot you dead !
Or called the cops. Which she NEVER did. Her husband did. The Trayvonistas will never give up. "Stupid is forever."
he had her phone. remember?
or should she have levitated it out of his hands?
the law doesn't require her to call the police. why should she call the police to get some scum against whom she already had an order of protection out of HER OWN HOME?
you're very dishonest. that or you are very, very dense.
I don't think the issue is what she did. I think everybody agrees that she needed to be punished. it's the time that they've given her in the pokie that is the issue IMO...
I don't agree that she needed to be punished.
What do you not understand about the law ? Having an argument does not invoke Castle Doctrine, SYG, or self defense. If it did , the next time you argued with your spouse, they could shoot you dead !
Or called the cops. Which she NEVER did. Her husband did. The Trayvonistas will never give up. "Stupid is forever."
If someone threatens you anywhere, you should have the option of warning them off.
GrassrootsConservative
09-27-2013, 05:00 AM
If someone threatens you anywhere, you should have the option of warning them off.
You have the option to do whatever you want. But you must remember that some of those options have consequences. Especially if the option used is one that involves carelessly discharging a firearm when it's not necessary.
Where the hell did I say I'm for unfettered gun ownership, @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) ?
Keep making stuff up. It really shows the forum who you truly are.
^^^^^
Bump. Still waiting on a response to this.
jillian
09-27-2013, 05:03 AM
You have the option to do whatever you want. But you must remember that some of those options have consequences. Especially if the option used is one that involves carelessly discharging a firearm when it's not necessary.
^^^^^
Bump. Still waiting on a response to this.
you're one of the posters who runs around complaining about reasonable gun regulations... did the whole dance about how the big bad lefties are taking away your guns....
or would we like to suddenly get behind rational regulation?
i'm still trying to figure out what part of this woman defending her home with a warning shot offends your delicate sensibilities
GrassrootsConservative
09-27-2013, 05:12 AM
you're one of the posters who runs around complaining about reasonable gun regulations... did the whole dance about how the big bad lefties are taking away your guns....
or would we like to suddenly get behind rational regulation?
i'm still trying to figure out what part of this woman defending her home with a warning shot offends your delicate sensibilities
Right. "Reasonable gun regulations" is a subjective term, Jillian. I don't think they're reasonable at all, but that's still a far cry from being a supporter of "unfettered gun ownership." So you still need to explain to me where you got that idea from, or admit you invented it.
We have rational regulation in my state. I am behind it very much.
I am offended when she says she feared for her life but yet did not defend the children, instead ran out to her car like a coward to get a gun so she could fire a warning shot. But I know how the defense of children is such a foreign concept to you run-first-call-the-police-later Liberals. :laugh:
The children weren't in danger from him. At least at the moment. With abusers there is always the future.
jillian
09-27-2013, 05:41 AM
Right. "Reasonable gun regulations" is a subjective term, Jillian. I don't think they're reasonable at all, but that's still a far cry from being a supporter of "unfettered gun ownership." So you still need to explain to me where you got that idea from, or admit you invented it.
We have rational regulation in my state. I am behind it very much.
I am offended when she says she feared for her life but yet did not defend the children, instead ran out to her car like a coward to get a gun so she could fire a warning shot. But I know how the defense of children is such a foreign concept to you run-first-call-the-police-later Liberals. :laugh:
like i said...
the children weren't in danger. she needed him out of the house. he had no business being there. he was subject to a protective order. murder suicide is not, as you should be aware, unheard of in these cases. he needed to go. and she acted within the law near as i can tell.
Matty
09-27-2013, 06:30 AM
you're one of the posters who runs around complaining about reasonable gun regulations... did the whole dance about how the big bad lefties are taking away your guns....
or would we like to suddenly get behind rational regulation?
i'm still trying to figure out what part of this woman defending her home with a warning shot offends your delicate sensibilities
Defending her home or her person? Did he threaten her home or her person? No. She walked out of the home, to the car, instead of driving away she pulled out a gun,waved it around and shot it willy nilly. She's a threat to the neighborhood and deserves the sentencce she received.
Matty
09-27-2013, 06:31 AM
like i said...
the children weren't in danger. she needed him out of the house. he had no business being there. he was subject to a protective order. murder suicide is not, as you should be aware, unheard of in these cases. he needed to go. and she acted within the law near as i can tell.
Then why was she charged, arrested, and convicted.
Defending her home or her person? Did he threaten her home or her person? No. She walked out of the home, to the car, instead of driving away she pulled out a gun,waved it around and shot it willy nilly. She's a threat to the neighborhood and deserves the sentencce she received.
A garage is not part of one's home?
Cigar
09-27-2013, 06:51 AM
The children weren't in danger from him. At least at the moment. With abusers there is always the future.
Can you imagine the disappointment some of these people will have if she is acquitted? :laugh:
Ironic, isn't it, a Black Wife Beater and Hispanic Wife Beater are their Hero's. :smiley_ROFLMAO:
Cigar
09-27-2013, 06:53 AM
It sure doesn't take the new people very long to figure you out, does it Cigar?
:rofl:
That's correct .. I don't take any shit from anyone ... new or old. :laugh:
countryboy
09-27-2013, 06:54 AM
you're one of the posters who runs around complaining about reasonable gun regulations... did the whole dance about how the big bad lefties are taking away your guns....
or would we like to suddenly get behind rational regulation?
i'm still trying to figure out what part of this woman defending her home with a warning shot offends your delicate sensibilities
Rational as defined by whom? You? No thank you.
jillian
09-27-2013, 06:58 AM
Rational as defined by whom? You? No thank you.
i'm exactly the person you'd want to talk about that with since i'm a liberal with guns in her apartment.
but as long as you get your potshots, it's all good.
Matty
09-27-2013, 07:04 AM
A garage is not part of one's home?
it is, did he threaten the garage? did he threaten her person?
countryboy
09-27-2013, 07:04 AM
i'm exactly the person you'd want to talk about that with since i'm a liberal with guns in her apartment.
but as long as you get your potshots, it's all good.
I have heard enough of your "rational" viewpoints to know I wouldn't want you to be the person defining what is "rational", concerning gun regs. It was not a pot shot.
Edit: This comment was removed, wrong thread.
it is, did he threaten the garage? did he threaten her person?
Yes, he admitted to threatening her person.
From what I understand, the new trial is being ordered because she was made to prove her innocence during the trial instead of the burden being on the state to prove her guilt. She's going to win this one, I think.f
You realize though that in our state you may defend yourself anywhere, right? Not just on your property.
Matty
09-27-2013, 07:11 AM
Yes, he admitted to threatening her person.
From what I understand, the new trial is being ordered because she was made to prove her innocence during the trial instead of the burden being on the state to prove her guilt. She's going to win this one, I think.f
You realize though that in our state you may defend yourself anywhere, right? Not just on your property.
If you feel your life has been threatened. I'm surprised at you Ravi. You didn't defend Zimmerman's right to defend his life.
If you feel your life has been threatened. I'm surprised at you Ravi. You didn't defend Zimmerman's right to defend his life.
I didn't believe him. He had a history of violence, just like this woman's ex-husband.
Cigar
09-27-2013, 07:14 AM
If you feel your life has been threatened. I'm surprised at you Ravi. You didn't defend Zimmerman's right to defend his life.
Zimmerman got out of his car and perused toward his threat.
BTW ... how are those riches coming ... Mrs. Zimmerman is looking for her cut and to serve Georgy his divorce papers.
Cigar
09-27-2013, 07:15 AM
I didn't believe him. He had a history of violence, just like this woman's ex-husband.
They are both Wife Beater and Right-Wing Hero's :grin:
Matty
09-27-2013, 07:19 AM
I didn't believe him. He had a history of violence, just like this woman's ex-husband.
She entered her
former home. not her home, he was there, and argument ensued, she left the home to get a gun, he begged her to put the gun away, he turned his head when she pointed it him. he says she was the aggressor.
now evidently the judge and jury believed his version. not hers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.