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

  •  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