Marissa Alexander's 20/yr sentence overturned

[coloradoatheist]

The problem is what happens when you believe that both should be in jail? Both have issues.

So I'm curious in a relationship where both parties escalate things, do we let them fight it out or put both people in jail?

Putting people in jail for having issues would be off the wall. Asinine laws decreeing firing a gun on a par with manslaughter or murder begs questioning the mental stability of those who created them.

I agree...but it was meant for normally crimes that also involved guns since it's more dangerous. I think she should have gotten a year.

 

[whichphilosophy]

http://thesource.com/2014/10/17/jus...verturns-marissa-alexanders-20-year-sentence/

U.S. Representative Corrine Brown, D-Fla., lashed out at Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, who oversaw the failed prosecution of George Zimmerman and the prosecution in Alexander’s case, saying, “Arresting and prosecuting her when no one was hurt does not make any sense. What was certainly absent from the courtroom during Marissa’s trial was mercy and justice. Indeed, the three-year plea deal from State Attorney Angela Corey is not mercy, and a mandatory 20-year sentence is not justice.”

END OF QUOTE.

 

[coloradoatheist]

http://thesource.com/2014/10/17/jus...verturns-marissa-alexanders-20-year-sentence/

U.S. Representative Corrine Brown, D-Fla., lashed out at Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, who oversaw the failed prosecution of George Zimmerman and the prosecution in Alexander’s case, saying, “Arresting and prosecuting her when no one was hurt does not make any sense. What was certainly absent from the courtroom during Marissa’s trial was mercy and justice. Indeed, the three-year plea deal from State Attorney Angela Corey is not mercy, and a mandatory 20-year sentence is not justice.”



END OF QUOTE.

Do you think there should be a punishment if a firearm is brandished in an argument?

 

[Emily Lake]

The entire story hinges on who is now telling the truth.

In criminal trials, one person's word against another's is not enough. It would fall back on the evidence.

In this case, unfortunately, the mitigating circumstances are all suppositions and circumstantial scenarios. The facts in the case, sadly, are probably going to be against her.

 

[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

Not his house. It legally belonged to both of them. He wasn't supposed to be there while she gathered some of her stuff.

Thank you for that clarification. That makes more sense.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nothing was threatening her in the garage. You can't shoot based on unreasonable fears.

She chose to enter the house. New incident, she knew she was confronting someone hostile. She can't shoot.

Is it your reasoned position that she should have stayed in the garage indefinitely, with no way to leave?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Nothing was threatening her in the garage. You can't shoot based on unreasonable fears.

She chose to enter the house. New incident, she knew she was confronting someone hostile. She can't shoot.

Is it your reasoned position that she should have stayed in the garage indefinitely, with no way to leave?

Unfortunately that also calls into question on what you believe did happen. I asked if he followed her into the garage, and the answer was no. So she could have waited a few minutes or a while until tempers died down. And the other question, did she really try to leave by the garage.

 

[Emily Lake]

You mean like Zimmerman and Dunn did?

- - - Updated - - -

. She tried. The garage was locked/jammed.

I mean another outside door, not a garage door.

Well bully for you, I suppose, but many houses do not have so many doors. Front door, door into garage, windows. I've seen several built in such a fashion. Your lack of experience, anecdotally, doesn't make for a universal truth.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is it your reasoned position that she should have stayed in the garage indefinitely, with no way to leave?

Unfortunately that also calls into question on what you believe did happen. I asked if he followed her into the garage, and the answer was no. So she could have waited a few minutes or a while until tempers died down. And the other question, did she really try to leave by the garage.

Questioning "did she really try to leave" is pure speculation, and appears to be speculation aimed at supporting a pre-judgment of guilt on her part. It is not dependent on facts in evidence. It's something that a responsible jury would throw out completely.

For the remainder, I'm not convinced that this is reasonable. I don't think that a person should be expected to remain in a hostile environment, constrained, unable to leave, for an indefinite period of time, in order to satisfy a vague and unmeasurable requirement that one allow "tempers to cool". Especially not if one party is known to be violent and has a documented history of abuse. I fail to see any meaningful difference between this situation and false imprisonment. Either way, she is prevented from leaving by threat of harm and injury, and is forced to stay somewhere she does not wish to be.

I can assure you that if some domestic dispute were to arise between my spouse and I, and I were to be chased into a room by fear of injury, I would not feel that it was justifiable for you to expect me to complacently submit to such imprisonment until my spouse cooled down enough that I wouldn't be harmed... simply so I wouldn't injure him in my attempt to escape from harm!

 

[Toni]

The entire story hinges on who is now telling the truth.

In criminal trials, one person's word against another's is not enough. It would fall back on the evidence.

In this case, unfortunately, the mitigating circumstances are all suppositions and circumstantial scenarios. The facts in the case, sadly, are probably going to be against her.

I am not so certain as you are that facts are against her.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Questioning "did she really try to leave" is pure speculation, and appears to be speculation aimed at supporting a pre-judgment of guilt on her part. It is not dependent on facts in evidence. It's something that a responsible jury would throw out completely.

I partially disagree. I am not sure what all happened at the trial. But if her defense was, "I tried to leave through the garage door but it was locked" and the police officers on the scene hit the garage door opener and it immediately opened, then she lied. I've seen reports that is what happened, but don't know what happened at trial.

For the remainder, I'm not convinced that this is reasonable. I don't think that a person should be expected to remain in a hostile environment, constrained, unable to leave, for an indefinite period of time, in order to satisfy a vague and unmeasurable requirement that one allow "tempers to cool". Especially not if one party is known to be violent and has a documented history of abuse. I fail to see any meaningful difference between this situation and false imprisonment. Either way, she is prevented from leaving by threat of harm and injury, and is forced to stay somewhere she does not wish to be.

I can assure you that if some domestic dispute were to arise between my spouse and I, and I were to be chased into a room by fear of injury, I would not feel that it was justifiable for you to expect me to complacently submit to such imprisonment until my spouse cooled down enough that I wouldn't be harmed... simply so I wouldn't injure him in my attempt to escape from harm!

And if you two are having a heated argument, are you allowed to go retrieve a gun and use that intimidation to win the argument?

 

[Emily Lake]

In criminal trials, one person's word against another's is not enough. It would fall back on the evidence.

In this case, unfortunately, the mitigating circumstances are all suppositions and circumstantial scenarios. The facts in the case, sadly, are probably going to be against her.

I am not so certain as you are that facts are against her.

What I know to be facts are very small. She discharged a firearm in the presence of other people, in a residential area, with the admitted intention of NOT shooting them. Depending on the circumstances that would carry a charge of anywhere from negligent discharge of a firearm to aggravated assault. That is the only thing that I know to be true.

The remainder of the events become a matter of belief and hearsay. It is a case of whether or not I find her version of the story to be more compelling than his version of the story. Circumstantially, I find her version more compelling, and so I, as a human being possessing compassion and empathy, believe her to have acted in self defense but with prudent regard for human life.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't always have a sense of compassion. What is legal and what is just are not always the same thing.

 

[Emily Lake]

And if you two are having a heated argument, are you allowed to go retrieve a gun and use that intimidation to win the argument?

That is a most interesting revision of the situation. It has gone from abuse and fear for safety to "a heated argument", and it has gone from escape from unlawful imprisonment to "win the argument".

So let me re-revise the situation back to it's original state: If my spouse were to be in the midst of domestically abusing me and I fled to a room in fear of my safety, then yes, I would feel quite justified in the use of a firearm in securing my freedom from a hostile situation where I am being unlawfully held against my will. I would have no moral qualms about it at all.

If you were being held against your will, with a violent person between you and the only escape route, would you feel justified in using a firearm to secure your freedom? Or is it only women who are not allowed such a vehicle for self defense?

 

[coloradoatheist]

And if you two are having a heated argument, are you allowed to go retrieve a gun and use that intimidation to win the argument?

That is a most interesting revision of the situation. It has gone from abuse and fear for safety to "a heated argument", and it has gone from escape from unlawful imprisonment to "win the argument".

So let me re-revise the situation back to it's original state: If my spouse were to be in the midst of domestically abusing me and I fled to a room in fear of my safety, then yes, I would feel quite justified in the use of a firearm in securing my freedom from a hostile situation where I am being unlawfully held against my will. I would have no moral qualms about it at all.

If you were being held against your will, with a violent person between you and the only escape route, would you feel justified in using a firearm to secure your freedom? Or is it only women who are not allowed such a vehicle for self defense?

And that is the speculation on your part too. So now we are both speculating. I personally wouldn't use a gun and believe that the fights can be hammered out without having to go all that way.

 

[Emily Lake]

And that is the speculation on your part too. So now we are both speculating. I personally wouldn't use a gun and believe that the fights can be hammered out without having to go all that way.

What part is speculation? Mr. Gray admitted to having physically assaulted and threatened her that day, and to having done so repeatedly in the past, and to having done the same to several other women with whom he has been involved.

In light of that, I find your choice of the bolded words discomforting.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And that is the speculation on your part too. So now we are both speculating. I personally wouldn't use a gun and believe that the fights can be hammered out without having to go all that way.

What part is speculation? Mr. Gray admitted to having physically assaulted and threatened her that day, and to having done so repeatedly in the past, and to having done the same to several other women with whom he has been involved.

In light of that, I find your choice of the bolded words discomforting.

We'll see if that's the same story when they hold this new trial.

 

[Emily Lake]

If Mr. Gray repeatedly changes his story, do you believe that enhances his credibility and reduces the credibility of Ms. Alexander?

 

[coloradoatheist]

If Mr. Gray repeatedly changes his story, do you believe that enhances his credibility and reduces the credibility of Ms. Alexander?

It can depend. If he changed his story to support Mr Alexander and said why, then it would reduce her credibility.

 

[Emily Lake]

If Mr. Gray repeatedly changes his story, do you believe that enhances his credibility and reduces the credibility of Ms. Alexander?

It can depend. If he changed his story to support Mr Alexander and said why, then it would reduce her credibility.

Why do you believe so, given that his initial statement supported her version, then he subsequently changed it?

How is it that the person whose story has stayed stable is the person whose credibility you reduce?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It can depend. If he changed his story to support Mr Alexander and said why, then it would reduce her credibility.

Why do you believe so, given that his initial statement supported her version, then he subsequently changed it?

How is it that the person whose story has stayed stable is the person whose credibility you reduce?

I asked if we had the original statements, which were the police reports on that day. His 911 call was hey she ran to her truck, brought back the gun and shot us me and my son and then changed it slightly to say she shot near and then called 911 after removing the kids and him from safety. What did he say when the cops showed up?