And that is completely and totally stupid. A moral person always tries to avoid hurting someone. Attempting to scare them off is always preferable to actually hurting them.
The only reason shooting someone when you are in danger is justified is that it’s really hard to think rationally in such a situation. It’s not because it’s the best action.
This is also why I hate all the laws against brandishing a gun. There is no rational reason why showing your gun or using a warning shot should give you a lesser punishment than actually shooting someone.
And will people shut up about the defense-money thing? The court is legally required to provide you a defense. Zimmerman is choosing to pay that much money for his trial. Or there’s a problem with the way the court-provided defense is set up–in which case you should be lobbying for that to be changed, not lobbying for a law that gets around the court system.
When someone is threatening your life, you have no moral duty to protect them, and arguably, if you have dependants, a moral duty to protect yourself at their expense.
We aren’t discussing justice, we are discussing how the legal system works. I should also point out that maybe she was shooting at her husband and was too ignorant to realize that it a serious crime to fire a warning shoot. Hardly surprising, since you don’t seem to understand it either. If she had asked for a lawyer instead of talking to the police, then the attorney would have told her to keep her mouth shut.
If you want to discuss justice, don’t you think that abandoning her children is a worse crime than lying to a police officer? If she had talked to a lawyer first, then she would have understood her choices.
Are you saying that if you had been in the room, you would have told the police that she was firing a warning shot and put her in jail for 20 years instead of saying it was an accidental discharge?
I asked you a simple question. If Zimmerman walks while this woman goes to prison for a victimless crime, do you think this is just? In other words, do you think this is how the world should work?
You’re asking if I would deliberately mislead investigators if I witnessed someone fetch a gun and then return to fire a shot in anger in a room with two kids in it? No, I don’t think so - not even so far as to characterize a missed shot as a “warning shot.”
Gotta love how she is faulted for being too ignorant to know a warning shot is illegal. If you fear for your life, you don’t have the capacity to ponder case law and legalities.
BTW, I don’t think Alexander shot that gun in self-defense, and I have no problems with her being arrested and charged with a crime. I think 20 years is so obscene, though, it makes the legal system look like a sick joke.
Plug a bullet into a kid while he is defending himself against someone hellbent on detaining him = okey dokey as long as there are no witnesses
Fire a warning shot off during a fight with your chronically abusive husband = 20 year sentence, bitch!
He had one misdemeanor domestic violence charge from six years ago, resulting from a shove during an argument. The only plausible testimony painting him as a serial abuser came from him himself, apparently in an attempt to help her avoid prison and keep their new marriage together. He recanted that after she sought him out at the safe house he was staying at and punched him in the face.
And that “warning shot” was fired in his direction (at head level,) with his nine year old son standing beside him. She should have taken her three years with gratitude, because she didn’t have a leg to stand on.
She went to her car and came back with a gun - if she felt threatened she could have simply left. Trying to paint this as “self-defense” ridiculous. She shot at someone in anger.
No, you are standing on a soapbox and asking rhetorical questions and no I don’t think she should go to prison for being a idiot. If I had been on the jury, i would have voted to acquit her. I guess that is why I never picked for a jury. The only reason this got to a jury is because Angela Cory decided to file charges. She is the one that actually had a choice. Keep that in mind when we discuss the Zimmerman case. Sbe decided to put a woman in jail for 20 years for putting a hold in the ceiling.
I think of the law like a piece of software with bugs in it. That’s why we have people in the loop.
Read this carefully: The evidence shows that she fired directly at her husband with his son standing right next to him, in a situation that could not possibly be reasonably described as “self defense.”
Also, she was offered a three year plea bargain for this significant offense, and Corey only ruled out probation because she subsequently committed another violent offense while out on bail.
Do you know who opted for a twenty year term for Marissa Alexander? Marissa Alexander.
My friends and family manage to get through their days without shooting at anyone in anger, so I feel secure in the belief that I’ll never have to lie to the authorities to cover up their firearms offenses.
If, as the evidence suggests, Zimmerman is the victim of a crime and this woman fired a “warning shot” in the general direction of her husband, then yes, that is just, and how the world should work.
Go back and read my last post for comprehension. You’ll see me clearly state I don’t believe she fired the gun off in self defense and I take no issue with her being arrested and charged with a crime.
But I do believe the sentence is stupid, offensive, and a waste of taxpayer money and prison space.
In my opinion, it all depends on who initiated the violent confrontation.
I firmly believe that George Zimmerman picked a battle that was not his, and he should have waited for police to show up and not get personally involved beyond that. However, if he did simply say to Trayvon “What are you doing here, do you belong to this neighborhood?” after identifying himself as a concerned citizen and he was attacked, then he can claim self defense.
However if he did not identify himself and came off as antagonistic, then who is to say Trayvon was not defending himself from what he perceived to be a threat? Granted, there is no excuse for ever being violent unless you are defending yourself from death, but we do not know all the facts, especially not the key facts that adequately demonstrate who is at fault.
She didn’t fire it at anyone, did she? She shot at the ceiling in what looks like a fit of anger. It would be similar to her hurling chair against a wall. The only difference is that her “chair” was a bullet. I don’t think we should be spending 20 years worth of taxpayer money on this type of crime.
At any rate, her case has nothing to do with Zimmerman and I probably shouldn’t have brought it up. Just saying there has got to be a better case for SYG supporters to rally behind other than Zimmerman’s. I’ll concede that Alexander is probably not the best example.
No, she was convicted because the evidence shows that she fired the gun at her husband. The bullet went through the wall, ricocheted, and ended up in the ceiling of the next room.
People tend to see her as an instantly sympathetic figure, because she is portrayed as a battered woman, and because she “fired at the ceiling..” But this is a flimsy narrative she created (initially corroborated by her husband to try to keep her out of prison,) and not supported by the evidence. She said she didn’t simply leave because the garage door didn’t work, but it was working fine. After her second arrest for ignoring a court order and assaulting her husband, a police officer testified that he observed her deliberately smash her face into the side of the cruiser in front of him, to try to support a story that she’d only hit him because he hit her first.
Of course the jury returned a “guilty” verdict - what else could they do?