Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shinra]

I would agree with that point if it was Trayvon Martin shooting George Zimmerman for attacking him and he was having the book thrown at him.

But the Marissa case was someone who completely lacked the judgement to understand that there's a difference between 'stand your ground in self defense' and 'premeditated aggravated assault'. If anything, the case is just a stark example of why SYG does not work as a law, I don't see how it in itself stands as an example of it's racist connotations, which I still don't believe exist.

She's not being treated differently because she's black, she's being treated differently because she returned to the scene with a gun and recklessly discharged it in the direction of her children. If Zimmerman's story had been 'I saw this guy in the neighborhood, and he shoved me over, so I went home, grabbed my gun, came back and shot him', this story never would have exploded because he'd have been arrested on the spot.

[Classic]

Zimmerman pursued Trayvon armed with a weapon against police recommendations. Do you not get how this makes "stand your ground" of extremely questionable applicability?

She was in her residence for her possessions with the intent to peacefully leave and was threatened with death after being the victim of battery. She was going somewhere she had every right to go for purposes that can't be called into question because unlike Zimmerman, her firearm was successfully used to deter further violence instead of escalate it.

Also, you moron, there's no point in dwelling on her children unless you're talking about any child endangerment charges she's facing. Seriously, if you weren't you, I'd say you're making chauvinist assumptions about a woman's obligations and ability to control and wield force.

[Rico]

That Zimmerman followed Martin is only important for one reason: If it can be proven that Martin did attack Zimmerman, then it makes it possible for the prosecution to argue that MARTIN was acting in self-defense. If the judge/jury don't buy that it makes no difference.

[Classic]

I'm not entirely sure why you say Zimmerman's armed pursuit of Trayvon is only important if it can be proven that Trayvon did attack Zimmerman.

How does a man, evidently prepared to engage, pursuing his eventual victim fall under "Standing Your Ground?"

[Doom]

I'm rusty on the exact legality, but basically they have to establish how directly SYG applies. If they can just waive the entire case under a proper SYG defense(i.e. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and Zim was in undeniable danger of his life), there may not even be a trial. It's something like "Prove the applicability of SYG" -> "The Trial if SYG is N." But again I'm not very familiar with how it works and all we have so far is a wide variety of laughably bad stories from everyone but Zimmerman himself. The formal version submitted to the court to determine legality should be interesting.

I also think it's a big part of the incredibly shitty wording of the SYG Law itself that puts the burden of proof in a really bad spot, particularly as the other guy's side of the story would have to come from a corpse.

She was in her residence for her possessions with the intent to peacefully leave and was threatened with death after being the victim of battery. She was going somewhere she had every right to go for purposes that can't be called into question because unlike Zimmerman, her firearm was successfully used to deter further violence instead of escalate it.

The purposes can be called into question, not under common sense, but under US law. If we assume "Husband attacks her" -> "Retreats to garage" -> "Grabs gun and confronts Husband" then she should have just gave up on her car and walked away. Her house and her possessions don't matter. You call the cops and they come take care of the husband.

It's a shitty situation and I wish she'd just get a tap on the nose sentence and her husband would get brought up on abuse charges.

Also, you moron, there's no point in dwelling on her children unless you're talking about any child endangerment charges she's facing. Seriously, if you weren't you, I'd say you're making chauvinist assumptions about a woman's obligations and ability to control and wield force.

I'd say you're making assumptions about how owning a gun works and the ability to control and wield that force.

A gun isn't a magic tool. You don't carry a gun because if somebody is going to attack you, you can now shoot them for free. You don't get a free warning shot because that's how the movies do it. When you draw a gun, you change the situation dramatically. Ideally, you should never have to draw a gun because 9 times out of 10, the situation has now escalated and somebody is going to end up in jail or dead.

Of course that begs the question of "why own a gun for self-defense", but hey, that's another can of worms.

I'm just trying to explain how the legality works. If it was up to Doomarabi's Code, I guess a wife-beater could get a bullet in his primary arm's bicep and then she could call an ambulance because I guess if he bleeds out he might not learn his lesson.

[A˛]

You own a gun for self-defense against people who don't give a shit about the law.

[TA]

I'm rusty on the exact legality, but basically they have to establish how directly SYG applies. If they can just waive the entire case under a proper SYG defense(i.e. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and Zim was in undeniable danger of his life), there may not even be a trial. It's something like "Prove the applicability of SYG" -> "The Trial if SYG is N." But again I'm not very familiar with how it works and all we have so far is a wide variety of laughably bad stories from everyone but Zimmerman himself. The formal version submitted to the court to determine legality should be interesting.

Whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman is a material fact in dispute, and as such is for the jury to decide.  It would be judicial malpractice to throw the case out pretrial on such grounds unless the prosecution stipulated that, which I can't possibly imagine they would.

[Rico]

Classic: If Zimmerman attacked Martin without being attacked, then he's convicted because he's claimed to have been attacked (in a way that would make it almost impossible for Martin to have been shot, but I digress).

If Martin did attack but attacked out of his own fear then Martin gets SYG protection and Zimmerman's fucked. This is pretty much up to the prosecution, should it turn out that Zimmerman was actually attacked.

Otherwise, Zimmerman probably gets off using SYG.

Affirmative defenses are dangerous even without media conviction, though. You never know.

[Classic]

You don't carry a gun because if somebody is going to attack you, you can now shoot them for free.

Unless you're white in a SYG state, apparently.</idiotic knee jerk retort>

I get that having a theoretical combat advantage (weapons, training, immediately available allies with same) makes you shoulder a lot more legal responsibility and risk when it comes to violence. (Un?)Fortunately, I don't have a lot of experience on how my local laws work regarding armed violence and I don't expect pressing reasons to study it. The argument summary that she "retreated" to the garage is shaky to me, but it could be easy to show that she had readily available tools through which to get to safety unmolested and contact the police (though the huffpo story says she was trapped in the garage by a door she couldn't open). While the sort of person who feels compelled to have a firearm in their vehicle or garage might not live in a safe neighborhood, it's rare not to have a cell phone.

What's bothersome, of course, is that Zimmerman is assumed to have SYG protection and Marissa is assumed to have none though they've both got, at best, shaky grounds to invoke it.
The next most bothersome item is that the two cases taken together make it seem that SYG makes it safer for you to slay your presumed attacker.
Lastly, it also disturbs me how central to all of the reporting the child endangerment portion of the prosecution's arguments are. It feels like an appeal to some sense of maternal responsibility (if we're taking Marissa's word for it, extending up to dying before exposing children to mortal risk), or (more distantly) an assertion that the children were at special risk because Marissa could not control that lethal force. Of course, sexism is a different can of worms, brought up because I wondered why I felt like her children made a difference even though they were all safe and seemed to be much less exposed to mortal peril.

[Rico]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your phrasing makes it seem to me like you don't seem to know what stand your ground "protection" is. It is muddled by Zimmerman not being arrested and needing a media outcry to make it to trial at all, but stand your ground laws don't prevent you from being charged and can be dangerous in court. To make a stand your ground (or really, any self-defense plea) is to basically plead "I'm guilty, but...."

[Classic]

I'm a little vague, yeah. Being able to walk out without even an arrest after you've shot somebody dead on what was presented as a SYG basis certainly made it seem like they can prevent you from even being charged.

As far as I can tell, SYG laws are some variant on the idea that there are situations where attempting to flee from an attacker to call the police is not a reasonable requirement of a citizen and that there are circumstances where the use of force by a citizen under duress is explicitly legally justified and proof against legal (criminal?) culpability. And I have no clue what it means in tort law.

Illinois has or had some sort of "castle" principle which is or was vaguely SYGish in that you had the right to wield violence against an intruder to your home and presume that they meant you harm.

[Rico]

SYG is basically Castle outside of your Castle. Parts that may end up being interesting in the Zimmerman/Martin case are that the Florida law does specifically refer to "great bodily harm" and not just bodily harm, and that it allows even the aggressor to claim it if he uses milder force and is met with "force so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force." which I'm pretty sure is the poorly-written law version of the laser vs. laser fights where the beams collide, go back and forth for a while and then explode and fuck everyone.

[Brentai]

I was looking up something else and got distracted by this: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/05/12/gun-range-targets-made-to-look-like-trayvon-martin/

I play too damned many video games to make any real sort of comment on that but... ouch.

[Shinra]

Zimmerman pursued Trayvon armed with a weapon against police recommendations. Do you not get how this makes "stand your ground" of extremely questionable applicability?

Zimmerman has not been to trial yet, will go to trial soon, and is almost guaranteed to lose because of this. You are comparing something that hasn't happened yet (and likely won't) to something that has happened already and been decided. Just like Zimmerman misused stand your ground to shoot somebody he was vaguely suspicious of, Marissa misused stand your ground to intimidate and get revenge on her husband, at the peril of her family.

She was in her residence for her possessions with the intent to peacefully leave and was threatened with death after being the victim of battery. She was going somewhere she had every right to go for purposes that can't be called into question because unlike Zimmerman, her firearm was successfully used to deter further violence instead of escalate it.

She fled the scene and was not pursued. The point of SYG laws is that when you are faced with a fight or flight situation you do not have to choose flight or risk punishment. In theory, SYG allows for a gun owner to use a gun in a situation where they have been attacked, threatened or otherwise menaced at the time that that situation is occuring. The person who was so threatened chose the flight response over the fight response. She was not pursued. She had every opportunity to vacate the premises. She went to the garage, and presumably more lucid now, picked up a firearm, re-entered her domicile, and not only menaced her husband with the weapon, but discharged it. I understand physics are extremely hard for you Classic, but where the fuck was that bullet going to go? She didn't know where her children were in the house and presumably didn't care. She put not only herself in danger by re-entering the house, she put her children and her husband in danger by haphazardly discharging a weapon. You don't fire a weapon to make a point. Warning shots don't exist. This isn't a fucking movie, you idiot. Where do you think bullets go when they miss their intended target? Do you think they disappear into the aether, never to be seen from again?

Also, you moron, there's no point in dwelling on her children unless you're talking about any child endangerment charges she's facing. Seriously, if you weren't you, I'd say you're making chauvinist assumptions about a woman's obligations and ability to control and wield force.

Oh there's ol' Stormfronty Shinra again, sayin' things because he's crazy and racist and sexist. Maybe if you'd actually read about this case you're so interested in, you would understand that the crux of the Prosecution's argument for her conviction is that she endangered her children by returning to the scene and discharging the weapon. Not only did the prosecution argue this, but she corroborated this in her own version of the events, and a jury of her peers, in conjunction with a prosecutor for the state of Florida and a judge agreed. This isn't crazy ol' me dismissing somebody because she's one of them wimmens. This is a group of qualified people, ostensibly professionals, who, beyond a shadow of a doubt, came to the conclusion that someone made an unlawful use of force that was exempt from the provisions of SYG. They were exempt not because she was one of them negroes, or one of them vagina-havers, but because she chose to flee and then return to the scene with a weapon. If somebody pulls a knife on me, and I run away, I don't get to run to the pawn shop, buy a firearm, come back and shoot them. That's not how these laws are supposed to work. The jury made the right decision in determining this person's guilt. We can make an argument over how unreasonable the sentencing was, but this is a pretty clear example of the system actually WORKING in the prosecution of a SYG case.


edit: before you point it out: child endangerment is relevant because the only possible argument she could make for syg after successfully fleeing and returning is that she was concerned for the safety of her children. Given that she started firing off her gun like it was fucking Point Break, clearly that wasn't the case.

[Shinra]

Also, George Zimmerman was placed under arrest and taken into police custody for questioning after the shooting. He was not immediately charged, because his version of the story was the only one they had, there was no conflicting witnesses, and it seemed like a cut and dry case of self defense. And yes, part of that was due to the perception of Trayvon Martin being a black person, which is most definitely the result of racial profiling, and that's terrible. But now that facts have come out, George Zimmerman HAS been placed under arrest, he IS awaiting trial, and with public perception forever tainting Zimmerman's ability to receive anything approaching a fair trial coupled with the fact that his story has holes big enough to drive a bus through, it is almost entirely certain he will lose, and spend a very, very long time in jail.

[Classic]

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

OK... You double posted. That's cool. Well, let's go with my response to your first post...
Uh, dude, you need to not be so defensive about being "stormfronty". I didn't even have it in mind as a potential "someplace" until you suggested it. I'm just trying to tell you that what you're posting is a few admissions of institutionalized racism away from shit racists I have had to deal with as part of my elementary schooling have tried to peddle to me.

Where do you think bullets go when they miss their intended target? Do you think they disappear into the aether, never to be seen from again?

Shinra, don't be retarded.
She was in a house. Never mind that you're making assumptions about whether or not the projectile had a target. I think they disappear and are lodged in stucco, drywall and insulation. If you want to talk about movie style ricochets or violently shattering soft cover, we can do that too, but her children and spouse were uninjured.

She had every opportunity to vacate the premises. She went to the garage,

Shinra, don't be retarded.
She could not escape through the garage. Whether or not you take Marissa at her word is up to you, I suppose. But why don't you accuse me of not reading up on the case after you've read through the whole of the thread?

Zimmerman has not been to trial yet, will go to trial soon, and is almost guaranteed to lose because of this. You are comparing something that hasn't happened yet...

Shinra, for the love of God, don't be retarded.
I am not complaining about something that hasn't happened yet. I am complaining about the great disparity in how these cases have been prosecuted so far. If you think I'm being self-righteous and bitchy now, pray that Zimmerman doesn't walk after the trial without some Phoenix Wright type reveals in the courtroom. Because ho-lee-fuck do I have a lot more armchair crusader fury than this.


Shiiit.

Man, I guess I've been calling you an idiot all day. I guess that'd give me a complex too.
I'm sorry I'm constantly calling you an idiot Shinra. I know you're not an idiot. It's unfair for me to engage you in a surrogate shouting match to claim an imaginary victory over other, worser people.

Response to second post:

now that facts have come out

Let's not omit that those facts only "came out" thanks to a pretty scarily huge PR campaign. I mention this because...

public perception forever tainting Zimmerman's ability to receive anything approaching a fair trial

That sounds like a Catch-22 for getting justice done.

I don't think you're losing sleep over that, though. What with how the Trayvon case is credited as the cause of a small spree of hate crimes. And is going to lead to resentment either way.

[Rico]

Shinra, don't be retarded.
She was in a house. Never mind that you're making assumptions about whether or not the projectile had a target. I think they disappear and are lodged in stucco, drywall and insulation.

I can't find a source on what gun Marissa Alexander was using, but I'm guessing it was a 9mm loaded with hollowpoints, which is pretty standard for handgun carry. It's possible she was carrying a smaller gun, but since she was licensed for concealed carry and had firearms training, I doubt it. The FBI does ammunition tests in a variety of scenarios. Tests 4 and 5 are most relevant here: Shots from 10 feet into either two half-inch pieces of drywall or a three-quarter inch piece of plywood. 18 inches behind the obstacle is a block of ballistic gel. The measurement is bullet penetration into the gelatin.

Depending on the load, most 9mm ammo penetrates the ballistic gel 12 to 15 inches AFTER passing through the drywall or plywood (there's no substantial difference between the two substances. This is a 10 foot shot through a wall and it penetrates a whole foot into a target 18 inches PAST the wall. In fact, shots through drywall can be MORE DANGEROUS than just shooting someone because drywall dust often gets sucked into the wound. I seem to recall seeing penetration of almost 2 feet with some ammunition but it's been a while since I was doing any gun/ammo research. The point is most things you find in a house aren't going to do shit to stop a bullet.

[Classic]

Did not know a 9mm was that powerful. I'd more thought it would be more like half as much. The report I read said that the warning shot bullet hole was at the top of the kitchen wall, and didn't mention a second bullet hole entering the room where the children were. I'd guessed that the prosecution wouldn't let that detail go by unnoted and that it must have gotten lodged somewhere in the wall-stuffing, or roof insulation.

Still, no wounds. From a woman who had firearms training.

[Classic]

Oh, so the 10-20-Life law, right? It's basically what I'd have wet dreams over if I were a slimeball politician.

The law says that any crime that involves a firearm has a 10 year minimum jailing.
Any crime that involves the discharge of a firearm as 20 years minimum.
Any crime that involves a firearm fatality goes to life.


So not only can you be all tough on crime with the right wingers, but you can position yourself as for gun controls with liberals.

[Rico]

The report I read said that the warning shot bullet hole was at the top of the kitchen wall, and didn't mention a second bullet hole entering the room where the children were.

Yes, this is what actually happened. This does not change the fact that is a stupid fucking idea to intentionally fire a handgun into a wall regardless of the layout of your house or where you think your children may be in that house.