Support NeoGAF

[Dude Abides]

Is this a serious question?

Was yours a serious post?

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

The moronic second sentence of you knew she was a black woman AMURICA.

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.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

But everyone loved Angela Corey when it came to prosecuting George Zimmerman.

 

[krae_man]

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.

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.

 

[SouthernDragon]

How is it that Zimmerman was only apprehended after a national shitstorm but this woman is booked with 20 years.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

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.

I never said it was appropriate, but apparently it's something florida is excessively strict on so it shouldn't be that surprising that she got that high after denying her plea bargin. You're changing the subject now though, all I responded to was you asking how it was assault if no one was physically harmed and physical harm has nothing to do with assault.

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.

Ya, because that's exactly what you said. I give up.

 

[Flatline]

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.

Yeap, I'd love to read what the posters who defended Zimmerman have to say about this.

 

[kehs]

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.

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.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

How is it that Zimmerman was only apprehended after a national shitstorm but this woman is booked with 20 years.

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.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Ya, because that's exactly what you said. I give up.

So I mis-spoke [wrote] and you read something I didn't intend. But okay, give up instead (???).

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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.

Yeah, 3 years is nothing for a mother of two. What was she thinking?

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.

Zimmerman was on tape, to the police, saying he got out of his vehicle to chase down an unarmed youth. Again, almost a month to even get arrested. This woman said she went back in the house to get her keys while fearing for her life (having suffered physical violence), and then fired when confronted again.

You know what, you're right. These cases are nothing alike. Fuck Florida.

It's like you didn't read the OP.

Yes, I understand that 3 is less than 20. What am I missing Mr. Snark?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Yeah, 3 years is nothing for a mother of two. What was she thinking?

It's like you didn't read the OP.

 

[krae_man]

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.

I saw something on TV about this where one prosecutor in one county was refusing to send people to jail for life for minor offenses and in some cases was giving people plea agreements with punishments far less then they probably should have got for the crime they committed because he felt the punishment of life in prison was disproportionate to the crime and a waste of tax payer money. Meanwhile, in another county a prosecutor was all about getting the maximum penalty for all crimes because he was "tough on crime".

They talked to a bunch of people who were sentenced to life under the rule. One guys third offense was stealing a pack of AA's

 

[Alucrid]

Yeah, 3 years is nothing for a mother of two. What was she thinking?

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?

 

[tiff]

Was yours a serious post?

Yes. Do you have a point here or are you just trying to string me along on some little game of yours?

 

[Mudkips]

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.

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.

 

[Dude Abides]

Yes. Do you have a point here or are you just trying to string me along on some little game of yours?

I don't see what children have to do with it other than providing an easy emotional hook.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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?

The OP doesn't make it clear, but it appears they were husbands kids. The OP does state that she has a daughter.

Digging further.

Lincoln Alexander, Marissa Alexander’s 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 Corey’s 3-year plea deal offer to Marissa Alexander in March 2011.

“I’m really surprised that someone in Ms. Corey’s 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. Corey’s statement.”

http://politic365.com/2012/05/15/angela-corey-speaks-on-marissa-alexander-case/

Hmmm...

 

[tiff]

I don't see what children have to do with it other than providing an easy emotional hook.

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."

 

[slit]

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.

The judge did not think about anything, his hands were tied.

Read the first sentence.

 

[789shadow]

20 years is too much, but I can't say I disagree with jailtime.

 

[Az]

Oh Jacksonville, you so crazy.

 

[Aselith]

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.

 

[Dude Abides]

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."

"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.

 

[Kettch]

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.

You should not be forced to accept a plea bargain and skip your trial in order to receive a fair sentence.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

She shouldn't have been convicted in the first place.

She fired a warning shot. No one was hurt. Coulda/woulda/shoulda is irrelevant.

 

[Ponn]

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.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

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.

 

[Ponn]

The law and the way it was applied is wrong.

The prosecutor knew their hands would be tied by the law if they went to trial, thats why she attempted a plea bargain. Florida has some pretty strict rigid laws like the 10-20-life which we have had for a long time. Trying to take it out on the court system after they have been passed is the wrong place. You need to take it to the lawmakers. Which ironically Mrs. Brown is a part of.

 

[Lambtron]

She's an African American woman.

Clicked in this thread, completely positive this woman wasn't white. Sigh. Way to go, Florida.

 

[BHZ Mayor]

But everyone loved Angela Corey when it came to prosecuting George Zimmerman.

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.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

next up:

man gets 20 years for thinking about letting off a warning shot!

 

[tiff]

"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.

It's less justifying and more I don't feel sorry for her at all.

 

[kehs]

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.

One had a prior felony and was offered three years.

The other case isn't over yet.

Oh no, details.

 

[kame-sennin]

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.

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.

She was offered a 3 year plea bargain and refused to accept it.

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.

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.

Why does everyone keep skipping this part of the story:

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.

Without her keys, she was basically screwed. Taking her gun with her was probably the right decision.

 

[dojokun]

An African American Woman has no right to fire a gun at her abusive Husband! She might hurt her kids!

Well, the problem is she didn't fire at her abusive husband. She fired at the room the kids were in.

 

[Zoe]

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.

Taking the gun, maybe. But what was it that made her shoot it?

 

[dojokun]

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.

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.

 

[Akainu]

next up:

man gets 20 years for thinking about letting off a warning shot!

That would be reckless endangerment which is punishable.

Without her keys, she was basically screwed. Taking her gun with her was probably the right decision.

Do they live in the middle of nowhere?

 

[2San]

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.

 

[eagledare]

I guessed Texas. Well-played, Florida.

 

[kehs]

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.

She had her trial by jury.


So...this particular jury, in it's entirety, is unfair then?

 

[kame-sennin]

It's less justifying and more I don't feel sorry for her at all.

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?

Taking the gun, maybe. But what was it that made her shoot it?

It's literally the next line after the part I quoted:

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."

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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.

Nope. At least 3 publicly documented cases of Domestic violence:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93359936/Marissa-Alexander-Husband-Rico-Gray-Domestic-Abuse-History

 

[Mr. Patch]

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.

And the husband himself...

EDIT: Beaten to it.

 

[Chumly]

I posted this in the trayvon Martin thread. Institutional racism at its finest. In addition you will never see the outrage from conservatives since the lady was black.

 

[Zoe]

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:

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?

 

[Alucrid]

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:

Does she have kids that the article doesn't say? As far as I see the two kids in the house weren't hers and like I said earlier what kind of mother leaves her kids there with her husband, then fires off a shot in the house that they're in?

 

[kame-sennin]

She had her trial by jury.


So...this particular jury, in it's entirety, is unfair then?

As I said in the text you quoted, she should not have been prosecuted. Further, the 10-20-life law is absurd and prevents judges from exercising discretion. That shouldn't exist either. This country needs a serious rollback of its mandatory sentencing laws, and the plea bargaining system needs to be reformed.

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?

Your asking questions none of us has the answer to. Further, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

Why would she be screwed without her keys? She has a gun.

Never mind.