LOLOLOL You make that determination by examining two selective cases? Why not look at ALL SYG defense cases in Florida? Because you cant find the evidence of racism you soooooooo desparately want to believe in.
More than likely it is. Still a pretty bad sentencing for something as minor as this. I also second your statement of I hope she gets out as quickly as possible. I don't think they have a valid reason for her to be in jail, outside of a law that should be looked into and changed, for obvious reasons.
Apparently they were in her house where, if there was a restraining order, he shouldn't have been in the first place. Obviously if she was at home she didn't have to leave to get the firearm. One thing that the jury in the Zimmerman case apparently missed is that a person with a firearm following another person represents a very real threat of "great bodily harm and death" to the person they're following even if they're 100 yards away. The threat of "great bodily harm or death" is the criteria for the use of "deadly force" under Florida law and Zimmerman, because he was armed, represented just such a threat to Martin even when he was following at a distance. Under the criteria established under the Laws of Florida it was actually Martin that was threatened with "great bodily harm or death" by Zimmerman following him and Martin had the Right of Self-Defense. Why the prosecution didn't hammer this point home to the jury is a puzzlement to me personally.
She admits to leaving the home and then coming back perhaps you need to read up on the case. (*)(*)(*)(*) the Zimmerman case discuss this one thanks.
Before all you Libs take this thread seriously, take a look at this: Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate
It is what happened, but not "3 time loser" When you use a gun in the commission of a felony down here, it boosts the mandatory sentence considerably. to add, as has been clearly explained, this women fired a "warning shot", not a "self-defense" shot. She fired it in the general direction of her ex, although not at him. Unless a valid SYG self-defense scenario can be shown to exist, then a warning shot is just that, and illegal just about everywhere. Although extenuating circumstances should prevail. Imagine if she had done it outside. Where they could not prove that she was menacing with it, that being in the direction of her ex, but rather she could say it was straight up ? Sometimes the Law hinges on minutia. Regardless, those who have tried to make this racial are FOS.
See what I bolded. You neglected two key words from the Statutes. "Reasonable" and "imminent". Here is the Law, which you misstated: Why the deliberate misrepresentation of the Law ? Is that the only way to appear to make sense ? Even after this point has been debated, and made clear, in dozens of Zimmerman threads here ? Why are liberals so obtuse on this subject ?
The two standards exist only in the heads of racists that want it to be that way so they can cry victim. The ONLY people who believe such nonsense are dummies who can't make valid comparisons between two situations and think everything is the exact same. This woman was a complete idiot for what she did and SYG DOES NOT APPLY! It wouldn't apply for ANYONE here. Was 20 years harsh? Sure it is, but others have gotten the same thing regardless of race. Now go peddle your race hustling somewhere else, people like you are THE SOLE problem in this country regarding race, you NEED it to be alive and well to feel good about your under developed selves and so you can keep the population divided so you continue to get special treatment.
They are DELIBERATELY obtuse because they need the truth obfuscated so they can continue to divide for the sole purpose of creating victim mentalities and protected groups. They couldn't survive in a world where they had to rely on their own abilities.
Sorry Herman, but I don't agree with you. don't condemn or try to chase away those with whom you don't agree with. I've personally observed double standards in our society so I'll bear witness to that. I don't think anyone for the most part wants special treatment; they just want to be treated equally and fairly.
It was HER Home from what I've read. She had every right to return home and apparently her husband had a restraining order and shouldn't have been there at all. Even under restraining orders with split child custody a mutually agreed to third party has to accompany the husband but that doesn't seem to be the case. When the husband walked into the home he was violating a court order and represented a threat to her.
we do not know that, z may have showed his gun and that is what set everything in motion, we just don't know
premeditation to shot a warning shot and get the intruder out of her house how about premeditation to take a gun to a confrontation when you get out of your car... .
I don't know how good Zimmerman is with a pistol but at 100 yards away I present a very reasonable reason for a person to fear for their imminent death or to fear great bodily harm. Even though Martin didn't know it that threat existed because Zimmerman was armed and dangerous. Here is a simple question regardless of the case. Who represents the "greatest threat" the armed person or the unarmed person? For an armed person to use that firearm they cannot first create the threat by being armed and Zimmerman created that threat by following Martin. It would have been far different if Zimmerman was simply walking down the street and hadn't been previously pursuing Martin but that wasn't the case. In this case it appears that the woman was at home and the husband violated a restraining order by being there. The "husband" created the threat by entering the home of the woman.
i'm going to have to call BS on this one. EVERYONE wants special treatment!!! some folks are just willing to work for that special treatment, while others feel they are entitled to it for whatever reasons.
Its the going and getting the gun and returning. She knew what she was doing and why. Zimmerman would be guilty of 1st degree murder, if he beat up trayvon, went back to his car, got his gun and executed him. Thats not what happened.
Nope, those arent points at all. That woman wasnt getting the crap beat out of her, and her head smashed on the pavement. She went back, got a gun, came back and started blasting.
That doesn't remove the fact that Zimmerman represented the first threat and greatest threat by his premeditation in taking a firearm with him in pursuit of Martin that eventually lead to a confrontation where he killed Martin. It also fails to address the fact that the only reason Zimmerman, while armed, followed Martin as expressed on the transcript of the call between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher was racial stereotyping (racial prejudice) against the victim because in Zimmerman's mind a young black male equated to a criminal (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that always got away with their crimes. Its right there on the transcript. When Zimmerman said "These (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s always get away" it was a direct reference to any young black male. Note: I paraphrase Zimmerman's statement because I don't want to look it up but it is relatively accurate.
