Maybe she is in jail for shooting at the children.

Where is Al Sharpton and the media?

Get bent.

Unless the children were standing (or dancing) on the ceiling, it sounds what she did was harmless and effective.

Color bias nerfherder.

>> ^bobknight33:

Maybe she is in jail for shooting at the children.
Where is Al Sharpton and the media?

If she was white, they'd be praising her to no end and she'd be the honored guest at the next NRA convention.

Ugh, I hate the way the newscaster insists on "allegedly" when referring to the abusive husband.




_{(pro-tip to makers of this kind of video: avoid the softcore porn music please.)}

Wow. Fuck Racism.

At least her husband is consistent with all his women:

In a deposition for the case against Alexander, [her husband] backed up much of his wife's story... If my kids weren't there, I knew I probably would have tried to take the gun from her," Gray said, adding, "If my kids wouldn't have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her."

When Alexander's defense attorney asked him what he meant by "put my hand on her," Gray replied, "probably hit her. I got five baby mammas and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one."

(source)

Who can be so brazen? "Yeah, I'm whore and I beat the mothers of my children. What of it?">> ^chilaxe:

At least her husband is consistent with all his women:

In a deposition for the case against Alexander, [her husband] backed up much of his wife's story... If my kids weren't there, I knew I probably would have tried to take the gun from her," Gray said, adding, "If my kids wouldn't have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her."
When Alexander's defense attorney asked him what he meant by "put my hand on her," Gray replied, "probably hit her. I got five baby mammas and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one."
(source)

I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.

Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

>> ^chilaxe:

I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.


A whole lot of assumptions you're making.

Go listen at 1:25 through 1:35.. It references that she was shooting at the children.

We don't know what happened just what the news reported.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Get bent.
Unless the children were standing (or dancing) on the ceiling, it sounds what she did was harmless and effective.
Color bias nerfherder.
>> ^bobknight33:
Maybe she is in jail for shooting at the children.
Where is Al Sharpton and the media?

It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.

>> ^chilaxe:

It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.



I thought your questions weren't really questions, just bullshit.

Ha. Well, if you can't disprove that the jury was significantly composed of ethnic minorities, it will be tacit admission that asking questions is a useful part of using our brains.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.


I thought your questions weren't really questions, just bullshit.

State and local prosecutors filter jury pools of blacks all the time, with the purpose to stack the deck against black defendants. Such juries are more likely to convict and pass down relatively harsh sentences for black defendants.

In fact, this practice has been going on for so long, is so egregious and is so oft used, that a university study proved it statistically significantly in North Carolina. Also, legislation in two states has been passed allowed black inmates to appeal sentences to correct this practice.

Here is the latest case to fall under such a law.

So, really @chilaxe, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the jury wasn't stacked with non-blacks, especially in a southern state like Florida, where this practice is known to be done.

The point is that under that insane stand your ground law, she should be set free. This law is not being applied equally.

She shot at children? George Zimmerman shot at and killed a minor.
>> ^bobknight33:

Maybe she is in jail for shooting at the children.
Where is Al Sharpton and the media?

>> ^chilaxe:

Ha. Well, if you can't disprove that the jury was significantly composed of ethnic minorities, it will be tacit admission that asking questions is a useful part of using our brains.


So as long as you just keep throwing out questions we'll have to keep answering them until your satisfied? No, you and your questions don't matter.

@longde @Yogi

Being intellectually curious about the ethnic makeup of the jury is rational for both sides, because if the jury didn't have ethnic minorities, that would be the fastest way to demonstrate supporting evidence for your desired hypothesis.

Hostility toward people who ask for the information that would prove your claims would fail the intellectual standards in most professions.

@chilaxe , I don't see any hostility in my post. I supported my assertions with a full study and a news article; finally concluding that in the face of such data, your claims about the jury composition have little weight.

As always, I'm hostile towards your flawed logic and questionable conclusions, not you personally.

@longde

A study arguing that jury composition is sometimes unbalanced doesn't excuse us from needing to know whether or not THIS jury was unbalanced. Or we might need to awkwardly explain why a jury like this would be racist against her.

Even if the jury was all White and Latino, it should be curious to us that they'd take the side of a violent African American male with 5 baby mommas. That's who they're supposed to be biased against, not for, particularly when it comes to firearms used for self-defense.

More details are needed, and journalists are only conveying one narrow side.

Here's another opinion....

When I first heard about this case, I thought -- racism and sexism. A woman shoots a gun in the air and is faced with 20 years in prison? Damn.

Then I found out that there were children present. And she pulls out a gun instead of just leaving? Whoa. That isn't cool, I don't care about the stupid Stand Your Ground law.

Third thought -- TWENTY YEARS for shooting a gun into the ceiling? When Zimmerman -- and others like him -- aren't even arrested?

I'm back to racism and sexism. Even if she was wrong to pull out that gun. Twenty years wrong? No way. And even if that jury was 100% black from her neighborhood, that doesn't mean it wasn't racist and sexist and that weird triple standard that women are supposed to be some kind of saintly mother figure that never loses their temper. BS on that.

She is lucky that no one was hurt. She needs anger management classes and some deep counseling. But putting her in jail for TWENTY YEARS?

Racist and sexist.