Topic: License to Go Plan Recreational Murders (Read 23367 times)

Doom · « **Reply #60 on:** April 27, 2012, 06:28:45 PM »

I can't go to 7-11 my life is over oh wait there's actually a chance in hell I can beat this charge and get off scott free and move to another country and live like a king, thanks racist shit-heels.

Brentai · « **Reply #61 on:** April 27, 2012, 08:21:25 PM »

I'm not sure what the problem is. I think all the rednecks should invest every last dime they have into this guy.

Doom · « **Reply #62 on:** April 30, 2012, 03:13:26 PM »

Zimmerman's lawyers want in on that sweet, sweet racist idiot money train.

Büge · « **Reply #63 on:** May 02, 2012, 11:17:47 AM »

Some Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin Case

Doom · « **Reply #64 on:** May 03, 2012, 03:17:14 AM »

Ahahaha they found his myspace.

Quote

“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book,” Zimmerman wrote. “Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”

It's fun to imagine every single racist defender that stepped up for Zimmerman just... completely thunderstruck. And then their brains size up a Hercules' Labor style task of trying to do the mental backflips necessary to ignore it.

Brentai · « **Reply #65 on:** May 11, 2012, 11:06:57 AM »

Floridan black woman sentenced to 20 years after firing an intentional warning shot at abusive husband who strangled and threatened to kill her. Stand Your Ground defense ignored completely.

Do we need to go fight another war over this shit? It's getting laid pretty damned bare down there.

Doom · « **Reply #66 on:** May 11, 2012, 03:22:11 PM »

SYG is a terrible law, but the case got muddied up when she retreated, grabbed her gun, went back to the guy and fired a warning shot. It's a bunch of stuff about right to retreat. "Warning Shots" are a terrible idea to begin with and I wish she could pick up a very light sentence(a few months? a year? I'm not sure what would count as light here, though 20 years is obviously some fire hose to a tea cup shit) given the circumstances and the husband might get called out on, you know, strangling his wife.

Since Florida does not want for shitty laws, I guess 10-20-Life has a good hand in the overbearing sentence.

Quote

"Under the state's 10-20-life law, a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has been discharged carries a minimum and maximum sentence of 20 years without regarding to any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that may be present, such as those in this case," Daniel said.

You can't bring up circumstances or context! This is a court! We've got people to sentence! What do you think a trial is for?! Establishing motives for actions?! Get out!

I went ahead and readied the necessary .gif.

Shinra · « **Reply #67 on:** May 11, 2012, 03:30:21 PM »

Apparently she was offered a plea deal for 3 years and her legal team refused, and the minimum sentence for aggravated assault in Florida is 20 years. I think if anyone's to blame for this it's her legal team for gambling on her getting off and failing to follow through.

I suspect this will probably be thrown out on appeal, in any event. It's a bit of a national embarassment.

additionally as Doom pointed out, she fled the house and chose to come back with a weapon. 'He had it coming' is not an adequate legal defense for aggravated assault. It looks like the DA argued that she put her children at risk by re-entering the house and firing her weapon when she could have fled on foot to, say, a neighbor's house and called the police.

edit: I'm definitely not going to argue that her husband was in the right, or that she was particularly in the wrong, or that this is a sane and just legal judgement. However, like in most things, this is not a black and white issue and what she did was in a definite legal grey area. Her legal team should have fought harder to work on getting her out on a plea deal instead of gambling on a pretty liberal interpretation of a law that is already being looked at with harsh scrutiny because of the Trayvon Martin case.

Classic · « **Reply #68 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:01:17 PM »

We don't really need to be reminded what about the nuance and questionable applicability of "stand your ground" makes this an embarrassment? The questionable applicability of "stand your ground" is what these cases have in common.

When a fairly pale latino slew a black teenager with a firearm, "stand your ground" was summarily invoked in spite of how shaky the evidence and details were.
When a black woman being threatened with death or the surrender of property uses the threat of lethal force to successfully de-escalate a situation in her home, she is jailed, tried, and convicted after a short deliberation.

Shinra · « **Reply #69 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:25:04 PM »

To be fair, the primary difference here is that one has been to trial and the other hasn't.

Don't be shocked if Zimmerman spends 30 years in prison after 15 minutes of deliberation.

Brentai · « **Reply #70 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:26:14 PM »

Is there a statement to the fact that she went back to confront her husband rather than to extract the two children trapped in a house with him?

Classic · « **Reply #71 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:30:57 PM »

Ehhh... Extracting children from a spouse when the spouse has not given very explicit threat to them is usually a no-no. Attempting to extract the children could be grounds for denying visitation if the matter came to court.

Mongrel · « **Reply #72 on:** May 11, 2012, 09:25:53 PM »

Quote from: Shinra on May 11, 2012, 07:25:04 PM

To be fair, the primary difference here is that one has been to trial and the other hasn't.

Don't be shocked if Zimmerman spends 30 years in prison after 15 minutes of deliberation.

But also don't be shocked if he doesn't.

Thad · « **Reply #73 on:** May 11, 2012, 10:19:53 PM »

The paradox about the Zimmerman situation is this:

He deserves a fair trial, same as anyone, and is innocent until proven guilty. We are a nation of laws, and the court of public opinion needs to take a step back and let the justice system work.

BUT

If the court of public opinion hadn't gone fucking apeshit on him, he never would have gone to trial in the first goddamn place, and would have gotten off scot-free for what does indeed appear to be a pretty clear case of second-degree murder.

ANYHOW, to the current subject at hand, yeah, the real villain here seems to be minimum sentencing. That shit is fucking crazy and undermines the basic job description implied by the word "judge".

Classic · « **Reply #74 on:** May 11, 2012, 10:30:27 PM »

Hey look, I'm not trying to judge people unfairly here, but...
I'm going to say that racism gets top villain billing here. Minimum sentencing (especially for first offenses), callous and "conservative" as it is, might not even rank second choice next to how baffling SYG and its implementation is.

Thad · « **Reply #75 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:32:23 AM »

You're assuming that minimum sentencing and stand your ground are not subcategories of racism.

Classic · « **Reply #76 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:53:57 AM »

Then you might as well say that Agahnim is the top villain in Link to the Past.

You know, I'm even willing to give "minimum sentencing" the benefit of the doubt in terms of how racist* it is, because at least it's (theoretically) applied uniformly across all convicts. Never mind that the process of reaching a conviction is evidently frighteningly racist, how can you tell what parts of it aren't racist or what difference those hypothetically not-racist parts actually make?

Like, maybe instead of getting convictions with unfairly light sentences some people are now just getting off the hook for these minimum sentencing crimes.

*racist rather than generally pro-establishment, which high, fixed punitive measures inevitably are.

Brentai · « **Reply #77 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:01:55 AM »

Quote from: Classic on May 12, 2012, 10:53:57 AM

Then you might as well say that Agahnim is the top villain in Link to the Past.

I do not think that counter-argument is as effective as you think it is.

Classic · « **Reply #78 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:35:57 AM »

If we were going to have a scholarly analysis of LttP, I think we're going to come to an agreement that Agahnim's a special boss, but he's definitely not top villain by any stretch.

Oh, wait, you're talking about the applicability of the analogy? Or maybe that it's useless to talk about a vague, pervasive ur-cause of inequity like racism or "dark falz"?
OK I can see the rationale for those.

Here's the thing, though. Florida just gave the rest of the US a big textbook example of how racism still lingers and disenfranchises people. We've got plenty of other little atrocities more directly about how the wealthy are paranoid, petty, and self-serving in the Oh!Bama, Republican Implosion, Occupy Boardwalk, and Mitt Romney Mitting Off Again threads. So why pick the one thing in this story that's least tied to how racist our court system can be as the villain in the Marissa Alexander case?

Thad · « **Reply #79 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:42:23 AM »

Quote from: Classic on May 12, 2012, 11:35:57 AM

If we were going to have a scholarly analysis of LttP, I think we're going to come to an agreement that Agahnim's a special boss, but he's definitely not top villain by any stretch.

...have you ever finished the game?

News:

Author Topic: License to Go Plan Recreational Murders (Read 23367 times)