Marissa Alexander

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Dude. She hadn't lived there in months. Her husband had been living there with the kids. It was the husbands home. She left the house, then chose to put herself back into the situation with a gun. Stand your ground does not mean leave and come back with a gun so you can stand your ground.

And she never once called the cops.

Even if she needed her keys, thats no excuse. You do not go looking for a confrontation if you have a gun. That gun is there to protect you. It is not added leverage for you to assert yourself. It is there as an absolute last resort, after you've done everything possible to avoid a confrontation. She had already avoided the confrontation by leaving the house, went and got a gun, and chose to go back inside rather than call the cops to get her keys.

If you want to argue that the punishment is too extreme, by all means, and I may even agree to an extent, but the fact that she's guilty of stupidity and in no way followed the spirit or letter of the law is not in any dispute.

My favorite part about this thread absolutely has to be the fact that by defending this dumbshit law I've wound you up enough to go making my points for me. At least as far as the letter of the law is concerned. Funnily enough, I agree with everything you said there. Pretty much every word of it.

My intention with this thread is to shine a light on something. In the Trayvon Martin case, a man confronted a black youth in the night, with a gun, and created a situation where the young man ended up shot dead. The police didn't arrest the man until the entire country, including the president, lost their shit over it.

Meanwhile, a black woman confronted her husband, with a gun, and created a situation where the weapon was discharged and nobody was hurt, and she's being sent to jail for twenty years.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the 'smoking gun' (pun intended) that is the killer (again) evidence that these laws are freaking stupid and are being enforced improperly. There was a massive counter-movement in support for Zimmerman, even going so far as to sell targets stenciled to look like Trayvon Martin for people to shoot, but where is the support for this woman? Where is the groundswell of pro-gun rights advocates riding heroically to her defense? Where are the people on this board who came out in force to support Zimmeman and his right to defend himself, however lethally, against a perceived threat?

Nowhere. Silent. Why?

She's black, she's a woman, and they do not get equal standing in this country, no matter how much some of us would like to pretend otherwise and a case such as this is a perfect barometer. Zimmerman's story and Trayvon's murder was no less murky, no less strange, no less controversial. But he was white(ish). White enough. Close enough to the fantasy of all the paranoid gun-nuts who always dreamed about being Killer Batman.

But they can't empathize with a woman trying to defend herself against a man she is afraid of, whatever you or me or anyone else may think of that justification. It doesn't mesh with their worldview. They can't fantasize about being in the same spot, so they don't care.

The Emperor has no clothes, and I don't care who shouts me down for saying it. He's fucking naked.

[Baneblade]

The thing is, it is still unknown whether Zimmerman instigated the conflict. While it is obvious Marissa did.

[Geist]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

You mean 'Father'. They were his kids, not hers, from a prior relationship. The two had just had a baby, which was still in the hospital.


And having not read the story or its particulars, why do you make the assumption the man was abusive?

Something must of wound her up to the point of bringing a deadly weapon in range of her children.

Not her children.

The thing is, it is still unknown whether Zimmerman instigated the conflict. While it is obvious Marissa did.

Pretty much this. The reason the Martin/Zimmerman case is so controversial is because no one knows what the hell happened except Zimmerman and understandably, he has a lot to benefit from claiming innocence so we can't take his word as truth.

Since no one died, the man and the 2 kids also know what happened and while she had no obligation to retreat, she did fucking retreat. Then she came back. Pretty sure that's not "Stand your Ground".

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Geist

Not her children.


Pretty much this. The reason the Martin/Zimmerman case is so controversial is because no one knows what the hell happened except Zimmerman and understandably, he has a lot to benefit from claiming innocence so we can't take his word as truth.

Since no one died, the man and the 2 kids also know what happened and while she had no obligation to retreat, she did fucking retreat. Then she came back. Pretty sure that's not "Stand your Ground".

It's painful watching you guys just... pushing that rock up that hill. One thing is almost for certain; Martin didn't find Zimmerman and attack him. whatever happened between the two of them, Zimmerman made contact by following Martin. We know that much from the cell phone conversation with Martin's girlfriend.

Just... it'll be a lot less painful if you guys just sack up and admit that the cases are remarkably similar and that, to be perfectly honest, in the case of Alexander no human being lost their lives. Well, except Marissa, who loses 20 years of hers.

[Baneblade]

It's fucking Warborn all over again. Worse than talking to Traak, because at least he doesn't put up a pretense of reason.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Sobekeus, I cannot stress how little your insults mean to me. I don't mind reading them however, if you have a point to make we can talk about somewhere in there.

Do you have something new to bring to the conversation, or is that just a 'I think you're a doodoohead' post?

[Baneblade]

You assume Martin was pursued by Zimmerman after the 911 operator told he didn't have to.

You assume Zimmerman initiated the conflict.

Neither statement has evidence to support it.

We only know three facts:

Martin injured Zimmerman, ostensibly before Zimmerman shot him, and was shot.

Zimmerman did not make contact with Martin during the phone call.

Martin had no reason to believe Zimmerman was armed (concealed weapon).


It is not unreasonable to think Martin decided to start a fight, that is the kind of thug he was after all. But it is unreasonable to put it forward as fact.

You sir, are not looking at things objectively.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

It is not unreasonable to think Martin decided to start a fight, that is the kind of thug he was after all. But it is unreasonable to put it forward as fact.

You sir, are not looking at things objectively.

Neither are you.

All your "positive" assumptions are about Zimmerman while all your negative assertions are about Martin due to bias.

[Baneblade]

I make no assumptions at all, merely show counter assumptions to the entrenched Martin-was-a-7-year-old-shot-by-the-Predator position. You know, debate, the thing where you don't just say the opposition is wrong, you actually demonstrate it.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Not only is Figment sound in his appraisal of your statement, Sobekeus, but you are also mistaken in that I lack evidence to support my claims.

The first you point out has to do with Zimmerman pursuing Martin. The evidence I am going by is the statement by Martin's girlfriend who has said that during the phone conversation, Martin remarked that he was being followed. Unless Zimmerman was 'following' him by standing completely still, which seems unlikely to be interpreted as suspicious behavior, I can conclude that Zimmerman 'pursued' Martin.

...Which leads to the natural conclusion that whatever altercation happened was initiated by Zimmerman. Had he not pursued Martin, there wouldn't have been a confrontation. There is a complete vacuum of evidence to suggest that the opposite was true; that Martin specifically sought out Zimmerman. Zimmerman's own 911 call transcript betrays as much, as it is clear that he is observing Martin from a distance and voices intent to check him out.

I was not there, but the evidence as I read it leans towards Zimmerman instigating whatever happened. All I have to go on is the evidence. You will notice that nowhere in there do I make any assumptions about Zimmerman's state of mind or personal character.

No, that I leave to you, to declare that Martin acted like 'the kind of thug he was' as if you knew him, or were there. But you didn't know him, and you weren't there, so in fact the person who appears to be making assumptions based on bias is yourself. Or at the very least it's the both of us, and in neither case do you get to go calling me out on supposed bias and apparently evidence-free assertions.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Not only is Figment sound in his appraisal of your statement, Sobekeus, but you are also mistaken in that I lack evidence to support my claims.

The first you point out has to do with Zimmerman pursuing Martin. The evidence I am going by is the statement by Martin's girlfriend who has said that during the phone conversation, Martin remarked that he was being followed. Unless Zimmerman was 'following' him by standing completely still, which seems unlikely to be interpreted as suspicious behavior, I can conclude that Zimmerman 'pursued' Martin.

...Which leads to the natural conclusion that whatever altercation happened was initiated by Zimmerman. Had he not pursued Martin, there wouldn't have been a confrontation. There is a complete vacuum of evidence to suggest that the opposite was true; that Martin specifically sought out Zimmerman. Zimmerman's own 911 call transcript betrays as much, as it is clear that he is observing Martin from a distance and voices intent to check him out.

I was not there, but the evidence as I read it leans towards Zimmerman instigating whatever happened. All I have to go on is the evidence. You will notice that nowhere in there do I make any assumptions about Zimmerman's state of mind or personal character.

No, that I leave to you, to declare that Martin acted like 'the kind of thug he was' as if you knew him, or were there. But you didn't know him, and you weren't there, so in fact the person who appears to be making assumptions based on bias is yourself. Or at the very least it's the both of us, and in neither case do you get to go calling me out on supposed bias and apparently evidence-free assertions.

Did she hear the gunshot?

[ItsTheSheppy]

I'll bite.

She claims she did not. she claims she heard Martin say he thought he was being followed, and then Martin talking to someone, and then the phone went dead.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Nowhere. Silent. Why?

Because there are 10,000 crimes a day in this country, and only a handful of the most scandalous become national news. And the trifling fact that she's, you know, guilty.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I'll bite.

She claims she did not. she claims she heard Martin say he thought he was being followed, and then Martin talking to someone, and then the phone went dead.

So between the phone dying and the gunshot, anything could have happened.

We know Zimmerman was following Martin to begin with, up until the point when the 911 operator told he didn't have to at least. After that we can't be sure what ocurred since neither of them was on the phone any longer.

So several scenarios are possible:

Zimmerman did indeed pursue, intercept, and engage Martin resulting in Martin defending himself and Zimmerman shooting him.

Zimmerman broke off pursuit and Martin decided to talk to Zimmerman, maybe he thought Zimmerman was the suspicious one. Zimmerman drew down on Martin as he approached... well no, he couldn't have injured Zimmerman in the back of the head from range.

Martin decided to confront his shadow, not knowing he was armed. Martin surprised Zimmerman as he was returning to his car. Martin pushed Zimmerman to the ground, Zimmerman hit his head, then drew and shot Martin fearing for his life.

There are half dozen scenarios possible from what we know, what I cannot abide are people making assumptions as to which one is fact. Is George innocent? I don't know. Is Martin? I don't know.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I have never maintained that Zimmerman was guilty of felony murder. It is in fact very possible that Martin attacked him. At the core of my issue with this law is not who was in the wrong but rather that the law created a situation where someone died who might not have had to. In addition to that, it created a situation where we might never know what truly happened because authorities declined to investigate the events thoroughly, as a criminal case, until long after it had already grown cold.

As far as this thread is concerned, my intent is to shine a light on the inherent bias not just of the law and those who enforce it, but also those who immediately came to Zimmerman's passionate defense. It became a very sudden Gun Rights issue, and much was made of Zimmerman's right to kill in his own defense. But the lack of such support for Marissa, who killed nobody, is deafening.

No, quite the opposite in fact. It is clear she is guilty, of course, who could question it? No, of course the law doesn't apply to her. Why? Well, here, have a laundry list of excuses. But of course, when you provide a similar list and apply them to Zimmerman, hahah, allow me to explain to you why they are flawed.

My point is in the enforcement of this stupid, stupid law, there is a clear bias.

Zimmerman may be in fact completely justified. Maybe Trayvon did totally roid out and decide that the Race War Was Totally On and attacked Zimmerman for... some reason. Maybe it was the Black Rage we keep hearing about. Even if that were true, nobody needed to die, and if someone needed to die, then it needed to be investigated. And if the law is good enough to give Zimmerman what would have been a pass if it wasn't for the outcry, then that same law should apply in the same way in this case.

But we're "all a little bit racist", so it doesn't.

As far as I'm concerned it's all a giant mess, every inch of it, and just stands as a shining example of our idiot hubris.