Marissa Alexander: Sentencing Injustice yes. But how innocent is she?

I am still outraged that George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin. I am suspect of Florida's Stand Your Ground Laws. I am convinced that mandatory sentencing guidelines are overly harsh in most cases and affect black folk and other minorities disproportionately. And while I reeled from the news of Zimmerman's acquittal, I was hit in the gut again by the news that Marissa Alexander faced decades in jail as she defended herself from an abusive mate. Her defense rested on the controversial Stand Your Ground Law after she fired a warning shot near or at her abusive husband. Marissa claims she was protecting herself from another attack at the hands of her man. She "stood her ground". Instead of Justice, Marissa was sentenced to 20 years in prison, igniting a firestorm of objection and protest across the country, particularly from black Americans still reeling from the Zimmerman verdict.

The anger I felt as this woman's picture was showing up time and again in my social media timelines, usually accompanied by the headline or status update that all she was doing was defending herself against an abusive male. I saw images of an innocent mother. That's somebody's sister.... another innocent sista trapped in an abusive relationship... There are so may stories like this in our community, I was thinking.... I was like dag.. yet another brotha beatin down his woman.... I have sympathy for Marissa.... Compassion. I joined in the voices that said "INJUSTICE!! DISCRIMINATION!!! UNFAIR!!! Yes. On the surface, it appears that Marissa would be yet another black person unjustly consumed by the court system in America. A fact made worse because the case is in Florida.

Then I began to seek the facts. Facts that reveal why Marissa's Stand Your Ground defense was turned away at pre-trial hearings. Facts that also demonstrate why Marissa was convicted on multiple charges and sentenced to a mandatory 20 years. After only 12 minutes of deliberation, the jury convicted Marissa of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. (Click here to read the actual court documents) So then what happened?? How did we get to this point???

(Note: As of June 10, a retrial was postponed to December, while the state learns if the New Warning Shot bill will be passed or not)

On July 31, 2010, Marissa left her newborn child in the hospital days after giving birth to visit the home of Rico Gray, her husband. The couple had gotten married in May, but Marissa had not lived with Rico for two months prior to the shooting incident. When she got there, Rico wasn't home so she parked her car in the garage and waited. She spent the night but Rico did not come home until the morning along with his two sons. Sounds like everything is cool, because they all sat down and had breakfast. Everything is great. But then Marissa gave her phone to Rico so he could see pics of their newborn who was still in the hospital. She gave him the phone and then got up to go to the restroom. Rico found text message conversations between Marissa and her Ex. Rico got mad and confronted her as to whether the baby was even his. You know that set it off, right? And so it was on.... Rico prevented Marissa from leaving the bathroom at first, but she managed to get around him and exited. According to experts, this is where the Stand Your Ground laws went awry.

Marissa's actions at this point made the difference. Marissa exited the restroom and went to the master bedroom. Rico left the bedroom and headed to the living room. His sons were there. Marissa then leaves the bedroom, walks past Rico and the kids, straight to her car where she got a gun from her glovebox. She came back into the kitchen and pointed it at all three(Rico and his two sons). Rico put his hands in the air but Marissa fired anyway nearly missing Rico's head and sending a bullet through the kitchen and into the ceiling of the living room..... dayum!!!! Rico got the heck outta there with his sons and called 911. Marissa stayed at the house but never did call 911. It should be noted here that Rico did have a history of abuse against Marissa and other chicks. One such incident sent Marissa to the hospital with head injuries after he shoved her into a bathtub.    In the following legal actions, they decide to depose Rico. And wouldn't you know it.. the couple is now conspiring to keep the laws out of their business. Rico said he had all but threatened to kill Marissa. He said she couldn't leave the house through the garage because it was broken and that she never pointed a gun at him or his kids. But that was a completely different account than what he gave to the cops. Then, after swearing in court that she would have no contact with Rico, she continued to see him. In fact, when the court dismissed Marissa's Stand Your Ground defense, the judge noted that not only did Marissa continue to see Rico even after swearing not to, Rico and her discussed what Rico should say during the deposition!!!! Shady...

Rico says he lied in his deposition to protect Marissa. Further, after Marissa was convicted and sentenced to 20 years, she requested a retrial. At that hearing, Rico said he never threatened to kill her and said he begged and pleaded for his life when she had the gun. To make things worse, while she was out on bail and awaiting trial from the shooting charges, Marissa was arrested for domestic battery against Rico. Apparently she came to drop off their child at the house and they started arguing because he would not allow her to stay overnight. Police were called but Marissa had fled the scene. But not before she left Rico with a swoll eye and bloodied.  Po- Po caught up with Marissa about an hour later and of course Marissa claimed to not know what "this was all about" - she had an alibi. But as he police kept questioning her, the story changed with Marissa claiming that in fact she had gone to Rico's house but he attacked her with his fists because she wouldn't stay overnight. But Marissa had no visible injuries....Marissa was arrested and her bail revoked.

Needless to say, Marissa's case has a lot of issues. She had choices when she felt she was in "life threatening danger" - leave through the front door, back door or garage. She stayed in the house and although she and Rico said the garage was broken, police were not able to confirm.

Marissa says it was only a warning shot, but she shot at Rico, nearly missing him. The fact that she shot at him and did not hit him in the body presents the argument that she wasn't trying to kill him so why fire at all. 

She was never in life threatening danger. She never called the police. If she was in fear for her life, she should have dialed 911.

She kept returning to the house even after the court ordered her not to. She did not fear Rico as she had previously claimed.

The last arrest for Domestic violence while she was out on bail coupled with the fact that she lied to police about even being there demonstrates that she was not in fear of her life.....

In the end, this case is sad. It is the story of a tragic and, in my opinion trifling couple with severe anger issues. Marissa clearly has issues within this relationship. Rico clearly has violence issues. But they keep seeing each other... They keep trying to protect one another... Their relationship is a messy mess and now Marissa will have to do major time for her actions. The pictures we see put together with the status sentences and twitter updates present an entirely different picture of this woman. We are led to say poor Marissa.... but in fact, this relationship was a mess. Clearly Marissa is not some helpless victim of domestic violence. They maintained a messy, violent relationship. Abusers of one another. They need mental health and anger management counseling... not a harsh prison sentence....

Now I am not saying the sentence isn't too harsh. I am all for seeking justice where injustice has been applied. I am saying that I need to sit this one out and see how it shakes out. I am saying that besides whatever the courts are going to do with Marissa, this couple needs mental health and anger management treatment. This dysfunctional relationship has caused a world of pain.

Marissa Alexander. A symbol of American injustice? not so fast is what I say.... I wish her luck.... It's all unfortunate. But this one? Not so fast.....

Post-Racial America: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.......

A by-product of the Administration of President Barack Obama is this notion of a post racial America.  Some believe that the election of an African American to the highest political office in the land is the ultimate signal that America is indeed post racial......

Post Racial America means that we have gotten past racial bias, prejudice and racism in America. Even after a legacy of nationally sanctioned slavery, miscegenation, Jim Crow, Police Abuse, Driving While Black etc., etc., the consciousness of America has finally gotten to the point in Dr. Martin Luther King's dream where we would no longer be judged by "the color of our skin, but by the content of our character"..... Change.

My mom had this saying... "the more things change, the more they stay the same..."

I am a child of the Civil Rights movement. Too young to march. Old enough to hear, learn and become aware of my duty to my people as I took advantage of the strides the generations before made for me. As I was coming up hearing not only MLK and Malcolm, I remember being told of Medgar Evers.  I remember my dad taking me to see James Meredith speak at UCSD. I remember being told that I was groomed to become educated and to bring my education and experience back to the community to "uplift the race".

The election of a black man to the office of the President of the United States meant so much. It is a distinctly American Cultural paradigm shift... And yes, I am able to separate the cultural importance of President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama from my right as a citizen, to observe, criticize or support the political decision of the person occupying the Oval Office.

That said, let us consider the concept of a post racial America. Some say that to elect a President Barack Obama is destroying the yoke of prejudice and racism in our land. Some would say that we can no longer complain of racial biases in our daily walk. And perhaps a part of this is true. I mean, up until the election of 2008, the concept of a black man as President was a far fetched dream.  But now, anything is possible,

Yet, today, we recognize the familiar signals of prejudice and disdain for black people woven in the speech of those who would politically disagree with the Administration's direction. We see a subliminal campaign to promote negative images of black people through mass media. We perceive the negative veiled, yet prejudiced statements from media pundits all over the country. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others promote an extreme, pro-white viewpoint that has been a part of this country's consciousness since the founding. They offer profound disdain for the man in the Oval Office. A level of disrespect sometimes leaves one wondering "can he really say that about the President?" We see the various movements around the country who disagree with the change needed in this nation as those who long for the return to the good ol' days... oh you mean those days when we were "kept in our place"..... So are we really "post-racial"?

No. Even as rules and policies change (or not), the hearts of men have not. There is evidence that perhaps the powers of the world want to keep minorities down. School system failures abound in the hood..... An abundance of health issues abound in the hood. President Obama wants to give the people health care and the right wants to squash it. They want to keep folk under their thumb and possibly keep them extinct.

On the street, one can feel the feelings of prejudice and entitlement overflowing in the way we deal with each other as Americans. The looks you receive.... the attitudes..... the issues.... Perhaps the administration of President Barack Obama is the apex of a cultural revolution in America, the bloodshed taking place on levels that we will never see. But as the battle rages, we are subject to the effects of the battle here on the streets, the center of America's essence.

Post Racial America? no. We are not..... not now. The more things change, the more they stay the same....

Gay Rights: A Moral and Spiritual Conflict

Last fall’s election was historic and monumental not only because we elected the first African American President, but also for the unprecedented social movement of the masses of the people calling for change. The movement resulted in an emotional season of self evaluation for the nation. The nation paused to reinvest itself into the established system, using it to debate the political, military, economic and moral issues facing the nation. We’ve re-examined the way our nation and society views folkways and mores of the United States. One such examination is the issue of gay rights.

The issue of gay rights is one of the most hotly contested issues of today’s society. The LBGT segment is growing rapidly as more and more people profess to the lifestyle. Thier emergence or “coming out” is met with vociferous objection. Vociferous objection based on moral precepts emanating from tenets of our faith. Vociferous objection based on our political values which have been in place since the inception of the Republic. Vociferous objection based on societal folkways, mores, traditions and community standards.

Conversely, the masses of the gay community say to object to thier demands is tantamount to hate, prejudice and bigotry. They say the struggle for gay rights is a struggle for civil rights. A struggle for human rights. The LBGT community has demanded tolerance and social acceptance of the lifestyle.

And so during the last election, the nation engaged in one of history’s most wide open debates on gay rights. Proposition 8 in California asked if the State should ban same sex marriage. Most of the voters answered YES. It remains a passionate issue in the state even as most argue that we should not allow the government to legislate who one chooses to sleep with let alone who one should marry. To say anything against this makes you a bigot… a fascist… So they say…
and so off to court we go…

There are those of us who voted yes on 8 based on the moral standards of faith. Is this bigotry? This is a question asked in one of my earlier blogs. However; those of us in opposition of gay marriage have to know and agree that the gay community deserves protection against violence, discrimination and tyranny. The right to live safe in this nation and indeed the world should be a proprietary human right. I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but I do agree that they should not be judged by me(that’s between God and them) and have a right to live free and safe in this world just like me. Therein lies the dilemma for the Christian. Our spiritual center makes us disagree with the lifestyle and we certainly do not agree with same sex marriage, but that spiritual center also makes us disagree with human rights atrocities. Rape, murder, genocide, discriminiation, bigotry, hate… After all aren’t gay people human? So, what do we do?

Last week, my spiritual leader, COGIC Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake was criticized for signing an affirmation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was a major ceremony and world diplomacy action as religious leaders and heads of state from all over the globe converged on The Netherlands at the invitation of Queen Beatrice to participate in this signing. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was originally drafted by the United Nations and executed in 1948 in the aftermath of World War Two. It was meant to provide a global, legal platform to protect the rights of humans from tyranny, genocide, rape, chaos. In fact, the document is one of the foundations for the issuance of a United Nations arrest warrant for Sudan President Omar Al-Bashir for crimes against humanity particularly in the region of Darfur. The affirmation ceremony marked the 60th anniversary of the Declaration and re-committed heads of states and religious leaders to the protection of human rights.

Bishop Blake was strongly criticized for signing the document. The criticism started with a headline that said “”Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration “ This headline is a misleading, untruthful, slanderous statement which was widely discussed and written about all over the internet. It did not have anything to do with sexual orientation and homosexual rights. Again the affirmation of the UN declaration signed by Bishop Blake was about human rights and their inherent right to protection from genocide, tyranny, rape and other chaos. The Church of God in Christ is pretty clear and implicit in its position on same sex marriage.

This morning, we heard the news that the Obama administration intends to endorse a declaration for the world wide decriminalization of homosexuality. And now church folk are demanding that Bishop Blake rescind his signature from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are calling it an unholy covenant.

Now as I understand the story, this is a separate and “new” declaration that would not have Bishop Blake’s signature on it. It has nothing to do with the UDHR or Bishop Blake’s support of it. It has everything to do with the goals and objectives of President Obama’s administration to seek justice for all.

So for a Christian movement that voted for Barack Obama, this poses an interesting scenario… It was known that he was a supporter of certain gay rights.. I mean, hey, the LBGT community is huge and that equals votes. This is the moment we had in the back of our minds - The moment when we would, perhaps, disagree with the administration of President Barack Obama.

The report says that one Obama Administration official said that “The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world” The Bush Administration refused to sign the document when it was presented at the United Nations on December 19.

66 of the United Nations’ 192 member countries signed the declaration.

More than 50 countries oppose the declaration.

Homosexuality is illegal in 70 UN member countries.

Some Islamic countries say that protection of sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly legalization of deplorable acts”…. This leads to spiritual immorality and corruption within the people… The Vatican also opposed the declaration.
In some countries, homosexuality is punishable by execution.

Do we want that in our society? No. We may disagree with the lifestyle, but do we consider homosexuality a capital crime? We may disagree with the lifestyle, but when people inflict violence against the homosexual in a rage of hate, we know that is wrong. We disagree with the lifestyle, but I don’t think we want discrimination in the workplace, schools, etc. (although as a veteran, I do not think homosexuality in the military should be tolerated.)

So then how do we protect folk from widespread violence and discrimination while still maintaining our moral position? This is the dilemma of human rights when it comes down to Christian values and thought.

To what degree do we define and defend Human Rights? Do we even care?