Marissa Alexander's 20/yr sentence overturned

[Loren Pechtel]

No, unless the crime is the improper use of the gun in the first place. (Which is the case here--the conditions of self-defense aren't met, thus the shot is illegal.)



Firing a gun at people is a crime unless you're doing it in self defense.

There is no proof she actually fired the gun at someone, where there is ample reason to assume she would with to warn her violent husband.
Further, an important fact is the onus of proof was placed on the defendant not the prosecution. This is why there is a retrial, though really show should have been released. However the prosecutor has spent a lot of time giving press conferences and even trying to influence lawmakers who were debating an amendment to this bill.

Firing a gun near someone is a crime unless you're doing it in self defense.

And of course she has the burden here, although not to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. You claim self defense, you have to present evidence of self defense.

 

[Toni]

There is no proof she actually fired the gun at someone, where there is ample reason to assume she would with to warn her violent husband.
Further, an important fact is the onus of proof was placed on the defendant not the prosecution. This is why there is a retrial, though really show should have been released. However the prosecutor has spent a lot of time giving press conferences and even trying to influence lawmakers who were debating an amendment to this bill.

Firing a gun near someone is a crime unless you're doing it in self defense.

And of course she has the burden here, although not to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. You claim self defense, you have to present evidence of self defense.

Doesn't the fact that his own son testified that Gray threatened to kill Alexander evidence?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You misunderstand.

I'm saying that given the situation she did not have the ability to aim to hit or to aim to miss. It was a matter of chance. The fact that no harm was done doesn't change the fact that it was aggravated assault.

I hope no one ever gives you a pistol to shoot if you can't reasonably hit a 6 foot tall man from across a small room without eye-level aiming. You would be an incompetent shooter and giving you a gun would be negligence on the part of the giver.

I know better than to try to shoot like that unless there's nothing behind my target that matters and the purpose of the shot was to unnerve my target while I was actually aiming.

 

[ZiprHead]

I hope no one ever gives you a pistol to shoot if you can't reasonably hit a 6 foot tall man from across a small room without eye-level aiming. You would be an incompetent shooter and giving you a gun would be negligence on the part of the giver.

I know better than to try to shoot like that unless there's nothing behind my target that matters and the purpose of the shot was to unnerve my target while I was actually aiming.

Way to dodge the question and move the goalposts.

 

[laughing dog]

I hope no one ever gives you a pistol to shoot if you can't reasonably hit a 6 foot tall man from across a small room without eye-level aiming. You would be an incompetent shooter and giving you a gun would be negligence on the part of the giver.

I know better than to try to shoot like that unless there's nothing behind my target that matters and the purpose of the shot was to unnerve my target while I was actually aiming.

You do realize you are rebutting your own claims about "intent" with these posts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know better than to try to shoot like that unless there's nothing behind my target that matters and the purpose of the shot was to unnerve my target while I was actually aiming.

You do realize you are rebutting your own claims about "intent" with these posts.

She was either aiming for him and missed or she was recklessly shooting in the direction of him and the kids. A warning shot is not an option because she couldn't ensure a miss in the situation.

And I don't see how what I said is in any way rebutting the matter of intent. Sending a round in the direction of an attacker is likely to reduce his accuracy. If it hits, good, if it misses at least he's less likely to hit you while you take a good shot. That's not the same thing as a warning shot at all.

 

[RavenSky]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn had anything even remotely approaching the level of evidence of self-defense, yet Loren (among others) STILL defends the Zimmerman shooting as "self-defense".

And don't tell me that the presence of the children makes all the difference because both Zimmerman and Dunn shot their guns in public areas in the presence of others. Hell, both men actually shot AT children, KILLED children - but even if you don't count the dead boys (& I know you don't) there were neighbors in the townhouses where Zimmerman shot his gun, and store patrons where Dunn shot his. Loren never even once raised the issue of innocent bystanders in either of those cases.

There simply is no reasonable rational reason that anyone would claim that Zimmerman and Dunn had valid self-defense claims, and ALSO claim that Marissa Alexander does not. I could accept it if someone was setting the standard so high that they felt none of the three had a valid claim or so low that all of the three do have a valid claim of self-defense. But that is not Loren's position. He has simply flip-flopped, and is holding Marissa to a standard he never held Zimmerman or Dunn to.

 

[laughing dog]

You do realize you are rebutting your own claims about "intent" with these posts.

She was either aiming for him and missed or she was recklessly shooting in the direction of him and the kids. A warning shot is not an option because she couldn't ensure a miss in the situation.

Your claims that a warning shot is not an option is simply untrue. It most certainly was an option for her. How do you know that she was not firing a warning shot (i.e. firing to show she meant business but was not trying to kill him)?

And I don't see how what I said is in any way rebutting the matter of intent. Sending a round in the direction of an attacker is likely to reduce his accuracy. If it hits, good, if it misses at least he's less likely to hit you while you take a good shot. That's not the same thing as a warning shot at all.

Mr. Gray was not armed with a firearm, so there was no issue about "reducing his accuracy". So, it appears you really have no idea what you are writing about.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn had anything even remotely approaching the level of evidence of self-defense, yet Loren (among others) STILL defends the Zimmerman shooting as "self-defense".

And don't tell me that the presence of the children makes all the difference because both Zimmerman and Dunn shot their guns in public areas in the presence of others. Hell, both men actually shot AT children, KILLED children - but even if you don't count the dead boys (& I know you don't) there were neighbors in the townhouses where Zimmerman shot his gun, and store patrons where Dunn shot his. Loren never even once raised the issue of innocent bystanders in either of those cases.

There simply is no reasonable rational reason that anyone would claim that Zimmerman and Dunn had valid self-defense claims, and ALSO claim that Marissa Alexander does not. I could accept it if someone was setting the standard so high that they felt none of the three had a valid claim or so low that all of the three do have a valid claim of self-defense. But that is not Loren's position. He has simply flip-flopped, and is holding Marissa to a standard he never held Zimmerman or Dunn to.

There is definitely some on both sides since people didn't even say that Zimmerman could defend himself since he only had scratches and a slightly hurt nose while Marissa had no damage to herself. The argument we have is that the SYG or self-defense isn't in place so if you get in an argument with your spouse you are allowed to go find your gun in another room and shoot them or shoot at them.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn had anything even remotely approaching the level of evidence of self-defense, yet Loren (among others) STILL defends the Zimmerman shooting as "self-defense".

And don't tell me that the presence of the children makes all the difference because both Zimmerman and Dunn shot their guns in public areas in the presence of others. Hell, both men actually shot AT children, KILLED children - but even if you don't count the dead boys (& I know you don't) there were neighbors in the townhouses where Zimmerman shot his gun, and store patrons where Dunn shot his. Loren never even once raised the issue of innocent bystanders in either of those cases.

There simply is no reasonable rational reason that anyone would claim that Zimmerman and Dunn had valid self-defense claims, and ALSO claim that Marissa Alexander does not. I could accept it if someone was setting the standard so high that they felt none of the three had a valid claim or so low that all of the three do have a valid claim of self-defense. But that is not Loren's position. He has simply flip-flopped, and is holding Marissa to a standard he never held Zimmerman or Dunn to.

If a person feared for their safety and fired a warning shot, the presence of children would make no difference. Unfortunately our Written laws on Stand Your Ground and Self Defence are at fault.

 

[laughing dog]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn had anything even remotely approaching the level of evidence of self-defense, yet Loren (among others) STILL defends the Zimmerman shooting as "self-defense".

And don't tell me that the presence of the children makes all the difference because both Zimmerman and Dunn shot their guns in public areas in the presence of others. Hell, both men actually shot AT children, KILLED children - but even if you don't count the dead boys (& I know you don't) there were neighbors in the townhouses where Zimmerman shot his gun, and store patrons where Dunn shot his. Loren never even once raised the issue of innocent bystanders in either of those cases.

There simply is no reasonable rational reason that anyone would claim that Zimmerman and Dunn had valid self-defense claims, and ALSO claim that Marissa Alexander does not. I could accept it if someone was setting the standard so high that they felt none of the three had a valid claim or so low that all of the three do have a valid claim of self-defense. But that is not Loren's position. He has simply flip-flopped, and is holding Marissa to a standard he never held Zimmerman or Dunn to.

There is definitely some on both sides since people didn't even say that Zimmerman could defend himself since he only had scratches and a slightly hurt nose while Marissa had no damage to herself. The argument we have is that the SYG or self-defense isn't in place so if you get in an argument with your spouse you are allowed to go find your gun in another room and shoot them or shoot at them.

The only reason your description makes sense is due to the omission of two salient facts - the spouse had a history of physical abuse and the spouse threatened to kill the other spouse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

And you are unwilling to admit that her actions were those of aggression, not defense.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is definitely some on both sides since people didn't even say that Zimmerman could defend himself since he only had scratches and a slightly hurt nose while Marissa had no damage to herself. The argument we have is that the SYG or self-defense isn't in place so if you get in an argument with your spouse you are allowed to go find your gun in another room and shoot them or shoot at them.

The only reason your description makes sense is due to the omission of two salient facts - the spouse had a history of physical abuse and the spouse threatened to kill the other spouse.

The first part there isn't a question of it, however it doesn't give someone carte blanche to kill them at any time later for it. The second part of the sentence is in question. The two opposing statements were he said, "I'm going to kill you" compared to the statement that she said, "I'm going to pop your ass"

 

[whichphilosophy]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

And you are unwilling to admit that her actions were those of aggression, not defense.

One should not admit to what is not factual.

 

[laughing dog]

The only reason your description makes sense is due to the omission of two salient facts - the spouse had a history of physical abuse and the spouse threatened to kill the other spouse.

The first part there isn't a question of it, however it doesn't give someone carte blanche to kill them at any time later for it.

Since no one is making that claim explicitly or implicitly, one wonders why you are bringing it up at all.

The second part of the sentence is in question. The two opposing statements were he said, "I'm going to kill you" compared to the statement that she said, "I'm going to pop your ass"

So, you admit there is reason for her and others to fear for her safety.

 

[RavenSky]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn had anything even remotely approaching the level of evidence of self-defense, yet Loren (among others) STILL defends the Zimmerman shooting as "self-defense".

And don't tell me that the presence of the children makes all the difference because both Zimmerman and Dunn shot their guns in public areas in the presence of others. Hell, both men actually shot AT children, KILLED children - but even if you don't count the dead boys (& I know you don't) there were neighbors in the townhouses where Zimmerman shot his gun, and store patrons where Dunn shot his. Loren never even once raised the issue of innocent bystanders in either of those cases.

There simply is no reasonable rational reason that anyone would claim that Zimmerman and Dunn had valid self-defense claims, and ALSO claim that Marissa Alexander does not. I could accept it if someone was setting the standard so high that they felt none of the three had a valid claim or so low that all of the three do have a valid claim of self-defense. But that is not Loren's position. He has simply flip-flopped, and is holding Marissa to a standard he never held Zimmerman or Dunn to.

There is definitely some on both sides since people didn't even say that Zimmerman could defend himself since he only had scratches and a slightly hurt nose while Marissa had no damage to herself.

you seem to be grossly misremembering the Zimmerman case. No one denied that Zimmerman had very minor injuries. No one denies that everyone has a right to defend themselves from attacks. I do, and will continue, to refute the claim that Zimmerman sustained his very minor injuries in any sort of genuine self-defense. The mere presence of very minor injuries does not a "self-defense" claim make.

Zimmerman took his gun from his very safe, uninvolved place in his SUV and stalked Trayvon, which means that even IF Trayvon hit Zimmerman in any way, it was Trayvon who was trying to defend himself. But the Zimmerman defenders don't even actually have as a fact that Trayvon hit Zimmerman ever at all or was in any way whatsoever threatening or aggressive.

We do, however, know for a fact (based on Rico Gray's own admissions as well as other testimony and hospital records and police records) that Rico Gray had a history of abusing Marissa Alexander. We also know from Rico Gray's own testimony and that oh his own son that he was threatening Marissa Alexander with violence that night. We do not have to rely on the (presumed) self-serving word of the defendant. We know it from both Rico Gray and his son!

The argument we have is that the SYG or self-defense isn't in place so if you get in an argument with your spouse you are allowed to go find your gun in another room and shoot them or shoot at them.

So your position is that known victims of spousal abuse are not allowed to defend themselves, but known bullies are allowed to kill complete strangers and claim self-defense with zero evidence of such.

Lovely.

 

[RavenSky]

I am still mind-boggled at how far the standards have changed for this woman who was defending herself against a KNOWN ABUSER - against a man who ADMITS to beating almost every woman he's been with, including her - against an attacker who's own son said he was threatening her that day...

And you are unwilling to admit that her actions were those of aggression, not defense.

No Loren. The question is are YOU unwilling to admit that Gorge Zimmerman's and Michael Dunn's actions were those of aggression and not self-defense.


YOU are the one that needs to address your hypocritical flip-flopping

The actions of both Zimmerman and Dunn are far far far better examples of aggression... are you willing to admit that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you are unwilling to admit that her actions were those of aggression, not defense.

No Loren. The question is are YOU unwilling to admit that Gorge Zimmerman's and Michael Dunn's actions were those of aggression and not self-defense.


YOU are the one that needs to address your hypocritical flip-flopping

The actions of both Zimmerman and Dunn are far far far better examples of aggression... are you willing to admit that?

I gave Dunn the benefit of the doubt at first but I'm not objecting to his being convicted. His story didn't hold up.

 

[Derec]

Sounds like she is going to have tough time not getting convicted again; it is a shame that the law punishes so harshly. Hopefully she will take a plea bargain if it is offered again.

She just did. Another 2 months in prison (3 years with credit for time served although it could go to 5 years at a hearing) with 2 years home confinement with ankle bracelet.

 

[RavenSky]

Marissa Alexander released from prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/marissa-alexander-released-jail-warning-shot_n_6558814.html

She agreed to anger two years of "house arrest" (she is allowed to work, take her children to school, go to school herself and keep appointments - basically all a mother of young children does anyway) to avoid another trial at the hands of Angela Corey, but the Judge refused to add another two years of probation on top of that.

This isn't justice (Angela Corey never prosecuted Rico Grey for his abuse of several women) but it is better than what Marissa had before.