Cue Alanis Morisette, Part MMCCCLXXVII
By Mitch Berg
Domestic violence activist caps her hubby of five days:
A 45-year-old woman, charged with ending a domestic dispute by killing her 26-year-old husband of five days, is a registered lobbyist for a group fighting domestic violence.
Arelisha Bridges was ordered held without bond in the Fulton County Jail. She is scheduled for a preliminary hearing later this month on charges of felony murder, murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Officials said Bridges claimed she was unemployed. But records show she is a lobbyist for an organization called the National Declaration for Domestic Violence Order; its Web site says the group is pushing legislation to create a database of those convicted of sex crimes or domestic abuse.
Usually an accused felon will appear at a preliminary hearing a day later, but Bridges’ hearing was within hours of the shooting death of Anthony Rankins. Officials said the court appearance was moved up because of the unusual circumstances around the crime.
Witnesses told police that Bridges was wearing a nightgown and a shower cap as she argued with Rankins on the sidewalk on North Avenue near West Peachtree Street around 10:45 p.m. Monday.
And moments later, witnesses said, they heard shots. They said she then “calmly walked away.”
A MARTA police officer stopped her as she was getting into her car, perhaps to return to her home nearby on Centennial Olympic Park Drive.
According to Atlanta police, Bridges told investigators that she and Rankins had been dating for a few months and were just married on Feb. 24.
I’m trying to figure out of this killing was Bush’s fault, or a result of Michele Bachmann’s rhetoric…
March 4th, 2010 at 10:15 am
You just have to love the irony, or something.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Angryclown can’t believe they’re prosecuting this poor woman for simply exercising her sacred Second Amendment rights.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:57 am
If it does turn out that she a) feared death or great bodily harm b) used appropriate force, c) made reasonable efforts to disengage and d) was not a willing participant * in the shooting, I’ll be the first to apologize.
What do you suppose the odds are?
* Yeah, I know – I’m using Minnesota’s affirmative defense criteria. I don’t know Georgia’s self-defense law. If you do, feel free to mentally substitute it.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Brings to mind a couple of lyrics from Night Ranger’s Four In The Morning
March 4th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
What floors me is that witnesses say she CALMLY walked away. I was going to suggest that the man most likely got his just desserts for cheating on his new bride, but seeing the testimony, I can’t quite go there.
AC, methinks you need to reread the 2nd. It says nothing about killing innocents there.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
“reread”
Hahahahaha, good one Bubba, hahahahahaha, way too funny, hahahaha
March 4th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Note to Harry Reid: Remember your quote “Men when they’re out of work tend to become abusive.” ? I’m sure you’d be willing to add that women have some of the same tendencies as well; especially those that belong to the National Declaration for Domestic Violence Order. Oh well, glad you have that MENSA intellect going for you as you manage the U.S. Senate (for now).
March 4th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
You need to look into the penumbra of the constitution, Bubbasan. It’s chock-full of rights to kill innocents.