• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Totally different scenarios. I'd say both juries got it right, but for two different reasons--and SYG applied in neither case!

SYG did not apply in Z's case because he could not flee, so he made no choice to stand his ground. He simply defended his life from the only position he could.

SYG did not apply in Alexander's case because she did flee, got the gun, and came back! Hers was not even a case of self-defense, unless you buy into the whole "battered wife syndrome" BS. I don't. But, that is still not SYG.

Two totally different cases. The only similarity is that folks are misapplying SYG to both of them.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Totally different scenarios. I'd say both juries got it right, but for two different reasons--and SYG applied in neither case!

SYG did not apply in Z's case because he could not flee, so he made no choice to stand his ground. He simply defended his life from the only position he could.

SYG did not apply in Alexander's case because she did flee, got the gun, and came back! Hers was not even a case of self-defense, unless you buy into the whole "battered wife syndrome" BS. I don't. But, that is still not SYG.

Two totally different cases. The only similarity is that folks are misapplying SYG to both of them.

INSIDE HER OWN HOUSE!!!!! she was forced into the garage with the pistol and re-confronted him inside the kitchen! A PERSON'S HOME IS THEIR CASTLE
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Had she said NOTHING she would not be sentenced. She is serving time not because bullets came out of a firearm but because babbling came out of her pie hole.

Now, I do feel for her if she's not lying, but her lawyer could have gotten her off had she not admitted to brandishing, discharging her firearm without just cause.

Heck, even if she said 'I was in fear for my life...call my lawyer, I want medical attention' (implying she missed, not implying she shot the firearm, not implying she got it from the garage and returned...SHE MADE THE PROSECUTION'S case. Otherwise they'd have had to figure out all this and prove it.

Lessons learned: don't talk to the cops. Talk to your lawyer.

FWIW.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
please cite where I'm wrong.

all material I've seen says the shots were fired inside the kitchen. she was in a home she had a right to be in.

Does not allow one to commit Aggravated Assault with a firearm. The State obviously presented evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not act in self-defense and she did not present sufficient (any) evidence to refute that.

If you accept the Zimmerman verdict, you must also accept the Alexander verdict. Facts were presented to the jury and they came to a decision.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Does not allow one to commit Aggravated Assault with a firearm. The State obviously presented evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not act in self-defense and she did not present sufficient (any) evidence to refute that.

If you accept the Zimmerman verdict, you must also accept the Alexander verdict. Facts were presented to the jury and they came to a decision.

or what passes as evidence in Jacksonville. black person holding gun, black person fires gun, double felony if black woman fires gun.

SLAM the gavel has fallen and justice prevails again in the sunshine state

a person in someone's house threatening them with physical harm is just that. deadly force should be authorized (and probably would've been had she been a rather attractive woman of caucasion complexion)

the media's mistake is that they're comparing this to Zimmerman and saying that this case means Zimmerman should've gone to prison, they're wrong. this case means that innocent people are being railroaded in Florida and that needs to be corrected. and if I were governor I would've begun a task force dedicated to exonerating people and providing them pardons and this woman would've been number 1 on the list.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
That's why I support Napoleonic code in respect to a person's land and dwelling. Makes the law so much simpler. You get the shoot anyone on your land or in your home you want, period...no reason needed other than the person is on your land and you did not invite the person over.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Sorry,but that's just stupid. A friend drops by unannounced and you get into a dispute. You can shoot him???

You have posted some of the most moronic things on this forum, but that bit of idiocy from you takes the cake.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Sorry,but that's just stupid. A friend drops by unannounced and you get into a dispute. You can shoot him???

You have posted some of the most moronic things on this forum, but that bit of idiocy from you takes the cake.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

You have been brainwashed by liberals my man .... and its clear in the circumstances you state that the guy was invited ...

I am interested in your thoughts, please tell me less.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No. It is not clear. And that is the idiocy of your suggestion. Would everyone need to have written proof that they are invited to avoid getting shot?

Stupidity, and I am done with it. Your foolishness needs not another second of my time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
If you accept the Zimmerman verdict, you must also accept the Alexander verdict. Facts were presented to the jury and they came to a decision.

Must I?

I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to a jury who finds a person innocent, but not to one who finds her guilty. Especially not with the rate at which people are railroaded by the system (i.e. most criminal convictions).
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Had she stayed in the garage it would have been a different scenario.

BINGO! Not only did she return with a firearm, she discharged that firearm into a wall that her children were on the other side. That is why she was convicted. She was away from danger, she returned with a weapon, and then endangered innocent children. 20 years is a bit stiff, but she endangered the lives of children. She was offered 3 years in a plea, and did not take it.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
so the hell what? did Zimmerman just get exonerated on the fact he didn't have to stay in the car. sounds to me like you support "duty to retreat laws" you have a right to traverse your own house at any time you damn well please.

She left the scene, got a gun, returned and shot at her children. What part of that do you not understand?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Getting a weapon and advancing is not simply "not retreating." It is far more than that.

Anyway, the important thing is that there is nothing in common between the two cases apart from the defendant claimed self-defense and Satana...er...Angela was involved in both cases.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Getting a weapon and advancing is not simply "not retreating." It is far more than that.

Anyway, the important thing is that there is nothing in common between the two cases apart from the defendant claimed self-defense and Satana...er...Angela was involved in both cases.

Not every case the wicked witch of the east prosecuted is going to be bogus because the GZ case was. Yes MA's sentence seems stiff, until one sees she shot at her children. It may not have been intentional, but it sure was stupid. Reckless child endangerment X 2 probably would have brought just as stiff a sentence. MA should have took the deal.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Must I?

I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to a jury who finds a person innocent, but not to one who finds her guilty. Especially not with the rate at which people are railroaded by the system (i.e. most criminal convictions).

Yes you must.

Unless of course you subscribe to the notion that all/any juries are not selected in accordance with due process.



You can disagree with the laws the conviction is based upon. If so work to get them changed.

You can disagree with the format and/or content of jury instructions. If so work to get them changed.

You can disagree with the law and hope jurors, as is their right, do not convict based on a unconstitutional or unjust law.

What you cannot do is bitch about the jury's decision, unless of course you have facts to support a charge of jury tampering.
 
Top