. 1. Bullshit. It "allowed" that asshole Zimmerman to move from the safety of his SUV to chase Trayvon. 2. According to Marissa, the garage door was locked/would not open, so she could not escape that way
that is a false claim the MRAs have made up.
Three counts of aggravated assault with a firearm (which triggers Florida's sentencing minima)
Florida Law said:
Florida passed a controversial law with draconian sentences for crimes involving guns. That said, Marissa was given ample opportunity to take a plea deal, but she refused. She willingly and consciously chose to take a chance on the 20 year sentence. If she gets a plea deal offered now she is taking a chance on a 60 year sentence. I suggest she take it.
The woman fired a shot toward her ex and his children (hence three counts), in his house, after leaving the dwelling to get her gun. After being released on bail she went to his house again and attacked him.
It wasn't her property, he wasn't an intruder. She was the aggressor.
She is presumed innocent, which is different from her being innocent.
It was just an aside about somebody being declared innocent.
Damn. I forgot about your Duke Lacrosse induced drinking problem. My bad!
Completely different situations. Z didn't confront Trayvon, went back to his SUV to get his gun and then went back to him to shoot him.
And according to the police, there was nothing wrong with said garage door. Another self-serving lie by Marissa.
A false claim by MRAs? Please! The fact that she attacked her ex while out on bail is well documented and beyond dispute by even the most avid of St. Marissa apologists out there.
Marissa Alexander: The REAL reason she's behind barsHLN said:
That may be so, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Marissa Alexander.
even worse! Zimmerman took his gun with in in the first place to stalk, confront and kill Trayvon.
you have no evidence that she "lied". Her husband, on the other hand, lied over and over and over (not to mention having a long history of beating women)
It was not the garage ceiling but the living room wall, in the direction of both her ex and his two small children (hence her being charged with three counts).
Evidence showed that he shot Trayvon in self defense, after Trayvon decided to "whoop" Z's "ass". But this is not a Trayvon Martin rehash thread. This is Marissa Alexander rehash thread.
No, her mistake is shooting at three people, including two children, instead of simply leaving.
She lied over and over as well, for example she denied ever going to Grey's house when she went back there and attacked him while out on bail . How do you explain police finding no evidence that the garage door could not be opened?
They were both abusive. Perhaps they deserved each other but the fact is that on that day she went too far by committing a serious offense that carried a 20 year sentence.
It doesn't work like that as the cases are very different. Shootings are not all the same and somebody being guilty of a crime in one shooting doesn't mean all shooters are guilty and vice versa.
Wrong. Z had injuries consistent with being attacked. Witness statements supported M being on top of Z hitting him.
I think Z acted in self defense and Dunn while guilty was not guilty of premeditated murder (i.e he should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter). But these cases are all very different. Marissa Alexander is factually guilty of aggravated assault (3 counts) and while I think FL mandatory sentencing is ridiculous it is the law.
Apparently 10 and 13. I.e. actual children, not a 17 year old.
How does that disprove that? As the photos show, the bullet hit the wall (not ceiling!) relatively low. It was a fairly flat trajectory (as opposed to her shooting straight up, as her apologists sometimes claim).
She was charged with aggravated assault rather than attempted murder because that is easier to prove. She is without doubt guilty of three counts of aggravated assault at the very least. I do not see how anybody can defend that woman. Argue against mandatory sentencing laws, yes. Saying she is innocent, no. Kinda like with Mumia. Being against the death penalty is ok (although he is a piss poor poster boy for the movement). But saying he was innocent or to demand he be freed is insane.
Being a concealed carry licencee doesn't necessarily mean she is a good shot.
That is possibly even more idiotic than saying Trayvon was shot because he had Skittles or that Vonderrit was holding a sandwich and not a gun.
Legally, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Who might you mean? Perhaps people that start threads that call "white people" "assholes"?
Who do you mean? Perhaps people that insist that a man is always guilty in domestic violence situations, even when he (and his children) are actually victims.
"It" is not the only thing stupid here.
Derec, if I agree with your accurate description of the circumstances of the shooting, I have to disagree with that remark. Specifically " they were both mutually abusive spouses". There is actually NO fact which supports your claim that she was an abusive spouse. Whereas documented facts that he was. When it comes to how a victim of prolonged Domestic Violence responds to their accumulated frustrations and anger, we certainly cannot take them down to the level of being abusive themselves.
Stunning admission.
She wasn't charged with shooting a wall, but with shooting toward people. The wall is not the victim here (as implied by the statement), people are.
No, it's not hypocritical since I never denied this legal presumption.
