marshaul
Campaign Veteran
lol. Or what? I go to jail? Someone beats me up?
I can bitch about anything all I want.
For the record. :lol:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
George Zimmerman Vs. Marrissa Alexander
- Thread starter 1245A Defender
- Start date
lol. Or what? I go to jail? Someone beats me up?
I can bitch about anything all I want.
For the record. :lol:
notalawyer
Regular Member
And you will be ignored and ridiculed and marginalized by most of society as is happening to 'Attorney' Crump and his merry band of Social Engineering, race baiting, money grubbing scumbags.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Ah. I see. So now you're going to ignore and ridicule me for asserting a right to – hypothetically mind you – question a jury who delivers a guilty verdict?
:lol:
I question every jury who refuses to nullify BS malum prohibitum offenses, for one. I question every jury who has let a prosecutor railroad an innocent man onto death row.
Forgive me if "ignore and ridicule" those who do not.
77zach
Regular Member
20 years?
Gross injustice.
Gross injustice.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That's a great reason to refuse to convict right there.
Juries should nullify when the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Legislators and prosecutors can cry me a river of tears.
I place justice on an altar high above the "law".
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Well she wasn't charged with putting her children in danger, she was charged with shooting at the husband.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
OHHH yes she was! Better go back and actually study the case. She was charged with THREE counts, one for the husband and two for the two children.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I didn't see that.
still it only adds to my argument, the Angela Corey is a deranged racist.
so she uses the existing law to the effect of "self defense while black" is a crime in Florida. I'm sure the jury pondered really hard seeing a black lady represented by a public defender. let me guess who their star witness was that she shot at the children, the abusive husband?
Then she gets 20 years under Florida's [strike]prison industrial complex supported limits on judicial discretion[/strike] mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
The people who wrote the SYG law said this was exactly what it was intended for. glad to see civil rights are well respected in the deep south, where the VRA no longer applies....
goody goody.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The children, sheeeesh!:uhoh:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
it's been proven time and time again that children are terrible witnesses. and are very easy to coach.
I consider any words of a child prosecution witness to be the words of the prosecutor herself.
we can point to numerous panics in small communities created by child accusations that were really the coaching of a malevolent adult.
notalawyer
Regular Member
Any credibility you might have had, just went out the window.
You're pontificating on a case where you don't even know what the defendant was charged with! :uhoh:
You do not understand the burden nor quantum of proof required in these cases. Know nothing about what evidence was or was not presented, but you still feel qualified to opine on it.
If you had the slightest understanding of the legislative process in Florida and the particular legislators of which you speak, you would know they did not write the law, they merely put their name on the work of others and did so, not out of some altruistic purpose, they did it for their own political benefit.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Any credibility you might have had, just went out the window.
You're pontificating on a case where you don't even know what the defendant was charged with! :uhoh:
You do not understand the burden nor quantum of proof required in these cases. Know nothing about what evidence was or was not presented, but you still feel qualified to opine on it.
If you had the slightest understanding of the legislative process in Florida and the particular legislators of which you speak, you would know they did not write the law, they merely put their name on the work of others and did so, not out of some altruistic purpose, they did it for their own political benefit.
so I can do that three times a year... Everyone on gun forums does that.
DCKilla
Regular Member
"Dead men tell no tales"
MamabearCali
Regular Member
IMO I think 20 years is a ridiculous number when no one was actually hurt. A five year suspended sentence would have fit the crime she was accused of.
The punishment needs to fit the crime. This does not.
That said I don't think this is a SYG case. Stand your ground means you don't have to retreat. It does not give a person the right to return now armed to a volatile and dangerous situation.
The punishment needs to fit the crime. This does not.
That said I don't think this is a SYG case. Stand your ground means you don't have to retreat. It does not give a person the right to return now armed to a volatile and dangerous situation.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
This woman clearly had an idiot for a defense attorney. Its hard to believe that the defense could not convince a jury that this woman was simply shooting into the air in an effort to scare off the attacker of her children. Clearly she was not in any clear and present danger since she was holding a weapon however there is an argument that her children were in clear and present danger from the guy that she had a restraining order against. She could have killed the attacker of her children but she made an honorable decision to spare his life by firing some warning shots into the air in an effort to not kill another human being, even a human being that is legally restrained from the defendant and her children. Hence she looks like a great person for sparing the life of her children's attacker
while saving her children from a restrained assailant. ( The defense rest)
Law is not always fair,it is sometimes unfair and not always equally applied.
Also having the better legal counsel on your case makes the difference.
In State v Zimmerman, while the prosecutors case was weak on the evidence, Mr Zimmerman was fortunate to have a great defense team in his corner.
My .02
Best regards,
CCJ
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I don't get how anyone can believe that. She was her own house firing at a guy wh she had a restraining order against. She didn't run to the store, then come back and shoot him, she retrieved a gun from a location inside her house to deal with the threat inside her house.
20 years is becuase the right wing republicans passed laws that mandate minimum sentencing and take away a judges discretion.
DCKilla
Regular Member
The jury found her guilty. If she had killed the man, things most likely would be in her favor. It goes to show warning shots are a bad idea in a self defense scenario.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Yes sir, this is a classic example. The prosecution even trotted out "if she was in fear for her life, why didn't she aim center of mass to stop the threat?" (paraphrase).
It's funny what a hard time I have explaining how this will play out to people. I know a couple folks who remain convinced – despite my best efforts to rectify their belief – that a jury will look favorably on them for firing a warning shot.
Personally, I think this is evidence of overzealous prosecution. I'm inclined to give a legitimate victim a whole lot of leeway. After all, they didn't decide to put themselves in a situation where their life is in danger. If a warning shot ends the encounter, very well. If the victim shoots the guy in the face and he drops dead... very well.
But as it stands: do not make "warning" shots.
MamabearCali
Regular Member
Perhaps...so you are aware this libertarian leaning conservative is against mandatory minimum sentencing. If it was up to me I would get rid of it in an instant.
If you leave the threat go back get a gun and go back toward the threat, you are at fault. Had she stayed in the garage and the threat came towards her she would not have been guilty.
Also, I guess you didn't get the part where Zimmerman was going back to his car and got attacked. Or you just wanted to conveniently leave that out.
Last edited: