Marissa Alexander

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-11, 10:53 PM

A woman has been sentenced in Florida to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband.

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 · 2012-05-11, 11:28 PM

So, what is your point?

Neurotoxin · 2012-05-12, 12:43 AM

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 · 2012-05-12, 02:03 AM

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/897...fhhnu641jfe9bv
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/897...miqwxbhymqs4e5
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/897...i7qbrfuufztfx4

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

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-12, 07:25 AM

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.

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

CutterJohn · 2012-05-12, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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

ArcIyte · 2012-05-14, 09:45 AM

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 · 2012-05-14, 09:59 AM

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

CutterJohn · 2012-05-14, 10:26 PM

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.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-15, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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, 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.

CutterJohn · 2012-05-15, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

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.

Vash02 · 2012-05-15, 02:37 AM

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 · 2012-05-15, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

Geist · 2012-05-15, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

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 · 2012-05-15, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Geist

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.