Stand Your Ground, Unless You’re A Battered Woman

[JackLuis]

Stand Your Ground, Unless You’re A Battered Woman

Cherelle Baldwin is lucky to be alive. She was repeatedly abused by her ex-partner. She was attacked by him in her own home and defended herself, for which she went to prison. Domestic violence, also referred to as intimate partner violence, afflicts millions of people annually, mostly, but not exclusively, women. When victims defend themselves, they put themselves at risk of becoming doubly victimized: first by their abuser, then at the hands of the criminal-justice system. Women of color are particularly vulnerable, as Cherelle Baldwin’s case so starkly demonstrates.

If you're female you can't defend yourself with lethal force, it's fact of life.

 

[Comshaw]

Stand Your Ground, Unless You’re A Battered Woman



If you're female you can't defend yourself with lethal force, it's fact of life.

Would you like to post a link so we could do more reading and research on this (not that I think you are showing any kind of bias or anything), or are you going to pull an Ishmael?


Comshaw

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Stand Your Ground, Unless You’re A Battered Woman



If you're female you can't defend yourself with lethal force, it's fact of life.

^^^^^A crock of shit. My mama usta pull her gun on assholes all the time. Yuh just gotta be smart when you do it.

I've known assholes who cut their arms fleeing the little woman, and got her arrested when the cop saw the blood on Bluto's arm. Relax. Pull his nuts outta the cuffs of his jeans when he's drunk and asleep.

A guy once told me, I WENT TO THE BAR AND GOT FUCKED UP, THAT WAS MY FIRST MISTAKE, WHEN MARILYN CAME TO TAKE ME HOME I SLAPPED HER, THAT WAS MY 2ND MISTAKE, WHEN I WENT HOME AND FELL ASLEEP THAT WAS MY 3RD MISTAKE. I AWOKE WITH MY BALLS PULLED DOWN TO MY ANKLES AND HER FINGERNAILS DEEP IN THEIR SACK. I AINT NEVER TOUCHED LIQUOR SINCE THEN.

 

[sr71plt]

Would you like to post a link so we could do more reading and research on this (not that I think you are showing any kind of bias or anything), or are you going to pull an Ishmael?


Comshaw

The link was provided (and it's in what you quoted).

 

[domroger]

The whole case stinks to high heaven and never should have come to trial .

 

[JackLuis]

Would you like to post a link so we could do more reading and research on this (not that I think you are showing any kind of bias or anything), or are you going to pull an Ishmael?


Comshaw

The link is in the heading. Feel free to goggle your ass off.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The link in the OP has some factual errors and I don't really trust it very much. There are also some claims about the case at issue that don't sound right.

ETA: Have you ever heard of Lorena Bobbitt?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The link in the OP has some factual errors and I don't really trust it very much. There are also some claims about the case at issue that don't sound right.

ETA: Have you ever heard of Lorena Bobbitt?

Care to list any of that and provide proof that the things you claim are wrong actually are?

Or is this one of your "This doesn't' fit my (R) approved narrative so I'm just going to deny it and leave the thread." situations??

 

[Boxlicker101]

Care to list any of that and provide proof that the things you claim are wrong actually are?

Or is this one of your "This doesn't' fit my (R) approved narrative so I'm just going to deny it and leave the thread." situations??

Cherelle Baldwin is lucky to be alive. She was repeatedly abused by her ex-partner. She was attacked by him in her own home and defended herself, for which she went to prison. Domestic violence, also referred to as intimate partner violence, afflicts millions of people annually, mostly, but not exclusively, women. When victims defend themselves, they put themselves at risk of becoming doubly victimized: first by their abuser, then at the hands of the criminal-justice system. Women of color are particularly vulnerable, as Cherelle Baldwin’s case so starkly demonstrates.

Cherelle Baldwin met Jeffrey Brown in Connecticut in 2010, when she was 19 years old. Before long they had a baby boy together. Brown became abusive, and by 2013 the couple had split up. After that, according to court documents, Brown repeatedly threatened her, took her credit cards and money, and assaulted her during visits to see their son. She eventually got a court order barring threats, harassment and assaults during visits, but Brown continued sending threatening texts. On May 18, 2013, he sent over a dozen threats via text, two of which read “DOA on sight” (sic), indicating she would be Dead On Arrival. His car was parked down the street.

Cherelle was awakened to find Brown in her room. He beat her, and strangled and whipped her with a belt. She fled the house in her nightgown, without her shoes or her glasses. She raced into her car. “She crashed her car into a cement wall,” her defense attorney, Miles Gerety, told us on the “Democracy Now!” news hour. “She wakes up next to the car, not really knowing what had happened, because she had retrograde amnesia.” What happened next is unclear. Baldwin suffered a broken leg in the crash. Police found Jeffrey Brown pinned between the car and the wall, dead. According to Gerety, he still had the belt that he had used to beat Baldwin wrapped around his hand.

Despite her injuries, despite the order of protection, despite the slew of threatening text messages from Brown against her, Cherelle Baldwin was charged with first-degree murder and remanded to Connecticut’s maximum-security prison, with bail set at $1 million. After a six-week trial, 11 of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. One juror held out, so the judge declared a mistrial. The prosecutor sought a second trial, insisting on maintaining the impossibly high bail. Baldwin remained behind bars.

Last week, at her second trial, Baldwin was acquitted of all charges. Yet she had spent close to three years in prison – her only crime being the inability to meet bail. The U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to courts in March about the problem of jailing poor people who can’t pay fines or meet bail. It read, in part, “Bail that is set without regard to defendants’ financial capacity can result in the incarceration of individuals not because they pose a threat to public safety or a flight risk, but rather because they cannot afford the assigned bail amount.”

Baldwin’s case parallels another that got far more media attention. In August 2010 in Florida, Marissa Alexander, also an African-American and a mother of three, defended herself against her abusive estranged husband. When he threatened her in her own home, she fired her licensed pistol into the ceiling as a warning. He fled, called the police, and she was arrested. She was charged with aggravated assault, convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Marissa Alexander tried to use Florida’s “stand your ground” law in her defense. [/

Marissa Alexander eventually won an appeal, but, facing the potential of 60 years The prosecutor, Angela Corey, also prosecuted white vigilante George Zimmerman for the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman succeeded in using the stand your ground defense. Alexander did not. Ohio State University law professor Michelle Alexander compared the cases of Marissa Alexander and George Zimmerman on “Democracy Now!,” calling Marissa’s case a “stark example of the discriminatory application of the stand your ground law itself. Here is a woman firing shots in the air to protect herself from what she believed is an abusive spouse, and she winds up getting 20 years, while George Zimmerman is released scot-free after pursuing someone based on racial stereotypes and assumptions of criminality.”
behind bars in a retrial, accepted a plea bargain for time served plus two years of house arrest. She is in her second year of that now.

Back in Connecticut, Cherelle Baldwin is slowly but surely trying to put her life back together with her 4-year-old son. Cherelle and Marissa are just two of the 12.7 million people in the U.S. who are physically abused, raped or stalked by their partners annually. This national crisis, and related issues of mass incarceration and racial discrimination in the criminal-justice system, deserves a full public hearing, especially during this presidential election year.

***

© 2016 Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan


Zimmerman is actually Hispanic and was not a vigilante; he was a part of the local neighborhood watch. He was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense, and he was able to prove he had been assaulted. He did not plead the "stand your ground" defense. He did not profile Martin, as proven by the recorded conversation between him and the police dispatcher, and he suspected, not assumed, criminality. Z was doing neither more nor less than his duties in the neighborhood watch.

As I said, when I see factual errors in an article, I tend to suspect the accuracy of the entire article, especially when the writer's biases are so obvious.

 

[JackLuis]

-
Zimmerman is actually Hispanic and was not a vigilante; he was a part of the local neighborhood watch. He was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense, and he was able to prove he had been assaulted. He did not plead the "stand your ground" defense. He did not profile Martin, as proven by the recorded conversation between him and the police dispatcher, and he suspected, not assumed, criminality. Z was doing neither more nor less than his duties in the neighborhood watch.

As I said, when I see factual errors in an article, I tend to suspect the accuracy of the entire article, especially when the writer's biases are so obvious.

Zimmerman is a arrogant punk who took the law into his own hands and was getting his ass whipped by a boy, so he shot him. He was carrying a gun to feel tough 'cause he was a pussy. If the Florida DA hadn't completely pissed away the case he'd be doing 25-Life!

Fuck Box, call a spade a spade and not a soil moving implement.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Stand Your Ground, Unless You’re A Battered Woman



If you're female you can't defend yourself with lethal force, it's fact of life.

Guns are pretty lethal...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Zimmerman is actually Hispanic and was not a vigilante; he was a part of the local neighborhood watch.

He was a part of the NHW, but most of the country would say he was a vigilante.

WATCH, not engage.

He was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense, and he was able to prove he had been assaulted.

No he wasn't. He was acquitted because dead men can't testify and there was no proof of what actually happened.

He did not plead the "stand your ground" defense.

No one said he did because there is no such thing. But he did use that law to defend his actions.

He did not profile Martin, as proven by the recorded conversation between him and the police dispatcher, and he suspected, not assumed, criminality. Z was doing neither more nor less than his duties in the neighborhood watch.

That's really a matter of opinion, largely one held by die hard GOP'ers who lap up everything they see on the Factor as factual news reporting.

As I said, when I see factual errors in an article, I tend to suspect the accuracy of the entire article, especially when the writer's biases are so obvious.

I think you see something that doesn't fit the Hannity narrative so you're writing it off because anything not FOX = lies.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

Zimmerman is actually Hispanic and was not a vigilante; he was a part of the local neighborhood watch.

He was a part of the NHW, but most of the country would say he was a vigilante.

WATCH, not engage.

Have you taken some kind of a census as to whether or not he was a vigilante. Remember, he was acquitted. He was watching until he was assaulted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

He was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense, and he was able to prove he had been assaulted.

No he wasn't. He was acquitted because dead men can't testify and there was no proof of what actually happened.

There were the injuries - broken nose and gashes on his head - that were inflicted on Z and there were the eye-witness accounts. The witnesses were unable to identify faces but they were able to identify the jackets the two men were wearing. There was also TM telling his friend on the phone he was going to attack the "cracker" following him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

He did not plead the "stand your ground" defense.

No one said he did because there is no such thing. But he did use that law to defend his actions.

The article in the OP cited that law, even though it was not used. Z pleaded not guilty by reason of self-defense, which is a valid defense anywhere in the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

He did not profile Martin, as proven by the recorded conversation between him and the police dispatcher, and he suspected, not assumed, criminality. Z was doing neither more nor less than his duties in the neighborhood watch.

That's really a matter of opinion, largely one held by die hard GOP'ers who lap up everything they see on the Factor as factual news reporting.

It was never established that any profiling occurred and the only evidence indicated it did not. I certainly place more credence in a major news source that in the article cited in the OP. I have also read and heard from other sources that Z did not know the race of the person he was following. He could not have know because TM was covering much of his face and it was too dark to tell anyhow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post

As I said, when I see factual errors in an article, I tend to suspect the accuracy of the entire article, especially when the writer's biases are so obvious.

I think you see something that doesn't fit the Hannity narrative so you're writing it off because anything not FOX = lies. [\quote]

I don't know the "Hannity narrative" because I never watch his show. I consider him to be too extreme.

 

[mark_j]

I find it immensely funny that all of you are off on the tangent of Zimmerman. He, nor his case, are really relevant to the article.

The OP tries to paint the incident in a different light by not finishing the story. As the article points out, BOTH women were eventually acquitted of all charges.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I find it immensely funny that all of you are off on the tangent of Zimmerman. He, nor his case, are really relevant to the article.

The OP tries to paint the incident in a different light by not finishing the story. As the article points out, BOTH women were eventually acquitted of all charges.

It is a tangent and has nothing to do with the subject of the OP. However, the author of the article saw fit to compare two totally unrelated cases, with the Zimmerman story included errors of fact. That's why I mentioned it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Have you taken some kind of a census as to whether or not he was a vigilante. Remember, he was acquitted. He was watching until he was assaulted.

When watchmen get out of their car and confront instead of watching, that's called being a vigilante.

There were the injuries - broken nose and gashes on his head - that were inflicted on Z

Can do all that minor bullshit to yourself easily.

and there were the eye-witness accounts. The witnesses were unable to identify faces but they were able to identify the jackets the two men were wearing. There was also TM telling his friend on the phone he was going to attack the "cracker" following him.

1) eye witnesses are proven not to be worth a fuck.

2) I thought it was Z's word against TM's....so Z wins.

3) They have a recording of TM's phone conversation? Link?

The article in the OP cited that law, even though it was not used. Z pleaded not guilty by reason of self-defense, which is a valid defense anywhere in the country.

What constitutes 'self defense' depends heavily on conditions that 'stand your ground' laws drastically alter in states that have such laws.

Had he been in a state without a SYG law he would have not been so easily acquitted.

I don't know the "Hannity narrative" because I never watch his show. I consider him to be too extreme.

But Bill O'Reilly (who I know you watch because I've seen you regurgitate his bullshit practically word for word more than once) isn't? LOL gimme a fuckin' break box.



And at the end of the day NONE of it disproves the OP.....you're just using the fact that she disagrees with the Zimmerman acquittal to dismiss the verifiable facts she's presenting.