Marissa Alexander's 20/yr sentence overturned

[Derec]

Clearly that is not the case because Zimmerman is not doing any time.

Z wasn't convicted. Sentencing laws do not apply when there is an acquittal. Had he been convicted even of manslaughter he'd have faced a 30 year minimum.

 

[laughing dog]

Clearly that is not the case because Zimmerman is not doing any time.

Z wasn't convicted. Sentencing laws do not apply when there is an acquittal. Had he been convicted even of manslaughter he'd have faced a 30 year minimum.

Zimmerman committed multiple crimes but was not charged with multiple crimes.

 

[Sabine Grant]

This is the same deposition where he states she fired into the air, not at him or his sons, ages 9 and 13. And the same one where he describes putting her into the hospital earlier in their relationship and his assault of her just prior to the shooting incident.

Since that part is disproven by physical evidence of the bullet hole in the wall everything else in that deposition must be taken with a shaker of salt. Obviously he was lying to protect his ex - his initial statements to the 911 operator are much more credible. She repaid him by going to his house (that in itself was a violation of her bail conditions) and attacking him, giving him a black eye.

As to him being a liar, she initially denied going to his house in the first place. So both of them are abusive spouses, both of them are liars, but only one of them shot at the other and two children.

Derec, you and Loren have both failed to demonstrate that they" were mutually abusive spouses". Even more massive fail on Loren's part as he had stated "she attacked him, he attacked her". (see my previous reply to Loren). You previously claimed it was widely reported that Rico had lied in the deposition the transcripts of which I provided "to protect his ex". I asked you then to provide the source of this "widely reported". Instead of doing so, you now reply to Toni with "Obviously he was lying to protect his ex -". Which is a mere claim on your part you appear to be using to justify dismissing the entire deposition.

Surely, you do not expect you relying on mere and unsupported claims to be convincing anyone that Rico's deposition is to be dismissed.

I am still awaiting for you to respond to all my detailed and documented posts pointing to who was an actually abusive spouse . I have noticed that both you and Loren have communicated NO concern regarding Rico's DOCUMENTED history of physical abuse. Further, no concern regarding his abusive behavior the day of the shooting incident. You and Loren have approached that incident as if Marissa just showed up with a gun in that home, aimed it at Rico and shot towards him with the intent to kill him. While dismissing everything else. Which again, is quite concerning.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The case hinges on who is believable:

Marissa Alexander alleges that she was abused prior to the gun incident as well as during the day of the incident and that she was acting out of fear for her life. She had a restraining order against Gray. She had been previously hospitalized because of Gray's assault of her. At least 5 other women have alleged that Gray abused them; Gray's initial testimony is that he abused every single mother of any of his children, with the exception of one woman. He further testified in great detail about how he assaulted Alexander repeatedly on the day of the gun incident.

I am afraid ,Toni, it is bound to fall on Derec's and Loren's deaf ears. Further, you might have noticed as I did that they showed no concern about Rico's documented history (aside from his statements tracing that history in his deposition) of physical abuse on several women he had had a relationship with. To include the documented incident of his physical violence on Marissa which prompted a RO on her part after she had to be checked into a hospital (as she was also pregnant). Not a peep about his PATTERN of physical violence on women who would not comply with his demands. But somehow Marissa has been portrayed by Derec as being part of his claim of "mutually abusive spouses".

It is not only shocking to me but very concerning that anyone would place a victim of physical, emotional and mental abuse on equal footing with the abusive party. Abusive party being undeniably Rico Gray. Unless of course Derec dismisses Rico's use of physical violence on several women as not being physical abuse. Unless he would think that Marissa was lying when she ended up in a hospital resulting from his using physical violence on her and while she was pregnant. Unless he would dismiss as lies the claims formulated by now 5 women confirming Rico as having shown a persistent pattern of physical abuse in the course of his relationships with them. Any time, he could not get them to meet his demands, he would threaten them and use physical violence.

Undeniably, Rico fits the very profile of an abusive personality and clearly as THE abusive spouse versus Marissa and those other women having been the victims of his pattern of abuse on them.Again, placing any those victims on equal footing with Rico is highly questionable.

Then Gray changed his testimony and claimed he never abused Alexander or any other woman. There are documents which support his prior abuse of Alexander and other women to the point of sending them to the hospital. These documents were deemed inadmissible in court. When Gray called 911, he reportedly at least partially supported Alexander's allegations of abuse:

Gray’s account aligns with this — and adds a bit of color. Gray says that just before heading into the garage, Alexander told him, “I got something for your ass.” When she came back in with the gun, he put his hands in the air. After the shot, he fled out the front door with his sons and called 911. “She said she’s ‘sick of this sh*t,’” he told the dispatcher. “She shot at me, inside the house, while my boys were standing right next to me. Lord have mercy.”

There are multiple explanations for why Alexander could not open the garage door while investigators later found it in good working order. One would be if Gray were operating a button on another control for the door. At least one is supported by Gray's testimony in his first deposition that he knew she could not leave through the garage because it was locked. This is the same deposition where he states she fired into the air, not at him or his sons, ages 9 and 13. And the same one where he describes putting her into the hospital earlier in their relationship and his assault of her just prior to the shooting incident.

I am perplexed why such vastly conflicting testimony from the same person was admitted during trial. At best, Gray has demonstrated that he is a liar. There is ample long established evidence that he abuses women at will.

Documented to being abusive personalities such as Gray will also be very manipulative. The reality is that such documented to being abusive personalities cannot be trusted to tell any truth.

 

[Toni]

This is the same deposition where he states she fired into the air, not at him or his sons, ages 9 and 13. And the same one where he describes putting her into the hospital earlier in their relationship and his assault of her just prior to the shooting incident.

Since the bolded part is disproven by physical evidence of the bullet hole in the wall everything else in that deposition must be taken with a shaker of salt. Obviously he was lying to protect his ex - his initial statements to the 911 operator are much more credible. She repaid him by going to his house (that in itself was a violation of her bail conditions) and attacking him, giving him a black eye.

As to him being a liar, she initially denied going to his house in the first place. So both of them are abusive spouses, both of them are liars, but only one of them shot at the other and two children.

His initial statements include that she was tired of taking his shit. His initial deposition detailed a great deal of abuse, including the fact that he assaulted her repeatedly and he knew she could not exit the garage. Oh, and that she didn't fire at him or his kids.

Perhaps this man who not only admitted that he abused every woman he had a baby with, with a single exception, whose claims are documented by hospital records and restraining orders, decided to do a kindness to the woman he had just abused.

THAT seems to be not credible to me.

I haven't found a ballistics report so I don't know what kind of gun she fired. She is small: 5'1 or 5'2. She had just given birth prematurely and the baby was still in the hospital: she would not have been at full physical strength at that point. I also do not know if she was practiced in the use of firearms, much less that particular one. She had just been assaulted, repeatedly. Was her aim bad? Did her arm recoil sharply enough that it altered the intended target?

I don't know the caliber of the gun, the distance from where she fired to the point of impact, how tall Gray or his sons are, the relative heights: was she firing from a lower elevation as is common: was the garage floor a step down or more from the level of the room where Gray was, etc. All could have a dramatically affected the trajectory of the bullet.


Gray has proven himself to be a liar and has demonstrated that he is not opposed to lying to the courts or under oath. Either his statements at the deposition were false or his statements in court were false. They cannot both be correct. His statements in the deposition have the weight of hospital records and previous convictions of domestic assault. There were signs of damage done inside the house from his assault of Anderson. It is extremely credible that in fact, he had carried out an assault on Alexander over a period of time that day and further that he knew she was trapped as he alleged in a sworn deposition.

I am not a fan of people carrying firearms or shooting at people. I am also not a fan of mandatory sentencing or draconian sentencing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have in no way demonstrated she was a "mutually abusive spouse" which was Derec's initial claim. In no way demonstrated that "she attacked him, he attacked her". His description of the entire incident in the quoted transcripts demonstrates that he is the party who went on the attack and through the following steps :

1) As she was in the bathroom, after he saw she had sent pics of their infant daughter to her ex husband, he flew into a rage, banged on the bathroom door, yelling at her, demanding she comes out to talk to him.

2) As she exited, she attempted to leave but he kept blocking her physically, still demanding that she talks to him while preventing her to leave. She then demanded he leaves.

3) As he kept obstructing her leaving, she went to the garage thinking she could get in her car and leave from that location. He admits in his deposition that he knew she could not leave from there because the garage door had been jammed and was locked.

From the above and summarized from his description in the transcript, demonstrate how "she attacked him, he attacked her".(that was your statement that "she attacked him, he attacked her".

I didn't say that she was abusive towards him in that encounter.

Fortunately for her he wasn't armed as he *DID* have justification to use lethal force.

The Florida Statutes on self defense claims do give the initial aggressor or party who presented a danger of harm to another party(aggressor would be Rico since it is established that he was the party who initiated a threat from the get go) the right to rely on the use of lethal force if the party who feels threatened responds with the use of disproportional force. Because of that specific statute, Marissa's response to what she established would turn out to be harm on her person and potentially fatal to her is then deemed disproportionate to the threat Rico presented.

She drew on him without adequate reason. That's a lethal threat.

 

[laughing dog]

She drew on him without adequate reason.

Not only is this an assumption on your part, but it flies in the face of the history between the two.

 

[Emily Lake]

He didn't follow her into the garage. She's safe.

Effectively imprisoned in the house of an abusive person, with no way to get out. That doesn't really sound particularly safe to me.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I didn't say that she was abusive towards him in that encounter.

How is that addressing your previous claims of " she attacked him, he attacked her"? Do you even pay attention to what is clearly expected of you when you made a claim which is being heavily challenged?

I stated :

You have in no way demonstrated she was a "mutually abusive spouse" which was Derec's initial claim. In no way demonstrated that "she attacked him, he attacked her". His description of the entire incident in the quoted transcripts demonstrates that he is the party who went on the attack and through the following steps :

1) As she was in the bathroom, after he saw she had sent pics of their infant daughter to her ex husband, he flew into a rage, banged on the bathroom door, yelling at her, demanding she comes out to talk to him.

2) As she exited, she attempted to leave but he kept blocking her physically, still demanding that she talks to him while preventing her to leave. She then demanded he leaves.

3) As he kept obstructing her leaving, she went to the garage thinking she could get in her car and leave from that location. He admits in his deposition that he knew she could not leave from there because the garage door had been jammed and was locked.

From the above and summarized from his description in the transcript, demonstrate how "she attacked him, he attacked her".(that was your statement that "she attacked him, he attacked her".

Will you or not demonstrate that your claim of "she attacked him, he attacked her" is correct? I have gone over the reasons why your claim HOLDS NO WATER several times now. It should not be that difficult for you to comprehend that I have challenged that claim. Are you retracting it or will pursue to act as if it was not heavily challenged?

Fortunately for her he wasn't armed as he *DID* have justification to use lethal force.

The Florida Statutes on self defense claims do give the initial aggressor or party who presented a danger of harm to another party(aggressor would be Rico since it is established that he was the party who initiated a threat from the get go) the right to rely on the use of lethal force if the party who feels threatened responds with the use of disproportional force. Because of that specific statute, Marissa's response to what she established would turn out to be harm on her person and potentially fatal to her is then deemed disproportionate to the threat Rico presented.

She drew on him without adequate reason. That's a lethal threat.

"without adequate reason" based on your obvious dismissal of everything that was documented and detailed for you. To include your (again) blissfully obliviously formulated claim "she was safe in the garage" which I heavily challenged too.

 

[Sabine Grant]

He didn't follow her into the garage. She's safe.

Effectively imprisoned in the house of an abusive person, with no way to get out. That doesn't really sound particularly safe to me.

Further, Loren's evaluation of her being safe in the garage and under the specific condition that the abusive party was undeniably attempting to prevent her from leaving the home while he was obviously into a state of rage totally contradicts the guidelines to safety given to victims of DV. IOW, his evaluation is totally disconnected from existing realities.

There is not one single person who was a victim of DV who would feel safe anywhere in a home they cannot escape from while the abusive party has access to any of the rooms to include the garage.

 

[Toni]

I didn't say that she was abusive towards him in that encounter.

Fortunately for her he wasn't armed as he *DID* have justification to use lethal force.

The Florida Statutes on self defense claims do give the initial aggressor or party who presented a danger of harm to another party(aggressor would be Rico since it is established that he was the party who initiated a threat from the get go) the right to rely on the use of lethal force if the party who feels threatened responds with the use of disproportional force. Because of that specific statute, Marissa's response to what she established would turn out to be harm on her person and potentially fatal to her is then deemed disproportionate to the threat Rico presented.

She drew on him without adequate reason. That's a lethal threat.

What is adequate threat? He had just assaulted her and knew she could not exit the home, as he stated in his deposition. She did not have her phone on her person to call for help. What should she have done? Said pretty please don't hit me anymore and let me leave? She seems to have had reasonable fear for her safety.

What would have been adequate reason?

Up to that point, can you site any instance where she was abusive? There is documentation of his abuse towards her and towards other women.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't say that she was abusive towards him in that encounter.

Fortunately for her he wasn't armed as he *DID* have justification to use lethal force.

The Florida Statutes on self defense claims do give the initial aggressor or party who presented a danger of harm to another party(aggressor would be Rico since it is established that he was the party who initiated a threat from the get go) the right to rely on the use of lethal force if the party who feels threatened responds with the use of disproportional force. Because of that specific statute, Marissa's response to what she established would turn out to be harm on her person and potentially fatal to her is then deemed disproportionate to the threat Rico presented.

She drew on him without adequate reason. That's a lethal threat.

What is adequate threat? He had just assaulted her and knew she could not exit the home, as he stated in his deposition. She did not have her phone on her person to call for help. What should she have done? Said pretty please don't hit me anymore and let me leave? She seems to have had reasonable fear for her safety.

What would have been adequate reason?

Up to that point, can you site any instance where she was abusive? There is documentation of his abuse towards her and towards other women.

You people are all the same. The guy wasn't wearing a hoodie, hence not a threat! How many times do you people need to be told this?!

 

[Emily Lake]

I do not know all the details of this case, I am not privy to all of the information. I have only that which is available via news media, much of which is hearsay. There are some facts that make this case a bit less than black-and-white for me.

• Marissa Alexander went to Rico Gray's house
• Marissa Alexander discharged a firearm in a residential area, in the presence of three individuals
• Rico Gray has a documented and admitted history of physical abuse toward his partners and ex-partners

If Mr. Gray had come to Ms. Alexander's house, then I think it would be a clear case of self-defense. In opposition, if Mr. Gray did NOT have a documented and admitted history of domestic abuse, then it would be a clear case of aggravated assault. What makes it challenging is that she went to his house, then fired a weapon in the vicinity. This complicates the issue substantially, and makes it much less clear.

As much as it may seem grossly unjust (and I share that sentiment), it is often the case that firing a warning shot results in more harm than good. One might have the best of intentions ( to spare a life, give the other person an opportunity to choose a better path, etc.) but from a legal perspective, if you have the time and presence of mind to fire a warning shot then you cannot consider your life to be in clear and present danger. If memory serves, it has negated a claim of self defense on more than one occasion.

 

[ZiprHead]

She was certified for "conceal carry". If she had wanted to kill him, she could have.

Having a conceal carry permit doesn't magically give people great marksmanship skills.

For all the posters clueless about firearms. Warning shots are for movies and warfare. They work in film and TV because scripts dictate how things turn out not reality. And they work in war because mishaps can be labeled acceptable collateral damage. Warning shots are foolish in self defense situations because civilians need to be held accountable for their firearm discharges. Every shot they fire "in the air" or near their attacker is potentially putting someone innocent in danger. Also if someone is truly in a life threatening situation requiring shots to be fired they need to be eliminating that danger immediately.

If they have time to fire warning shots then their life wasn't in eminent danger. Here's an example. An attacker has a gun an is intent on using it to harm you. If you take the time to fire a warning shot the attacker could be returning fire and killing you. Or if the attacker is charging towards you they could overtake and disarm you if use foolish used your window of self defense to fire warning shots.

Seems to me it worked pretty damn good in this situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She drew on him without adequate reason.

Not only is this an assumption on your part, but it flies in the face of the history between the two.

He didn't follow her into the garage. She's safe.

Effectively imprisoned in the house of an abusive person, with no way to get out. That doesn't really sound particularly safe to me.

And if he entered the garage she would have been justified in shooting.

The reality is she ended the confrontation by going to the garage. Anything that happened before she entered the garage is now irrelevant.

Furthermore, even had she not entered the garage telling him to leave was not something she had a right to do--it was his place, not hers. "Let me leave" would have been legal, but that's not what she did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How is that addressing your previous claims of " she attacked him, he attacked her"? Do you even pay attention to what is clearly expected of you when you made a claim which is being heavily challenged?

You continue to engage in incorrect attacks on my position.

I am saying that overall it was a mutually abusive relationship. I am *NOT* saying that she was abusive in the encounter in question, but rather that other actions of hers show that she wasn't afraid to be in the same room with him.

- - - Updated - - -

Effectively imprisoned in the house of an abusive person, with no way to get out. That doesn't really sound particularly safe to me.

Further, Loren's evaluation of her being safe in the garage and under the specific condition that the abusive party was undeniably attempting to prevent her from leaving the home while he was obviously into a state of rage totally contradicts the guidelines to safety given to victims of DV. IOW, his evaluation is totally disconnected from existing realities.

There is not one single person who was a victim of DV who would feel safe anywhere in a home they cannot escape from while the abusive party has access to any of the rooms to include the garage.

You don't move from a place of minimal danger (the garage) to a place of high danger (the house).

 

[ZiprHead]

You don't move from a place of minimal danger (the garage) to a place of high danger (the house).

You do if you have no other way to leave.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not know all the details of this case, I am not privy to all of the information. I have only that which is available via news media, much of which is hearsay. There are some facts that make this case a bit less than black-and-white for me.

• Marissa Alexander went to Rico Gray's house
• Marissa Alexander discharged a firearm in a residential area, in the presence of three individuals
• Rico Gray has a documented and admitted history of physical abuse toward his partners and ex-partners

If Mr. Gray had come to Ms. Alexander's house, then I think it would be a clear case of self-defense. In opposition, if Mr. Gray did NOT have a documented and admitted history of domestic abuse, then it would be a clear case of aggravated assault. What makes it challenging is that she went to his house, then fired a weapon in the vicinity. This complicates the issue substantially, and makes it much less clear.

One more point to add: She also attacked him after this incident.

Had he gone to her place I would take a different position.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You don't move from a place of minimal danger (the garage) to a place of high danger (the house).

You do if you have no other way to leave.

Why didn't the altercation continue in the garage then and stay there?

 

[ZiprHead]

You do if you have no other way to leave.

Why didn't the altercation continue in the garage then and stay there?

You'd have to ask Mr. Gray that. You know, he's the guy who knew she couldn't get out of there.