http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1530035.html
I suspect Lewk and various fans of mandatory minimum sentencing laws are cheering about this one
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1530035.html
I suspect Lewk and various fans of mandatory minimum sentencing laws are cheering about this one
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Is Lewk in favor on mandatory minimums?
I'm not in favor of them either way.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
To get a mandatory minimum, you first have to be convicted of a crime.
Hope is the denial of reality
Err, yes, duh. And your point is?
And this is exactly why I don't like mandatory minimums.
"Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence and chose to go to trial. A jury deliberated 12 minutes before convicting her."
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh yeah forgot to add that this plea system is frickin' whack.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Loki, the plea system can be a bully system. You are willfully ignoring how mandatory minimums can be so out of whack of what is actually desirable for a sentence.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I'm not always a fan of mandatory minimum, but in this case, the woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. If the jury bought her defense, she wouldn't be serving any jail time at all. As things stand, she was convicted of a pretty damn serious crime. 20 years seems harsh given the sentences other crimes get, but if you do the deed, prepare to pay the consequences.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not sure this really tells a worthwhile story about mandatory minimums. Which, for the record, I have mixed feeling about. She-
1) Got a restraining order against her estranged husband
2) Went to their old home to take things (when she thought he wouldn't be there)
3) Found him there and felt threatened by him
4) Went to her car to get a gun
5) Went back into the house
6) Fired a "warning shot" at her ex husband
The idea that this counts as "stand your ground" is plainly nonsense. I would hope for a prosecutor to not prosecute this because it's just a silly situation, but she owned the gun legally and how the hell could she not understand take the time to understand how the law would take her using her legally-owned gun to go back into the house to confront her husband?
It's sad and a waste of a woman's (and mother's) life. But the insanity began way before sentencing.
Unlike many of you here, I do not have a law degree, but do still work as a fraud analyst and work with LEOs.
Some have said she could use the stand your ground law, but in my opinion she did not stand her ground. She went to her car without a gun, and came back inside which in my opinion means she thought about it (premeditation anyone). If anything this is not standing your ground but advancing which to me seems like she is the aggressor and not the defender.
She claims that she went into the garage and then went back into the house because she could not get out from the garage any other way. Her claim was that one of the garage doors was locked (I believe the ex initially said the same) and that the automatic door wasn't working.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is not her account of the events. Her estranged husband is by his own asmission physically abusive. She asserts that he got physically violent and tried to stop her from leaving. In other words she was being threatened by a man known to be violent. It's possible that some of the accounts of the ex husband's history of violence were deemed inadmissible in court while he in turn claimed that SHE was violent towards him. She also said that she couldn't get out through the garage doors and he was in her way when she tried to get back out through the house. She fired a shot into the ceiling when he approached her shouting threats.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Interesting. Arguably she should have called the police from inside her locked car, but it's hard to second-guess these things from an armchair.
Though I agree 20 years seems excessive. Though I'm not sure how giving the sentencing over to a judge would really help too much. The judge could throw an equally-wild sentence at her.
She didn't have her cellphone--Gray had it. 20 years isn't just excessive, it's wrong. It's esp. fucked-up if you believe it would be right to sentence her to 3 years.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It gets better:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/2...ot-if-its.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Huh the same prosecutor for Zimmerman commented on this case...acting like "Meh she should have taken the 3 years'
Maybe that prosecutor is the problem?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The state Prosecutor is fucked up.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
True, they are not mutually exclusive.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Much of the evidence in her favour was deemed unreliable or otherwise inadmissible in court, some for good reasons, others not necessarily:
http://mediatrackers.org/florida/201...ase-in-florida
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So, everybody has an agenda..... What parts of the story is the Miami Herald leaving out or misreporting?
To fully trust any news source about any event is hard to do for me, (and should be for everyone)
If trayvon showed us anything, it's that the media is full of falsehoods and misinformation. Wish we had trial transcripts readily avail...
The garage door seeming to work when the cops checked it is actually interesting -- after all, she had just pulled into the garage, right?
This is why trials are conducted by juries and judges, not the media.
Though a far more compelling and straightforward case is here. A 76 year old guy shoots his 13 year old neighbor point-blank. And captures it on his own security camera.
http://fox6now.com/2013/07/17/jury-t...d-of-homicide/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3612378.html
Where's the outrage on this one?
Automatic garage doors can be locked with a touch of a button, usually not near the doors but near the interior door to the house.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
That's another problem, not unique to Florida. Many state Attorneys General can't decide which laws to defend/prosecute, because legislatures have enacted gobbaldy-gook laws that overlap and conflict.
FL juries and judges are hamstrung by their legislated, legal inconsistencies....and political partisanship. The Governor's task force assigned to re-evaluate SYG laws was headed by the Lt. Governor (who was forced to resign after corruption charges), and half were legislators who voted for SYG laws.
Not to mention that their SYG laws were reportedly written by ALEC and NRA lobbyists.
What "outrage" are you looking for? WI has different laws than FL.Though a far more compelling and straightforward case is here. A 76 year old guy shoots his 13 year old neighbor point-blank. And captures it on his own security camera.
http://fox6now.com/2013/07/17/jury-t...d-of-homicide/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3612378.html
Where's the outrage on this one?
No, I'm thinking the AG likes to overcharge an is a politican in the making .
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita