I was in an unhealthy relationship when younger (it was fine until he was old enough to buy his own beer). And yeah, we've been broken up 9 years and some of the stuff still affects me. Hell, he still shows up in my dreams to make me miserable.
In some states SYG establishes a presumption of the right to shoot somebody. (FL, I believe, is one of those. Don't know about AL). What this presumption means is that the defendant only needs to raise SYG, and the judge will decide if SYG was appropriate under the circumstances the defendant believed he/she found herself in. The case isn't necessarily scheduled for trial before the defense is raised, and it never goes to trial if the Judge feels the defendant actually felt fear regardless of whether a "reasonable person" would feel fear under similar circumstances! IOW, it completely cuts the jury out of the determination of what is reasonable, cuz you know them black folk scare everybody!
How could anyone with half a brain be the least bit surprised by this? SYG in the South is all about whites shooting blacks. Any other combination of races in a shooting is SOL!
Marissa Alexander. First person i thought of when this hit the news. Only in her case,if I remember correctly, they declared she could not legally "stand her ground" because the husband lived there or something. So apparently he was justified in his actions, but she was not. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but I'm sure Bammer's laws differ and that's why Dixon's in jail. Totally not because she's an abused woman who got lucky with someone who wasn't her abuser.
I'm not familiar with this law (because I live in a country where we put strict controls on handguns after a single mass murder of children and we dont count the NRA among our reptillian donor class. Yet.), but what's to stop the person who 'stood their ground' being set up to then be ground stood in turn by someone else watching them gun down an unarmed person and who decided to redress the balance in kind?
It seems like an open invitation to a pitched gun battle. Is there a limit on the law that prevents a chickenshit murder conga line forming?
I wouldn't have even asked a few years ago, assuming basic common sense and human decency to act as a limiter, but with weakling pseudo nazis and all other kinds of jelly-spined right wing garbage climbing up from the sewers... well.
One should never excuse someone for bad behavior itself. Rather, one ought to appreciate the contributing factors to making bad choices. Absolutely no one, however, can rightfully protest subjection to gentle, constructive criticism. Some people belonging to victimized groups will have their feelings hurt when their culture predisposes them to bad or poorly-informed choices and then cultural outsiders try to admonish them for not living up to their supposedly higher standards. It can be gratuitously moralizing, condescending, and belittling to them. You need to let them know what, specifically, is socially unacceptable while at the same time letting them know that they shouldn't feel bad and have lowered self-esteem about their culture. It is a fine line to walk, but you do it by being hard and reprimanding when necessary and soft and forgiving at other times. Gentle, constructive criticism is the right balance. If I wanted to criticize Nicki / Onika for her misdeeds, I would constructively criticize her in person. Talking about people behind their back is rude, and that includes celebrities. Not to mention, you might have better luck at convincing someone to see the error of their ways and to stop unacceptable behaviors if you approach them about it in a gentle, sensitive way, regardless of how atrocious and reprehensible their offense.
I've known a couple of women in "toxic relationships, and one was 'really bad' in that her abuser never laid a hand on her...it was all psychological abuse. She had texts saved and I also listened in to some of his phone 'conversations' with her live, while we were at work. The guy was fucking insane and so verbally cruel and aggressive.This young woman was the most chipper and positive person I knew at work ( and her job was sales) but then she began to let me in on her personal hell. She would obviously tremble when her phone buzzed with a message or a call from this guy which would happen at any time, while she was working.
She made bad choices (IMHO) when choosing men to be with---it was a weakness, she connected with 'passion' and 'energy' but somehow wasn't aware that those traits could also mean serious instability. I think she was ultra romantic/free spirited and couldn't help herself. She otherwise smarter than her background and state education standards, bit her untrammeled joi de vivre made her so vulnerable.
With some support and perspective from me and a couple of worldly female colleagues she got herself out of that hole, and that pattern of bad choices. But it took time, and it wasn't easy. And though she 'got away' that bastard who tortured her is still present in her mind---as a reminder of how she's changed, bit also how he has apparently suffered no real consequences. He's still a malevolent presence in her thoughts, and that is what you get, I guess: a constantly threatened peace of sorts--fear subsumed, but not vanquished, Not as bad, but still horrible.
I hate to say it, I am very ill equipped to help..but I might be able to drop a donation (and Wonkette will have to forgo yet again a donation from me...but, effort is demanded right? Right.
I was in an unhealthy relationship when younger (it was fine until he was old enough to buy his own beer). And yeah, we've been broken up 9 years and some of the stuff still affects me. Hell, he still shows up in my dreams to make me miserable.
In some states SYG establishes a presumption of the right to shoot somebody. (FL, I believe, is one of those. Don't know about AL). What this presumption means is that the defendant only needs to raise SYG, and the judge will decide if SYG was appropriate under the circumstances the defendant believed he/she found herself in. The case isn't necessarily scheduled for trial before the defense is raised, and it never goes to trial if the Judge feels the defendant actually felt fear regardless of whether a "reasonable person" would feel fear under similar circumstances! IOW, it completely cuts the jury out of the determination of what is reasonable, cuz you know them black folk scare everybody!
How could anyone with half a brain be the least bit surprised by this? SYG in the South is all about whites shooting blacks. Any other combination of races in a shooting is SOL!
I regret that I have but one upvote to give you. I'm definitely stealing that one.
I dont know how else to contact you or even if you will get this. Call me sometime this week and let me know either way (you know what I mean).
Especially if they have kids. That throws a whole other level of complication into the mix.
Marissa Alexander. First person i thought of when this hit the news. Only in her case,if I remember correctly, they declared she could not legally "stand her ground" because the husband lived there or something. So apparently he was justified in his actions, but she was not. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but I'm sure Bammer's laws differ and that's why Dixon's in jail. Totally not because she's an abused woman who got lucky with someone who wasn't her abuser.
No, no, no, no, NO!!
the smocking GNU!
Clacks for Trump
Apologies, but this is somewhat O/T.
I'm not familiar with this law (because I live in a country where we put strict controls on handguns after a single mass murder of children and we dont count the NRA among our reptillian donor class. Yet.), but what's to stop the person who 'stood their ground' being set up to then be ground stood in turn by someone else watching them gun down an unarmed person and who decided to redress the balance in kind?
It seems like an open invitation to a pitched gun battle. Is there a limit on the law that prevents a chickenshit murder conga line forming?
I wouldn't have even asked a few years ago, assuming basic common sense and human decency to act as a limiter, but with weakling pseudo nazis and all other kinds of jelly-spined right wing garbage climbing up from the sewers... well.
misogynoir
One should never excuse someone for bad behavior itself. Rather, one ought to appreciate the contributing factors to making bad choices. Absolutely no one, however, can rightfully protest subjection to gentle, constructive criticism. Some people belonging to victimized groups will have their feelings hurt when their culture predisposes them to bad or poorly-informed choices and then cultural outsiders try to admonish them for not living up to their supposedly higher standards. It can be gratuitously moralizing, condescending, and belittling to them. You need to let them know what, specifically, is socially unacceptable while at the same time letting them know that they shouldn't feel bad and have lowered self-esteem about their culture. It is a fine line to walk, but you do it by being hard and reprimanding when necessary and soft and forgiving at other times. Gentle, constructive criticism is the right balance. If I wanted to criticize Nicki / Onika for her misdeeds, I would constructively criticize her in person. Talking about people behind their back is rude, and that includes celebrities. Not to mention, you might have better luck at convincing someone to see the error of their ways and to stop unacceptable behaviors if you approach them about it in a gentle, sensitive way, regardless of how atrocious and reprehensible their offense.
As sure as lottery incomes after winning payouts are actually applied to childrens' educations in a meaningfull and quantifiable way.
I've known a couple of women in "toxic relationships, and one was 'really bad' in that her abuser never laid a hand on her...it was all psychological abuse. She had texts saved and I also listened in to some of his phone 'conversations' with her live, while we were at work. The guy was fucking insane and so verbally cruel and aggressive.This young woman was the most chipper and positive person I knew at work ( and her job was sales) but then she began to let me in on her personal hell. She would obviously tremble when her phone buzzed with a message or a call from this guy which would happen at any time, while she was working.
She made bad choices (IMHO) when choosing men to be with---it was a weakness, she connected with 'passion' and 'energy' but somehow wasn't aware that those traits could also mean serious instability. I think she was ultra romantic/free spirited and couldn't help herself. She otherwise smarter than her background and state education standards, bit her untrammeled joi de vivre made her so vulnerable.
With some support and perspective from me and a couple of worldly female colleagues she got herself out of that hole, and that pattern of bad choices. But it took time, and it wasn't easy. And though she 'got away' that bastard who tortured her is still present in her mind---as a reminder of how she's changed, bit also how he has apparently suffered no real consequences. He's still a malevolent presence in her thoughts, and that is what you get, I guess: a constantly threatened peace of sorts--fear subsumed, but not vanquished, Not as bad, but still horrible.
I hate to say it, I am very ill equipped to help..but I might be able to drop a donation (and Wonkette will have to forgo yet again a donation from me...but, effort is demanded right? Right.