IF Zimmerman can get off, why can't she?!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 9:06 AM GMT
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/?fb_action_ids=10201555007777594&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=fbrecT&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

    "JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

    Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order."

    Sad.
  • travis_27

    Posts: 178

    Jul 14, 2013 11:06 AM GMT
    Because she is black.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 14, 2013 3:58 PM GMT
    Because "Self Defense" only applies if it can proven that you felt you were in imminent danger of bodily injury or death. This woman got to her car, realized she had forgotten something, then went back into the house and there she shot at her husband. The prosecution successfully proved that IF she truly felt she was in imminent danger, why did she return to the house rather than call the police or go somewhere for help?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 14, 2013 4:11 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidBecause "Self Defense" only applies if it can proven that you felt you were in imminent danger of bodily injury or death. This woman got to her car, realized she had forgotten something, then went back into the house and there she shot her husband. The prosecution successfully proved that IF she truly felt she was in imminent danger, why did she return to the house rather than call the police or go somewhere for help?


    She didn't shoot her husband, she fired a warning shot.

    My view of her case is that she should have been convicted of some charge, but not the one she received, and certainly not for 20 years.

    Since she was able to get out of the home, she should have called the police who would have escorted her to home while she collected the rest of her items.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 14, 2013 4:35 PM GMT
    creature said
    My view of her case is that she should have been convicted of some charge, but not the one she received, and certainly not for 20 years.


    I agree. That she got 20 years is outrageous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 5:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said...why did she return to the house rather than call the police or go somewhere for help?



    That's similar to my question: why did Zimmerman go after the kid when Dispatch told him not to?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 5:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    CuriousJockAZ said...why did she return to the house rather than call the police or go somewhere for help?



    That's similar to my question: why did Zimmerman go after the kid when Dispatch told him not to?





    Such confusion from the two ninnies north of the border.

    As your good friend Art Deco frequently says to non-Americans who stick their noses in U.S. affairs: "Mind your own business and STFU."
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3534

    Jul 14, 2013 5:40 PM GMT
    The 20 years is not outrageous,it is the law. Florida has minimum sentencing, it didnt matter what she did or how egregious, it's 20 years due to "law and order governors" rules. This should be reported wiTh the story since it is counter intuitive for other jurisdictions with sensible sentencing.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 14, 2013 5:47 PM GMT
    southbeach1502 said
    meninlove said
    CuriousJockAZ said...why did she return to the house rather than call the police or go somewhere for help?



    That's similar to my question: why did Zimmerman go after the kid when Dispatch told him not to?





    Such confusion from the two ninnies north of the border.

    As your good friend Art Deco frequently says to non-Americans who stick their noses in U.S. affairs: "Mind your own business and STFU."


    Uh, southbeach, that's what you frequently say. You constantly criticize meninlove for talking about US politics, and tell them to stick to Canadian politics.

    Such confusion...
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jul 14, 2013 6:24 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidBecause "Self Defense" only applies if it can proven that you felt you were in imminent danger of bodily injury or death. This woman got to her car, realized she had forgotten something, then went back into the house and there she shot at her husband. The prosecution successfully proved that IF she truly felt she was in imminent danger, why did she return to the house rather than call the police or go somewhere for help?


    I understand the technical reason why she was convicted. But the prosecutor had discretion in bringing the charge. It seems pretty extreme since no one was hurt.

    the governor of florida would be wise in pardoning her.

    It also shows how heavy handed some of the gun laws are.

    What would be interesting is to find out if there was a plead agreement offered , misdemeanor or lower crime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 6:36 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    CuriousJockAZ said...why did she return to the house rather than call the police or go somewhere for help?



    That's similar to my question: why did Zimmerman go after the kid when Dispatch told him not to?

    1. "Dispatch" can only advise, not order anyone to do anything.

    2. Not clear that Zimmerman went after "the kid" (6 feet tall) after the advice. His account, not contradicted by witnesses, was he stopped following, but then "the kid" confronted him.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 14, 2013 6:41 PM GMT
    Either ... You better shoot to kill and ask questions later in Florida

    ... or if you're white you don't need to worry about going to jail
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 7:30 PM GMT
    Apparition saidThe 20 years is not outrageous,it is the law. Florida has minimum sentencing, it didnt matter what she did or how egregious, it's 20 years due to "law and order governors" rules. This should be reported wiTh the story since it is counter intuitive for other jurisdictions with sensible sentencing.


    Exactly! The fact that Florida's Mandatory Minimum laws coupled with Alexander actions leading to the discharge of the weapon should both be a part of the conversation.

    The "one size fits all" approach of Mandatory Minimum laws does not allow for the discretion of the courts on a case by case basis.

    Ms Alexander's actions leading to the discharge of the weapon are the reason that the so called "Stand Your Ground" defense, which Alexander chose to use in court, does not apply in this case.
    The altercation began in the bedroom. It's interesting that Alexander chose not to leave the house through either the front or back door, but through the garage. Ms Alexander, as a resident in the house had to know that one of the two doors in the garage was not working or locked, limiting her escape route. Ms Alexander then went to her vehicle, while not being assaulted by her estranged husband, and took the gun from the glove compartment, took off the safety, chambered a round and proceeded to reenter the house where she fired at her estranged husband, at head height. The shot entered the wall at head height and then ricocheted upward. She, obviously, did not fire a warning shot into the ceiling as is often reported. Who fires a warning shot at someone's head? The model of gun she possessed requires about a seven lb trigger pull, meaning it was by no means a hair trigger weapon and required some effort to squeeze the trigger.
    Because she left the area of confrontation and had a clear route to safety to the outside through the other garage door, but chose to arm herself and return to the confrontation and reinitate the confrontation, negated both the possibility of a "Stand your Ground" or a "simple self defense" defense. The language of the so called "Stand Your Ground" law allows a person to "protect themselves from a crime that is either being committed or about to be committed. At the time she armed herself no crime was being committed or about to be committed.
    It should be also be pointed out that she was advised by her legal counsel to claim self defense under the abused spouse laws of the state, which would have afforded her better protection under the law. She chose to pursue the "Stand Your Ground" defense against the the advise of her legal counsel.
    Also noted in the case is the fact that Alexander violated a Judges order barring her from the home after the incident and returned to the home and assaulted her estranged husband.According to the police report of the incident she claimed to have an alibi and then latter claimed to be there when the assault took place. She then claimed that she was the one assaulted, but officers on the scene could not see any signs of her having been hit in the areas she indicated. When she was placed in the police car, she complained of being lightheaded, when she became unresponsive two emergency units were sent. When her vital signs were checked she checked out fine. The officer noticed that she now has a small cut under her eye that was not there before,verified by another officer on the scene. All of this was entered into evidence casting doubt on her character.
    Being the victim of one crime does not mean that a person cannot commit another crime. The evidence points to her having committed the crime she was charged with.
    It should also be pointed out that Ms Alexander was offered a plea deal (three years), which she turned down.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jul 14, 2013 9:57 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    Apparition saidThe 20 years is not outrageous,it is the law. Florida has minimum sentencing, it didnt matter what she did or how egregious, it's 20 years due to "law and order governors" rules. This should be reported wiTh the story since it is counter intuitive for other jurisdictions with sensible sentencing.


    Exactly! The fact that Florida's Mandatory Minimum laws coupled with Alexander actions leading to the discharge of the weapon should both be a part of the conversation.

    The "one size fits all" approach of Mandatory Minimum laws does not allow for the discretion of the courts on a case by case basis.

    Ms Alexander's actions leading to the discharge of the weapon are the reason that the so called "Stand Your Ground" defense, which Alexander chose to use in court, does not apply in this case.
    The altercation began in the bedroom. It's interesting that Alexander chose not to leave the house through either the front or back door, but through the garage. Ms Alexander, as a resident in the house had to know that one of the two doors in the garage was not working or locked, limiting her escape route. Ms Alexander then went to her vehicle, while not being assaulted by her estranged husband, and took the gun from the glove compartment, took off the safety, chambered a round and proceeded to reenter the house where she fired at her estranged husband, at head height. The shot entered the wall at head height and then ricocheted upward. She, obviously, did not fire a warning shot into the ceiling as is often reported. Who fires a warning shot at someone's head? The model of gun she possessed requires about a seven lb trigger pull, meaning it was by no means a hair trigger weapon and required some effort to squeeze the trigger.
    Because she left the area of confrontation and had a clear route to safety to the outside through the other garage door, but chose to arm herself and return to the confrontation and reinitate the confrontation, negated both the possibility of a "Stand your Ground" or a "simple self defense" defense. The language of the so called "Stand Your Ground" law allows a person to "protect themselves from a crime that is either being committed or about to be committed. At the time she armed herself no crime was being committed or about to be committed.
    It should be also be pointed out that she was advised by her legal counsel to claim self defense under the abused spouse laws of the state, which would have afforded her better protection under the law. She chose to pursue the "Stand Your Ground" defense against the the advise of her legal counsel.
    Also noted in the case is the fact that Alexander violated a Judges order barring her from the home after the incident and returned to the home and assaulted her estranged husband.According to the police report of the incident she claimed to have an alibi and then latter claimed to be there when the assault took place. She then claimed that she was the one assaulted, but officers on the scene could not see any signs of her having been hit in the areas she indicated. When she was placed in the police car, she complained of being lightheaded, when she became unresponsive two emergency units were sent. When her vital signs were checked she checked out fine. The officer noticed that she now has a small cut under her eye that was not there before,verified by another officer on the scene. All of this was entered into evidence casting doubt on her character.
    Being the victim of one crime does not mean that a person cannot commit another crime. The evidence points to her having committed the crime she was charged with.
    It should also be pointed out that Ms Alexander was offered a plea deal (three years), which she turned down.


    thanks for clarifying this, honestly I could not find all of this information. It is not as cut and dry.

    She went back against a judges order likely ruining herself in the eyes of a jury , and also shitty defense tactics.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 14, 2013 10:02 PM GMT
    GQjock saidEither ... You better shoot to kill and ask questions later in Florida

    ... or if you're white you don't need to worry about going to jail

    Sadly, this. She'd probably be free if she shot her husband dead, and she was white. That's Florida. The feds need to step in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 11:04 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    GQjock saidEither ... You better shoot to kill and ask questions later in Florida

    ... or if you're white you don't need to worry about going to jail

    Sadly, this. She'd probably be free if she shot her husband dead, and she was white. That's Florida. The feds need to step in.



    That's just not true! As I already pointed out, if you bothered to actually read the court transcripts of the case instead of going off half cocked and spouting out your uninformed opinion.
    I'll bet you along with the rest of the people here for whom facts matter little, didn't know that Ms Alexander was offered a plea that lessoned her sentence to three years and she turned it down ?
    Did you know, that even latter she was offered a plea which would have limited her time to time served and she turned that down as well?
    Do you even understand what Mandatory Minimum laws are?

    Are you at all aware that under Florida law statute 784.011-

    (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with the apparent ability to do so and some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
    Clearly she committed assault, by her actions on the three other people present in the house. That's why the initial charges were three counts of "Assault without intent to kill", or did you already know that when you chose to bless us with your uninformed opinion?

    She was found guilty. Because of the nature of Mandatory Minimum laws, 10 years was automatically added to her sentence because the penalty for committing a crime while carrying a gun is 10 years. An additional 10 years was added to her sentence because the mandatory sentence for discharging a firearm during a crime is 10 years.

    I'll bet you also didn't know that her charges were lowered to the lesser charges of reckless endangerment of children, which she clearly did, and threatening with a deadly weapon, which again she clearly did. Did you?

    But I'll bet as knowledgeable as you are, you already knew all of that before you decided to bless us with your words of wisdom ! I'll bet you always check the facts before you bless us all with your uninformed opinions completely devoid of fact or reason !

    Under the laws of Florida, Ms Alexander got a fair trial and the sentence dictated by the circumstances of her case. If there is a problem, it is one of imposing Mandaory Minimum Sentencing laws, which don't allow for any discretion based on individual circumstances, and not of racism. Stop contributing to the racial tension with your uninformed comments, the facts don't support it.

  • The_Guruburu

    Posts: 895

    Jul 14, 2013 11:13 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    GQjock saidEither ... You better shoot to kill and ask questions later in Florida

    ... or if you're white you don't need to worry about going to jail

    Sadly, this. She'd probably be free if she shot her husband dead, and she was white. That's Florida. The feds need to step in.



    That's just not true! As I already pointed out, if you bothered to actually read the court transcripts of the case instead of going off half cocked and spouting out your uninformed opinion.
    I'll bet you along with the rest of the people here for whom facts matter little, didn't know that Ms Alexander was offered a plea that lessoned her sentence to three years and she turned it down ?
    Did you know, that even latter she was offered a plea which would have limited her time to time served and she turned that down as well?
    Do you even understand what Mandatory Minimum laws are?

    Are you at all aware that under Florida law statute 784.011-

    (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with the apparent ability to do so and some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
    Clearly she committed assault, by her actions on the three other people present in the house. That's why the initial charges were three counts of "Assault without intent to kill", or did you already know that when you chose to bless us with your uninformed opinion?

    She was found guilty. Because of the nature of Mandatory Minimum laws, 10 years was automatically added to her sentence because the penalty for committing a crime while carrying a gun is 10 years. An additional 10 years was added to her sentence because the mandatory sentence for discharging a firearm during a crime is 10 years.

    I'll bet you also didn't know that her charges were lowered to the lesser charges of reckless endangerment of children, which she clearly did, and threatening with a deadly weapon, which again she clearly did. Did you?

    But I'll bet as knowledgeable as you are, you already knew all of that before you decided to bless us with your words of wisdom ! I'll bet you always check the facts before you bless us all with your uninformed opinions completely devoid of fact or reason !

    Under the laws of Florida, Ms Alexander got a fair trial and the sentence dictated by the circumstances of her case. If there is a problem, it is one of imposing Mandaory Minimum Sentencing laws, which don't allow for any discretion based on individual circumstances, and not of racism. Stop contributing to the racial tension with your uninformed comments, the facts don't support it.


    She turned the plea bargain down because she didn't want to admit to being guilty when she harmed no one and believed she did nothing wrong.

    As was already mentioned, prosecution has discretion to pursue a case or not. Knowing the minimum sentencing laws, they chose to make an example out of her. And her children will grow up without a mother.

    No a very pro-family move, if you ask me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 11:24 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    GQjock saidEither ... You better shoot to kill and ask questions later in Florida

    ... or if you're white you don't need to worry about going to jail

    Sadly, this. She'd probably be free if she shot her husband dead, and she was white. That's Florida. The feds need to step in.



    That's just not true! As I already pointed out, if you bothered to actually read the court transcripts of the case instead of going off half cocked and spouting out your uninformed opinion.
    I'll bet you along with the rest of the people here for whom facts matter little, didn't know that Ms Alexander was offered a plea that lessoned her sentence to three years and she turned it down ?
    Did you know, that even latter she was offered a plea which would have limited her time to time served and she turned that down as well?
    Do you even understand what Mandatory Minimum laws are?

    Are you at all aware that under Florida law statute 784.011-

    (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with the apparent ability to do so and some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
    Clearly she committed assault, by her actions on the three other people present in the house. That's why the initial charges were three counts of "Assault without intent to kill", or did you already know that when you chose to bless us with your uninformed opinion?

    She was found guilty. Because of the nature of Mandatory Minimum laws, 10 years was automatically added to her sentence because he penalty for committing a crime while carrying a gun is 10 years. An additional 10 years was added to her sentence because the mandatory sentence for discharging a firearm during a crime is 10 years.

    I'll bet you also didn't know that her charges were lowered to the lesser charges of reckless endangerment of children, which she clearly did, and threatening with a deadly weapon, which again she clearly did. Did you?

    But I'll bet as knowledgeable as you are, you already knew all of that before you decided to bless us with your words of wisdom ! I'll bet you always check the facts before you bless us all with your uninformed opinions completely devoid of fact or reason !

    Under the laws of Florida, Ms Alexander got a fair trial and the sentence dictated by the circumstances of her case. If there is a problem, it is one of imposing Mandaory Minimum Sentencing laws, which don't allow for any discretion based on individual circumstances, and not of racism. Stop contributing to the racial tension with your uninformed comments, the facts don't support it.



    Wow, could you have come off any more condescending. The post you were responding to was about the unfairness in the Florida legal system, not the technicalities they are founded upon.

    ALSO, She was returning inside HER OWN HOME. Just because her husband didn't threaten her life the first time, didn't mean he wasn't threatening the second time she went back inside. She rejected the plea because a plea means you are guilty, and she feels she is innocent. So don't dog her for standing up for herself. These are her words...

    “In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave.” She says that she tried to run away but became trapped in the garage, so she got her gun — which she says is registered and holds a permit for — and went back through the house. Then, she says, Gray shouted, “bitch I will kill you.” So “in fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling.”

    And this is a little information about her husband:

    Gray was arrested in 2006 and in 2009. In 2006, charges were dropped, and in 2009, he got probation. After the 2009 arrest, Alexander got a restraining order against him. He claims he had a restraining order against her at the time of the 2010 altercation, but Duval County Clerk records only list one from March 2011, well after it happened.
    In a 2010 deposition, Gray admitted to abusing Alexander and multiple other partners: “I got five baby mamas and I put my hand on every last one of them except one.” He added, “the way I was with women, they was like they had to walk on eggshells around me. You know, they never knew what I was thinking… or what I might do… hit them, push them.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2013 11:45 PM GMT
    AtlasHarper said
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    GQjock saidEither ... You better shoot to kill and ask questions later in Florida

    ... or if you're white you don't need to worry about going to jail

    Sadly, this. She'd probably be free if she shot her husband dead, and she was white. That's Florida. The feds need to step in.



    That's just not true! As I already pointed out, if you bothered to actually read the court transcripts of the case instead of going off half cocked and spouting out your uninformed opinion.
    I'll bet you along with the rest of the people here for whom facts matter little, didn't know that Ms Alexander was offered a plea that lessoned her sentence to three years and she turned it down ?
    Did you know, that even latter she was offered a plea which would have limited her time to time served and she turned that down as well?
    Do you even understand what Mandatory Minimum laws are?

    Are you at all aware that under Florida law statute 784.011-

    (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with the apparent ability to do so and some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
    Clearly she committed assault, by her actions on the three other people present in the house. That's why the initial charges were three counts of "Assault without intent to kill", or did you already know that when you chose to bless us with your uninformed opinion?

    She was found guilty. Because of the nature of Mandatory Minimum laws, 10 years was automatically added to her sentence because he penalty for committing a crime while carrying a gun is 10 years. An additional 10 years was added to her sentence because the mandatory sentence for discharging a firearm during a crime is 10 years.

    I'll bet you also didn't know that her charges were lowered to the lesser charges of reckless endangerment of children, which she clearly did, and threatening with a deadly weapon, which again she clearly did. Did you?

    But I'll bet as knowledgeable as you are, you already knew all of that before you decided to bless us with your words of wisdom ! I'll bet you always check the facts before you bless us all with your uninformed opinions completely devoid of fact or reason !

    Under the laws of Florida, Ms Alexander got a fair trial and the sentence dictated by the circumstances of her case. If there is a problem, it is one of imposing Mandaory Minimum Sentencing laws, which don't allow for any discretion based on individual circumstances, and not of racism. Stop contributing to the racial tension with your uninformed comments, the facts don't support it.



    Wow, could you have come off any more condescending. The post you were responding to was about the unfairness in the Florida legal system, not the technicalities they are founded upon.

    ALSO, She was returning inside HER OWN HOME. Just because her husband didn't threaten her life the first time, didn't mean he wasn't threatening the second time she went back inside. She rejected the plea because a plea means you are guilty, and she feels she is innocent. So don't dog her for standing up for herself. These are her words...

    “In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave.” She says that she tried to run away but became trapped in the garage, so she got her gun — which she says is registered and holds a permit for — and went back through the house. Then, she says, Gray shouted, “bitch I will kill you.” So “in fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling.”

    And this is a little information about her husband:

    Gray was arrested in 2006 and in 2009. In 2006, charges were dropped, and in 2009, he got probation. After the 2009 arrest, Alexander got a restraining order against him. He claims he had a restraining order against her at the time of the 2010 altercation, but Duval County Clerk records only list one from March 2011, well after it happened.
    In a 2010 deposition, Gray admitted to abusing Alexander and multiple other partners: “I got five baby mamas and I put my hand on every last one of them except one.” He added, “the way I was with women, they was like they had to walk on eggshells around me. You know, they never knew what I was thinking… or what I might do… hit them, push them.”


    First of all, let me just say I never disputed any of what you've just written here. But it has nothing to do with why MS Alexander was given the sntence she was given.

    Second, at the risk of being condescending, either you didn't read what I wrote or you didn't comprehend what I wrote. I simply explained factually why she was given the sentence she was given. And the reality is that it has nothing to do with race, but with the very nature of the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing laws.
    As I already pointed out , the fact that she was the victom of one crime does not mean that she is allowed to commit other crimes herself. Clearly she committed the crimes she was charged with. Clearly her husband was not a great guy, but that still doesn't give her the legal right or standing to do what she did. How you or any can blame it on race when she was clearly given a chance of plea deal for a lessor sentence (twice). If there is unfairness in this case, it isn't due to race, but to the very Nature of the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing laws and blaming race isn't addressing what the real problem.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jul 15, 2013 1:38 AM GMT
    i bet there is some other case that could show the failure of justice in the stand your ground case.

    After closer inspection it doesn't seem to be this woman's case.

    She violated a court order and took a chance on the wrong defense.

    especially since its starting to come out that there was suppressed evidence in the trial of Zimmerman.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 15, 2013 1:47 AM GMT
    musclmed saidi bet there is some other case that could show the failure of justice in the stand your ground case.

    After closer inspection it doesn't seem to be this woman's case.

    She violated a court order and took a chance on the wrong defense.

    especially since its starting to come out that there was suppressed evidence in the trial of Zimmerman.

    icon_question.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jul 15, 2013 2:13 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    musclmed saidi bet there is some other case that could show the failure of justice in the stand your ground case.

    After closer inspection it doesn't seem to be this woman's case.

    She violated a court order and took a chance on the wrong defense.

    especially since its starting to come out that there was suppressed evidence in the trial of Zimmerman.

    icon_question.gif


    1) employee / wistleblower who was fired the day of the verdict

    2) fbi investigation from the lead detectives was suppressed.
    in that the investigators tell the FIB that he did not think he was a racist.
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/cop-told-fbi-zimmerman-not-a-racist-765093
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2013 3:15 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    AtlasHarper said
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    GQjock saidEither ... You better shoot to kill and ask questions later in Florida

    ... or if you're white you don't need to worry about going to jail

    Sadly, this. She'd probably be free if she shot her husband dead, and she was white. That's Florida. The feds need to step in.



    That's just not true! As I already pointed out, if you bothered to actually read the court transcripts of the case instead of going off half cocked and spouting out your uninformed opinion.
    I'll bet you along with the rest of the people here for whom facts matter little, didn't know that Ms Alexander was offered a plea that lessoned her sentence to three years and she turned it down ?
    Did you know, that even latter she was offered a plea which would have limited her time to time served and she turned that down as well?
    Do you even understand what Mandatory Minimum laws are?

    Are you at all aware that under Florida law statute 784.011-

    (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with the apparent ability to do so and some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
    Clearly she committed assault, by her actions on the three other people present in the house. That's why the initial charges were three counts of "Assault without intent to kill", or did you already know that when you chose to bless us with your uninformed opinion?

    She was found guilty. Because of the nature of Mandatory Minimum laws, 10 years was automatically added to her sentence because he penalty for committing a crime while carrying a gun is 10 years. An additional 10 years was added to her sentence because the mandatory sentence for discharging a firearm during a crime is 10 years.

    I'll bet you also didn't know that her charges were lowered to the lesser charges of reckless endangerment of children, which she clearly did, and threatening with a deadly weapon, which again she clearly did. Did you?

    But I'll bet as knowledgeable as you are, you already knew all of that before you decided to bless us with your words of wisdom ! I'll bet you always check the facts before you bless us all with your uninformed opinions completely devoid of fact or reason !

    Under the laws of Florida, Ms Alexander got a fair trial and the sentence dictated by the circumstances of her case. If there is a problem, it is one of imposing Mandaory Minimum Sentencing laws, which don't allow for any discretion based on individual circumstances, and not of racism. Stop contributing to the racial tension with your uninformed comments, the facts don't support it.



    Wow, could you have come off any more condescending. The post you were responding to was about the unfairness in the Florida legal system, not the technicalities they are founded upon.

    ALSO, She was returning inside HER OWN HOME. Just because her husband didn't threaten her life the first time, didn't mean he wasn't threatening the second time she went back inside. She rejected the plea because a plea means you are guilty, and she feels she is innocent. So don't dog her for standing up for herself. These are her words...

    “In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave.” She says that she tried to run away but became trapped in the garage, so she got her gun — which she says is registered and holds a permit for — and went back through the house. Then, she says, Gray shouted, “bitch I will kill you.” So “in fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling.”

    And this is a little information about her husband:

    Gray was arrested in 2006 and in 2009. In 2006, charges were dropped, and in 2009, he got probation. After the 2009 arrest, Alexander got a restraining order against him. He claims he had a restraining order against her at the time of the 2010 altercation, but Duval County Clerk records only list one from March 2011, well after it happened.
    In a 2010 deposition, Gray admitted to abusing Alexander and multiple other partners: “I got five baby mamas and I put my hand on every last one of them except one.” He added, “the way I was with women, they was like they had to walk on eggshells around me. You know, they never knew what I was thinking… or what I might do… hit them, push them.”


    First of all, let me just say I never disputed any of what you've just written here. But it has nothing to do with why MS Alexander was given the sntence she was given.

    Second, at the risk of being condescending, either you didn't read what I wrote or you didn't comprehend what I wrote. I simply explained factually why she was given the sentence she was given. And the reality is that it has nothing to do with race, but with the very nature of the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing laws.
    As I already pointed out , the fact that she was the victom of one crime does not mean that she is allowed to commit other crimes herself. Clearly she committed the crimes she was charged with. Clearly her husband was not a great guy, but that still doesn't give her the legal right or standing to do what she did. How you or any can blame it on race when she was clearly given a chance of plea deal for a lessor sentence (twice). If there is unfairness in this case, it isn't due to race, but to the very Nature of the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing laws and blaming race isn't addressing what the real problem.


    The person you quoted is not talking about the reasoning the prosecutors made in giving her such a sentence. You are the one taking it on a tangent. If you wanted to make a comment in general, you should have made that clear. He made his comment in jest to point out the UNFAIRNESS of it. And there is truth to what he says.

    A June 2012 study by the Tampa Bay Times found that in Florida, defendants citing the Stand Your Ground law were more likely to prevail if the victim was black. Seventy-three percent of people who killed a black person walked away with no penalty, compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white victim.

    Source1:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/stand-your-ground-racial-bias_n_3365893.html
    Source2:http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

    And making borderline insults such as -

    "if you bothered to actually read the court transcripts of the case instead of going off half cocked and spouting out your uninformed opinion."

    AND

    "I'll bet you along with the rest of the people here for whom facts matter little"

    IS condescending, so don't act as if we mistake your comments in general as patronizing. You made specific statements that reak of arrogance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2013 6:22 PM GMT
    Zimmerman is innocent! He did NOT want to kill Trayvon Martin. And eye witness had seen Martin attack Zimmermasn! Why ca't people leave Zimmerman alone? Ignorant racist haters claimed falsely Zimmerna was a racist, The FBI investigated and found he was NOT! Before Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman tried to help a homeless black man. After he was set free, a week ago, Zimmerman helped to save lives after a car crash! he is a god man, he had a right to defend himself against a thug like trayvon Martin. Martin liked to fight and hurt people, he was suspened many times for fighting. Martin also had stolen goods in his locker and tools he used to break in and steal things with. Trayvon was a bad thug, I am happy Zimmeran lived through the attack.