Thought 20 was bad? Marissa Alexander up for 60 years if convicted again

[Hulk Hogan]

SHE SHOT AT THE GUY, BROTHER! INSIDE A HOUSE, DUDE! SHE STARTED SOME KIND OF ARGUMENT, LEFT THE ROOM, GOT HER GUN, CAME BACK, AND SHOT AT A MAN WHILE CHILDREN WERE PRESENT, MEAN GENE!

 

[Type Username Here]

SHE SHOT AT THE GUY, BROTHER! INSIDE A HOUSE, DUDE! SHE STARTED SOME KIND OF ARGUMENT, LEFT THE ROOM, GOT HER GUN, CAME BACK, AND SHOT AT A MAN WHILE CHILDREN WERE PRESENT, MEAN GENE!

Basically this.

I understand why people are mad and want her to go free but she committed an obvious crime.

It would be akin asking for some mother who beat the shyt out of her toddler to go free because Casey Anthony was found not guilty.

I do think that the amount of years is very excessive though. The judge should have some discretion. A felony charge and long probation would be sufficient given her criminal record and the pleas of her husband.

 

[Suicide King]

A felony charge and long probation would be sufficient given her criminal record and the pleas of her husband.

Probation? No way. She should burn. Her getting a retrial is disgusting.

 

[Type Username Here]

Probation? No way. She should burn. Her getting a retrial is disgusting.

Burn? Come on now...

 

[No_bammer_weed]

SHE SHOT AT THE GUY, BROTHER! INSIDE A HOUSE, DUDE! SHE STARTED SOME KIND OF ARGUMENT, LEFT THE ROOM, GOT HER GUN, CAME BACK, AND SHOT AT A MAN WHILE CHILDREN WERE PRESENT, MEAN GENE!

Basically this.

I understand why people are mad and want her to go free but she committed an obvious crime.

It would be akin asking for some mother who beat the shyt out of her toddler to go free because Casey Anthony was found not guilty.

I do think that the amount of years is very excessive though. The judge should have some discretion. A felony charge and long probation would be sufficient given her criminal record and the pleas of her husband.

Whats your legal reasoning here? SYG does not legally discourage citizens from pursuing and provoking a confrontation...you can leave a scene, and return which she did. Your analogy doesnt work, unless there is a specific law that allows someone to assault a defenseless toddler, which applies to some and not others.

If anything, based on the small sample size Ive been exposed to, SYG seems to privilege attempted murder, as opposed to actual murder. If you kill someone, you can come up with any excuse that you "feared for your life", and w/o the victim to counter you have a good chance to walk....racial categories permitting of course.

 

[Suicide King]

Whats your legal reasoning here? SYG does not legally discourage citizens from pursuing and provoking a confrontation...you can leave a scene, and return which she did. Your analogy doesnt work, unless there is a specific law that allows someone to assault a defenseless toddler, which applies to some and not others.

Fear is a big part of the law. This is why Dunn got convicted of attempted murder, if a car is driving away you can't argue fear.

You can do whatever you want as long as the situation is dangerous and she is "reasonably" IN fear. Her actions prior and after does not show fear, it shows premeditation.

She can't argue reasonable fear and I find it disgusting she got a retrial, justice was served when she got convicted.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Fear is a big part of the law. This is why Dunn got convicted of attempted murder, if a car is driving away you can't argue fear.

You can do whatever you want as long as the situation is dangerous and she is "reasonably" IN fear.

She can't argue that and I find it disgusting she got a retrial, justice was served when she got convicted.

I dont think you understand SYG laws. You didnt address my point that you are not legally forced to retreat from a confrontation, and she most assuredly feared a man who has a history of beating her, and hit her the day of the shooting.

 

[Suicide King]

I dont think you understand SYG laws. You didnt address my point that you are not legally forced to retreat from a confrontation, and she most assuredly feared a man who has a history of beating her, and hit her the day of the shooting.

Fear is big part of the law, that is why Dunn got convicted of attempted murder because he kept shooting. They felt he was no longer standing his ground.

I'm only going by court rulings, not sure why you come up with these outlandish criterias.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Fear is part of the law, that is why Dunn got convicted of attempted murder because he kept shooting. They felt he was no longer standing his ground.

I'm only going by court rulings, not sure why you come up with these outlandish criterias.

Are you on fukking drugs or something?

 

[Fillerguy]

Fear is big part of the law, that is why Dunn got convicted of attempted murder because he kept shooting. They felt he was no longer standing his ground.

I'm only going by court rulings, not sure why you come up with these outlandish criterias.

How was he supposed to have knowed if that darkie he kilt was dead or not? That shyt dont sound fair at all. For all he knowed dat nergo woulda still tried to take his life, after being lit up.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

How was he supposed to have knowed if that darkie he kilt was dead or not? That shyt dont sound fair at all. For all he knowed dat nergo woulda still tried to take his life, after being lit up.

Absolutely. This is what I dont get at all...if some jurors accepted that Dunn was truly in fear for his life, then how could they convict him of attempted murder? Even if the victims were driving away, in theory they could have been repositioning, or finding another angle to attack him if his story is to be believed. It makes no sense. If you and I went to go rob someone (with me being the only one who had a gun), and while in the act of robbing said person he or she got the drop on us and started shooting, you mean to tell me that if the victim killed me they would charge the person with attempted murder for shooting at you if you started to run? You were complicit in the act.

This fukking state is a goddman freak show, and someone needs to intervene and get that judicial house in order before there is anymore damage.

 

[Type Username Here]

Whats your legal reasoning here? SYG does not legally discourage citizens from pursuing and provoking a confrontation...you can leave a scene, and return which she did.

Florida Law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Your analogy doesnt work, unless there is a specific law that allows someone to assault a defenseless toddler, which applies to some and not others.

If anything, based on the small sample size Ive been exposed to, SYG seems to privilege attempted murder, as opposed to actual murder. If you kill someone, you can come up with any excuse that you "feared for your life", and w/o the victim to counter you have a good chance to walk....racial categories permitting of course.

Listen friend, if you're taking her side because you feel the justice system is racist and unfair, I understand. It's just not right. We should hold criminals accountable equally and in a fair manner, not let them go because justice was not properly carried out in other cases. I'm with 100% that the law is ambiguous, it is often misjudged based on race, and highly egregious verdicts have resulted. To me, that doesn't change the fact that what this woman did was dangerous. He beat her before? Well leave his ass. If she was in the middle of getting her ass beaten and she shot him, that seems like it was self defense. But to start an argument, go outside to a vehicle, get a loaded gun, walk back inside and fire a shot when children are present is criminal behavior in my opinion.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Florida Law:






Listen friend, if you're taking her side because you feel the justice system is racist and unfair, I understand. It's just not right. We should hold criminals accountable equally and in a fair manner, not let them go because justice was not properly carried out in other cases. I'm with 100% that the law is ambiguous, it is often misjudged based on race, and highly egregious verdicts have resulted. To me, that doesn't change the fact that what this woman did was dangerous. He beat her before? Well leave his ass. If she was in the middle of getting her ass beaten and she shot him, that seems like it was self defense. But to start an argument, go outside to a vehicle, get a loaded gun, walk back inside and fire a shot when children are present is criminal behavior in my opinion.

You can have whatever opinion you want, but you cant misinterpret the actual law at hand. Again, Florida SYG laws present no legal responsibility for the shooter to retreat in a confrontation, as long as the person has a legal right to be at a given location. She certainly had the right to return to her own home. She also clearly had a reasonable fear for her safety. Clearly. Of course I want the law repealed asap, but under the legal outlining of SYG, she does not deserve to do a day in jail. You're double talking by admitting that the law is so ambiguous enough that it can be applied or denied based on bias, yet you want to see this woman do the kind of jail time that people like George Zimmerman did not.

AND SHE DIDNT EVEN HURT ANYONE, LET ALONE KILL SOMEONE.

Besides in your quote, she didnt initiate the fight...he beat her. She responded

This website breaks down the law effectively:

http://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html

 

[Type Username Here]

You can have whatever opinion you want, but you cant misinterpret the actual law at hand. Again, Florida SYG laws present no legal responsibility for the shooter to retreat in a confrontation, as long as the person has a legal right to be at a given location. She certainly had the right to return to her own home. She also clearly had a reasonable fear for her safety. Clearly. Of course I want the law repealed asap, but under the legal outlining of SYG, she does not deserve to do a day in jail. You're double talking by admitting that the law is so ambiguous enough that it can be applied or denied based on bias, yet you want to see this woman do the kind of jail time that people like George Zimmerman did not.

AND SHE DIDNT EVEN HURT ANYONE, LET ALONE KILL SOMEONE.

This website breaks down the law effectively:

http://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html

Bro, I just posted what the law says. The law clearly states that she had no legal ground. I don't want this woman to go free because Zimmerman did. I'd much rather live in a world where Zimmerman and people like him go to prison for obvious murder and misuse of weapons than the other way around.

As for the rest of your post, it's nothing but emotional nonsense. If you take one second to read my posts in this thread I stated that the sentence is highly excessive and unfair. I think she deserves probation. Please address my arguments and not something else.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

SHE LIED ABOUT THE GARAGE DOOR TRAPPING HER IN THE HOUSE, SHE SHOT AT A PERSON, AND SOME TIME LATER SHE SOUGHT OUT THE GUY AND ASSAULTED HIM, BROTHER!