Marissa Alexander's 20/yr sentence overturned

[Toni]

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.

How does that work? He lied at least one time under oath. He assaulted his pregnant wife to the extent that she went to the hospital, got a restraining order and moved out of the marital home for the duration of her pregnancy for her own safety and that if her unborn child.

He has admitted and has plenty of exes who back him up that he is an abusive husband/boyfriend.

WHY would anyone find it credible that he's suddenly developed such a soft spot for the wife he abused--and abused on the day of the gun incident--that he would purjor himself to do her a favor?

 

[RavenSky]

Dunn was convicted.

yes... The JURY got it right on this one. People here defended him, insisting he had every right to shoot at the truck. I distinctly recall certain people here insisting that it was purely self-defense.

With Zimmerman the jury determined that it was a reasonable fear on account of Trayvon giving him whoop-ass at the time of shooting.

The jury did NOT determine that Trayvon was "giving him whoop-ass at the time of the shooting". Trayvon was not the one on trial.

Regardless, that jury, and you, insist that Zimmerman had the right to self defense because Zimmerman claimed he feared Trayvon. So why are you denying the same right of self defense for Marissa when we know for an absolute FACT that Rico Gray is an abuser?

Note that Marissa had no injuries that day which would suggest he attacked her.

doesn't matter. We know for a FACT that Rico Gray had abused her in the past, and abused other women. Marissa Alexander had a VALID reason to fear Rico Gray (yet still didn't kill him). Zimmerman had zero valid reason to fear Trayvon, yet you defend him.

She tried. The garage was locked/jammed.

So she says.

So Rico Gray said too.

But then Rico Gray is good at inventing self-serving lies.

fify

So forgive me if I do not trust her on the state of the door.

but you believe Zimmerman who has been caught in far more lies than Marissa Alexander ever dreamed of making. You try to use Rico Gray's words as if they are evidence of anything in spite of all of his known lies. You aren't making a genuine judgement of her truthfulness because if you were you'd make the same argument against everything Zimmerman says or Rico Grey says or Michael Dunn says.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought this was interesting. From the 911 call Rico made on the morning of the shooting.

http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2012/05/4-lies-distortions-and-inaccuracies_19.html

What did you find interesting? The call is more in line with her firing near him then a strict straight up warning shot.

Please quote, with a link, anyone who said it was a "straight up" shot

 

[RavenSky]

You mean like Zimmerman and Dunn did?

- - - Updated - - -

. She tried. The garage was locked/jammed.

I mean another outside door, not a garage door.

Provide evidence (not your assumption) that there was any other door besides the garage door (which was jammed/locked) and the front door (which her abuser was blocking)

 

[RavenSky]

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 love how you immediately jumps to "she lied"

Rico Gray, her husband and the abuser, ALSO said the garage door wouldn't open. He said it was locked. She said it was jammed. She was in a heightened state of fear after being chased by her abuser into the garage. Maybe she assumed "jammed" when it was actually locked as Rico Grey said. That doesn't make her a liar - your prejudicial choice of word.

 

[whichphilosophy]

yes... The JURY got it right on this one. People here defended him, insisting he had every right to shoot at the truck. I distinctly recall certain people here insisting that it was purely self-defense.

With Zimmerman the jury determined that it was a reasonable fear on account of Trayvon giving him whoop-ass at the time of shooting.

The jury did NOT determine that Trayvon was "giving him whoop-ass at the time of the shooting". Trayvon was not the one on trial.

Regardless, that jury, and you, insist that Zimmerman had the right to self defense because Zimmerman claimed he feared Trayvon. So why are you denying the same right of self defense for Marissa when we know for an absolute FACT that Rico Gray is an abuser?

Note that Marissa had no injuries that day which would suggest he attacked her.

doesn't matter. We know for a FACT that Rico Gray had abused her in the past, and abused other women. Marissa Alexander had a VALID reason to fear Rico Gray (yet still didn't kill him). Zimmerman had zero valid reason to fear Trayvon, yet you defend him.

She tried. The garage was locked/jammed.

So she says.

So Rico Gray said too.

But then Rico Gray is good at inventing self-serving lies.

fify

So forgive me if I do not trust her on the state of the door.

but you believe Zimmerman who has been caught in far more lies than Marissa Alexander ever dreamed of making. You try to use Rico Gray's words as if they are evidence of anything in spite of all of his known lies. You aren't making a genuine judgement of her truthfulness because if you were you'd make the same argument against everything Zimmerman says or Rico Grey says or Michael Dunn says.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought this was interesting. From the 911 call Rico made on the morning of the shooting.

http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2012/05/4-lies-distortions-and-inaccuracies_19.html

What did you find interesting? The call is more in line with her firing near him then a strict straight up warning shot.

Please quote, with a link, anyone who said it was a "straight up" shot

I may also add that overturning the idiotic sentence didn't require rocket science.
When someone is threatened it makes no difference if there was another door. Given the violence used by the attacker in the past, a natural action would be to fire a shot rather than putting oneself in danger from an attack by looking to see if a door is opening and losing pace while turning the handle. This can be put down to weasel wording of the prosecution and the incompetent jury at the time who didn’t understand the term beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your points are well put and I would assure that it doesn't matter how she fired the shots whether they were straight up or towards the person. A competent judge who understands the principles of common law and the man’s track record wouldn’t give a rat’s behind on this. It seems that what the appeal effectively implied.

When my wife used to run her bar in the Philippines (before leasing it out) she had three types of shots

• Up in the air if there was a fight in the bar.
• Towards the person but not at the person if there was a fight in the bar
• Towards the feet of persons outside the bar if they were causing trouble outside the bar.
• Fire at will if missiles were hurled at the bar or the house at night if she couldn’t see the target.

If she were taken to the same kangaroo court as Marissa the same judge most likely would have sentenced her to a few thousand years.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

In her panic she could also be mistaken. Anyway this is irrelevant but somehow made so by the prosecution and accepted by the official court discharging its responsibilities as a kangaroo court.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

If someone changes their story where they knowingly lied they are no longer a reliable witness except in very special circumstances, like forced by way of threats give false testimony. Hence the term fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Wait for things to calm down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When my wife used to run her bar in the Philippines (before leasing it out) she had three types of shots

• Up in the air if there was a fight in the bar.
• Towards the person but not at the person if there was a fight in the bar
• Towards the feet of persons outside the bar if they were causing trouble outside the bar.
• Fire at will if missiles were hurled at the bar or the house at night if she couldn’t see the target.

If she were taken to the same kangaroo court as Marissa the same judge most likely would have sentenced her to a few thousand years.

A non-kangaroo court would also send her to jail for this.

 

[Arctish]

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

Wait for things to calm down.

... or for him to come into the garage, too, and then retreat to the rafters and wait for him to calm down. Or, if he climbs up into the rafters then tear a large hole in the roof and climb up onto the shingles and wait for him to calm down. Or, if he climbs up onto the roof, then jump into a nearby tree and wait for him to calm down. But by no means attempt to escape through the house by using a firearm to convince him step aside. And never, EVER fire a warning shot if he doesn't allow you to flee.

Warning shots are used by people who believe they are in peril but don't want to kill a fellow human being, and that's just not right. In Florida, if you think somebody might be a threat, or might become a threat, you're supposed to simply kill them and spare the legal system the necessity of investigation and prosecution.

SYG ftw.

 

[Toni]

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

Wait for things to calm down.

Really? She was in such a year to leave the house after he assaulted her that she forgot her phone and had no way to call for help. He had just knocked her around and had previously put her in the hospital when she was pregnant with his child. For too many women, the calming down comes after they are dead.

Why do I think that doesn't bother you?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wait for things to calm down.

Really? She was in such a year to leave the house after he assaulted her that she forgot her phone and had no way to call for help. He had just knocked her around and had previously put her in the hospital when she was pregnant with his child. For too many women, the calming down comes after they are dead.

Why do I think that doesn't bother you?

He broke off the fight when she went into the garage. Why didn't he follow her if was still intent on killing or beating her? On the funny motion that he locked the garage? So he showed up at the house in the morning, saw her car in the garage and went and there and locked it? And how did he lock it? He later admitted he lied to cover for Alexander. It's not the first time both people in abusive relationships have said they still loved their battering partner. Why did he change his story after she was convicted? What did he gain?

 

[Arctish]

Really? She was in such a year to leave the house after he assaulted her that she forgot her phone and had no way to call for help. He had just knocked her around and had previously put her in the hospital when she was pregnant with his child. For too many women, the calming down comes after they are dead.

Why do I think that doesn't bother you?

He broke off the fight when she went into the garage. Why didn't he follow her if was still intent on killing or beating her?

Because he knew she couldn't get out that way and was simply waiting for her to reappear? Because the satisfaction of knowing she was trapped and anticipation of beating her when she returned was something he wanted to savor? Because he was a lazy bully, and didn't feel like chasing her around the garage when he knew he could corner her more easily in the house? My guess is all of the above.

On the funny motion that he locked the garage? So he showed up at the house in the morning, saw her car in the garage and went and there and locked it? And how did he lock it? He later admitted he lied to cover for Alexander. It's not the first time both people in abusive relationships have said they still loved their battering partner. Why did he change his story after she was convicted? What did he gain?

Why did he change his story at all? Which version is to be trusted? If he changes his story yet again, how would that make him more credible and her less?

 

[Toni]

Really? She was in such a year to leave the house after he assaulted her that she forgot her phone and had no way to call for help. He had just knocked her around and had previously put her in the hospital when she was pregnant with his child. For too many women, the calming down comes after they are dead.

Why do I think that doesn't bother you?

He broke off the fight when she went into the garage. Why didn't he follow her if was still intent on killing or beating her? On the funny motion that he locked the garage? So he showed up at the house in the morning, saw her car in the garage and went and there and locked it? And how did he lock it? He later admitted he lied to cover for Alexander. It's not the first time both people in abusive relationships have said they still loved their battering partner. Why did he change his story after she was convicted? What did he gain?

He said he didn't beat her because his kids were there. Sooner or later, the presence of kids isn't enough.

What did he gain? Control.

 

[coloradoatheist]

He broke off the fight when she went into the garage. Why didn't he follow her if was still intent on killing or beating her? On the funny motion that he locked the garage? So he showed up at the house in the morning, saw her car in the garage and went and there and locked it? And how did he lock it? He later admitted he lied to cover for Alexander. It's not the first time both people in abusive relationships have said they still loved their battering partner. Why did he change his story after she was convicted? What did he gain?

He said he didn't beat her because his kids were there. Sooner or later, the presence of kids isn't enough.

What did he gain? Control.

The same guy when later had her come over was then assaulted by her and then she fled the scene and tried to hide it? I'm curious...When she came over and started assaulted him, would he have been justified in shooting her at that time fearing for his life?

How did he gain control over a lady that was going to spend 20 years in jail?

- - - Updated - - -

He broke off the fight when she went into the garage. Why didn't he follow her if was still intent on killing or beating her?

Because he knew she couldn't get out that way and was simply waiting for her to reappear? Because the satisfaction of knowing she was trapped and anticipation of beating her when she returned was something he wanted to savor? Because he was a lazy bully, and didn't feel like chasing her around the garage when he knew he could corner her more easily in the house? My guess is all of the above.

On the funny motion that he locked the garage? So he showed up at the house in the morning, saw her car in the garage and went and there and locked it? And how did he lock it? He later admitted he lied to cover for Alexander. It's not the first time both people in abusive relationships have said they still loved their battering partner. Why did he change his story after she was convicted? What did he gain?

Why did he change his story at all? Which version is to be trusted? If he changes his story yet again, how would that make him more credible and her less?

That's why I asked for the original police reports. Both would have less time to think of how to change their story to lie and things such as the garage door being locked or her being assaulted could be checked.

 

[Toni]

On the funny motion that he locked the garage? So he showed up at the house in the morning, saw her car in the garage and went and there and locked it? And how did he lock it? He later admitted he lied to cover for Alexander. It's not the first time both people in abusive relationships have said they still loved their battering partner. Why did he change his story after she was convicted? What did he gain?

He changed his story from the deposition he gave before the trial where he said she never shot at him (which is exactly what he told the 911 operator, btw) to his testimony during the trial when he denied assaulting her, threatening her and said she fired at him and his kids.

I guess I don't know what he's said since her conviction but my guess is that enough attorneys have convinced him he'd better stick to the story that she was a murderous mad woman and he and his tiny children were her victims so that he doesn't face jail for assault and for perjury. He definitely perjured himself either in the deposition or at trial.

 

[Derec]

Provide evidence (not your assumption) that there was any other door besides the garage door (which was jammed/locked) and the front door (which her abuser was blocking)

Police found no evidence of the garage door being unable to open. Given Alexander's history of self-serving lies (see the later incident) and Grey's inconsistent testimony on this matter it is highly questionable that the door would not open.

 

[Derec]

yes... The JURY got it right on this one.

No they didn't. There was no premeditation. A manslaughter or murder two would have been more in line with what had happened.
It's perverse that Dunn gets first degree murder and a woman like Mary Winkler who shot her sleeping husband in the back and then cut phone lines because he didn't die immediately (showing clear premeditation) only got manslaughter and served mere 60 days. And feminists (including those on here) defend her!

The jury did NOT determine that Trayvon was "giving him whoop-ass at the time of the shooting". Trayvon was not the one on trial.

Even prosecution's star witness (Precious) admitted as much.

So why are you denying the same right of self defense for Marissa when we know for an absolute FACT that Rico Gray is an abuser?

They were both abusive toward each other. Or are you still in denial over her attacking him while she was out on bail?

doesn't matter.

Of course it matters.

We know for a FACT that Rico Gray had abused her in the past,

Which doesn't give her the right to shoot at him at a later date, as Angela Corey herself explained.

and abused other women.

That gives her even less right to shoot at him.

Marissa Alexander had a VALID reason to fear Rico Gray (yet still didn't kill him)

If his past behavior was reason enough to be in fear of him in general she should have brought a friend to help her get stuff (i.e. she should not have gone alone) and she definitely should not have stayed the night (does that man have a magic penis or something?) But I do not think she was in fear. She was angry ("I've got something for your ass") which also explains why she attacked him when she was released on bail. That was not behavior of somebody who was in fear of her ex.

Zimmerman had zero valid reason to fear Trayvon, yet you defend him.

Being physically battered at the time is a valid reason. Unlike Marissa, he had injuries consistent with being bashed against the ground. Also a witness saw Trayvon on top of Z.

So Rico Gray said too.

And withdrew that statement, saying he lied to protect her.
Police officer found no evidence of the door being jammed or locked.

fify

So you are still in denial over the incident where she attacked Grey, lied to the police about even being there and then tried to give herself an injury to make it seem that it was he who attacked her?

but you believe Zimmerman who has been caught in far more lies than Marissa Alexander ever dreamed of making.

Unlike her he had a lot of evidence in his favor. Like his injuries or witness statements. Also unanswered questions about Trayvon. But that is all in the past and has been discussed to death already.

You try to use Rico Gray's words as if they are evidence of anything in spite of all of his known lies.

So do you, just different words. If you want to use Grey's deposition, I get to use his later denials of it. There is no reason why the former is more credible than the latter.
Also, her lies are well known too so why do you use her words (like her not being able to open the door) as evidence of anything?

Please quote, with a link, anyone who said it was a "straight up" shot

Everybody who is using the words "in the air" (very common among St. Marissa apologists) is implying a "straight up" shot, or at least a more vertical than horizontal one.

 

[Toni]

Provide evidence (not your assumption) that there was any other door besides the garage door (which was jammed/locked) and the front door (which her abuser was blocking)

Police found no evidence of the garage door being unable to open. Given Alexander's history of self-serving lies (see the later incident) and Grey's inconsistent testimony on this matter it is highly questionable that the door would not open.

Why? Both said the door wouldn't open.

Why is Gray's testimony 'inconsistent' when in fact, he demonstrably lied under oath but Alexander has a history of 'self serving lies?'


I think I know the reason, but I'd like to hear it in your own words.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Police found no evidence of the garage door being unable to open. Given Alexander's history of self-serving lies (see the later incident) and Grey's inconsistent testimony on this matter it is highly questionable that the door would not open.

Why? Both said the door wouldn't open.

Why is Gray's testimony 'inconsistent' when in fact, he demonstrably lied under oath but Alexander has a history of 'self serving lies?'


I think I know the reason, but I'd like to hear it in your own words.

He said he didn't want her to go to jail so he backed up her story until she assaulted a few months later.