Marissa Alexander Stood Her ground...and was Denied by Florida

[DaemonSeid]

There has to be something in this story that must be missing but otherwise, this woman stood her ground and killed no one yet she faces 20 years in the same state that just may let George Zimmerman free.



Time's article detailing the story


And denied a retrial

[AOII Angel]

That's sad. Women in domestic violence situations so rarely get the help they need. What happens to her children while she serves time for this victimless "crime"?

[DrPhil]

Stand Your Ground is a bullshit law that is unclearly stated and unclearly and unequally applied. Take that nonsense out of the books.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Stand Your Ground is a bullshit law that is unclearly stated and unclearly and unequally applied. Take that nonsense out of the books.

I disagree. A free American should have the ability to be able to defend himself with appropriate force wherever s/he is legally present.

HOWEVER, the deliberate misinterpretation and application of the law IS an issue ... as is the deliberate misinterpretation and application of any law.

[Kevin]

I suspect that the linked article is giving a fairly biased account of events, much like some of the internet publications linked by SOM in the Martin case.

All that said, it may sound callous, but I don't feel all that bad when children are taken away from a mother who keeps going back to an abusive man who has children with 5 other women. It's partially her fault and partially the system's fault. It would be a great help if as part of receiving a restraining order or having one entered against you, the court would order victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to obtain counseling through the YWCA or other such organizations.

In a case like this, even absent a criminal charge against Alexander, Child Protective Services would certainly have cause to pick the children up and place them into foster care due to failure to protect.

[ZTAOnlytheBest]

because foster care is so great?

[PiKA2001]

Hate to sound like a prick but these two deserve each other. It seemed like it was her word VS his at her trial and her going over to her ex's house to whoop his ass after she posted bail doesn't really jive with her battered wife story. I wouldn't be surprised if that incident was what lead the judge to his conclusion about her not being eligible for the Stand Your Ground law.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DGTess

HOWEVER, the deliberate misinterpretation and application of the law IS an issue ... as is the deliberate misinterpretation and application of any law.

I'm pretty sure that's what DrPhil said. She was denigrating the law, not the actions Ms Alexander took.

Originally Posted by Kevin

All that said, it may sound callous, but I don't feel all that bad when children are taken away from a mother who keeps going back to an abusive man who has children with 5 other women. It's partially her fault and partially the system's fault. It would be a great help if as part of receiving a restraining order or having one entered against you, the court would order victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to obtain counseling through the YWCA or other such organizations.

In a case like this, even absent a criminal charge against Alexander, Child Protective Services would certainly have cause to pick the children up and place them into foster care due to failure to protect.

Oh goody, a "what world does Kevin live in" post. We haven't had one of those for a while. Many many many times in abusive relationships, the abuser has cut the victim off from any outside help, up to and including forcing them to quit work or school, so they are financially dependent on the abuser. "Counseling at the YMCA" (that's another thing, not all YMCAs are created equal and some can barely stay open) isn't going to fix that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ZTAOnlytheBest

because foster care is so great?

It beats a mother who knowingly exposes her children to an abuser. If one of those children had been harmed (which easily could have happened), you'd be singing a different tune.

[ZTAOnlytheBest]

I mean, if you want to live life by the what ifs, it's going to be pretty complicated. And it isn't necessarily any better.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ZTAOnlytheBest

I mean, if you want to live life by the what ifs, it's going to be pretty complicated. And it isn't necessarily any better.

I'm not talking about what ifs. She definitely did expose her children to an abuser and failed to protect them. I actually do quite a bit of volunteer pro bono work representing kids often against their parents in the local Juvenile Court in juvenile deprived actions. I can tell you that under the circumstances, I'd have no problem seeking DHS custody for this lady's kids.

This man was abusive enough that she got a protective order. She then rescinded it and let him back into her house and bed despite the continued abuse. Her being in this situation is as much her fault as his as his abusive behavior is a constant/given and apparently she had been able to overcome that issue with a protective order which she voluntarily allowed to be gutted.

I'll agree that she likely suffered from battered woman syndrome, but that's something she needs to work on before she can be deemed a fit parent (assuming she doesn't go to the pen for 20 years for her apparent crime).

That's why I remarked earlier that I'd love to see mandatory or at least highly recommended classes provided to abusers and victims of abuse.

[ZTAOnlytheBest]

She rescinded it because she was pregnant with his child. I mean, obviously it wasn't the smartest thing, but I can totally see how a woman would feel it might be better to have the father around.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's partially her fault and partially the system's fault.

Ok, please explain how it's partially her fault...?


Sigh...some things I don't miss....

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm pretty sure that's what DrPhil said. She was denigrating the law, not the actions Ms Alexander took.

I think DGTess does not want the law to be denigrated which is highly correlated with how DGTess feels about gun control and the failures of law enforcement.

There is room for both faults in the law and in people's actions. However, I simply do not care about Ms. Alexander's story because the common denominator in some of the more recent news stories is the Stand Your Ground law. That perhaps means that it has gone way beyond this notion of self-defense and is confusing some people as to what constitutes lawful and unlawful behavior in certain contexts. That implies a potential error in the law itself and not just in human application. Afterall, laws are formal social control mechanisms that serve to direct and/or respond to human behavior.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I think DGTess does not want the law to be denigrated which is highly correlated with how DGTess feels about gun control and the failures of law enforcement.

There is room for both faults in the law and in people's actions. However, I simply do not care about Ms. Alexander's story because the common denominator in some of the more recent news stories is the Stand Your Ground law. That perhaps means that it has gone way beyond this notion of self-defense and is confusing some people as to what constitutes lawful and unlawful behavior in certain contexts. That implies a potential error in the law itself and not just in human application. Afterall, laws are formal social control mechanisms that serve to direct and/or respond to human behavior.

Well, no; laws are mechanisms by which we punish people who go beyond societal norms. They prevent nothing.

Without getting in to your irrational hatred of my gun-control opinions, look at the meaning of a stand-your-ground law. It states that a person need not turn tail and run from attacks; that s/he may defend life and safety as necessary. Eliminating the law takes away personal responsibility for one's safety and implies the bigger, badder party will always win. I don't want to live in that world.