Marissa Alexander

[ItsTheSheppy]

A woman has been sentenced in Florida to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

She attempted to use the Stand Your Ground law to justify the shot, which as far as I can tell hit and hurt nobody. Apparently there were children in the house.

Claiming she feared for her life, she fired a warning shot into the wall. Rejected a plea deal that would have netted her three years of prison time, she has instead been sentenced to 20 years.

Curious how the cops didn't even investigate Trayvon Martin's killing because Zimmerman cited Stand Your Ground, but here a warning shot that kills nobody nets this woman 20 years in jail.

Oh, and she's black. So there's that.

And before you ask, no the system is working just fine. There is no prejudice, the law is perfectly sound and being enforced fairly and evenly, thank you very much.

[Baneblade]

So, what is your point?

[Neurotoxin]

A Caucasian man shoots an African-American minor, and the "stand your ground" law is utilized to prevent any investigation.

An African-American woman fires a bullet under the rules of the "stand your ground" law, nobody is hurt, and she is sentenced to 20 years instead of being taken up on a plea for 3.

White guy shoots a black kid dead and there's no investigation until mass outcry demands it. Black woman fires a gun in self defense and harms nobody, and she won't see her kids on her own terms til they've grown up.

It isn't a matter of asking whats wrong with the system, its a matter of asking what is actually right about it anymore. Nothing our legal system is corrupt, subjective, and poorly-conducted, at its best (except when police are deployed to sort out a mass gathering of workers, then they are an efficient oppressing machine).

[CutterJohn]

Because its bogus. The woman 'stood her ground' by leaving the house, getting a gun, and coming back. The bullet was aimed at the husbands head(he was leaving, btw), while the kids were next to him, barely missing him and going through a wall until it was lodged in a ceiling. She was arrested, released, and and returned to the house in violation of a restraining order and assaulted him again, and had to be arrested. Again.


She had ample opportunity to leave, chose not to, and chose to escalate the situation with a firearm, and then actually discharged it at her husband and her kids. She is fucking psycho and got what she deserved.


Cites:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/89763399?access_key=key-dckfsfhhnu641jfe9bv
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/89763383?access_key=key-ldxzjmiqwxbhymqs4e5
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/89763280?access_key=key-2bx8loi7qbrfuufztfx4


Oh, heck, just go here. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sbg8w/marissa_alexander_had_a_gun_permit_stood_her/c4d89zx

[ItsTheSheppy]

According to the stand your ground law there is no obligation to retreat. It was her house. She shouldn't have to flee her own house. STAND YOUR GROUND!!!1!!1!1

Whether or not you think she's crazy is inconsequential. The fact remains is she hurt nobody. She didn't, say, kill someone. But she goes to prison for two decades, and meanwhile it took the entire country going in an uproar for the Florida police to finally, begrudgingly, arrest Zimmerman.

Who by the way commands a great deal of support from people who, for example, are selling targets online made to look like Trayvon Martin. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/us-usa-florida-shooting-targets-idUSBRE84A1CP20120511)

But no worries, racism is long gone and all of this makes perfect logical sense.

[CutterJohn]

According to the stand your ground law there is no obligation to retreat. It was her house. She shouldn't have to flee her own house. STAND YOUR GROUND!!!1!!1!1

It was both of their house. And she'd already left, then came back with a gun.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It was both of their house. And she'd already left, then came back with a gun.

Because she didn't have her keys and needed to go back into the house to get them. the house where her abusive husband was; a person she thought was going to try and kill her. I'd have gone back in armed too. To 'stand my ground'.

[Goku]

Because she didn't have her keys and needed to go back into the house to get them. the house where her abusive husband was; a person she thought was going to try and kill her. I'd have gone back in armed too. To 'stand my ground'.

That is extremely skewed logic. She needs her keys? Really so you go back in there and with a gun to get them? Total fail written all over it. If she got out of the house fine she should of called the cops with her cell or went to a neighbors to do so. She is the one that was making it worse at this point.

If I was in fear of my life I wouldn't be running back into the house for some stupid keys.

Stand your ground isn't coming back and blowing someone's head off.

[ArcIyte]

LOL, you're serious aren't you?

For someone who always claims the intellectual high ground you've really stepped in it with both feet here.

[Baneblade]

She escalated the conflict. Did she have the gun when she left the house?

[ItsTheSheppy]

That is extremely skewed logic. She needs her keys? Really so you go back in there and with a gun to get them? Total fail written all over it. If she got out of the house fine she should of called the cops with her cell or went to a neighbors to do so. She is the one that was making it worse at this point.

If I was in fear of my life I wouldn't be running back into the house for some stupid keys.

Stand your ground isn't coming back and blowing someone's head off.

Well, if it's your house, why shouldn't it be?

The law states that there is no obligation to retreat. Everything you are saying about how she 'should have done' this or 'should have done' that is ireelevant because the law allows her to defend herself. She had no obligation to leave the house. She had every right to walk back in, armed, and defend herself.

And, by the way, nobody got hurt. she missed. Intentionally. She didn't, say, pursue someone in the dead of night and create a situation where she then killed them, even though they were armed with a pack of skittles. This woman feared for her life in her own home.

I just want to make it clear that I think the 'Stand Your Ground' law and all laws like it are the pinnacle of dumbshit stupidity. I am merely pointing out that it is interesting, to me, that a white(ish) man kills a black teenager, declares 'Stand Your Ground', and is not even initially investigated; it takes the country breaking into an uproar for the police to even make an arrest.

A black woman, however, tries a similar defense in a case where she was in her own home and nobody got hurt and she's going to jail for two decades. They couldn't lock her up fast enough.

It's just, you know. Interesting. Strangely incongruous.

I am OF COURSE not suggesting that race had anything to do with it because racism stopped when we elected Obama. Everyone knows that.

[CutterJohn]

Dude. She hadn't lived there in months. Her husband had been living there with the kids. It was the husbands home. She left the house, then chose to put herself back into the situation with a gun. Stand your ground does not mean leave and come back with a gun so you can stand your ground.

And she never once called the cops.

Even if she needed her keys, thats no excuse. You do not go looking for a confrontation if you have a gun. That gun is there to protect you. It is not added leverage for you to assert yourself. It is there as an absolute last resort, after you've done everything possible to avoid a confrontation. She had already avoided the confrontation by leaving the house, went and got a gun, and chose to go back inside rather than call the cops to get her keys.

If you want to argue that the punishment is too extreme, by all means, and I may even agree to an extent, but the fact that she's guilty of stupidity and in no way followed the spirit or letter of the law is not in any dispute.

[Vash02]

Having not read the story or its particulars, has anyone taken the children into account? Wouldn't the mother by remiss in her motherly duty if she knowingly left them in the hands of a abusive man? Not saying she wasn't an idiot for not calling the police, but surely there would of been some leeway for a mother on a mission?

[CutterJohn]

Having not read the story or its particulars, has anyone taken the children into account? Wouldn't the mother by remiss in her motherly duty if she knowingly left them in the hands of a abusive man? Not saying she wasn't an idiot for not calling the police, but surely there would of been some leeway for a mother on a mission?

You mean 'Father'. They were his kids, not hers, from a prior relationship. The two had just had a baby, which was still in the hospital.


And having not read the story or its particulars, why do you make the assumption the man was abusive?

[Vash02]

Something must of wound her up to the point of bringing a deadly weapon in range of her children.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Dude. She hadn't lived there in months. Her husband had been living there with the kids. It was the husbands home. She left the house, then chose to put herself back into the situation with a gun. Stand your ground does not mean leave and come back with a gun so you can stand your ground.

And she never once called the cops.

Even if she needed her keys, thats no excuse. You do not go looking for a confrontation if you have a gun. That gun is there to protect you. It is not added leverage for you to assert yourself. It is there as an absolute last resort, after you've done everything possible to avoid a confrontation. She had already avoided the confrontation by leaving the house, went and got a gun, and chose to go back inside rather than call the cops to get her keys.

If you want to argue that the punishment is too extreme, by all means, and I may even agree to an extent, but the fact that she's guilty of stupidity and in no way followed the spirit or letter of the law is not in any dispute.

My favorite part about this thread absolutely has to be the fact that by defending this dumbshit law I've wound you up enough to go making my points for me. At least as far as the letter of the law is concerned. Funnily enough, I agree with everything you said there. Pretty much every word of it.

My intention with this thread is to shine a light on something. In the Trayvon Martin case, a man confronted a black youth in the night, with a gun, and created a situation where the young man ended up shot dead. The police didn't arrest the man until the entire country, including the president, lost their shit over it.

Meanwhile, a black woman confronted her husband, with a gun, and created a situation where the weapon was discharged and nobody was hurt, and she's being sent to jail for twenty years.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the 'smoking gun' (pun intended) that is the killer (again) evidence that these laws are freaking stupid and are being enforced improperly. There was a massive counter-movement in support for Zimmerman, even going so far as to sell targets stenciled to look like Trayvon Martin for people to shoot (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/14/man-sells-out-of-trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets/), but where is the support for this woman? Where is the groundswell of pro-gun rights advocates riding heroically to her defense? Where are the people on this board who came out in force to support Zimmeman and his right to defend himself, however lethally, against a perceived threat?

Nowhere. Silent. Why?

She's black, she's a woman, and they do not get equal standing in this country, no matter how much some of us would like to pretend otherwise and a case such as this is a perfect barometer. Zimmerman's story and Trayvon's murder was no less murky, no less strange, no less controversial. But he was white(ish). White enough. Close enough to the fantasy of all the paranoid gun-nuts who always dreamed about being Killer Batman.

But they can't empathize with a woman trying to defend herself against a man she is afraid of, whatever you or me or anyone else may think of that justification. It doesn't mesh with their worldview. They can't fantasize about being in the same spot, so they don't care.

The Emperor has no clothes, and I don't care who shouts me down for saying it. He's fucking naked.

[Baneblade]

The thing is, it is still unknown whether Zimmerman instigated the conflict. While it is obvious Marissa did.

[Geist]

You mean 'Father'. They were his kids, not hers, from a prior relationship. The two had just had a baby, which was still in the hospital.


And having not read the story or its particulars, why do you make the assumption the man was abusive?
Something must of wound her up to the point of bringing a deadly weapon in range of her children.
Not her children.

The thing is, it is still unknown whether Zimmerman instigated the conflict. While it is obvious Marissa did.
Pretty much this. The reason the Martin/Zimmerman case is so controversial is because no one knows what the hell happened except Zimmerman and understandably, he has a lot to benefit from claiming innocence so we can't take his word as truth.

Since no one died, the man and the 2 kids also know what happened and while she had no obligation to retreat, she did fucking retreat. Then she came back. Pretty sure that's not "Stand your Ground".

[ItsTheSheppy]

Not her children.


Pretty much this. The reason the Martin/Zimmerman case is so controversial is because no one knows what the hell happened except Zimmerman and understandably, he has a lot to benefit from claiming innocence so we can't take his word as truth.

Since no one died, the man and the 2 kids also know what happened and while she had no obligation to retreat, she did fucking retreat. Then she came back. Pretty sure that's not "Stand your Ground".

It's painful watching you guys just... pushing that rock up that hill. One thing is almost for certain; Martin didn't find Zimmerman and attack him. whatever happened between the two of them, Zimmerman made contact by following Martin. We know that much from the cell phone conversation with Martin's girlfriend.

Just... it'll be a lot less painful if you guys just sack up and admit that the cases are remarkably similar and that, to be perfectly honest, in the case of Alexander no human being lost their lives. Well, except Marissa, who loses 20 years of hers.

[Baneblade]

It's fucking Warborn all over again. Worse than talking to Traak, because at least he doesn't put up a pretense of reason.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Sobekeus, I cannot stress how little your insults mean to me. I don't mind reading them however, if you have a point to make we can talk about somewhere in there.

Do you have something new to bring to the conversation, or is that just a 'I think you're a doodoohead' post?

[Baneblade]

You assume Martin was pursued by Zimmerman after the 911 operator told he didn't have to.

You assume Zimmerman initiated the conflict.

Neither statement has evidence to support it.

We only know three facts:

Martin injured Zimmerman, ostensibly before Zimmerman shot him, and was shot.

Zimmerman did not make contact with Martin during the phone call.

Martin had no reason to believe Zimmerman was armed (concealed weapon).


It is not unreasonable to think Martin decided to start a fight, that is the kind of thug he was after all. But it is unreasonable to put it forward as fact.

You sir, are not looking at things objectively.

[Figment]

It is not unreasonable to think Martin decided to start a fight, that is the kind of thug he was after all. But it is unreasonable to put it forward as fact.

You sir, are not looking at things objectively.

Neither are you.

All your "positive" assumptions are about Zimmerman while all your negative assertions are about Martin due to bias.

[Baneblade]

I make no assumptions at all, merely show counter assumptions to the entrenched Martin-was-a-7-year-old-shot-by-the-Predator position. You know, debate, the thing where you don't just say the opposition is wrong, you actually demonstrate it.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Not only is Figment sound in his appraisal of your statement, Sobekeus, but you are also mistaken in that I lack evidence to support my claims.

The first you point out has to do with Zimmerman pursuing Martin. The evidence I am going by is the statement by Martin's girlfriend who has said that during the phone conversation, Martin remarked that he was being followed. Unless Zimmerman was 'following' him by standing completely still, which seems unlikely to be interpreted as suspicious behavior, I can conclude that Zimmerman 'pursued' Martin.

...Which leads to the natural conclusion that whatever altercation happened was initiated by Zimmerman. Had he not pursued Martin, there wouldn't have been a confrontation. There is a complete vacuum of evidence to suggest that the opposite was true; that Martin specifically sought out Zimmerman. Zimmerman's own 911 call transcript betrays as much, as it is clear that he is observing Martin from a distance and voices intent to check him out.

I was not there, but the evidence as I read it leans towards Zimmerman instigating whatever happened. All I have to go on is the evidence. You will notice that nowhere in there do I make any assumptions about Zimmerman's state of mind or personal character.

No, that I leave to you, to declare that Martin acted like 'the kind of thug he was' as if you knew him, or were there. But you didn't know him, and you weren't there, so in fact the person who appears to be making assumptions based on bias is yourself. Or at the very least it's the both of us, and in neither case do you get to go calling me out on supposed bias and apparently evidence-free assertions.

[Baneblade]

Not only is Figment sound in his appraisal of your statement, Sobekeus, but you are also mistaken in that I lack evidence to support my claims.

The first you point out has to do with Zimmerman pursuing Martin. The evidence I am going by is the statement by Martin's girlfriend who has said that during the phone conversation, Martin remarked that he was being followed. Unless Zimmerman was 'following' him by standing completely still, which seems unlikely to be interpreted as suspicious behavior, I can conclude that Zimmerman 'pursued' Martin.

...Which leads to the natural conclusion that whatever altercation happened was initiated by Zimmerman. Had he not pursued Martin, there wouldn't have been a confrontation. There is a complete vacuum of evidence to suggest that the opposite was true; that Martin specifically sought out Zimmerman. Zimmerman's own 911 call transcript betrays as much, as it is clear that he is observing Martin from a distance and voices intent to check him out.

I was not there, but the evidence as I read it leans towards Zimmerman instigating whatever happened. All I have to go on is the evidence. You will notice that nowhere in there do I make any assumptions about Zimmerman's state of mind or personal character.

No, that I leave to you, to declare that Martin acted like 'the kind of thug he was' as if you knew him, or were there. But you didn't know him, and you weren't there, so in fact the person who appears to be making assumptions based on bias is yourself. Or at the very least it's the both of us, and in neither case do you get to go calling me out on supposed bias and apparently evidence-free assertions.

Did she hear the gunshot?

[ItsTheSheppy]

I'll bite.

She claims she did not. she claims she heard Martin say he thought he was being followed, and then Martin talking to someone, and then the phone went dead.

[CutterJohn]

Nowhere. Silent. Why?

Because there are 10,000 crimes a day in this country, and only a handful of the most scandalous become national news. And the trifling fact that she's, you know, guilty.

[Baneblade]

I'll bite.

She claims she did not. she claims she heard Martin say he thought he was being followed, and then Martin talking to someone, and then the phone went dead.

So between the phone dying and the gunshot, anything could have happened.

We know Zimmerman was following Martin to begin with, up until the point when the 911 operator told he didn't have to at least. After that we can't be sure what ocurred since neither of them was on the phone any longer.

So several scenarios are possible:

Zimmerman did indeed pursue, intercept, and engage Martin resulting in Martin defending himself and Zimmerman shooting him.

Zimmerman broke off pursuit and Martin decided to talk to Zimmerman, maybe he thought Zimmerman was the suspicious one. Zimmerman drew down on Martin as he approached... well no, he couldn't have injured Zimmerman in the back of the head from range.

Martin decided to confront his shadow, not knowing he was armed. Martin surprised Zimmerman as he was returning to his car. Martin pushed Zimmerman to the ground, Zimmerman hit his head, then drew and shot Martin fearing for his life.

There are half dozen scenarios possible from what we know, what I cannot abide are people making assumptions as to which one is fact. Is George innocent? I don't know. Is Martin? I don't know.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I have never maintained that Zimmerman was guilty of felony murder. It is in fact very possible that Martin attacked him. At the core of my issue with this law is not who was in the wrong but rather that the law created a situation where someone died who might not have had to. In addition to that, it created a situation where we might never know what truly happened because authorities declined to investigate the events thoroughly, as a criminal case, until long after it had already grown cold.

As far as this thread is concerned, my intent is to shine a light on the inherent bias not just of the law and those who enforce it, but also those who immediately came to Zimmerman's passionate defense. It became a very sudden Gun Rights issue, and much was made of Zimmerman's right to kill in his own defense. But the lack of such support for Marissa, who killed nobody, is deafening.

No, quite the opposite in fact. It is clear she is guilty, of course, who could question it? No, of course the law doesn't apply to her. Why? Well, here, have a laundry list of excuses. But of course, when you provide a similar list and apply them to Zimmerman, hahah, allow me to explain to you why they are flawed.

My point is in the enforcement of this stupid, stupid law, there is a clear bias.

Zimmerman may be in fact completely justified. Maybe Trayvon did totally roid out and decide that the Race War Was Totally On and attacked Zimmerman for... some reason. Maybe it was the Black Rage we keep hearing about. Even if that were true, nobody needed to die, and if someone needed to die, then it needed to be investigated. And if the law is good enough to give Zimmerman what would have been a pass if it wasn't for the outcry, then that same law should apply in the same way in this case.

But we're "all a little bit racist", so it doesn't.

As far as I'm concerned it's all a giant mess, every inch of it, and just stands as a shining example of our idiot hubris.

[Baneblade]

Well, blaming the law for Martin's death is a stretch, that incident could have happened anywhere.

[Figment]

Well, blaming the law for Martin's death is a stretch, that incident could have happened anywhere.

Unless:


Guns were not allowed to be worn concealed
One would not be allowed to wear a gun at all
Zimmerman did not believe himself to be a vigilante of sorts


In the first case it is questionable whether the Martin confronts Zimmerman scenario would have occured, while in the second case Martin would never have been shot in the first place and what you may have had instead would have been a mere street fight. In the third case, Zimmerman would have called the police and left it at that. Instead, he may well have seen himself as a righteous extension of the law and comforted with the thought he was armed and could use force if needed, instead of a concerned citizen who'd leave it to the police to handle things.



Of course, maybe it's all the fault of fashion consultants that support hoods.

[ItsTheSheppy]

In fairness, the law is a product of the culture, and it's the culture that needs fixing. A culture that sees black teenagers as automatic targets for suspicion, or views armed civilian vigilantes in a positive light. A culture that has yet to claw its way out of values born of the late 1800's.

The law is a convenient target to criticize because in doing so, you cut closer to the source of the sickness.

[Figment]

What is White Privilege? - YouTube

After that other vid, found this one as well. Oldie, but goes with the topic.

[Red Beard]

If it's indeed true that he was leaving with his back turned to her with the kids beside him, stand your ground logic doesn't apply.

"I was fearing for my life so I shot him in the back"...? I don't think so.

[Warborn]

Just goes to show, if you're in the US and you find yourself in an armed confrontation you should always, always kill your opposing number and then simply say he was threatening you so you defended yourself.

More seriously, warning shots are irresponsible as fuck for civilians to be popping off in civilized areas. Her having left the confrontation and returning armed and then shooting wildly with no intent to kill is criminal. Not 20 years criminal, but nonetheless. Deserves restating. She shouldn't have done what she did but it wasn't anything like reasonable giving her 20 years.

[Red Beard]

Just goes to show, if you're in the US and you find yourself in an armed confrontation you should always, always kill your opposing number and then simply say he was threatening you so you defended yourself.

More seriously, warning shots are irresponsible as fuck for civilians to be popping off in civilized areas. Her having left the confrontation and returning armed and then shooting wildly with no intent to kill is criminal. Not 20 years criminal, but nonetheless. Deserves restating. She shouldn't have done what she did but it wasn't anything like reasonable giving her 20 years.

Agreed. I suspect if he was in fact heading out the door with the kids; it was more a matter control rage.

[excelle]

A woman has been sentenced in Florida to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

She attempted to use the Stand Your Ground law to justify the shot, which as far as I can tell hit and hurt nobody. Apparently there were children in the house.

Claiming she feared for her life, she fired a warning shot into the wall. Rejected a plea deal that would have netted her three years of prison time, she has instead been sentenced to 20 years.

Curious how the cops didn't even investigate Trayvon Martin's killing because Zimmerman cited Stand Your Ground, but here a warning shot that kills nobody nets this woman 20 years in jail.

Oh, and she's black. So there's that.

And before you ask, no the system is working just fine. There is no prejudice, the law is perfectly sound and being enforced fairly and evenly, thank you very much.

She is black and living in the south so the stand your ground law doesn't apply to her obviously. In reality, it should apply to her more than Zimmerman. She didn't stalk anyone around a neighborhood and then act surprised when it provokes a fight. :lol:

[WildGunsTomcat]

Phew.

Now I remember why I took a break from this forum.

[Figment]

Phew.

Now I remember why I took a break from this forum.

You discovered Pr0nTube? =o

[WildGunsTomcat]

You discovered Pr0nTube? =o

Nah. Just the circular conversations. Arguing the same shit over and over.

Sheppy, you and Warborn on one side....Malorn, Sobe, and Duke on the other.

Every single day. Day in...day out.

Gets tiring. :)

[Figment]

Nah. Just the circular conversations. Arguing the same shit over and over.

Sheppy, you and Warborn on one side....Malorn, Sobe, and Duke on the other.

Every single day. Day in...day out.

Gets tiring. :)

:( We need fresh sacrifi... I mean bloo... I mean people.

[Baneblade]

Nah. Just the circular conversations. Arguing the same shit over and over.

Sheppy, you and Warborn on one side....Malorn, Sobe, and Duke on the other.

Every single day. Day in...day out.

Gets tiring. :)

I have a side? Is it photogenic?

[Figment]

I have a side? Is it photogenic?

NC I do think. But that's the same side I'm on. :x

I'm confused now! D:

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Well no, she's still a woman so she's pretty much screwed coming both ways. If she was a white man, though, it's possible s(he) would see donations pour in (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-27/justice/justice_florida-zimmerman-money_1_judge-delays-decision-website-gag-order?_s=PM:JUSTICE) or have targets made of the person he was shooting at. (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/14/man-sells-out-of-trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets/)

But no, a white woman? She's clearly hysterical. Probably not getting enough sex.

[Warborn]

Minorities are disproportionately targeted by cops and receive heftier sentences for the same crimes compared to white people. If she were white I don't doubt she still would have been charged, but her sentence would more than likely have been less.

[NivexQ]

Minorities are disproportionately targeted by cops and receive heftier sentences for the same crimes compared to white people. If she were white I don't doubt she still would have been charged, but her sentence would more than likely have been less.

You mean she would have gotten a three year plea bargain? Oh, wait...

[ItsTheSheppy]

You mean she would have gotten a three year plea bargain? Oh, wait...

Community service perhaps. Or a strongly written letter from the district attorney.

[Warborn]

Or she would have been charged under a different offense. Or not charged at all. Who cares what she might have been charged with. The bottom line, as I said I thought pretty plainly, is that for the same offenses minorities are on average convicted more and receive stiffer sentences for. There is no doubt that the judicial system in the US does not care for certain demographics.

[Baneblade]

Do you have evidence of that?

[WildGunsTomcat]

So much white guilt in here. Wow.

[Vash02]

So much white guilt in here. Wow.

It's amazing that the problem you jump to when confronted with overt racism by the police and judicial system is that white people are guilty about it.

[Figment]

It's amazing that the problem you jump to when confronted with overt racism by the police and judicial system is that white people are guilty about it.

That isn't what he was saying.

White Man's Guilt is about feeling responsible today for descendants of victims of more ancient white men's actions. Like feeling guilty for descendants of slaves and excusing them for not being able to fend for themselves, instead blaming your own group.

[Vash02]

That isn't the context though. This racism is happening today, not a 100+ years ago.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Yes it is happening today.

What I'm seeing in here mostly is people jumping to conclusions.

"It must have been a racist police system that is putting this woman in jail."

Where's your evidence of that? All I see is "White man this and holding down the black man that..."

There's no evidence of that at all. A crazy bitch shot at someone and got jailed.

I see people making sweeping conclusions based on little to no real data, just what they *think* is happening.

Like I said, status quo on this board.

[Vash02]

http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_Stop_and_Frisk_Fact_Sheet.pdf

In New York 53% of those stopped by police were black people yet black people only make up 26% of the population of New York.
Justified if they find more contraband on black people right? nope, you are more likely to find a contraband on a white person.


Also a paper on the racial disparity in federal criminal charging etc.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377