Skip to main content

View Diary: Physically Abused Black Mother Gets 20 Yrs For Standing Her Ground in FL - Corey Prosecuted (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  While it sucks (4+ / 0-)

    It's WELL known that you CANNOT EVER fire a warning shot. Doing so endangers everyone and doesn't directly address the imminent threat, thereby disputing its imminent nature.

    The ONLY time you can fire a weapon is at a target range, or to kill (ie stop) an attacker. Period. You don't fire a warning, you don't shoot to wound (which is almost impossible anyway) aim center mass and fire until the threat is neutralized. If you do ANYTHING else, you're likely going to jail.

    •  Not well known by me (5+ / 0-)

      I never heard this before. It seems counter-intuitive. Where is the evidence that this is the case?

      •  Concur skywriter. Shoot to kill or go to jail - it (0+ / 0-)

        would seem....

        PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

        by laserhaas on Sat May 19, 2012 at 02:20:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then you've never studied (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Robobagpiper

        anything about firearms or self defense. It's taught in pretty much every class, from more or less every source and has been for decades. Military, law enforcement, nra, concealed courses, etc. They're all pretty much the same.

        There have been countless stories about people getting cited for firing warning shots, and being unable to make affirmative defenses stick at trial because of it.

        This kind of knowledge is the difference between experts on a subjective (me) and people who blather on the internet about their opinions (you). That's why I get to help draft legislation while you sit home and complain about it: I actually know what's going on.

        As for evidence (if you don't like the sources I link use your google-fu to find the relavent news or court coverage of the same events):

        This diary that we're commenting on.

        I could go on forever, but the end result is the same: absolutely EVERYONE who knows ANYTHING about firearms, the law, and self-defense knows and agrees with what I initially posted. Period. It is ONLY the ignorant who are surprised, confused, or disagree.

        •  edit: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          subject, not subjective. My bad.

        •  if this is how you respond to people (0+ / 0-)

          whenever they ask a question, then no wonder you need to carry guns. can you type while blowing yourself?

          •  If I'm short with people (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, laserhaas

            it's because I respond to hundreds of these messages daily, always the same. No one cares to bother to become educated on the subjects they want to espouse opinions on (all the information is out there, readily available) and seem to insist on policy based on their ignorance instead of the wisdom and knowledge of those that have it.

            No reasonable person would go online and throw around uneducated opinions about how to perform a delicate surgery, yet they do exactly that with other life and death matters such as firearms and self-defense. I cannot understand why people don't either learn, or leave the matter to professionals as they do with nearly every other aspect of their life.

            After a couple of decades I simply have no more patience for such people. I take the time to become educated about any topic on which I wish to speak and I require others to do the same. I just want a nation that bases policy on reason, logic, and facts as guided by experts, and not the subjective frantic emotional outbursts of an ignorant populace.

            •  Phoenix182. I do not concur. Many reasonable (0+ / 0-)

              people go around the web and this realm (including legal professionals) and spout banter uneducated and (more often than not) UNinformed.

              I've studied the law now, for eight years. Have been invited by several justices to go for the hiring learning complete.

              I LOVE the Law. It is a friend extraordinary to assure "civil" compliance and a quasher of dysfunction.

              If you have acquired a disdain (Impatience) for us less educated than you - it is illogical for you to engage in banter with us.

              I do Welcome your imput and actually desire the "legal" debate anxiously.

              However, we all need improvements and I beg of you to consider the fact of how well your remarks would go over in a courtroom; and even more so in front of a jury.

              PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

              by laserhaas on Sun May 20, 2012 at 09:16:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are absolutely correct. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I know that. I used to be very polite. I used to kill myself to educate instead of berate. It got me no where. More and more people just became more and more entrenched in their ignorance. Now I'm burned out.

                You know all those jokes about old guys shouting 'damn kids' and 'get off my lawn'? Well they're not actually jokes, it's just how you are when you're fed up, cynical, and pessimistic.

                Society is over. People are stupid. No one cares to do anything right any more.

                The only reason I still get online and offer rebuttals is because my stupid OCD idealism won't let me allow falsehood to stand without refutation. I'm to the point where I've accepted that while I have a duty to report the truth, I have no responsibility (because no one has the ability) to convince others of its validity.

                In short, I used to write the books to educate people and offer them to everyone out of the goodness of my heart. Now I write the books and throw them at people to get them away from me so their stupid doesn't rub off.

                •  Phoenix, if you know anything about me - you are (0+ / 0-)

                  aware that I fight entrenched ignorance, cognitive dissonance and veiled agendas - more than most.

                  If you don't - I would ask you to look at my D's and the ad hominem personal attacks that always evade the facts.

                  Therefore, if one can know and feel your pain - I can.

                  Though we should take the root of ignorance and "ignore" it as a solution; I believe many here just have & need room to grow.

                  It is a terrible waste of your mind and wisdom; to permit those "open" few - assauge your benefiting the many.

                  Please consider this (and I DON"T do so often)

                  I extend my hand to you and will work with you (maybe not necessarily agree) - if you will agree to only take out your anxiety upon me.

                  Utilize me as your frustration board - but stay on point.
                  Call me what you will and give all the others the benefit of the doubt.

                  We CAN make a difference (I've already have) -
                  You just need to care enough to do so.
                  And I believe there is greatness within you!

                  PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

                  by laserhaas on Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:46:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Then stop replying (0+ / 0-)

              Why take it out on us that you voluntarily answer hundreds of questions daily? If you are doing too much, STOP.

              Take a nap.

              I find your replies abusive as well as unpersuasive. You present no arguments with citations to unbiased sources. Where are the legal arguments and court cases? Your citations are to websites that support your point of view.

              The NRA is not a credible source on many issues, such as their claimed right to carry machine guns in cities. Why should we consider the NRA credible on this issue when the next 20 years of a woman's life is at stake. Where are the authoritative sources?

              Because you make a statement and then bully readers into supporting your argument does not make you right. It makes you a bully.

              •  My comment directly above is to phoenix182 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
              •  Except of course (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                that if you look at my replies they have both arguments, and citations (which can be traced to unbiased sources if you don't personally like the ones listed, as I CLEARLY said). So except that you're exactly, completely wrong in everything you say, sure.

                Your ignorance and biases aren't MY problem to overcome. I'll provide the facts, and even links to relevant info, but beyond that it's on you. Either do the research or stay stupid, I really don't give a damn as it won't matter in the end. I'll still be right, the dumb chick will still go away like she deserves, and the rest of you will accomplish nothing.

                I only spend my time on people who actually bother to educate themselves.

              •  Oh, and I would stop replying (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                but the ignorance just keeps flowing. It's like going on vacation...feels good to take a break but your inbox just fills up and takes that much more to get through when you get back.

                I'll stop posting on the internet when people stop being wrong in the things they say on the internet necessitating my corrections.

                •  I wish we could agree to disagree and REFRAIN (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  from calling one another names.

                  PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

                  by laserhaas on Wed May 23, 2012 at 02:10:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't agree (0+ / 0-)

                    with allowing patently false information. People can have opinions, but it invites being corrected. Public opinions mean public correction. If people don't want to be publicly corrected they need to refrain from publicly posting inaccurate information. This can either be accomplished by not posting at all, or by educating oneself before posting (or better yet, before forming the opinion).

                    Name calling is irrelevant. It in no one alters the underlying facts. Moreover, when accurate it's not so much name calling, as exposing.

                    •  Your arrogance is breath-taking (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      People are "wrong" because they disagree with you?

                      You failed to put forward a rational argument for sending a woman to jail for even one minute for defending herself after she had been abused.

                      Tolerance of other people's views -- even when you disagree -- is a sign of a logical thinking person. Putting forward coherent explanations for your own viewpoint signals intelligence. You have so far shown only made the following claim:

                      This is my opinion and it is very true.
                      This would be funny if you were not persistent.

                      No one has called you names, or indicated you are ignorant because your viewpoint is different than ours. I have said you have failed utterly to make a coherent argument.

                      People will draw conclusions about you based on your insistence that yours is the only politically correct viewpoint and we will draw conclusions about you not because you make a claim, but because you fail to back up that claim with logic. Sending people to various websites is different from making a coherent argument.

                      Being abusive is not argument. What you are doing is merely abusive, not enlightening.


                      •  People are wrong (0+ / 0-)

                        when all of the available data and facts show them to be wrong.

                        I put forward numerous rational arguments, proved it wasn't defensive (by law or morality), and then went on to point out other fallacies of various posts. You just chose to ignore it out of cognitive dissonance, or general trollishness.

                        Obviously that isn't the claim I have made, as proved by my numerous posts. Trying to claim I didn't doesn't make it so. All the information is available for people to do with as they wish. That you continue to cover your ears and eyes and stomp your feet to distract from those facts is nothing short of pitiable.

                        I did not fail to back up my claims with either logic, or supporting evidence. I gave both. Rather you are capable of recognizing either is not under my control.

                        Being ignorant isn't an argument either, but it's all most of you have managed thus far.

                        •  Where are your facts? (0+ / 0-)

                          You blather and bloviate and neglect to add content to your answers. Your behavior here is gassy and unresponsive. You ASSUME people know what the hell you are talking about. No one is going fishing to find out what lies beneath your gas.

                          Let the record show that you have failed miserably to provide even one argument why a woman who has been abused should spend 20 years in prison or even one minute in prison for firing a gun to stop the abuser from attacking her further.

                          Try to stop acting like a jerk and know-it-all, phonenix182. You have not addressed the central issue here.


                          •  As usual, you're completely wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            I gave the arguments, and supported them. See my previous posts, they're all right there in black in white. You're either a liar, ignorant beyond reason, or so stuck in cognitive dissonance it renders you trollish.

                      •  Being abusive is always the argument of those (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joe wobblie

                        who refuse to be of good character and common, Decent consideration of one's fellow man & woman.

                        I appreciate you trying to stay to form of substance.

                        PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

                        by laserhaas on Wed May 23, 2012 at 06:47:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Name calling is bad form, DK rules violation, bad (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joe wobblie



                      Is ALWAYS relevant.

                      PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

                      by laserhaas on Wed May 23, 2012 at 06:45:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  uncalled for mike. 2 wrongs don't make a right. (0+ / 0-)

            I appreciate your D on the Trayvon case and understand where you are coming from.

            Please refrain from "ad hominem"  attacks? (personal attacks not necessary)

            PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

            by laserhaas on Sun May 20, 2012 at 09:10:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  are you sure you know what an "ad hominem" attack (0+ / 0-)


              "ad hominem" is an example of an argument that is logically invalid.  the reason an "ad hominem" attack is considered logically invalid is because it does not actually address the argument being made.  e.g. someone makes an intelligent argument and you respond by saying "you are a poopy pants" or "you are a socialist" or "you were born in kenya".

              the reason an "Ad hominem" attack is invalid is because, although you might even be right in your claim that the arguer is a "poopy pants" or a socialist or a kenyan, it has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.  it has NOTHING to do with "2 wrongs making a right" or being "mean" or anything like that.

              when someone's "argument" is, however, at least 50% "i'm great and you suck", that is not an actual argument about the matter at hand.  attacking the arguer for his out-of-control egotism is therefore not an "ad hominem" argument.  it is basically a way to call out an individual for his obnoxiousness.

              i believe that many people make the mistake of thinking "ad hominem" is "wrong" because it's "mean".

              i believe that this diary is about a case of terrible injustice perpetrated in our society.  i believe that anyone who sees that injustice and whose first reaction is not to get angry about that injustice but rather to see it as way to brag about some alleged expertise on the matter --and to insult anyone who does not share that same level of "expertise"--is not only missing the point, but is the behavior of a fairly despicable human being.

              i also believe that calling them out on it (albeit pointlessly--note that he doesn't even get my point) has nothing to do with the concept of an "ad hominem" attack.  it in no way attempts to argue against his point--mainly because his point had little to do with the matter at hand and more to do with his own ego.  it is only an attempt at saying--however crudely--that his comments were completely unwarranted and unwelcome by any who truly care about the injustice in this case.  if he'd actually made an argument about the case that i disagreed with, i'd have argued against it.  since his comment was more about himself, i called him out on it.

              •  The "blowing yourself" was ad hominem personal (0+ / 0-)

                attack - not necessary.

                Are we here to battle one another
                or to assist a woman wronged?

                Phoenix is out of line as well and I am trying to reason with him.

                How Monday brings you sunshine....

                PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

                by laserhaas on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:37:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  No, you just got butthurt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                that people don't see things the way you do - from the perspective of ignorance. So you decided to attack me instead contributing anything. It's a base psych reaction to cognitive dissonance.

                Was I arrogant? Absolutely. Does that in any way lessen the validity of my claims? Not remotely.

                I didn't get outraged at the injustice because there's just not much injustice there. Some, yes. A lot, no - and it's mostly for reasons other than anyone on here seems to think it is.

        •  Being snide and full of haughtier does not bode (0+ / 0-)

          well - phoenix182.

          We are having an adult debate about an issue that is NOT clear to all of us.

          There's NO national mandatory requisite in Gun Laws etc for "EVERYONE".

          When confronted with someone, in your own home, who has put you in the hospital before - to fire into the wall versus shooting to kill - is a very sane and legitimate issue for someone not as legally entrenched in statutory issues as you.

          Your links from the NRA are fine for those members.
          However the NRA is NOT the sole authority on the issue, nor is the Sheriff who is quoted and each state laws differ.

          This quote in your other link says much to "both" sides of the debate - as making a finding of fact and conclusion of law incongruous with this case;

          that is the way to do it all right! If you were in enough danger to fire, you better be firing for effect!! if you are 'firing a warning shot' you obviously are not in enough danger to be firing at all!!
          Given Gray's history and his own admissions - the remark that "you" (Marissa) was not in enough danger - at all -

          is a presumption of facts erroneous in this case.

          PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

          by laserhaas on Sun May 20, 2012 at 09:04:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rather we agree or not (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laserhaas, Robobagpiper

            it is what it is. The only way a citizen is allowed to fire their weapon (in an encounter) is to stop the threat (ie kill). Anything less and you're likely to be charged and very probably going to jail. That's what every course teaches, and what every educated gun owner does.

            Now, if you want to have an open debate on rather or not this is the proper stance we can, but it's going to suffer the same problems as this one: the people who think it's wrong probably have absolutely no knowledge or experience and the people who think it's proper are experts on the subject. It'll be a one-sided debate with people desperately clinging to dogma, misinformation, partisanship, ego, and emotion instead of facts.

            If you want to talk about rather or not this one particular case was decided with a punishment too harsh, we can do that too and I'd agree with you. She should have been charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm and reckless endangerment, and possibly some kind of incitement if they have a law to cover that in FL. She owes about 3-5 years in my opinion, not 20. However, she was absolutely in the wrong, and should absolutely be doing time.

            •  I would welcome and promote your D on this issue (0+ / 0-)

              And suggest that you do a detailed (Layman oriented) discussion of Florida's Laws on this issue.

              Just because it is the LAW - does not make it right.

              We cannot change errant Law's - without a legitimate debate on the "details" of the issues.

              PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

              by laserhaas on Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:48:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We are already getting somewhere. You agree that (0+ / 0-)

              there was TOO much punishment here

              and so DO I.

              What we don't concur upon then - is the proper punishment.

              Do you believe the judge was proper in his conclusion of law that;

              Marissa had no right to claim a SYG defense?

              PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

              by laserhaas on Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:50:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Correct. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                laserhaas, Robobagpiper

                SYG can only be claimed with imminent threat of bodily harm. By precedent the firing of a warning shot denies the imminence of harm. Therefore she was not facing imminent harm, and could not claim SYG.

                You can use the same logic chain with regards to her choosing to place herself in harms way. If she knew him to be a threat she would not have gone to the house without police (or someone's) escort. That she did so negates any overriding fear on her part. Without that fear she was not justified.

                You can further use it on her choice to go out, get the weapon, and then come back. While she doesn't have a duty to retreat, the fact that she had presence of mind to arm herself and then purposefully put herself back in harms way denies fear of harm, imminence of harm, etc and therefore negates any right to claim self defense.

                At every aspect she failed here, and is the instigator. Rather or not he's an abusive bastard is irrelevant. She was out and he was no longer a threat. She CHOSE to put herself in that position, repeatedly, and then specifically acted to guarantee her safety and essentially force a confrontation. THEN she claimed fear of harm and self defense. It does not, and has never, worked that way.

                The failure of this case is in the sop of prosecutors. They could have charged reasonably (as I suggested above, unlawful discharge, reckless endangerment, inciting). Instead they charge over in order to coerce pleas. When she denied the plea, they should have offered lesser included offenses (if allowed in FL, not an expert on their whole system). That would have allowed proper sentencing.

                The 20 year thing was imposed because the only charge facing her was a felony that triggered the mandatory minimums requirement. The fault wasn't the judges, it was the prosecutor.

                •  I cannot simply accept your word as bond Phoenix (0+ / 0-)

                  we need that debate of the evidence.

                  Are you going to do a Diary on the issue?

                  PLEASE Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from stealing the Presidential Election!

                  by laserhaas on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:54:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yet we should accept yours (0+ / 0-)

                    when you offer no support or logical deduction?

                    I gave sources, I offered the legally accepted views on the matter, I suggested avenues of further study. What have you given us?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site