Dude Abides
Banned
Is this a serious question?
Was yours a serious post?
Is this a serious question?
The moronic second sentence of you knew she was a black woman AMURICA.
I love how our justice system is so ass-backwards that it tries to preclude anyone, even judges, from being able to think rationally about a given situation. 20 years for that, GTFO.
So say it is the correct charge for a warning shot. Under Florida's stand your ground law, no crime has been committed, because a verbal threat removes the criminal element of her firing the gun.
Honest question - do you believe that 20 years is an appropriate sentence in this case?
How. How. I've had people beating me over the head with Stand Your Ground rationalizations for months, please, please explain how this does not apply now.
Ya, because that's exactly what you said. I give up.Yeah, I saw a headline of a woman facing outrageous charges for defending herself and I got a sinking feeling of "I bet it's a black woman getting fucked by the system." Apparently that was moronic. Okay.
How. How. I've had people beating me over the head with Stand Your Ground rationalizations for months, please, please explain how this does not apply now.
Yep. Don't forget about the three strikes your out laws that could send you to jail for life for stealing a chocolate bar. Theft with a prior=felony theft, third felony conviction=life in jail.
I agree she should have got something, but 20 years is a bit much. Going back into the house and blindly firing a gun with children in the house deserves some kind of punishment.
How is it that Zimmerman was only apprehended after a national shitstorm but this woman is booked with 20 years.
So I mis-spoke [wrote] and you read something I didn't intend. But okay, give up instead (???).Ya, because that's exactly what you said. I give up.
Unless the chocolate bar was made of gold, that's not true, since stealing a chocolate bar is not a felony, or if what you meant to say by chocolate bar is "violent crime and or serious felony".
She was offered a 3 year plea bargain and refused to accept it.
Because this isn't like the zimmerman case? She apparently reentered the house too which is the only reason the judge didn't throw the case out completely.
It's like you didn't read the OP.
Yeah, 3 years is nothing for a mother of two. What was she thinking?
Unless the chocolate bar was made of gold, that's not true, since stealing a chocolate bar is not a felony, or if what you meant to say by chocolate bar is "violent crime and or serious felony".
She was offered a 3 year plea bargain and refused to accept it.
Felony petty theft is the colloquial term for a statute in the California Penal Code (Section 666) that makes it possible for a person who commits the crime of petty theft to be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor if the accused had previously been convicted of a theft-related crime at any time in the past. The technical name for the charge is petty theft with a prior.
Though this law has been on the books in California since 1872, its existence took on new importance after the state's voters approved a three strikes law in a 1994 referendum, when it appeared on the ballot as Proposition 184. In certain cases, a person with two prior felony convictions has been charged with a third felony for committing a minor shoplifting crime. If one of the two previous felony charges had involved stealing in any manner then the shoplifting conviction, thus upgraded to a felony, would result in a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison under the three-strikes law.
This scenario has aroused harsh criticism, not only throughout the United States, but also globally; several court challenges to its inclusion in the three-strikes law were pending as of 2004, but a ballot measure that would have eliminated it, known as Proposition 66, was rejected by California voters on November 2, 2004; the measure was opposed by most law-enforcement unions in the state, and also by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The main complaint with Proposition 66 was that it would retroactively resentence all offenders convicted of third strike offenses, allowing violent criminals (who had served sentences for their previous crimes) to be released.
Texas, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia, and Arizona have also enacted Three Strikes laws for habitual offenders, making petty larceny a felony if there have been prior convictions.
Yeah, 3 years is nothing for a mother of two. What was she thinking?
Was yours a serious post?
I love how our justice system is so ass-backwards that it tries to preclude anyone, even judges, from being able to think rationally about a given situation. 20 years for that, GTFO.
Yes. Do you have a point here or are you just trying to string me along on some little game of yours?
Were they her kids? I didn't see anything that says they were her kids. If they were her kids what kind of mom leaves them behind with their abusive dad and then proceeds to fire a gun inside the house where they are as well?
Lincoln Alexander, Marissa Alexanders first husband who brought media attention to her case with the site Justice for Marissa strongly disagrees. He pointed out that one of Rico Gray Sr.s sons recanted his testimony in open court and believes that the moment triggered Coreys 3-year plea deal offer to Marissa Alexander in March 2011.
Im really surprised that someone in Ms. Coreys position would make false statements about a case that are so far off base, argues Lincoln Alexander. Please understand that Ms. Corey released only one of four photos to prove her point. If you look at all 4 photos, it is apparent that the confrontation took place in the kitchen. The single shot, went through the sheet rock in an upward direction and the bullet went through the wall and entered into the ceiling. The trajectory of the bullet does not support Ms. Coreys statement.
I don't see what children have to do with it other than providing an easy emotional hook.
They did think rationally. Her story doesn't make sense. If she feared for her life she would not have run back into the house.
I can't really help it if endangering children elicits an emotional response in me, but I don't see how that implies I think discharging firearms in the direction of adults is "better."
I wonder if her attorneys attempted to get her to accept the plea bargain but she decided not to take it and take her chances? Here's the downside to taking your chances in court on something that could go either way.
Yea, we have been hearing this for a month now here. They have really been making this about race but unfortunately we have do have the 10-20-life law here. She was already out the door, she could have gotten help or called the police if she feared for her life and they offered her a plea bargain which she declined. Even at 3 years she would have had time served and probably got early probation. Their were kids in the house when she fired. She should have taken the plea bargain.
Domestic abuse is never a good thing and only gets ugly if not taken care of early. Hopefully something happens to the shitbag husband but the way things work, probably not.
The law and the way it was applied is wrong.
Clicked in this thread, completely positive this woman wasn't white. Sigh. Way to go, Florida.She's an African American woman.
But everyone loved Angela Corey when it came to prosecuting George Zimmerman.
It's less justifying and more I don't feel sorry for her at all."She could have killed a child. Fuck her." strikes me as emphasizing the age of the person allegedly "endangered" for no real reason other than to appeal to emotion to justify a disproportionate punishment.
One killed someone and is still walking free, and will most likely get off. The other got 20 years for a warning shot. But don't let such "minor" differences get in the way of that strawman.
Yeah, I saw a headline of a woman facing outrageous charges for defending herself and I got a sinking feeling of "I bet it's a black woman getting fucked by the system." Apparently that was moronic. Okay.
She was offered a 3 year plea bargain and refused to accept it.
They did think rationally. Her story doesn't make sense. If she feared for her life she would not have run back into the house.
She said she escaped and ran to the garage, intending to drive away. But, she said, she forgot her keys, so she picked up her gun and went back into the house. She said her husband threatened to kill her, so she fired one shot.
Well, the problem is she didn't fire at her abusive husband. She fired at the room the kids were in.An African American Woman has no right to fire a gun at her abusive Husband! She might hurt her kids!
Why does everyone keep skipping this part of the story:
Without her keys, she was basically screwed. Taking her gun with her was probably the right decision.
If I'm scared for my life and the source of my fear is in the house and I am without keys, I run to a neighbor. You might argue that maybe she didn't know her neighbors, but if you are scared for your life that won't stop you from instinctively trying to taking refuge in their house and calling the cops from there.It doesn't really matter how many times this type of thing happens. No matter what overwhelming statistical data is shown, people will always reject claims of racism.
As she should have. She has a right to trial by jury, and in a fair criminal justice system, she would not have been prosecuted for firing a warning shot to scare off a deadly attacker.
Why does everyone keep skipping this part of the story:
Without her keys, she was basically screwed. Taking her gun with her was probably the right decision.
That would be reckless endangerment which is punishable.next up:
man gets 20 years for thinking about letting off a warning shot!
Do they live in the middle of nowhere?Without her keys, she was basically screwed. Taking her gun with her was probably the right decision.
Why would she be screwed without her keys? She has a gun.Without her keys, she was basically screwed. Taking her gun with her was probably the right decision.
As she should have. She has a right to trial by jury, and in a fair criminal justice system, she would not have been prosecuted for firing a warning shot to scare off a deadly attacker.
It's less justifying and more I don't feel sorry for her at all.
Taking the gun, maybe. But what was it that made her shoot it?
She said her husband had read cell phone text messages that she had written to her ex-husband, got angry and tried to strangle her.
She said she escaped and ran to the garage, intending to drive away. But, she said, she forgot her keys, so she picked up her gun and went back into the house. She said her husband threatened to kill her, so she fired one shot.
"I believe when he threatened to kill me, that's what he was absolutely going to do," she said. "That's what he intended to do. Had I not discharged my weapon at that point, I would not be here."
Well, the problem is she didn't fire at her abusive husband. She fired at the room the kids were in.
And just as a note, it seems that the only evidence we have that he was abusive was her good word.
Well, the problem is she didn't fire at her abusive husband. She fired at the room the kids were in.
And just as a note, it seems that the only evidence we have that he was abusive was her good word.
You don't feel sorry for a woman who's husband tried to strangle her and is now facing 20 years in prison, away from her children, for trying to scare her would-be killer away with a warning shot?
It's literally the next line after the part I quoted:
You don't feel sorry for a woman who's husband tried to strangle her and is now facing 20 years in prison, away from her children, for trying to scare her would-be killer away with a warning shot?
It's literally the next line after the part I quoted:
She had her trial by jury.
So...this particular jury, in it's entirety, is unfair then?
Did she give him an opportunity to back off after brandishing her gun? If she feared for her life, why didn't she shoot him?
Why would she be screwed without her keys? She has a gun.