It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Fromabove
You don't need to be suffering severe bodily harm - You need to have a legitimate fear for your physical well being or life. It's obvious that she did.
I love how you guys try to spin this by misinterpreting the law. =]
She should not even go to jail for 1 day for such a thing. Counseling. A better guaranteed income and more choices about being able to live well with her kids with education.
Only men defend themselves in the moment. We had politicians in Canada that were going to make battered wife syndrome self defense, and it should be. They failed women when they dropped it.
Many women would go back to ensure their children were safe.
3. If I was in that situation, went back, and had a gun, I'd probably have done what she did. Thats how I think, back off buddy, stay away from us. When you're in a situation like that you are rattled and cant think straight either.
4. As far as the police taking her away in the past. Here in BC, the police take away the victim in domestic violence and try to charge her. And its usually her. Over and over and over again this injustice has happened because they seem to be following some kind of agenda by the government and they are sick.
Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by TinkerHaus
She was convicted because, as I understand it, she went outside to her car to get the gun before returning inside the house. Once she left the scene of the altercation, she could not re-enter and still claim STG/self-defense. And she was charged with endangering the lives of her children who were in the next room as she fired the shots through the wall. These are two different circumstances.
Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ThreeBears
There were restraining orders on both. She left, got a gun, came back and shot at him. There was no evidence she was in danger that day, and she shot towards her son who was standing near his father. I suppose all that was his fault too right? Because only men are dangerous and women are always victims, right?
Again, court testimony says she shot upward, and never aimed the firearm at a person.
The prosecution claims otherwise, but ALL testimony says this is the case. Even the husband admits this.
But, this thread isn't about the nitty gritty details of the case. The point is no one was harmed and she gets 20 years. Zimmerman stalks and KILLS a minor, and he walks.
Can we please talk about the glaring inconsistencies of these two cases?
Originally posted by boncho
Woman are abusers too and it's entirely underreported because there is more stigma for men to come forward an admit it.
Originally posted by deadlyhope
The punishment doesn't fit the crime at all, the way I see it. This guy was abusive, and although people say she didn't act like someone in fear for their life, but people have to know the responses for adrenaline ( being flight, and FIGHT ) not to mention the fact that she was used to this exact person being abusive. It's possible if it were someone off the street she had reason to fear, she might flee, but I really think this could be her standing up to someone, a person that deserves a lot more than a warning shot.
Now, I'm really tired of attempting to redirect this thread back on topic. In my opinion mods should delete about 1/2 of the posts here.
An appellate court on Thursday ordered a new trial for a Florida woman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a gun to scare off her allegedly abusive husband, ruling that a jury was improperly instructed on self-defense.
Marissa Alexander's case will be retried because the jury was wrongly told that -- for her to claim self-defense -- she needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her husband was about to seriously harm her, the appellate court said.
Rather, the appellate court pointed out, the prosecution had the burden to prove that Alexander herself was guilty of aggravated assault.
"Because the jury instructions on self-defense were fundamental error, we reverse" the conviction, a three-judge appellate panel said.