FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Smurfette Principle on April 17, 2012, 06:35:17 pm
-
I am fucking pissed. (http://loop21.com/life/marissa-alexander-stand-your-ground-against-black-people)
Nowadays the words "Stand Your Ground" have almost become synonymous with "no fair" and "unjust," due mostly to the non-arrest of George Zimmerman the night he shot Trayvon Martin and that law that protected him up until just last week.
But the cases of John McNeil and now Marissa Alexander have highlighted the inconsistencies in the laws application.
No shit, Sherlock. They're also missing CeCe McDonald, who has also been charged a crime despite falling under that law and also not hurting anyone.
According to a blogsite pleading her case, in 2010, Alexander found herself in a violent confrontation with her husband. Her husband already had a history of abuse towards her and other women in the past, causing Alexander to place an injunction for protection against violence on him.
On this day in particular Alexander says that her husband, unprovoked, assaulted her in the bathroom of her home. She managed to get out of his grasp and ran to her car in the garage to leave, but realized that she didn't have her keys. She was also unable to open the garage door to get out because of a mechanical malfunction.
At this point, she was very fearful for her life, but knew that she had to at least get her cell phone to call for help. That's when she grabbed a gun, for which she had a concealed weapon permit. When she walked back into the kitchen area, she saw her husband again, who was supposed to be leaving through another door with his two sons (her stepsons). When he saw her, she says he screamed "bitch, I'll kill you" and charged at her. She then pointed her weapon at the ceiling, turned her head and shot in the air. That scared her husband off.
But, he promptly called the police and told them that she shot the gun at him and his sons. She was taken to jail where she has been sitting ever since.
Alexander has been trying to use Florida's Stand Your Ground laws to defend her actions, but to no avail. A judge ruled that Alexander was actually in the wrong, saying that she could have exited to safety through one of the other doors or windows in the house instead of crossing paths with her husband in the kitchen.
Except the whole point of Stand Your Ground is that you're supposed to - get this - stand your ground.
She's been charged with aggravated assault without intent to harm (http://www.federaljack.com/?p=174451), which carries a minimum of 20 years despite the fact that no one was injured. I'd also like to point out that she has stepsons from this marriage, and I will bet anything that he got at least partial custody of them despite being an abusive fuckwit.
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz5ecjBPzA1r6tih0o2_400.gif)
-
Well duh. Everyone knows them petite little wimmin-folk don't know how to handle firearms. That's a man's job.
-
......
Alexander has been trying to use Florida's Stand Your Ground laws to defend her actions, but to no avail. A judge ruled that Alexander was actually in the wrong, saying that she could have exited to safety through one of the other doors or windows in the house instead of crossing paths with her husband in the kitchen.[/b][/size]
......
[/quote]
So the one time when this law would seem to have had a postive effect and... the judge rules against the woman.
Hell I dont' think this even needed to be covered under SYG since she was in her home (castle law) AND was not able to retreat.
But how much do you want to bet part of the problem was it was a she said/he and his sons said....
-
Hey look at it this way with the way the GOP hates women moderate to center right women will vote democrat in droves
Still angry dimension time
-
That article is not telling the whole truth. She had been living elsewhere for two months. The argument began when she came to visit and he found out she had been exchanging texts with her ex-husband.
[The husband] moved to the the living room where his children were. Subsequently, the Defendant emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. The Defendant testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite the Defendant's claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from [him] she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.) The Defendant then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. The Defendant returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three victims....The Defendant shot at [her husband], nearly missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The Victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. The Defendant stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss
-
She can trade places with Zimmerman.
-
Should've shot him.
-
Should've shot him.
Did you read the link to the court document? Way more going on there.
-
I think Tenfold was being sarcastic.
-
I can understand not using the front or back doors to try to escape seeing as the guy was likely still in the house. However, not calling 911 afterward is extremely off.
-
I think after you shoot someone in self-defense you should call 911 anyway so that you don't look like a murder suspect.
Just sayin'.
-
I can understand not using the front or back doors to try to escape seeing as the guy was likely still in the house. However, not calling 911 afterward is extremely off.
If your legitimately afraid for your life you might not be thinking clearly or rationally.
-
She didn't shoot him. She shot at him. Although her claim to have fired in the air is a pit suss seeing as they tracked the bullet through the kitchen wall. My understanding is that she still has to stand trial and can still rely on self defence (stand your ground or whatever) but will have to let a jury rather than a judge decide.
-
She didn't shoot him. She shot at him. Although her claim to have fired in the air is a pit suss seeing as they tracked the bullet through the kitchen wall. My understanding is that she still has to stand trial and can still rely on self defence (stand your ground or whatever) but will have to let a jury rather than a judge decide.
Even if she is lying, it does show that the SYG laws are highly subjective. If anything, I think there is more damning evidence against Zimmerman (not to start a debate, we have another thread) than Alexander and Zimmerman would be a free man right now if not for the media's focus on the case.
And not to draw large conclusions, but it does speak to Wyatt Cenac's point on the Daily show not too long ago that white people (men) get the benefit of the doubt regarding these laws.
EDIT for clarity: The whole SYG laws are stupid and should be done away with and that's what I'm directing this post towards. I don't know enough about this case to make an educated statement on it either way.
-
She re-entered the house with a firearm and shot at her husband. I can understand the court choosing to ignore the stand your ground case. Of course, like QueenofHearts said this is more damning on Zimmerman, than it is on this case. In this case it largely sounds like justice is following its winding and convoluted course.
Of note though as to why she didn't call 911 is because she had attempted to leave without her cellphone. She claims the reason she went back inside the house with the firearm was to retrieve her phone and then leave. If at least the part of her not having a phone on her is true, she would have been unable to call 911 regardless of her intent when re-entering the house.
Personally, I doubt things will turn out in her favour, but I think that is just my cynical and jaded views on justice coming through.
-
I think Tenfold was being sarcastic.
Only sorta.
If the guy had a history of abusive behavior, taking a shot at him in the aftermath of a confrontation - while not necessarily excusable - is somewhat understandable. If you've suffered at someone else's hands long enough, once you break...things get messy, and no, you don't think straight. I think trying to put her away for 20 years for missing her target is a little off-base, considering you can get roughly the same sentence for actually killing someone under the right circumstances.
I only skimmed the articles in question tho, so feel free to throw most of this out as baseless wargarble if I'm arguing on false premise.
-
I think Tenfold was being sarcastic.
Only sorta.
If the guy had a history of abusive behavior, taking a shot at him in the aftermath of a confrontation - while not necessarily excusable - is somewhat understandable. If you've suffered at someone else's hands long enough, once you break...things get messy, and no, you don't think straight. I think trying to put her away for 20 years for missing her target is a little off-base, considering you can get roughly the same sentence for actually killing someone under the right circumstances.
I only skimmed the articles in question tho, so feel free to throw most of this out as baseless wargarble if I'm arguing on false premise.
Typically wtih abuse murders the question is whether or not the burning bed defense comes into play
-
Hello term I've never heard before.
Considering I'm afraid that googling that will get me either strange porn or Lady Gaga music videos, can someone explain the "burning bed defense"?
-
Hello term I've never heard before.
Considering I'm afraid that googling that will get me either strange porn or Lady Gaga music videos, can someone explain the "burning bed defense"?
It's the idea of the "battered wife" defense. Basically, even if a murder is premeditated (like this one, where she set fire to the bed after being abused for thirteen years), you can argue that it was a slow build-up of insanity and you snapped.
-
It's commonly known as "Battered Woman Syndrome." As Smurfette said, it is used as an "imperfect defense" to murder in an attempt to mitigate murder down to manslaughter. The idea is that self-defense can be used in a situation where a "rational" person would believe they are at risk of death or serious bodily injury. A person who has been systematically abused by their spouse can reach a point where, even though they are not at that exact moment being attacked, they believe they must kill their partner or they will be killed. So while (s)he honestly believes (s)he will die unless (s)he kills his/her partner at that moment, most people would not consider that belief "rational." (Because the partner was asleep, watching TV, etc.)
49 states* and DC allow expert testimony regarding BWS, though not all states allow the expert to testify about whether the defendant in that exact case suffered from BWS.
* North Carolina is the exception.
(I am taking a Domestic Violence class this semester. And I am doing my paper on male victims of DV, and so am a little touchy about assuming victims are female. :) )
-
But Eric...didn't you know? Men can never ever be victims of domestic violence because men are strong strapping lads and women are wilting willowy flowers.
Ironbite-or some shit like that.
-
It's commonly known as "Battered Woman Syndrome." As Smurfette said, it is used as an "imperfect defense" to murder in an attempt to mitigate murder down to manslaughter. The idea is that self-defense can be used in a situation where a "rational" person would believe they are at risk of death or serious bodily injury. A person who has been systematically abused by their spouse can reach a point where, even though they are not at that exact moment being attacked, they believe they must kill their partner or they will be killed. So while (s)he honestly believes (s)he will die unless (s)he kills his/her partner at that moment, most people would not consider that belief "rational." (Because the partner was asleep, watching TV, etc.)
49 states* and DC allow expert testimony regarding BWS, though not all states allow the expert to testify about whether the defendant in that exact case suffered from BWS.
* North Carolina is the exception.
(I am taking a Domestic Violence class this semester. And I am doing my paper on male victims of DV, and so am a little touchy about assuming victims are female. :) )
I did this for mock trial and she would have to prove that there was no way period like in the trial her family told her you're a woman deal with it
-
But Eric...didn't you know? Men can never ever be victims of domestic violence because men are strong strapping lads and women are wilting willowy flowers.
Ironbite-or some shit like that.
Not to mention men can never be raped by a woman because they obviously can control when they're hard and when they're not.
-
The linked court document goes on to mention, though, that after this woman posted bail and was told to stay away from the people she shot at, she then went on to drive to the man's new house and physically attacked the man, causing him injury. Then they revoked her bail and rearrested her. In both attacks the man called 9-1-1 but the woman did not. I'm certainly willing to consider battered woman syndrome to an extent, and none of us can really know all of what went on. But it sounds like a lot more is going on in that dysfunctional relationship than what the first article might lead us to believe.
-
Basically, even if a murder is premeditated (like this one, where she set fire to the bed after being abused for thirteen years), you can argue that it was a slow build-up of insanity and you snapped.
Been there, considered that. The moment when you realize that the painful death of someone else is both necessary and justified toward ensuring your own survival is...enlightening.
The linked court document goes on to mention, though, that after this woman posted bail and was told to stay away from the people she shot at, she then went on to drive to the man's new house and physically attacked the man, causing him injury. Then they revoked her bail and rearrested her. In both attacks the man called 9-1-1 but the woman did not. I'm certainly willing to consider battered woman syndrome to an extent, and none of us can really know all of what went on. But it sounds like a lot more is going on in that dysfunctional relationship than what the first article might lead us to believe.
This is troubling. Even if she's a battered woman, trying to seek out and kill someone over and over isn't right. Hopefully someone steps in and settles this before she can hurt anyone.
-
But Eric...didn't you know? Men can never ever be victims of domestic violence because men are strong strapping lads and women are wilting willowy flowers.
Ironbite-or some shit like that.
Not to mention men can never be raped by a woman because they obviously can control when they're hard and when they're not.
And don’t you know a guy is always willing, anyway? You don’t gotta worry about consent because all men are sex maniacs who want some and want it now.
-
But Eric...didn't you know? Men can never ever be victims of domestic violence because men are strong strapping lads and women are wilting willowy flowers.
Ironbite-or some shit like that.
Not to mention men can never be raped by a woman because they obviously can control when they're hard and when they're not.
And don’t you know a guy is always willing, anyway? You don’t gotta worry about consent because all men are sex maniacs who want some and want it now.
Yes.
Oh, and that kid who got raped by totally scored it with the hot science teacher? So lucky.
BLARRTPGHGFKLFLLKKNNN...
I think I just ejected my stomach.
-
But Eric...didn't you know? Men can never ever be victims of domestic violence because men are strong strapping lads and women are wilting willowy flowers.
Ironbite-or some shit like that.
Not to mention men can never be raped by a woman because they obviously can control when they're hard and when they're not.
And don’t you know a guy is always willing, anyway? You don’t gotta worry about consent because all men are sex maniacs who want some and want it now.
And this is the reason why gay men aren't always allowed to Women's shelter while trying to escape abusive boyfriend/husband.
Yes.
Oh, and that kid who got raped by totally scored it with the hot science teacher? So lucky.
BLARRTPGHGFKLFLLKKNNN...
I think I just ejected my stomach.
Oh that thing... I seriously hate that. If a guy (or even worse a boy) gets raped, who cares men love sex so he must have enjoyed it! Fuck you assholes. It is already bad that some female rape victims get shamed "because the way they dressed clearly means they were asking for it." but in the case of a man just because he is a man means he must have enjoyed it, wanted it or atleast he should have enjoyed it. AAARGH!
-
She re-entered the house with a firearm and shot at her husband. I can understand the court choosing to ignore the stand your ground case. Of course, like QueenofHearts said this is more damning on Zimmerman, than it is on this case. In this case it largely sounds like justice is following its winding and convoluted course.
This
The one time that most of us have seen the Stand Your Ground law upheld through court was this case
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-05/news/30595165_1_face-murder-charges-killing-bus (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-05/news/30595165_1_face-murder-charges-killing-bus)
And that was because the victim tried to avoid the situation at all costs till there was no escape left.
-
Oh, and that kid who got raped by totally scored it with the hot science teacher? So lucky.
Yeah! Totally lucky. That’s like every teen’s fantasy! ::)
The one time that most of us have seen the Stand Your Ground law upheld through court was this case
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-05/news/30595165_1_face-murder-charges-killing-bus (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-05/news/30595165_1_face-murder-charges-killing-bus)
And that was because the victim tried to avoid the situation at all costs till there was no escape left.
Like other people have said, I was under the impression that the whole point of Stand Your Ground was to make it so folks weren’t required to exhaust every avenue of escape. You know, to let the folks “stand their ground.”
In any case, if she did need to get her cell phone, then she needed to go back inside to get it. And if she truly feared for her life, it makes sense that she would at least want to be armed “just in case.” So that she went back inside with a gun doesn’t seem to me to really say anything about her guilt or innocence.
-
Oh, and that kid who got raped by totally scored it with the hot science teacher? So lucky.
Yeah! Totally lucky. That’s like every teen’s fantasy! ::)
The one time that most of us have seen the Stand Your Ground law upheld through court was this case
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-05/news/30595165_1_face-murder-charges-killing-bus (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-05/news/30595165_1_face-murder-charges-killing-bus)
And that was because the victim tried to avoid the situation at all costs till there was no escape left.
Like other people have said, I was under the impression that the whole point of Stand Your Ground was to make it so folks weren’t required to exhaust every avenue of escape. You know, to let the folks “stand their ground.”
In any case, if she did need to get her cell phone, then she needed to go back inside to get it. And if she truly feared for her life, it makes sense that she would at least want to be armed “just in case.” So that she went back inside with a gun doesn’t seem to me to really say anything about her guilt or innocence.
Yeah, I suppose going to a neighbor instead to use their phone is kinda out of the question when you have a cell phone in a potentially dangerous area
-
And I suppose everyone thinks so logically when they're scared for their life.
-
And I suppose everyone thinks so logically when they're scared for their life.
It does not matter if she was scared for her life. As I understand it she went to his house and was not suppose to be there. That right there means he is the only one that would be covered by castle doctrine.
-
It does not matter if she was scared for her life. As I understand it she went to his house and was not suppose to be there. That right there means he is the only one that would be covered by castle doctrine.
It was her house too. She had every right to be there.
-
Okay, I thought she had been barred from being there.
-
And I suppose everyone thinks so logically when they're scared for their life.
I admit people don't think clearly, but that seems like it's a bit extreme to believe in this case.
-
Yeah, I suppose going to a neighbor instead to use their phone is kinda out of the question when you have a cell phone in a potentially dangerous area
That assumes she feels safe and comfortable asking her neighbors for help and that the thought crossed her mind.
I know that in this situation, Marissa Alexander explicitly said she was thinking about the phone specifically to make a phone call, but I would like to mention that another reason to retrieve a cell phone is that because it just might contain sensitive information. Especially if it is a smart phone with who knows what kind of personal documents, it could have a lot of stuff you do not want an angry, potentially dangerous ex to have access to.
-
And I suppose everyone thinks so logically when they're scared for their life.
I admit people don't think clearly, but that seems like it's a bit extreme to believe in this case.
Not extreme at all.
-
Her husband threatened to kill her and charged her. IMO, even if she had shot him, that would have been justified. I'd shoot someone who screamed that they'd kill me and began to run at me.
-
Not according to the report
From page one;
"[The husband] moved to the the living room where his children were. Subsequently, the Defendant emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. The Defendant testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite the Defendant's claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from [him] she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence presented to support her claim.) The Defendant then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. The Defendant returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three victims....The Defendant shot at [her husband], nearly missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The Victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. The Defendant stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911."
Which is why I highly doubt she went back to get her phone for anything as well