Yea, if she shot him dead there would only be one side ofthe story. If it all went down as she said this is a travesty. Definitely got to think about trial by judge or jury. the general public isn't too smart you know.I don't have the proper credit in front of me, but a little over 35% of all stand your ground claims end in a murder or homicide conviction.
although in this case I think the lady should be given a medal for not killing an abusive, dirt bag, low life cowardly husband, or soon to be ex- husband
I wonder what the charge would have been had she killed the DB.
Why do we need a jury of our peers? We have the media to decide our guilt.The story is far more grey than any of the prior posters has suggested. I think the same thing should heppen to Zimmerman as happened to her. He should face a jury of his peers and let them decide on guilt or innocence.
This^^Not knowing the details, but knowing that a jury found her guilty in 12 minutes (was it time to go home and make dinner?), I would guess that the fact that she went back into the house with the gun had something to do with the verdict. Just for arguments sake.
Yeah that's a good point, and proof of why laws should not be black and white, or locked in some sort of mathematical framework where violation of law X always result in Y or Z years. Laws are unreasonable (black and white) because of the occasional d-bags (aka scum of the earth) that happen to become an elected judge or lawmaker. Flexibility in law enables a corrupt scumbag to wreak havoc; it's very unfortunate because a reasonable, level-headed judge would probably cringe at (and possibly recommend against) handing out that particular mandatory sentence....
So... scared chick fires warning shot at husband who's trying to beat her in her house in a state with a SYG law - she gets a mandatory 20. If she shot and killed him, she'd probably walk - and if the SYG defense was rejected - likely just 25 years. Nice huh?