29 replies to this topic

[NanuqoftheNorth]

"This time, fearing for her life, she got her gun from her glove compartment and fired a warning shot in her ceiling. No one was hurt, but she was arrested and charged with aggravated assault."

Seems like she left the home, got the gun from the glove compartment of her car, and reentered the home to get car keys.

There was a time in this country where she would have gotten off with a warning/fine and maybe some marital counseling.

With what little I've read, she may not be the best person to deal with crisis management, but she had the training to kill this guy and restrained herself. That should be considered in her favor.

If GZ had opted for this approach he might still be in trouble but TM would be alive.


.

[Davidson Deac II]

Hard case to decide. She definitely should not have gone back into the house, but its likely she wasn't thinking straight and since she forgot her keys, it probably didn't dawn on her that she should have walked or run away. In the military, they call it fog of war where people don't always make rational decisions during the heat of combat, and this was in many ways, combat.

I am surprised she didn't take the deal the prosecutor offered though. With time to think about it, she should have been more rational. And if her attorney advised against the deal, then he is at fault.

[chef17]

http://www.justicefo.../lincoln-b.html

In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave. After a minute or two of trying to escape, I was able to make it to the garage where my truck was parked, but in my haste to leave I realized my keys were missing. I tried to open the garage but there was a mechanical failure. I was unable to leave, trapped in the dark with no way out. For protection against further assault I retrieved my weapon; which is registered and I have a concealed weapon permit. Trapped, no phone, I entered back into my home to either leave through another exit or obtain my cell phone.

According to her story she couldn't leave.

The alleged victim, my husband, under sworn statement in November 2010, admitted he was the aggressor, threatened my life and was so enraged he didn’t know what he would do.

In July of 2011, a hearing was held, where I along with the alleged victims testified as it relates to the stand your ground law and its immunity from prosecution.After the hearing, Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt denied my motion, citing that I could have exited the house thru the master bedroom window, front door, and/or sliding glass back door. The law specifically states: No duty to retreat.

Stand your ground law has been applied in multiple recent incidents, the following is just a couple of incidents. Carl Kroppman Jr was allowed to use this law to avoid being arrested/charged during a road rage incident on the Buckman Bridge in Jacksonville, FL in August of 2011.

So the law applies to road rage but not when someone admits to attacking you in your home? Florida is a fuged up place

[NanuqoftheNorth]

http://www.justicefo.../lincoln-b.html
According to her story she couldn't leave.
So the law applies to road rage but not when someone admits to attacking you in your home? Florida is a fuged up place

As you pointed out, this is her side of the story, quoted from a site soliciting donations for her defense. If the facts are as she portrays them to be, this is absolutely a terrible outcome, whether it is a technically correct ruling or not.

Has anyone seen any reports indicating why the jury was able to decide on her guilt so quickly (15 min)?

Apparently, in an earlier interview with her family, her father and brother said they were aware of the boyfriend's / husband's abuse and told her they were ready to come to FL to get her out of the situation. She then decide to stop communicating with her father on the issue, to the point the father was unaware the problem was still ongoing.

Only goes to show, situations like this are usually a series of poor decisions. She knew this guy was an abusive idiot and that her father was prepared to help her. She chose not to leave this bum and now has been dragged down by her failure to act in her own best interests (and those of her children).

Note: I wasn't going to bring this up, but if she had taken the time to learn about her electric garage door opener safety features, she would know that they all come with a pull cord that releases the door in case of mechanical failure. If your wife or girlfriend does not know about this feature, you owe it to yourself to teach her. It may save you from getting shot at one day!

[chef17]

As you pointed out, this is her side of the story, quoted from a site soliciting donations for her defense. If the facts are as she portrays them to be, this is absolutely a terrible outcome, whether it is a technically correct ruling or not.

Has anyone seen any reports indicating why the jury was able to decide on her guilt so quickly (15 min)?

Apparently, in an earlier interview with her family, her father and brother said they were aware of the boyfriend's / husband's abuse and told her they were ready to come to FL to get her out of the situation. She then decide to stop communicating with her father on the issue, to the point the father was unaware the problem was still ongoing.

Only goes to show, situations like this are usually a series of poor decisions. She knew this guy was an abusive idiot and that her father was prepared to help her. She chose not to leave this bum and now has been dragged down by her failure to act in her own best interests (and those of her children).

Note: I wasn't going to bring this up, but if she had taken the time to learn about her electric garage door opener safety features, she would know that they all come with a pull cord that releases the door in case of mechanical failure. If your wife or girlfriend does not know about this feature, you owe it to yourself to teach her. It may save you from getting shot at one day!

I understand it's her side and it may not be completely true, but I don't understand the judge. When the law specially says you do not have to make any attempt to retreat how can you say it doesn't apply to her because she could have escaped. I don't understand how it isn't at least self defense if her husband really admitted to being the aggressor and threatening her life.

And according to Congresswoman Corrine Brown

The second message is that if you are black, the system will treat you differently. A mere fifty miles away in Sanford Florida, a white man who shot a black teenager and claimed self-defense was not even arrest until community leaders and people around the world expressed their outrage. I have spoken to countless lawyers and they have yet to discover any cases in Florida where an African American was able to successfully use the “Stand Your Ground Law” defense in a hearing.”

Would be interesting to look at all the cases involving that law to see if that's true.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

I understand it's her side and it may not be completely true, but I don't understand the judge. When the law specially says you do not have to make any attempt to retreat how can you say it doesn't apply to her because she could have escaped. I don't understand how it isn't at least self defense if her husband really admitted to being the aggressor and threatening her life.

And according to Congresswoman Corrine Brown

Would be interesting to look at all the cases involving that law to see if that's true.

Based on what I have read so far, what she is guilty of is some poor decision making and an inability to foresee the long term implications of those decisions. I think that would apply to many, if not most people, walking around free in society today.

I have no reason, based on what I've read, to believe this woman is a threat to society in general. It would be terrible to put her in prison, a criminal environment, for years while her children grow up without a mother.

The big problem is Florida's mandatory firearm law adding 10-20 years to a conviction.

Her timing couldn't be worse either. The stand your ground law in FL is now under review by the Governor's office to determine if it has been misused. People have been walking away free by claiming self defense after killing someone in Florida. The numbers have tripled since the law was enacted in 2005.

Bias against minorities and poor people is well documented when it comes to the legal system. I have no reason to doubt your second concern.

Steal a few hundred from a bank and you will be in prison for decades. Steal a few billion on Wall Street and get a bigger bonus.

[Panthers128]

She went to retrieve a gun after having an argument with her husband and then returned to where her husband was. In no way would that be covered under the Stand Your Ground laws. Her actions were premeditated. A person in fear of their life runs away. A person looking for a confrontation grabs a gun and returns.

This is nothing like Zimmerman's case. Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten and fired a gun to end the assault.

The case has nothing to do with race and everything to do with this woman's actions and Florida's just laws.

[chef17]

Based on what I have read so far, what she is guilty of is some poor decision making and an inability to foresee the long term implications of those decisions. I think that would apply to many, if not most people, walking around free in society today.

I have no reason, based on what I've read, to believe this woman is a threat to society in general. It would be terrible to put her in prison, a criminal environment, for years while her children grow up without a mother.

The big problem is Florida's mandatory firearm law adding 10-20 years to a conviction.

Her timing couldn't be worse either. The stand your ground law in FL is now under review by the Governor's office to determine if it has been misused. People have been walking away free by claiming self defense after killing someone in Florida. The numbers have tripled since the law was enacted in 2005.

Bias against minorities and poor people is well documented when it comes to the legal system. I have no reason to doubt your second concern.

Steal a few hundred from a bank and you will be in prison for decades. Steal a few billion on Wall Street and get a bigger bonus.

She was denied stand your ground July 2011 before it was under review. I understand the mandatory sentence, I just fail to how she was convicted when the man admits to attacking her.

She went to retrieve a gun after having an argument with her husband and then returned to where her husband was. In no way would that be covered under the Stand Your Ground laws. Her actions were premeditated. A person in fear of their life runs away. A person looking for a confrontation grabs a gun and returns.

This is nothing like Zimmerman's case. Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten and fired a gun to end the assault.

The case has nothing to do with race and everything to do with this woman's actions and Florida's just laws.

Besides the fact that no one can prove Zimmerman was being beaten when he fired the gun and evidence suggests it was Martin screaming for help before the gun went off, her husband being alive goes against your "her actions were premeditated" theory. Also, why do you not believe her story about the garage failing to open and her being unable to escape?

[NanuqoftheNorth]

She was denied stand your ground July 2011 before it was under review. I understand the mandatory sentence, I just fail to how she was convicted when the man admits to attacking her.



Besides the fact that no one can prove Zimmerman was being beaten when he fired the gun and evidence suggests it was Martin screaming for help before the gun went off, her husband being alive goes against your "her actions were premeditated" theory. Also, why do you not believe her story about the garage failing to open and her being unable to escape?

Like I said in an earlier post, I think, her big mistake was reentering the living area of the home with a weapon risking another confrontation. I am not kidding, when I say, if she really felt her life was threatened by her husband, she would have been better off killing him than firing a warning shot.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

She went to retrieve a gun after having an argument with her husband and then returned to where her husband was. In no way would that be covered under the Stand Your Ground laws. Her actions were premeditated. A person in fear of their life runs away. A person looking for a confrontation grabs a gun and returns.

This is nothing like Zimmerman's case. Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten and fired a gun to end the assault.

The case has nothing to do with race and everything to do with this woman's actions and Florida's just laws.

It will be interesting to see how the GZ, TM case plays out. There may be more similarities than you think. The biggest difference in that case is that both parties didn't walk away with their lives.

[chef17]

Like I said in an earlier post, I think, her big mistake was reentering the living area of the home with a weapon risking another confrontation. I am not kidding, when I say, if she really felt her life was threatened by her husband, she would have been better off killing him than firing a warning shot.

The reentering thing has me torn. I see how that looks like a horrible situation, but at the same time if her story was true I can also understand not wanting to be trapped in the garage either. And since she fired a warning shot instead of shooting her husband, that leads me to believe she truly had no intention of killing him and was just protecting her.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

The reentering thing has me torn. I see how that looks like a horrible situation, but at the same time if her story was true I can also understand not wanting to be trapped in the garage either. And since she fired a warning shot instead of shooting her husband, that leads me to believe she truly had no intention of killing him and was just protecting her.

Agreed, hard time to weigh your legal options, when you are under stress and threat of attack by a presumably larger, stronger human being. Easy for us to discuss it here, we may even come up with a solution but she only had moments to make the call.

[cantrell]

warning shots are extremely reckless but 20 years is fuging stupid. however it's important to keep mandatory sentencing procedures because otherwise where else will a readily available source of slave labor come from? oh and if only she had shot and killed an unarmed black kid, it would have taken a fuging national uproar just for her to be arrested. jesus florida just secede already

[NanuqoftheNorth]

warning shots are extremely reckless but 20 years is fuging stupid. however it's important to keep mandatory sentencing procedures because otherwise where else will a readily available source of slave labor come from? oh and if only she had shot and killed an unarmed black kid, it would have taken a fuging national uproar just for her to be arrested. jesus florida just secede already

A private, prison for money in PA was caught giving bribes to judges to increase convictions and extend sentences on minors to generate more revenue. I would not suprise me if there is more of that type of behavior out there.

Current mandatory sentencing guidelines are in response to rapidly rising crime rates in the 70s and the "War on Drugs". It is high time to reevaluate both policies. We have the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world and it is not even close. You have to look at third world dictators to find anything similar.

[chef17]

Agreed, hard time to weigh your legal options, when you are under stress and threat of attack by a presumably larger, stronger human being. Easy for us to discuss it here, we may even come up with a solution but she only had moments to make the call.

IMO the law is part of the problem. Now I haven't seen her husband's side so this is just based on her side. In that situation people such as her or myself would react like she did thinking it was self defense. I understand saying she shouldn't have returned in the house. However if her husband went in the kitchen and threatened her again (may or may not be true) then IMO the law should say that was self defense. Again, I don't know what evidence they have and I have only seen her story so it is obviously bias, but if true then it's a problem it wasn't considered self defense