Woman shoots at "ceiling", gets 20 years - the actual story.
- Thread starter Dreiko_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes. In this court system there's mandatory minimums. That means that each crime has a minimum time you just HAVE to spend in jail if you get convicted for it. If you get convicted for 10 things or 15 things, these minimums can all add up to surpass the minimum time that a single, but heavier offense would carry.irishda said:
Well incompetence must be punished.irishda said:
With that in mind though the woman is getting 20 years for:
- 3 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
- Endangering her children
- Parole Violations
- Assault
SO it's a little more complicated then you present it, with minimum sentencing, the fact that she has no problems with attempting to kill her husband in full view of the children, the fact that her claim the she was a victim of domestic abuse has no evidence to support it, and the fact that she has actively sought out confrontations with her husband all these things add up. So the Judge gave her 20 years for something a bit more significant then just shooting at someone.
And all Zimmerman did was follow a kid when he was told implicitly not to, approached the kid when he shouldn't have, then busted a cap in his ass because he was too much of a pussy to use his hands. A grown man vs. a kid? And he had to use a weapon? Pussy.
That's not what the link says. Just like the media, you are misrepresenting the information.Dreiko said:
It doesn't say that she shot at his head, it says that she shot at him and that the shot missed his head. For all we know she shot in his direction, or that she specifically shot to miss. It also doesn't say that she went to his house and assaulted him. It says she continued to have contact with them, and visited them. While there, she assaulted him. It goes into no detail about the visit there, only that she was there, and while there she assaulted him.
You might not get these differences, but there are subtleties to this situation. The text is used by the courts as a memory jog, nothing more - it is not evidence or a fully descriptive transcript of the event(s). Finally, you made a full assumption that somebody fearing for their life would definitely call the police. Unless you are a very qualified criminal psychologist with a lot of experience in these matters, who has interviewed the defendant, you can't make such a sweeping statement. You have no idea what she would have done, or anything to do with the information. The document is far too vague to be read outside of the courtroom.
I read the situation as she was so stressed that she couldn't think straight, was unable to open the garage door due to this and didn't consider the other exits. She then returned to the house and fired a warning shot. Weary from the ordeal, she breaks down inside the house. However, someone else might read it as preplanned attack with intent. I would suggest though, that if that were the case she a) wouldn't have stuck around, and b) wouldn't have missed the shot, and given the "victims" the opportunity to escape. The one thing that the document does state is that the initial aggression comes from the "victim", responding to texts. I don't know if you've ever confronted a partner regarding infidelity, but in my experience the situation tends to escalate quickly, and is ruled by emotions over intellect.
As for the reality as we know it, 20 years for firing a weapon as opposed to zero consequence for murder IS a vast conflict in justice (or lack thereof). The "stand your ground" law is a pathetic throwback, as is private gun ownership. Without guns we would have very different outcomes to both situations. Two people would have their lives for a start (20 years in prison is your life finished - you can not recover from that). There is no bleeding heart crap, there is no bias, there is no attack on civil liberties. Just like there would be no driving without cars, there are no shootings without guns. Only difference is, cars have a use in modern society. Guns do not.
The "kid" was over 18 years old, a legal adult. And younger people generally have the advantage in fights. Also, Zimmerman had extensive injuries, including the back of his skull being torn up. Also Trayvon was shot from very close range. His story of self defense checks out well enough that the jury didn't feel they could charge him.Patrick Hayes said:
People should try educating themselves about a subject before talking about it. He wasn't told not to, he was told he didn't need to follow and so he said ok and stopped following. The 911 tape clearly indicates he loses sight of "the kid" entirely, and therefore couldn't have possibly "approached him" as you say. Trayvon Martin had 4 minutes to go home but he hid in waiting, sucker punched Zimmerman, and then beat him for 40 seconds into concrete while he screamed for help. This is supported by all evidence and witness testimony throughout the trial.Patrick Hayes said:
Funny how so many people seem to believe we live in a country where violent people can randomly assault others and their victims are legally obligated to not defend themselves and be beaten to death. Nope. Sorry. If you want to live in a country that protects criminals more than law abiding citizens, feel free to move to Britain or Australia.
If the media is presenting this as a she shot and missed and now the book has been thrown at her in a cruel abuse of justice, then I'm going to say that whatever disagreements you might have with the OPs description they're in no way as simplistic as the media's misrepresentation. Also unless you are a Criminal Psychologist with a lot of experience in these matters then by your own judgement you are just as unqualified as anyone else to speculate on her motives for her actions.Verlander said:
It's interesting that you read the details of the shooting as she fled to her car and was so confused that she was unable to open the garage door, despite having done it in the past, but she was still able to think of the gun she kept in her glovebox (I'm Australian, so just keeping a gun in your glovebox seems to me like you're looking for an excuse to use it) get the gun out go back to her husband and children and shoot in their immediate direction. Your theory that if she had intended to kill him she A) would have fled, means that she wouldn't be able to rely on the stand your ground defence when tried and B) that she wouldn't have missed allowing them to flee supposes that she's incapable of missing.
As you point out the court documents clearly say that the initial aggression came from the victim, a not unreasonable response to the belief that "his" new baby is actually another mans, but at no point does it say that he lifted a finger against her, even after the warning/missed shot he fled his home with the children and was not violent to her.
As for the reality, firing the weapon was the catalyst for a whole list of things that ended up getting this woman 20 years in prison, it wasn't the one and only charge against her. Stand your ground is sadly a legitimate response to repeated domestic abuse, and as much as I do not support murder it's one of the few ways to fix an imbalance of strength, will and overall power. Without guns its entirely possible that she would have tried to knife her husband, or poison him, or run him down.
For the record, blaming guns for her being locked up is bleeding heart crap, if she didn't shoot the gun or commit the other offences she wouldn't be in prison, she made the choice now she's paying the price. I agree that guns have no place in civilian hands, they do much more harm then good, but you make it sound like no shootings means no violent crime and that's just not the case.
Why? If you intend to kill someone do you think you should get a softer sentence just cause you fucked it up and they survived?Maze1125 said:
At the end of the day if the woman had shot and missed and then not violated parole, and not assaulted her husband she wouldn't have received several minimum sentances and would have been out on parole in a year or two.
Lonewolfm16 said:
Plunkies said:
First of all, Zimmerman -did- follow him. How else could he have got into a confrontation with Trayvon? Second, there exists less-lethal methods of subjugation like a stun gun, or mace. Or, if you've got balls use your fists. He's not a cop, therefore why is he rolling around in a car with a fire arm looking for trouble? Why did he even get out of his car in the first place? Oh right right. To 'not' pursue Trayvon. Doesn't matter if the kid was 18, he is still a kid. Then again, a fat shit like Zimmerman would need a gun because he couldn't throw a decent punch to save his life, and he was too fucking lazy to like a martial art that utilized locks, traps and escapes like Jujitsu. He might've been able to put his fat ass to use by pinning the kid had he got the molasses out of his ass and took martial arts. At the very least, a manslaughter charge should've come through.
Look, I get it. A white looking dude (he's a Mexican halfie) shoots a black kid and everyone is up in arms, and yet black kids kill black kids and no one bats an eye. Still, he shouldn't have shot him. Like I said, there exists less lethal methods of subjugation, and why didn't he just shoot him in the leg if it came down to lethal force? He had time to aim that shit and a set of legs is not hard to hit at all. I can tag a person in the thigh from 50 yards with my S&W .44 and have no issue tagging a fast charging target (less than 10 feet.)
Bottom line: Zimmerman should've stayed the fuck in his car, the pussy. Also, Britain and Australia have gun control in place. Guess who has less school shootings? HINT: It's Britain and Australia.
Why didn't he shoot him in the leg? There's really no quicker way to indicate how stupid you are than trotting out that little gem.Patrick Hayes said:
Zimmerman was asked by the 911 operator to keep an eye on Trayvon Martin. You give such weight to one statement yet no weight to the next. By the way I noticed you glossed over almost every point made to counter your initial set of lies and speculation.
You put so much emphasis on Zimmerman's actions, none of which were even close to breaking the law. Not to mention all of the in hindsight "should haves" that have no relevance at all. "He should have carried a taser, he should have had pepperspray, he should have been a better fighter, he should have had several years of jujitsu training, he should have stayed in his car, he should have done this or that." Yet it's stealthy racists like you who put zero personal responsibility on Trayvon Martin, who had every opportunity to remove himself from the situation, and could have chosen not to commit the violent crime that initiated the entire event. According to you it should just be taken as a given that a young black male will wild out on you at the first opportunity, and you should stay in the car and treat him the same way you'd treat a lion on a safari.
And your school shooting comment is just bizarre. We're talking about the law. Murder is already illegal in the U.S. Or is it that you just want gun control? Is that why you lie and remained uniformed about the specifics of this one case?
Well, one interesting note on this last bit... He is right about Australia and Britian having way less school shooting incidents. Infact, *every* country has way less. The number of recorded school shootings in America alone is higher than the *combined total of the rest of the world* :XPlunkies said:
Getting out of your car is not a crime. He could have gotten out of his car, walked up to him, called his mother a whore, and he still wouldn't have committed a single crime. The only crime commited was Trayvon Martin violently assaulting a stranger for no reason. And stop pretending like he was a child. At 17 he likely would have been tried as an adult for aggravated battery had he not been killed in the commission of that crime.Patrick Hayes said:
Again, you're lying or you're uninformed or likely both. He was not told to not follow, and he did not follow for at least 4 minutes prior to the confrontation, the confrontation initiated by Trayvon Martin as indicated by the state's own witness. George Zimmerman got out of the car, not to follow, but to walk down the short part of the T intersection to get a view behind the houses in order to get an eye on Martin as he was told to do by the 911 operator. He was told to stop when he was around the top of the T intersection. Martin had 4 minutes to go less than 100 yards but he either chose not to leave or he left and came back. Zimmerman could not have followed Martin because he lost track of him for the duration leading up to the attack
As for the stupid, "why wasn't he using a stun gun?" idiocy, here ya go. You mention cops use mace and stung guns. Why? To subdue suspects when lethal force isn't necessary. Civilians don't need to apprehend people. If you only need someone subdued you walk away and let the cops do it. You carry a firearm to protect yourself from great bodily harm or death.
You don't shoot to wound people. Seriously, who doesn't know this by now? Not even the cops do that because it's moronic. And they're *trained*. Expecting a civilian to do it in a life or death struggle is laughable.
Again, since you don't seem to understand, NOTHING HE DID WAS ILLEGAL. Not a single thing. Trayvon Martin was not removing himself from the situation as proven by all evidence of the case. He had 4 minutes to go less than 100 yards. Instead he chose to commit a crime.
Again, this stealthy racism from people like you. Zimmerman wasn't a cop so he shouldn't step out of his car in his own neighborhood? He needs hand to hand training to go outside when a black person is walking around? Are you joking? The only poor decision in the whole thing was Trayvon Martin violently attacking another human being. Again, you seem to think all the personal responsibility falls on Zimmerman, the victim of the crime, and none on the perpetrator.
I enjoy how you try to keep bashing your opponent with 'stealthy racism from people like you' despite no indication they are in any way racist (as you are the only one mentioning race).Plunkies said:
Do you think that insulting your opponent is the way to win an argument? It does not, it tends to make people think you have a weak case, that requires you resort to insults to re-enforce.
You appear to think this is about race, but it is mostly about the poorly worded Stand Your Ground laws.
BTW I work in law enforcement in Australia. Before you criticise our laws I suggest you take your time to inform yourself of the differences in levels of firearm / violent crime in the US as compared with Australia.
Martin lived there as well, is he not allowed to walk to the shops without being followed home and reported to the police?Plunkies said:
Not true.Plunkies said:
Zimmerman ignores Martin, instead of deciding Martin is a criminal without any evidence, then Martin is not killed.
Zimmerman stays in his vehicle as instructed by 911 operator, then Martin is not killed.
Zimmerman announces he is Neighbourhood Watch, then Martin is not killed.
Ignoring that following people can get you charged with a crime such as harassment or stalking...Plunkies said:
Would you let a stranger follow you directly to your home, or would you have concerns in doing that?
[NOTE: testimony states Martin tried to hide but Zimmerman found him.]
You do know that Zimmerman was so concerned about EXACTLY this that he refused to give his address to the 911 dispatcher (in case Martin over heard it)?
Could you please explain why Martin is not allowed to stand his ground and defend himself against a person who is following him to his home at night, while his parents were not there?
ie Why does Martin have a duty to retreat but Zimmerman does not?
This one sentence, right here, is EXACTLY what is wrong with the whole fucked up scenario. Because you're exactly right that, legally speaking, all is proper.Plunkies said:
The fact that we have a society where shooting to kill an unarmed civilian - even a criminal assailant - is EVER considered an acceptable response is reprehensible, period. No amount of "context" will ever change my stance on that matter. If you cannot defend yourself without murder, then you do not deserve your freedom or well being (and, yes, I realize "murder" has to be proven by rule of law to properly be called such; but I am using the term anyway because I refuse to acknowledge a moral difference between murder and "lethal force" even though a legal distinction exists).
1) Your better check how you're interacting with people here or you're not going to be around very long. The mods don't take kindly straight up hostility like this.Patrick Hayes said:
2) Hindsight is 20/20. All of your arguments are moot because they didn't happen.
3) You are showing confirmation bias in the way you are presenting and reacting to people rebutting your statements so no one here is taking you seriously anymore.