398 replies to this topic

[Winter's Knight]

http://www.firstcoas...nder-Sentencing

Quote

A jury convicted Alexander of three counts of aggravated assault after she got into a scuffle with her abusive husband and fired a shot into their home's ceiling.

Now she's facing a minimum of 20 years in prison, but her family argues that Alexander should be covered by the Stand Your Ground statute.And that's exactly what Rumlin told Daniel in his letter: "We take issue with the State denying her (Alexander's) right to claim self-defense under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law."

Marissa is a black woman.

MOD Edit:  Edited the title to make it clear that this is the official place to continue the SYG discussion from previous threads.

Edited by Stubby, 21 April 2012 - 03:54 AM.

[BigFatCoward]

and?  

a scuffle doesn't justify discharging a firearm, except florida apparently, regardless of colour.

[Seli]

Yes, and if I read the summaries in the previous threads correctly she went out of a conflict situation (and had already retreated), got a gun and got back into the conflict situation endangering others thereby losing any SYG protection. Perhaps if the children were in immediate danger it would have been applicable.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Winter, on 21 April 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

http://www.firstcoas...nder-Sentencing

Marissa is a black woman.

MOD Edit:  Edited the title to make it clear that this is the official place to continue the SYG discussion from previous threads.

As I posted in the prior thread, if you are really interested in discussing the Marissa Alexander case you should at least be familiar with the Judge's decision denying Ms. Alexander's request for immunity under the Stand Your Ground law, which is here.

I summarized the facts of the decision in the last thread as well, which is here.

Those facts differ greatly than the set of facts put forth by Ms. Alexander's supporters.

[gryphon strike]

Seriously how can she be charged with assault of 3 people when she discharged the gun once?
I was also under the impression that the kids were outside the house?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

gryphon strike, on 21 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Seriously how can she be charged with assault of 3 people when she discharged the gun once?
I was also under the impression that the kids were outside the house?

Seems the kids were inside the house, and were right by their dad.  Firing at him (or deliberately missing close) in that context isn't good.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

gryphon strike, on 21 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Seriously how can she be charged with assault of 3 people when she discharged the gun once?
I was also under the impression that the kids were outside the house?

Well, if you actually read the Order that I keep linking to, the Judge in her statement of facts clearly indicates that the victim and his two children were all inside the kitchen, in approximately the same area. When she aimed her gun at her husband, she was effectively aiming at all of them. What's not indicated in the Order but which I believe the husband has gone public stating is that he actually moved in front of his kids to shield them with his body.If she discharged the gun in the direction of three people, it's a separate count for each of them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

People here continually lambast the general population for only following media trends, failing to pay sufficient attention, etc..  There is even a deprecating euphemism for it -- "TAA" -- the Average American.  Slave to media trends while ignoring what else is going on.

So now we're on the third thread of Martin/Zimmerman, and this other incident also arose.  And the pattern has been the same.  Initially, it's a very popular topic on which everyone seems to form their opinions rather quickly based on media trends.  But as soon as someone starts citing the facts as they are actually presented in a courtroom -- as with Zimmerman's bail hearing of the court order in this second case -- interest seems to drop off to nothing.

Seems to me we may have a whole lot of average folk who believe they are something more.

[Sci-2]

I think the prior threads were inflated by the debates on racism in general along with Zimmerman's case in particular.

A large part of people's ire was a combination of flaws in handling the case the night of, subsequent attacks on Martin's character, and the special treatment it seemed Zimmerman received.

Seems like there was a decent turnover of people, myself included, once evidence came to light that showed the situation was more complex than initially believed to be?

[ROLF]

I don't really think there's much else to argue.  Now we simply sit and watch the trial and see what happens.  Im sure once the actual trial begins there will be more discussion to satisfy your needs Jeff.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not So Young Wolf, on 21 April 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

I don't really think there's much else to argue.  Now we simply sit and watch the trial and see what happens.  Im sure once the actual trial begins there will be more discussion to satisfy your needs Jeff.

Seems like the fewer actual facts are known, the more lively the discussion.

[ROLF]

Well sure, there's more to speculate, and yes the media was fueling both sides of that argument.  And right now, we still don't have all the facts, so shall we start all over from the beginning again?

All we have to talk about now is his bond hearing...and where is Zimmerman hiding.   I vote Denver...begin the angry debate.

Edited by Not So Young Wolf, 21 April 2012 - 12:27 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not So Young Wolf, on 21 April 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Well sure, there's more to speculate, and yes the media was fueling both sides of that argument.  And right now, we still don't have all the facts, so shall we start all over from the beginning again?

All we have to talk about now is his bond hearing...and where is Zimmerman hiding.   I vote Denver...begin the angry debate.

Zimmerman already turned himself in, the hearing already occured, and he was released on $150,000 bail.  He has to get clearance with the prosecutor before leaving the state.  The defense attorney got the chief investigator on the stand, and got him to make some admissions regarding the state's lack of evidence on some fairly important issues.  There also was a photo released, taken three minutes after the police arrived on the scene, showing a clear view of Zimmerman's head.

http://abcnews.go.co...20419_wmain.jpg

And that's the kind of thing that gets me.  In the prior thread, we had at least a dozen people leaping up to assign major significance to a grainy police surveillance tape that did not show an obvious sign of injury.  And folks were jumping to all sorts of conclusions about that.  Then when this photo comes out, and it's just....crickets.  No comments, nothing.  Why is that?  Why is it of huge significance when there is no blood, but inconsequential if there is?  Is that because it doesn't fit with some folks preconceived views about what happened, or is it just that people lost interest in following things after the initial reports?  Maybe it's a combination, I don't know.  Suppose it would have come out at the hearing that there never was any blood, no injuries to his nose, and no grass stains on the back of his shirt.  Might this thread have been a bit more busy?

Then there's this related outrage about the woman for whom SYG was unjustly denied. And apparently, because she's black, that's just another example of racism -- despite the guy she shot at also being black. But outrage again. So then NestorM looks for some more balanced information, finds it, and...crickets again.

It looks to me like a lot of people have a lot more interest in discussing sensationalism than they do in discussing actual facts.  And that's understandable, because after all, sensationalism is more interesting.  I just don't like the general perjorative of "The Average American" being used as an insult against the lesser beings who allegedly don't see everything as intelligently as we (allegedly) do.  The alternative to saying that folks are just following media trends is that people are avoiding the topic because the additional facts aren't what they wanted them to be, so they just avoid the subject.  Unfortunately, some folks can't, which is why I was opposing the race-baiting when this thing started.

http://www.myfoxchic...suburb-20120420

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 21 April 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[Arthmail]

You are not really one to talk about not addressing issues brought up to you. Neither am I, or most people. Confirmation bias almost guarantees it.

But i'm sure you can still justify the killing of a kid by a grown man with a gun because of some head trauma. Sure. Whatever helps you confirm your own biases.

Edited by Arthmail, 21 April 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[DanteGabriel]

Yes FLoW, you are smarter and more astute and a far more accomplished debater than all the other boarders.  Have you not yet established that fact to your satisfaction?

Have yourself a cookie and enjoy your awesomeness.

Edited by DanteGabriel, 21 April 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Sci-2]

Quote

http://www.myfoxchic...suburb-20120420

This kid is a mugger full of shit. I also think "race baiting" is too general a term. I don't anyone here liked Jackson and Sharpton being involved save for those who said it highlighted the issues of institutional/conditioned racism in the US.

I think the big thing, as I've said before, is separating KKK lynch mob racism from the conditioned distrust we have of black males in the US. I know it's something I've struggled with, having to shut off the stupid voices in my own head, despite having worked with young African American kids for years.

I think that conversation was a big part of our original discussions on the case.

Many of us have also said that getting cuts to the back of your head wouldn't be sufficient proof that your life is in danger, others have noted that if you start a fight SYG might not apply. So the revelation of the cuts wasn't a mind changer, especially given that his injuries were found to be minor the night in question.

[kalbear]

FLOw, you'll also notice special people like RiL are also not in here after facts are in evidence. It is just a human thing without ideology. People certainly aren't going to jump up and down satin I was wrong or whatever.

I didn't think the tape was that significant. I thought it was also obvious that the primary evidence against the wounds being significant was the lack of immediate emergent treatment, or any kind of hospitalization. Bleeding was odd in that there wasn't much, but that's not a big deal.

It is very odd that Zimmerman apologized now instead of before. Or his crappy apology, where he thought Martin was older. That right there almost screams manslaughter to me.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Kalbear, on 21 April 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

FLOw, you'll also notice special people like RiL are also not in here after facts are in evidence. It is just a human thing without ideology. People certainly aren't going to jump up and down satin I was wrong or whatever.

I didn't think the tape was that significant. I thought it was also obvious that the primary evidence against the wounds being significant was the lack of immediate emergent treatment, or any kind of hospitalization. Bleeding was odd in that there wasn't much, but that's not a big deal.

It is very odd that Zimmerman apologized now instead of before. Or his crappy apology, where he thought Martin was older. That right there almost screams manslaughter to me.

Considering that Zimmerman was advised by both his former and current attorney, not to attempt any contact with Martin's family, the timing of the apology is no mystery.  The question I have is that if Zimmerman truly believed Martin was trying to kill him, why apologize, at all?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 21 April 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

http://abcnews.go.co...20419_wmain.jpg

Then when this photo comes out, and it's just....crickets.  No comments, nothing.  Why is that?  Why is it of huge significance when there is no blood, but inconsequential if there is?  Is that because it doesn't fit with some folks preconceived views about what happened, or is it just that people lost interest in following things after the initial reports?  

I'm not sure what sort of response that picture should illicit outside of it does appear to support Zimmerman's story to some degree. Not to purposefully play into your premise, but it looks like two fairly minor scratches or contusions on his head. Not the sort of wound that might reasonably incite an "OMG he's going to kill me" sort of reaction, in my opinion.

[kalbear]

Quote

Considering that Zimmerman was advised by both his former and current attorney, not to attempt any contact with Martin's family, the timing of the apology is no mystery. The question I have is that if Zimmerman truly believed Martin was trying to kill him, why apologize, at all?

Yes; I'd argue apologizing at all is the odd thing, but since it's clear he wanted to apologize it's very odd that he did it now instead of before. It's pragmatically bad form; he's clearly showing remorse, which might work as a ploy but is also likely to be good evidence that something wrong was done (which goes against his prior statements). It's not a good choice for a strategy, IMO.