Wow, just wow
- Thread starter SteveHarper
- Start date
- Status
As usual, this brief clip from the popular media tells only a part of the story.
The picture of the convicted woman is heart rending, though.
What really happened is left out of this story, as is the convicted woman's rationale for firing a weapon toward two children.
There is a little more to this than racism or wrongful prosecution.
The picture of the convicted woman is heart rending, though.
What really happened is left out of this story, as is the convicted woman's rationale for firing a weapon toward two children.
There is a little more to this than racism or wrongful prosecution.
If you know more, then please share.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
As usual, this brief clip from the popular media tells only a part of the story.
The picture of the convicted woman is heart rending, though.
What really happened is left out of this story, as is the convicted woman's rationale for firing a weapon toward two children.
There is a little more to this than racism or wrongful prosecution.
There is always more to a story than what the media reports. Maybe this is part of a setup for something bigger. A riot.
It is interesting that when the media wants a convict to look guilty, they have them against a drab plain background with no windows, but when they want to make the convict look innocent, they put them in a room with plants and windows.
As usual, this brief clip from the popular media tells only a part of the story.
The picture of the convicted woman is heart rending, though.
What really happened is left out of this story, as is the convicted woman's rationale for firing a weapon toward two children.
There is a little more to this than racism or wrongful prosecution.
There is always more to a story than what the media reports. Maybe this is part of a setup for something bigger. A riot.
It is interesting that when the media wants a convict to look guilty, they have them against a drab plain background with no windows, but when they want to make the convict look innocent, they put them in a room with plants and windows.
Her attorney is an idiot. The sentence is mandatory which is common in Florida for crimes involving a firearm. She should have been advised to take the plea bargain and ask for shock probation due to her family situation.
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
If you know more, then please share.
Simple-just read the article you posted. She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
If you know more, then please share.
Simple-just read the article you posted. She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
Another fine media creation where no wrong exists. Agreed she had a [censored] attorney, she may even have grounds for appeal here.
Smells like Trayvon all over again...
Smells like Trayvon all over again...
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
Oh, I see. She didn't stand her ground, left, and then came back with a gun to stand her ground.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny.
She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
Oh, I see. She didn't stand her ground, left, and then came back with a gun to stand her ground.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Simple-just read the article you posted. She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
Exactly. None of us were here. 12 people were apparently able to reach a verdict in a few minutes :boggle:
Simple-just read the article you posted. She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
Exactly. None of us were here. 12 people were apparently able to reach a verdict in a few minutes :boggle:
I see.
So when Zimmerman followed Martin on a *public* street, he wasn't in fear of his life (else why would he follow), but when a confrontation happened (as a result of him following Martin), he was in fear so the stand your ground law applied and he was justified in shooting him. So Zimmerman can perfectly legally create a situation in which stand your ground applies.
When this lady went in to *her* house, she wasn't in fear of her life, but when a confrontation happened, she was in fear so like the Zimmerman defence the stand your ground law could now apply. She fired a warning shot and got 20 years because it was in the direction of kids.
So for some reason she is not allowed to create a situation where stand your ground applies, but Zimmerman is? Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot and all the Zimmerman defenders would be defending her right now.
So when Zimmerman followed Martin on a *public* street, he wasn't in fear of his life (else why would he follow), but when a confrontation happened (as a result of him following Martin), he was in fear so the stand your ground law applied and he was justified in shooting him. So Zimmerman can perfectly legally create a situation in which stand your ground applies.
When this lady went in to *her* house, she wasn't in fear of her life, but when a confrontation happened, she was in fear so like the Zimmerman defence the stand your ground law could now apply. She fired a warning shot and got 20 years because it was in the direction of kids.
So for some reason she is not allowed to create a situation where stand your ground applies, but Zimmerman is? Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot and all the Zimmerman defenders would be defending her right now.
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot
I was thinking the same thing. If she shot her husband dead she would have been hailed as a hero. What an irony.
BTW, lets not talk about Zimmerman. Previous threads on that have been locked.
Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot
I was thinking the same thing. If she shot her husband dead she would have been hailed as a hero. What an irony.
BTW, lets not talk about Zimmerman. Previous threads on that have been locked.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Another fine media creation where no wrong exists. Agreed she had a [censored] attorney, she may even have grounds for appeal here.
Smells like Trayvon all over again...
Yes useless attorneys seem to be a problem, although she rejected a 3 year plea bargain sentence.
So you don't think 20 years is excessive for this?
Justice needs to be equitable. As you live in Florida, you're no doubt aware of the gang members who, courtesy of stand your ground, got off when they started a gun battle and killed an innocent 15 year old bystander.
No doubt someone will pipe up and say the media didn't report all the facts on that one.
Another fine media creation where no wrong exists. Agreed she had a [censored] attorney, she may even have grounds for appeal here.
Smells like Trayvon all over again...
Yes useless attorneys seem to be a problem, although she rejected a 3 year plea bargain sentence.
So you don't think 20 years is excessive for this?
Justice needs to be equitable. As you live in Florida, you're no doubt aware of the gang members who, courtesy of stand your ground, got off when they started a gun battle and killed an innocent 15 year old bystander.
No doubt someone will pipe up and say the media didn't report all the facts on that one.
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
I see.
So when Zimmerman followed Martin on a *public* street, he wasn't in fear of his life (else why would he follow), but when a confrontation happened (as a result of him following Martin), he was in fear so the stand your ground law applied and he was justified in shooting him. So Zimmerman can perfectly legally create a situation in which stand your ground applies.
When this lady went in to *her* house, she wasn't in fear of her life, but when a confrontation happened, she was in fear so like the Zimmerman defence the stand your ground law could now apply. She fired a warning shot and got 20 years because it was in the direction of kids.
So for some reason she is not allowed to create a situation where stand your ground applies, but Zimmerman is? Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot and all the Zimmerman defenders would be defending her right now.
You may only fire a weapon in self defence. Warning shots do not apply. If she didn't shoot at her husband she obviously did not feel her life was in danger. This how the courts see it anyway. Personally I feel warning shots could avert disastrous situations in some cases. As for Zimmerman, he fired in self defence. Stand your ground does not apply. Martin was straddled on top of him beating him (according to witnesses) so he had no option of retreating. Another case of the media using it's rescources to suit it's agenda.
I see.
So when Zimmerman followed Martin on a *public* street, he wasn't in fear of his life (else why would he follow), but when a confrontation happened (as a result of him following Martin), he was in fear so the stand your ground law applied and he was justified in shooting him. So Zimmerman can perfectly legally create a situation in which stand your ground applies.
When this lady went in to *her* house, she wasn't in fear of her life, but when a confrontation happened, she was in fear so like the Zimmerman defence the stand your ground law could now apply. She fired a warning shot and got 20 years because it was in the direction of kids.
So for some reason she is not allowed to create a situation where stand your ground applies, but Zimmerman is? Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot and all the Zimmerman defenders would be defending her right now.
You may only fire a weapon in self defence. Warning shots do not apply. If she didn't shoot at her husband she obviously did not feel her life was in danger. This how the courts see it anyway. Personally I feel warning shots could avert disastrous situations in some cases. As for Zimmerman, he fired in self defence. Stand your ground does not apply. Martin was straddled on top of him beating him (according to witnesses) so he had no option of retreating. Another case of the media using it's rescources to suit it's agenda.
Last edited:
I'm disgusted by this. It's entirely possible she was negligent. So what?
The discharge of a firearm is not a crime worthy of 20 years. Certainly, if one is in fear, yet, keeps a cool head, nobody needs to be shot, and a warning shot is warranted.
Let's look at the facts for what they are. The judge had no choice, as FL law requires a 20 year sentence. That's absurd and clearly unconstitutional. Nobody was hurt. And, the judge, jury and public have no say in the matter.
Can you imagine a situation, slightly different where the same mandatory 20 year law might apply to you? I can. I'm out hunting, and unknowingly trespass on county or state land, (thereby committing a crime) I then decide to fire off a couple of rounds at some coke cans. Do I deserve 20 years, because, that's the rest of my life. It's not likely I'll live any longer than that.
I've hurt nobody.
The discharge of a firearm is not a crime worthy of 20 years. Certainly, if one is in fear, yet, keeps a cool head, nobody needs to be shot, and a warning shot is warranted.
Let's look at the facts for what they are. The judge had no choice, as FL law requires a 20 year sentence. That's absurd and clearly unconstitutional. Nobody was hurt. And, the judge, jury and public have no say in the matter.
Can you imagine a situation, slightly different where the same mandatory 20 year law might apply to you? I can. I'm out hunting, and unknowingly trespass on county or state land, (thereby committing a crime) I then decide to fire off a couple of rounds at some coke cans. Do I deserve 20 years, because, that's the rest of my life. It's not likely I'll live any longer than that.
I've hurt nobody.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I'm disgusted by this. It's entirely possible she was negligent. So what?
The discharge of a firearm is not a crime worthy of 20 years. Certainly, if one is in fear, yet, keeps a cool head, nobody needs to be shot, and a warning shot is warranted.
You can say. But if you understand when and only when the weapon is drawn it is at that point (not sooner..not later) your life is threatened and there is no longer an option "not" to use it.
This is why endless speculation and incorrect conclusions are made on "should she/he" have shot. The only mistake made is should the weapon be drawn.
Cliffs Notes..You never, never fire a warning shot. Someone that doesn't understand that is not qualified to carry.
I'm disgusted by this. It's entirely possible she was negligent. So what?
The discharge of a firearm is not a crime worthy of 20 years. Certainly, if one is in fear, yet, keeps a cool head, nobody needs to be shot, and a warning shot is warranted.
You can say. But if you understand when and only when the weapon is drawn it is at that point (not sooner..not later) your life is threatened and there is no longer an option "not" to use it.
This is why endless speculation and incorrect conclusions are made on "should she/he" have shot. The only mistake made is should the weapon be drawn.
Cliffs Notes..You never, never fire a warning shot. Someone that doesn't understand that is not qualified to carry.
Originally Posted By: INMY01TA
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
I see.
So when Zimmerman followed Martin on a *public* street, he wasn't in fear of his life (else why would he follow), but when a confrontation happened (as a result of him following Martin), he was in fear so the stand your ground law applied and he was justified in shooting him. So Zimmerman can perfectly legally create a situation in which stand your ground applies.
When this lady went in to *her* house, she wasn't in fear of her life, but when a confrontation happened, she was in fear so like the Zimmerman defence the stand your ground law could now apply. She fired a warning shot and got 20 years because it was in the direction of kids.
So for some reason she is not allowed to create a situation where stand your ground applies, but Zimmerman is? Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot and all the Zimmerman defenders would be defending her right now.
You may only fire a weapon in self defence. Warning shots do not apply. If she didn't shoot at her husband she obviously did not feel her life was in danger. This how the courts see it anyway. Personally I feel warning shots could avert disastrous situations in some cases. As for Zimmerman, he fired in self defence. Stand your ground does not apply. Martin was straddled on top of him beating him (according to witnesses) so he had no option of retreating. Another case of the media using it's rescources to suit it's agenda.
Does that mean Martin was acting is self defence? He was after all trying to get away from Zimmerman who was following him against police advice.
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
I see.
So when Zimmerman followed Martin on a *public* street, he wasn't in fear of his life (else why would he follow), but when a confrontation happened (as a result of him following Martin), he was in fear so the stand your ground law applied and he was justified in shooting him. So Zimmerman can perfectly legally create a situation in which stand your ground applies.
When this lady went in to *her* house, she wasn't in fear of her life, but when a confrontation happened, she was in fear so like the Zimmerman defence the stand your ground law could now apply. She fired a warning shot and got 20 years because it was in the direction of kids.
So for some reason she is not allowed to create a situation where stand your ground applies, but Zimmerman is? Maybe she should have just shot him rather than fired a warning shot and all the Zimmerman defenders would be defending her right now.
You may only fire a weapon in self defence. Warning shots do not apply. If she didn't shoot at her husband she obviously did not feel her life was in danger. This how the courts see it anyway. Personally I feel warning shots could avert disastrous situations in some cases. As for Zimmerman, he fired in self defence. Stand your ground does not apply. Martin was straddled on top of him beating him (according to witnesses) so he had no option of retreating. Another case of the media using it's rescources to suit it's agenda.
Does that mean Martin was acting is self defence? He was after all trying to get away from Zimmerman who was following him against police advice.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al
But if you understand when and only when the weapon is drawn it is at that point (not sooner..not later) your life is threatened and there is no longer an option "not" to use it.
This is why endless speculation and incorrect conclusions are made on "should she/he" have shot. The only mistake made is should the weapon be drawn.
Cliffs Notes..You never, never fire a warning shot. Someone that doesn't understand that is not qualified to carry.
I drew my weapon at my attacker, he put his hands up, threw down the knife and ran away. There was no way on God's green earth I was going to shoot him.
Sorry, but real life situations don't fit your "if you draw, you must shoot" philosophy.
But if you understand when and only when the weapon is drawn it is at that point (not sooner..not later) your life is threatened and there is no longer an option "not" to use it.
This is why endless speculation and incorrect conclusions are made on "should she/he" have shot. The only mistake made is should the weapon be drawn.
Cliffs Notes..You never, never fire a warning shot. Someone that doesn't understand that is not qualified to carry.
I drew my weapon at my attacker, he put his hands up, threw down the knife and ran away. There was no way on God's green earth I was going to shoot him.
Sorry, but real life situations don't fit your "if you draw, you must shoot" philosophy.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I drew my weapon at my attacker, he put his hands up, threw down the knife and ran away. There was no way on God's green earth I was going to shoot him.
Sorry, but real life situations don't fit your "if you draw, you must shoot" philosophy.
I bet the story would have been different if that attacker would have charged at you with a knife in his hand. I know what my reaction would be.
I drew my weapon at my attacker, he put his hands up, threw down the knife and ran away. There was no way on God's green earth I was going to shoot him.
Sorry, but real life situations don't fit your "if you draw, you must shoot" philosophy.
I bet the story would have been different if that attacker would have charged at you with a knife in his hand. I know what my reaction would be.
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
Does that mean Martin was acting is self defence? He was after all trying to get away from Zimmerman who was following him against police advice.
He very possibly was. It all depends on if you believe Zimmerman's version of events or not. Thankfully, a jury will decide if they believe Zimmerman, not I.
Does that mean Martin was acting is self defence? He was after all trying to get away from Zimmerman who was following him against police advice.
He very possibly was. It all depends on if you believe Zimmerman's version of events or not. Thankfully, a jury will decide if they believe Zimmerman, not I.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
If you know more, then please share.
Simple-just read the article you posted. She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
She didn't go back in the house to take a shower and relax after with a hot cup of coffee. If you read the article it says she went back in because she forgot her keys to the car she was hoping to take and get away. Yes maybe she should have said forget the car and just start running but sometimes some people just don't think to well under pressure.
Originally Posted By: SteveHarper
If you know more, then please share.
Simple-just read the article you posted. She left the house, and then returned with a gun. When she returned with a gun and confronted her husband, the "stand your ground" law no longer applied, because it was clear she wasn't in fear for her life.
A jury of her peers agreed, and justice was served.
She didn't go back in the house to take a shower and relax after with a hot cup of coffee. If you read the article it says she went back in because she forgot her keys to the car she was hoping to take and get away. Yes maybe she should have said forget the car and just start running but sometimes some people just don't think to well under pressure.
- Status
Similar threads
