Am I the only one seeing this? The Alexander/Martin Fauxrage

Marissa Alexander gets 20 years because it was decided by a prosecutor that she was not covered under Stand Your Ground Law. Her case is now the darling of the Anti SYG crowd because it demonstrates that the law is applied unjustly with the usual “Wink wink You Be Black, You Be Screwed” and therefore it has to be repealed. George Zimmerman was not initially charged but after the Media Frenzy, a special prosecutor was brought in and viola! He is now on his way to court where many hope he will be executed by drawn and quartering.

The special prosecutor brought in to nail Zimmerman and the prosecutor that sent Alexander to prison for 20 years? The same Angela Corey.

Maybe we have a prosecutor that does not know how (or politically hates) to apply Stand Your Ground laws?


4 Replies to “Am I the only one seeing this? The Alexander/Martin Fauxrage”

  1. Stand your ground doesn’t apply in either case.

    Marissa Alexander retreated from a dangerous situation, but returned knowing the danger was still there. Stand your ground doesn’t apply if you knowingly return into a hostile environment, knowing full well that you might be threatened or attacked for doing so.

    George Zimmerman had no ability to retreat, therefore he could not exercise the provisions of Stand Your Ground versus a decision to retreat, and he had no other means available to him to ward off his attacker. He acted in pure self defense.

    PS. Neighborhood watch types have the right to ask strangers what they are doing on the property they are charged to watch.

    Goodbye to Marissa Alexander and goodbye to Travon Martin.

    You both made the wrong decision and you both got what you asked for. Case(s) closed, in my book.

    1. “PS. Neighborhood watch types have the right to ask strangers what they are doing on the property they are charged to watch.”

      Not just neighborhood watch, but anybody can approach another person and ask them questions. They don’t have to respond, but there’s nothing illegal about initiating verbal contact with someone. The mere act of him doing so isn’t ‘picking a fight’, as they’ve tried to frame it.

  2. Found some interesting info on this case, Miguel. Here’s text from a guy on reddit who did some digging:

    1. She wasn’t isn’t in trouble for simply firing a warning shot, she’s in trouble because she used deadly force when it wasn’t justified according to the law.

    2. She did not fire the weapon into the kitchen ceiling! She was standing in the living room with her husband (and he was next to his 2 kids), she pointed the gun at his head and fired, the bullet barely missed his head, traveled through the wall and then into the ceiling the of the kitchen.

    3. Her husband’s testimony (the man she fired the gun at) was basically discounted because against the orders of the court they met up after she was arrested and discussed what he was going to say in her defense.

    4. If you still think her husband is trustworthy, he told the police after the shooting that she threatened to shoot him in the past, and his children told the prosecutor that she was screaming at them during the incident, he then testified those were all lies.

    5. After being arrested for shooting, she drove to his house (again she was not supposed to have any contact with him) and assaulted him and she was arrested again.

    6. Her defense about using stand your ground doesn’t work. When she fired the gun, he was not doing anything towards her. She had left the house, got the gun and came back, and he was in the process of leaving when she pointed the gun at him.

Comments are closed.