Support NeoGAF

[Satch]

Specially state which of my claims are repugnant. Please, quote it and explain why they are indeed "repugnant."

Start with this one:

"I can understand historically why this exists, but it's 2012, not 1952, and racism is not holding back most Africans Americans from achieving their goals or, on the other hand, the putting many in jail."

Read through this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471067



If I had a dollar for every time somebody said something like what you've said here, along with their "but I'M the one being bullied!" comments (like the ones you've made!), then I'd be rich enough to buy this site.

 

[tiff]

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?

Nope. Her actions were reckless. She could have killed someone. She deserves punishment.

She had every opportunity to plea down anyway but she didn't even when she was obviously in the wrong because she's an idiot.

 

[Something Wicked]

Start with this one:

"I can understand historically why this exists, but it's 2012, not 1952, and racism is not holding back most Africans Americans from achieving their goals or, on the other hand, the putting many in jail."

Read through this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471067



If I had a dollar for every time somebody said something like what you've said here, along with their "but I'M the one being bullied!" comments (like the ones you've made!), then I'd be rich enough to buy this site.

I didn't claim I was being bullied, but felt views like from the posts of soundahfekz:

Zoe you're in every thread with black people being shit on doing the same shit over and over.

How you're still around is beyond me. It's not even thinly veiled anymore, it's a fucking pattern

Every black Injustice thread it's the same characters playing the same tired ass role.

Yet if it's consoles we were talking about and the same patterns existed people would be on vacation by now.

I love being on gaf but I don't understand this shit

to be unjustified uses of the race card and just overall bullying people to "shut up" before they get essentially called racists by other people.

Since, the discussion of the OP is basically over, I'll continue to respond:

Except for some parts of the Deep South, people would rarely ever get denied for a job because of being black (putting a "white non-hispanic male" on a job application might or not filling that section out, which basically says one is a "white non-hispanic male"). If some people here believe they were denied a job because of their race (or ethnicity), I'd honestly like to hear of the experience and the company that did so.

Institutional racism. Look it up. The only person being hurt by reality is you. You don't think its wrong that minorities are in jails at disproportionate rates? Get disproportionate amount of jail time? The people that get angry about the "race card" being played at the same people that were full blown racist 30-40 years ago. Now they have passed it down to their kids who desperately will try and defend the mentality. Racism is gone. Black people get over it.

The reality is that a higher ("disproportionate" implies that there should be some set proportion) percentage of minorities are in jail in the US is because a higher percentage of minorities hacve committed illegal acts according to US laws. Now, a higher percentage of minorities are in low income brackets, which with the exception of say Japan, the poorer someone is the more likely it is for that person to commit a crime. Not that being poor justifies committing crimes, unless one/one's family is starving or in imminent danger (unlike the woman in the OP, who after obtaining a gun and the children moving beside the husband, was not).

Now, should all of the crimes that minorities...and majorities actually be crimes? That's much very up to debate, particularly when it comes to minor things like marijuana selling or using. I've identified what I think the problems of the African American communities are and their solutions before, and I can search/re-post them (in another thread) if you'd like. But, racism is closer the tenth biggest problem for African American communities than the first.

 

[Chumly]

I didn't claim I was being bullied, but felt views like from the posts of soundahfekz:





to be unjustified uses of the race card and just overall bullying people to "shut up" before they get essentially called racists by other people.

Since, the discussion of the OP is basically over, I'll continue to respond:

Except for some parts of the Deep South, people would rarely ever get denied for a job because of being black (putting a "white non-hispanic male" on a job application might or not filling that section out, which basically says one is a "white non-hispanic male"). If some people here believe they were denied a job because of their race (or ethnicity), I'd honestly like to hear of the experience and the company that did so.



The reality is that a higher ("disproportionate" implies that there should be some set proportion) percentage of minorities are in jail in the US is because a higher percentage of minorities are illegal acts according to US laws. Now, a higher percentage of minorities are in low income brackets, which with the exception of say Japan, the poorer someone is the more likely it is for that person to commit a crime. Not that being poor justifies committing crimes, unless one/one's family is starving or in imminent danger (unlike the woman in the OP, who after obtaining a gun and the children moving beside the husband, was not).

Now, should all of the crimes that minorities...and majorities actually be crimes? That's much very up to debate, particularly when it comes to minor things like marijuana selling or using. I've identified what I think the problems of the African American communities are and their solutions before, and I can search/re-post them (in another thread) if you'd like. But, racism is closer the tenth biggest problem for African American communities than the first.

Read the first post you quoted. Youve already been proven wrong. Your just embarrassing yourself now.

 

[Something Wicked]

Read the first post you quoted. Youve already been proven wrong. Your just embarrassing yourself now.

Criticizing people for their opinions and insinuating that they're being racist, while not giving an opinion on the matter in return is weak. It's politician-like, and should not be encouraged.

If you guys want to brush me off as some "naive, wanna-be tough guy (probably) white kid," then go right ahead. But, I see through this defensiveness. And, like to know if anyone here thinks racism is the #1 problem for the economic situations of many minorities in the US in 2012?

 

[Chumly]

Criticizing people for their opinions and insinuating that they're being racist, while not giving an opinion on the matter in return is weak. It's politician-like, and should not be encouraged.

If you guys want to brush me off as some "naive, wanna-be tough guy (probably) white kid," then go right ahead. But, I see through this defensiveness. And, like to know if anyone here thinks racism is the #1 problem for the economic situations of many minorities in the US in 2012?

Your being torn apart because you provide no evidence for your BS opinions. Back them up and maybe people would respect you more. I never said that racism is the NUMBER ONE ECONOMIC problem for minorities. Your the one trying to twist it into that.

People are upset over this case due to the fact that you have cases like Travon Martin which it takes a national outcry for them to press charges because of the prevailing attitude that black teenage must have been doing something wrong. Now you have a black women that attempted to defend herself in not the best way (but did not harm ANYONE) and she is immediately prosecuted with no hesitation. There is no outcry from gun advocates or conservatives who are staunch defenders of the self defense. Its a systematic problem in our criminal system that has been proven time and time again and yet you immediately pop in to blame minorities and bash people with the race card.

 

[MIMIC]

Florida has some bizarre laws. From what I learned in the other thread, you're not allowed to THREATEN to stand your ground; you just have to do it.

Florida: kill someone or go to prison.

Technically, firing a warning shot isn't "standing your ground"....it's basically that: a WARNING. But I believe that a warning falls under the category of "utilizing a measure to prevent an attack". It just isn't a physical measure (aka deadly force).

 

[Xenon]

In every thread I've "fell on the same side" there has been Blatant social injustice present. Don't even pull that shit with me man.

You, Kharvey and Zoe show up thread after thread, always playing some bullshit ass thinly veiled "what if"scenario when blacks are involved. I'm black. I realize there is a real element of inequality still present. I don't only realize it I EXPERIENCE it, so when I see the same trolls hovering around a thread with a consistent contrarian pattern and no relation to said inequality other than a pattern of disdain for black adversity, damn right I call them out.

Funny thing is, I havent even PROVIDED an opinion on this case in this thread yet, so really in quoting me what the fuck is your agenda?

Please quote where I did this in this thread? PLEASE!

I quoted you because you constantly questions others motivations and pretty much call for bannings of users for not falling in line with your line of thinking. Having been "called out" by you before, it bothered me enough to post.

I agree the argument could be made that some people don't see the "black" side of the argument. But one could be made that the "black" side of the argument is all some others see. It's not always about race but usually it's made out to be. Now in this case I am assuming her boyfriend was black. But, lets say the man was white. I'm pretty sure most of the people angry about black adversity would be saying the only reason she got 20 years was she attacked a white man. Please don't try to tell me they wouldn't because that's the way the logic works. It fills up missing details like shit in a boot tread. Sometimes race does have an effect on how things go down. Just because there is the a possibility of it, doesn't make it so.

As far as your opinion on this thread, you made it pretty clear by calling out the other posters, which pretty falls in line with every other thread I've seen you in.

 

[theignoramus]

One had a prior felony and was offered three years.

The other case isn't over yet.

Oh no, details.

Zimmerman had charges pressed against him for domestic abuse and ignored instructions to drop the chase. oh no, details.

 

[theignoramus]

Who said he should get a pass?

In this case if there was a threat to her life, she would have been justified in shooting him. That does not mean that she was justified in shooting a warning shot.

I dont understand this post at all. it's like you're turning normal, deductive reasoning ass backwards. (a hallmark of a shitty argument)
she would have been right to shoot to kill (by virtue of her shooting to kill) but she wasnt justified in firing off a warning shot, because the nature of the shot belies her claim of imminent, life threatening danger?

 

[LakeEarth]

Worst part is that the sentence just punishes the victims even more.

 

[Zoe]

I dont understand this post at all. it's like you're turning normal, deductive reasoning ass backwards. (a hallmark of a shitty argument)
she would have been right to shoot to kill (by virtue of her shooting to kill) but she wasnt justified in firing off a warning shot, because the nature of the shot belies her claim of imminent, life threatening danger?

Essentially, yes. As said before, you don't pull out the gun unless you intend to shoot. You don't shoot unless you have a target. She had a concealed carry license, so she had to learn that in order to get the license. By taking a wild shot, she put more than herself and her husband in danger.

 

[theignoramus]

Essentially, yes. As said before, you don't pull out the gun unless you intend to shoot. You don't shoot unless you have a target. She had a concealed carry license, so she had to learn that in order to get the license. By taking a wild shot, she put more than herself and her husband in danger.

then a reckless endangerment charge would have been sufficient.

 

[Zoe]

then a reckless endangerment charge would have been sufficient.

Just brandishing the weapon would have been considered assault--I think pulling the trigger was probably the tipping point. It probably doesn't help that the SWAT team was involved too.

 

[TGateKeeper]

I know but it still would have been smarter than gamble with 20, and she could have gone through an appeals process afterwards. Also she wouldn't have done the full 3 years probably.

I'm not real sure on the law of warning shots other than they're frowned upon.


It's the way people are trained. The idea is if you're in a dire enough situation to pull your gun and use it, you should be using it to neutralize the threat. Not scare someone.

That is completely incorrect. By accepting that 3 year deal she would be pleading guilty and unless they were giving her credit for the time she has already been locked up she would have to do the full 3. Plus the only appeal she could do is under 3.850 a motion to vacate sentence. If she was lucky enough to get the 3 year sentence vacated she would then have to go to trial. The only reason the state makes deals is because its easier and cheaper to get a conviction/win through plea bargaining than it is to take a case to trial. They don't give a fuck about you or if you are innocent or not.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I don't know who's arguing what anymore, but is it fair to say everyone agrees that the mandatory minimum sentence is the real problem here?

Intelligent minds can differ as to whether her re-entering the home with a gun invalidates her "self defense" argument (I think it does and thus, she is criminally in the wrong), but certainly everyone should agree that something more like 3-5 with early parole is much more reasonable. The punishment for discharging a firearm unlawfully has to be meaningful or people won't respect the power of the weapons themselves.

That said, giving her 20 years is an embarrassment for this country, and the end of her life as she knows it.

 

[Caramello]

Essentially, yes. As said before, you don't pull out the gun unless you intend to shoot. You don't shoot unless you have a target. She had a concealed carry license, so she had to learn that in order to get the license. By taking a wild shot, she put more than herself and her husband in danger.

I think you'll find that even with training that killing somebody, especially your partner, is not something you take lightly. In that situation most people wouldn't give a shit about what they were told to get their license. If they thought firing a warning shot would stop their attacker from advancing then that's what they'd do.

 

[Dead Man]

How the fuck is that a justifiable sentence? Or, since the sentence seems to be mandated, how the fuck is that a justifiable charge? Firing a firearm in an unsafe direction is bad, but 20 years bad?

 

[Unicorn]

Florida.
Why is it always florida?

Yup. Worst state in the nation for now.

 

[BHZ Mayor]

I don't know who's arguing what anymore, but is it fair to say everyone agrees that the mandatory minimum sentence is the real problem here?

Intelligent minds can differ as to whether her re-entering the home with a gun invalidates her "self defense" argument (I think it does and thus, she is criminally in the wrong), but certainly everyone should agree that something more like 3-5 with early parole is much more reasonable. The punishment for discharging a firearm unlawfully has to be meaningful or people won't respect the power of the weapons themselves.

That said, giving her 20 years is an embarrassment for this country, and the end of her life as she knows it.

For the most part, yep. The law is all kinds of screwed up. 20 years for NOT killing someone yet you can chase someone down and stab them to death and not even get a slap on the wrist. Now that I think about it, she truly would have been better off killing him because it would have been pretty much the same as the knife case except with a gun. I just can't wrap my mind around that.

 

[The Faceless Master]

ok, if the garage door was indeed locked and she didn't have her phone or keys, i can see how going back in makes sense... she still should have shot him if she felt threatened enough to draw.