so should this lady be indicted too?

[rezznor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/daniel-lewis-shot-houston-video_n_3635097.html

video in link

[QUOTE]In a surprise twist to an already brazen killing, a woman who fatally shot a man in public at a gas station also apparently videotaped the victim as he lay dying on the ground.

The altercation between the victim, Daniel Lewis, and an unnamed woman occurred around 7 p.m. Sunday evening at a gas station on Houston's southeast side, according to local ABC affiliate KTRK.

In an argument captured on surveillance camera, Lewis and the woman appear to argue for a few minutes before she pulls what police believe to be a .22-caliber rifle out of her car and shoots Lewis several times at close range.

After shooting Lewis, the woman in the video then pulls out a camera phone and records the scene, according to Houston station KHOU. The woman eventually left the scene, but a witness recorded her license plate and police were able to track her down. She is currently being held for questioning, although no charges have yet been filed, according to KHOU.

"My brother is harmless, he's harmless and he wouldn't have hurt her. He wouldn't have hurt nobody," a man identifying himself as Lewis' brother told KHOU. "She just didn't know him, you know. Because if she'd have known my brother, she'd have known that Poochie wouldn't have hurt nobody.

[nathanjizzle]

in texas, if you are white and kill a non white person, you can borderline get away with murder

[rezznor]

in texas, if you are white and kill a non white person, you can borderline get away with murder
watch the video

[DeuceWallaces]

Texas, nothing to see here.

[MMM]

shooting at him should be the last resort i don't see why she couldn't have gotten away

[MMM]

so the legal expert in the video explained that the person did not need to get away and is justified in using deadly force if she believes her life is in danger.

[rezznor]

shooting at him should be the last resort i don't see why she couldn't have gotten away
there is no duty to retreat

[Real Men Wear Green]

He swung first. That's an undeniable fact, and relating to the Martin case the mere speculation that Martin started it was enough to keep Zimmerman free. So I don't see how the woman is convicted of anything, maybe you can say she didn't need to fire more than once but that's not much of an argument.

And on a practical, "let me not get myself killed" front, if you see thatrifle you should probably back off. He brought the proverbial knife to a gun fight.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Her taping his death is real weird though.

[ace23]

He hit her first and it's on video. Nothing to see here.

[rezznor]

Her taping his death is real weird though.
yeah, that was pretty creepy.

anyways, it's fairly obvious that the lady was within her right. i'm just wondering what everyone thinks about stand your ground laws in this context.

[bmulls]

Totally justified, textbook self defense and a good example of what Stand Your Ground law was intended to be

Filming a dead body is weird though. What are you gonna do, post the pics on Instagram?

[MavsSuperFan]

Totally justified, textbook self defense and a good example of what Stand Your Ground law was intended to be

Filming a dead body is weird though. What are you gonna do, post the pics on Instagram?

She didnt know she was on film, probably wanted proof he had a knife on him.

Totally innocent imo. he hit her, and who knows what he wanted to do. Who hits a chick for turn him down?

In texas stand your ground laws are in effect, combined with the clear video tape she wont be charged. I dont think there is going to be huge political pressure to charge her either.

[MavsSuperFan]

He swung first. That's an undeniable fact, and relating to the Martin case the mere speculation that Martin started it was enough to keep Zimmerman free. So I don't see how the woman is convicted of anything, maybe you can say she didn't need to fire more than once but that's not much of an argument.

And on a practical, "let me not get myself killed" front, if you see thatrifle you should probably back off. He brought the proverbial knife to a gun fight.

Who swings on someone with a rifle?

[GOBB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgXbdTb9zM

[AlphaWolf24]

Who swings on someone with a rifle?


- who swings on a woman period....especially a random woman minding her own business at a gas station....



no lie.....this vigilante woman is looking good too.....she can clean my rifle anytime (oops.... I mean manhose)

[rufuspaul]

Poochie wouldn't have hurt nobody


Poor poochie

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE]"She just didn't know him, you know. Because if she'd have known my brother, she'd have known that Poochie wouldn't have hurt nobody.

[bmulls]

She didnt know she was on film, probably wanted proof he had a knife on him.


Good point, I didn't think of that. Lady had her shit together :applause:

[GOBB]

no lie.....this vigilante woman is looking good too.....she can clean my rifle anytime (oops.... I mean manhose)

You can tell you don't get laid much. You can hardly see this chick clearly in this video. And you're already getting a boner? Wow.

[Just2McFly]

my thing with all of this is....people have to shoot to kill these days? no more blowing out knee caps or anything like that?

[Real Men Wear Green]

yeah, that was pretty creepy.

anyways, it's fairly obvious that the lady was within her right. i'm just wondering what everyone thinks about stand your ground laws in this context.
I'm not a fan of "stand your ground" because it could lead to people being able to execute people they don't like in cases where there are no witnesses. I believe that whenever someone kills another person there should be an investigation and it should be thorough. The key difference here is that the thing is on tape. It's witnessed, we all saw what happened, we don't know what was said but that's not nearly as important as the clear visual evidence that he swung his knife. We can all clearly see it was self-defense.

[rezznor]

my thing with all of this is....people have to shoot to kill these days? no more blowing out knee caps or anything like that?
You only shoot to kill unless you want to be sued. It's fu ked up but that's how it is

[bmulls]

my thing with all of this is....people have to shoot to kill these days? no more blowing out knee caps or anything like that?

You watch too many movies. Shooting a moving target the size of a knee would be incredibly difficult, not to mention the fact that if you miss you're gonna get shanked.

If you are going to shoot somebody, you shoot to kill. Period. Law enforcement, military, self defense, concealed carry, everybody teaches this.

[Real Men Wear Green]

my thing with all of this is....people have to shoot to kill these days? no more blowing out knee caps or anything like that?
It's a lot easier to hit someone in the chest than the knee. And are you really expecting this woman to take into consideration the health of the guy that's swinging a knife at her?

Unfortunately this man may fall into the category of "too stupid to live." Unless you have received SEALs training or something like that you can't be thinking that taking on someone armed with a rifle is a good idea when you have some little switchblade or whatever he was carrying.

[Just2McFly]

still shooting a man multiple times is bit excessive, dude isnt superhuman, why cant people just let off one shot and that's that?

Lol @ me watching movies, excuse me for thinking that the armed citizens of america were capable of accurately shooting someone up close or else they wouldn't be allowed to cap someone at a gas station with multiple bystanders in the general vicinity

[bmulls]

still shooting a man multiple times is bit excessive, dude isnt superhuman, why cant people just let off one shot and that's that?

Lol @ me watching movies, excuse me for thinking that the armed citizens of america were capable of accurately shooting someone up close or else they wouldn't be allowed to cap someone at a gas station with multiple bystanders in the general vicinity

:rolleyes:

She shot him with a .22. A 13 year old girl could take a single round from a .22 and keep on coming. It is just about the smallest round in existence and has virtually 0 stopping power. Unless you shoot somebody right in the heart or brain they are not going to drop for minutes. That is more than enough time to get to you and stab you.

Second, again, shooting a moving target the size of a knee cap would be outrageously difficult, besides the fact that if you screw up you are getting stabbed.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so just take the L and move on.

[Dresta]

She should perhaps get something for videoing it and then driving off - you don't just drive off after killing somebody. It's like if you run someone over and it's their fault: if you drive off you're likely gonna get ****ed in some way.

But that guy must have had a death wish to do that.

[The Real JW]

still shooting a man multiple times is bit excessive, dude isnt superhuman, why cant people just let off one shot and that's that?

http://i.imgur.com/rMXp1kX.jpg

[Just2McFly]

:rolleyes:

She shot him with a .22. A 13 year old girl could take a single round from a .22 and keep on coming. It is just about the smallest round in existence and has virtually 0 stopping power. Unless you shoot somebody right in the heart or brain they are not going to drop for minutes. That is more than enough time to get to you and stab you.

Second, again, shooting a moving target the size of a knee cap would be outrageously difficult, besides the fact that if you screw up you are getting stabbed.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so just take the L and move on.
what L? did you honestly think that i was specifically talking about her shooting him in the kneecap? i basically talking about non lethal shots.... cant believe how argumentative people on this site still are. go prove something in real life and you wouldn't have to be clown on here seeking validation all the time.

smh


it seems like america is turning into the wild west again

[nightprowler10]

http://i.imgur.com/rMXp1kX.jpg
Who's that in your avy?

[The Real JW]

Who's that in your avy?

ScarJo

[TheMan]

I'm on my phone, can't see the video...but the chick goes to her car and pulls out a rifle and shoots the guy? Couple of questions, why doesn't she just get in her car and drive away and why does the dude not back off when he sees her with a rifle?

The fukk is wrong with people nowadays?:facepalm Arguments now end up in deaths?

[GOBB]

I'm on my phone, can't see the video...but the chick goes to her car and pulls out a rifle and shoots the guy? Couple of questions, why doesn't she just get in her car and drive away and why does the dude not back off when he sees her with a rifle?

The fukk is wrong with people nowadays?:facepalm Arguments now end up in deaths?

She was at a gas station. Dude was harrassing her. She said something to him, he continued on. She grabbed rifle and pulled it out pointing it to the ground. Dude continued on even more and swung at her. She backed up, let loose.

[GOBB]

what L? did you honestly think that i was specifically talking about her shooting him in the kneecap? i basically talking about non lethal shots.... cant believe how argumentative people on this site still are. go prove something in real life and you wouldn't have to be clown on here seeking validation all the time.

smh


it seems like america is turning into the wild west again

I dont even think cops do non lethal shots. If that were a cop dude is dead. I know you're going to say cop vs citizen. But if she is supposed to know how to shoot at someone using non lethal shots? Then wouldnt a cop who is trained to use his gun have the ability to execute it? Non lethal shots are even hard to pinpoint and describe. You can hit major arteries in places you think are non lethal. What you are asking is not realistic.

[Just2McFly]

I dont even think cops do non lethal shots. If that were a cop dude is dead. I know you're going to say cop vs citizen. But if she is supposed to know how to shoot at someone using non lethal shots? Then wouldnt a cop who is trained to use his gun have the ability to execute it? Non lethal shots are even hard to pinpoint and describe. You can hit major arteries in places you think are non lethal. What you are asking is not realistic.

you what else is not realistic to me? a b*tch pulling out a rifle at a crowded gas station and letting off multiple shots. the judgement in this scenario is ****ed up all around. only a matter of time before bystanders start catching bullets due to this "fistful of dollars/ hang em high' " mentality this stand your ground bullshit fosters.

and we've reached full circle.

i honestly think a cop would taze that guy and restrain him, but they might kill him too. each day life is getting closer and closer to worthless these days.

mark my words tho....one day someone is gonna catch strays and this shit is gonna get out of hand.

[rezznor]

you what else is not realistic to me? a b*tch pulling out a rifle at a crowded gas station and letting off multiple shots. the judgement in this scenario is ****ed up all around. only a matter of time before bystanders start catching bullets due to this "fistful of dollars/ hang em high' " mentality this stand your ground bullshit fosters.

and we've reached full circle.

i honestly think a cop would taze that guy and restrain him, but they might kill him too. each day life is getting closer and closer to worthless these days.

mark my words tho....one day someone is gonna catch strays and this shit is gonna get out of hand.

if you think life is worthless here, try going overseas. it's pretty sad.

[TheMan]

She was at a gas station. Dude was harrassing her. She said something to him, he continued on. She grabbed rifle and pulled it out pointing it to the ground. Dude continued on even more and swung at her. She backed up, let loose.
Ok, thanx...still seems a bit harsh but will reserve judgement

[Just2McFly]

if you think life is worthless here, try going overseas. it's pretty sad.
:(

[ace23]

you what else is not realistic to me? a b*tch pulling out a rifle at a crowded gas station and letting off multiple shots. the judgement in this scenario is ****ed up all around. only a matter of time before bystanders start catching bullets due to this "fistful of dollars/ hang em high' " mentality this stand your ground bullshit fosters.

and we've reached full circle.

i honestly think a cop would taze that guy and restrain him, but they might kill him too. each day life is getting closer and closer to worthless these days.

mark my words tho....one day someone is gonna catch strays and this shit is gonna get out of hand.
It's his life or hers. I don't see what you're complaining about.

[bmulls]

what L? did you honestly think that i was specifically talking about her shooting him in the kneecap? i basically talking about non lethal shots.... cant believe how argumentative people on this site still are. go prove something in real life and you wouldn't have to be clown on here seeking validation all the time.

smh


it seems like america is turning into the wild west again

Shooting someone "non lethally" is not a realistic scenario. Police, military, concealed carry classes, self defense classes, ALL of them teach if you are going to shoot, you shoot to kill. Period. Real life is not a Hollywood movie.

The guy had a knife, he was trying to stab her. This is a text book example of self defense and the exact type of scenario Stand Your Ground was written for and you're trying to criticize the lady. Just shut up :facepalm

[Just2McFly]

Shooting someone "non lethally" is not a realistic scenario. Police, military, concealed carry classes, self defense classes, ALL of them teach if you are going to shoot, you shoot to kill. Period. Real life is not a Hollywood movie.

The guy had a knife, he was trying to stab her. This is a text book example of self defense and the exact type of scenario Stand Your Ground was written for and you're trying to criticize the lady. Just shut up :facepalm
Stand Your Ground was written for public and potentially flammable/explosive areas?

[dude77]

that guy was suicidal, simply put .. he had a death wish .. wish granted

[2LeTTeRS]

Didn't see the video (I'm at work) but if the facts are as you guys are saying than she seems justified by law whether the state has a "stand your ground" provision or not. If a person lounges at you with a knife you are justified to defend yourself using a weapon, including using deadly force.

[nightprowler10]

As sad as the situation is, I think this is pretty clear cut self-defense from what I'm reading.

The question is, what if the dude pulled a gun first during the argument and she didn't have one, is she allowed to beat the living crap out of him had she gotten the upper hand somehow? And would it then be self-defense/stand your ground if the dude shot her through the heart while she's beating him to a pulp?

[rezznor]

Didn't see the video (I'm at work) but if the facts are as you guys are saying than she seems justified by law whether the state has a "stand your ground" provision or not. If a person lounges at you with a knife you are justified to defend yourself using a weapon, including using deadly force.
some states have a "duty to retreat" which means if there's a way out of the situation without resorting to deadly force, they must take. it could be argued that she could have just gotten into her car and drove off in that case.

[Rasheed1]

The thing I dont like about it is that she gets her gun, and then continues to argue with the guy.

he is an nut for continuing to harass the woman after she gets the gun, but she also could have left long before it escalated to that degree.. I understand she is not obligated to leave, but that is where you realize somebody is gonna get killed.

[2LeTTeRS]

As sad as the situation is, I think this is pretty clear cut self-defense from what I'm reading.

The question is, what if the dude pulled a gun first during the argument and she didn't have one, is she allowed to beat the living crap out of him had she gotten the upper hand somehow? And would it then be self-defense/stand your ground if the dude shot her through the heart while she's beating him to a pulp?

The way most stand your ground provisions are written you are afforded the protection if you are not acting in violation of the law and are not in an area where you do not have permission to go. Here goes Florida's version:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

So in your hypothetical no he would not have the protection of stand your ground if he pulled the gun first, because he pulled the gun without provocation in public.

[nightprowler10]

ScarJo
I need to jump off a bridge for not recognizing her.

[2LeTTeRS]

some states have a "duty to retreat" which means if there's a way out of the situation without resorting to deadly force, they must take. it could be argued that she could have just gotten into her car and drove off in that case.

True but the duty to retreat does not arise when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack. In the situation that I spoke of (a woman on the receiving end of a lounging lunatic man armed with a knife) no jury would feel it necessary for her to retreat.

[nightprowler10]

The way most stand your ground provisions are written you are afforded the protection if you are not acting in violation of the law and are not in an area where you do not have permission to go. Here goes Florida's version:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

So in your hypothetical no he would not have the protection of stand your ground if he pulled the gun first, because he pulled the gun without provocation in public.
Ok thanks for the explanation. So that basically means in the Martin trial that if the prosecution had been able prove that Zimmerman somehow started it (like stalking or something) he'd be in jail now?

[rezznor]

True but the duty to retreat does not arise when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack. In the situation that I spoke of (a woman on the receiving end of a lounging lunatic man armed with a knife) no jury would feel it necessary for her to retreat.
true, but the law is not always black or white. as we've seen, alot depends on the skill of the defense or prosecution to win or lose a case. i was just throwing my example out as a hypothetical if texas was not a stand your ground state.

[rezznor]

Ok thanks for the explanation. So that basically means in the Martin trial that if the prosecution had been able prove that Zimmerman somehow started it (like stalking or something) he'd be in jail now?

i've seen this come up so many times. merely following the TM around is not enough to justify an assault (if TM was the one to throw the first punch)

i can follow you around as much as i want in public, I can scream obscenities to you and talk about your momma, but i haven't "started" anything until I assault you. (if i threatened you however and you reasonably believed that i was gonna harm you then you would be justified, even if i hadn't touched you)

[nightprowler10]

i've seen this come up so many times. merely following the TM around is not enough to justify an assault (if TM was the one to throw the first punch)

i can follow you around as much as i want in public, I can scream obscenities to you and talk about your momma, but i haven't "started" anything until I assault you. (if i threatened you however and you reasonably believed that i was gonna harm you then you would be justified, even if i hadn't touched you)
So that's what the law states? Following someone with a gun would not be considered starting something? I'm not in either camp, just trying to understand the law.

[rezznor]

So that's what the law states? Following someone with a gun would not be considered starting something? I'm not in either camp, just trying to understand the law.
didn't follow the case closely but he had a CHL right? then he wasn't breaking any laws.

[SCdac]

Dude cocked his arm back and punched her in the face/neck and didn't look like he was in any mood to stop or let her be.

Considering he had a knife in his hand, and looked infuriated, I'd blast on him too. Reality is cold, not everything ends in a handshake. Guns aren't the problem, violent criminals who beat on women are.

As for Texas, less than 1% of Concealed Carry owners get convicted of a crime on average. IDK if she had one, just throwing it out there.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

From Jan 2011 to Dec 2011, there were 60,000+ convictions in Texas and only 120 of them were CHL holders.

Again, not talking about this incident per se, but people who are eligible and willing to take a class, pay for a license, and submit that request to the Department of Public Safety are generally not the people to worry about.

I'm around people with concealed guns all day at my job, and honestly it makes me feel much safer. Planning on getting one myself.

[rezznor]

Dude cocked his arm back and punched her in the face/neck and didn't look like he was in any mood to stop or let her be.

Considering he had a knife in his hand, and looked infuriated, I'd blast on him too. Reality is cold, not everything ends in a handshake. Guns aren't the problem, violent criminals who beat on women are.

As for Texas, less than 1% of Concealed Carry owners get convicted of a crime on average. IDK if she had one, just throwing it out there.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

From Jan 2011 to Dec 2011, there were 60,000+ convictions in Texas and only 120 of them were CHL holders.

Again, not talking about this incident per se, but people who are eligible and willing to take a class, pay for a license, and submit that request to the Department of Public Safety are generally not the people to worry about.

I'm around people with concealed guns all day at my job, and honestly it makes me feel much safer. Planning on getting one myself.

the rifle was in her trunk, she didn't need a chl. and honestly, where is she gonna conceal a rifle anyways? :oldlol:

[Dictator]

So that's what the law states? Following someone with a gun would not be considered starting something? I'm not in either camp, just trying to understand the law.

http://crime.about.com/od/stalking/a/stalking_is.htm

This is why people are mad.

[bmulls]

http://crime.about.com/od/stalking/a/stalking_is.htm

This is why people are mad.

So you also think celebrities should be allowed to beat the shit out of the paparazzi that are always following them, right?

[GOBB]

The thing I dont like about it is that she gets her gun, and then continues to argue with the guy.

he is an nut for continuing to harass the woman after she gets the gun, but she also could have left long before it escalated to that degree.. I understand she is not obligated to leave, but that is where you realize somebody is gonna get killed.

Yeah, he didnt hit her until after she got the rifle out. Not excusing his actions at all but I think after the verbal argument she should have just left and/or called the cops instead of popping open the truck and getting the rifle. I'm not sure what was said to her where she felt the need to grab the rifle. Also firing a gun and you're in a gas station is retarded. But thats just my opinion.

[2LeTTeRS]

So that's what the law states? Following someone with a gun would not be considered starting something? I'm not in either camp, just trying to understand the law.

As rezznor stated it has a lot to do with the skill of the representatives on both sides, but here's a statement that was said in the aftermath of the Zimmerman case that touches on that >>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-verdict-protests/index.html?iref=allsearch


"We never said Trayvon didn't do something to George Zimmerman," Corey told HLN's Vinnie Politan. "What we said is you can't take a concealed weapon and encourage or incite a fistfight -- which is what he did by stalking a teenager who didn't know who he was -- and then whip your gun out and shoot," she said.

[SCdac]

Yeah, he didnt hit her until after she got the rifle out. Not excusing his actions at all but I think after the verbal argument she should have just left and/or called the cops instead of popping open the truck and getting the rifle. I'm not sure what was said to her where she felt the need to grab the rifle. Also firing a gun and you're in a gas station is retarded. But thats just my opinion.

While there's some obvious dangers of adding anything fire related to anything gasoline related, I'm sure most would fire a shot off at a gas station if they felt their lives were threatened and had to make a fairly immediate decision.

[bmulls]

Also firing a gun and you're in a gas station is retarded.

There is nothing at a gas station that is going to explode when hit with a bullet. That doesn't happen in real life.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38

[GOBB]

Thank GOBB for myth busters. I just assumed firing a gun would ignite gasoline.

Learned something new today.

[longtime lurker]

So this lady pulls out a shotgun on the dude instead of driving away. Couldn't he claim to be "standing his ground" when he threw a punch at her? I'm pretty sure he feared for his life :confusedshrug:

[bluechox2]

why isnt charges being pressed for fireing a firearm at a gas station?

[rezznor]

So this lady pulls out a shotgun on the dude instead of driving away. Couldn't he claim to be "standing his ground" when he threw a punch at her? I'm pretty sure he feared for his life :confusedshrug:


she wasn't pointing her gun at him.

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/images/bpp/2-28-69%20cr2.jpg

[nightprowler10]

So this lady pulls out a shotgun on the dude instead of driving away. Couldn't he claim to be "standing his ground" when he threw a punch at her? I'm pretty sure he feared for his life :confusedshrug:
Wasn't he attacking her before?

[SCdac]

So this lady pulls out a shotgun on the dude instead of driving away. Couldn't he claim to be "standing his ground" when he threw a punch at her? I'm pretty sure he feared for his life :confusedshrug:

He reportedly had a knife in his hand (cant tell in the grainy video) and you can see was stepping up to her in a threatening "I'm about to **** you up" kind of way right before she pulled out the gun. Who are we to say she shouldn't have been afraid? especially after he hits her in the face and isn't walking away.

[nightprowler10]

So you also think celebrities should be allowed to beat the shit out of the paparazzi that are always following them, right?
Celebrities have gone medieval on paparazzi often, luckily those paparazzi don't have guns. How unfair would it be that here's Mel Gibson just driving home minding his own business and some paparazzi blinds him with his flash and makes him almost crash, yet when Mel starts pounding on the paparazzi, the scum pulls his gun out and shoots poor Mel in the heart.

This is why I'm trying to get some more details on the Martin case, because while it sounds like there's nothing wrong with the verdict, Zimmerman really does come off as a bit of a wanker whose wankiness cost a kid his life.

[Dictator]

So you also think celebrities should be allowed to beat the shit out of the paparazzi that are always following them, right?


Celebrity vs Regular Citizen in different circumstances.

[longtime lurker]

He reportedly had a knife in his hand(cant tell in the grainy video) and you can see was stepping up to her in a threatening "I'm about to **** you up" kind of way right before she pulled out the gun. Who are we to say she shouldn't have been afraid? especially after he hits her in the face and isn't walking away.

Okay gotcha. Didn't know that, I was basing this off the comments in this thread. I wonder why didn't she just get in her car and drive away?

[SCdac]

Okay gotcha. Didn't know that, I was basing this off the comments in this thread. I wonder why didn't she just get in her car and drive away?

after watching the video a couple times, I get the vibe that dude at the time was going to follow/chase her wherever she went on foot. Possibly even not allow her into her car. maybe in some states she would have legally had to flee the area, abandon her property (vehicle), and go where it's "safe", but a part of me can definitely understand laws that address the right to, basically, stand your ground. Maybe the legal language is imperfect, wouldn't surprise me (what laws are perfect?), but conceptually humans should have that right IMO.

[Scholar]

That is insane, but like longtime lurker pointed out, I don't see how it's not possible that he feared for his life and thus swung at her.

Also, isn't against the law for her to murder someone and just take off without reporting her own actions to the police?

[SCdac]

That is insane, but like longtime lurker pointed out, I don't see how it's not possible that he feared for his life and thus swung at her.

Also, isn't against the law for her to murder someone and just take off without reporting her own actions to the police?

If somebody was noticeably angry and approaching you with a knife in hand, wouldn't you at that point pull out a gun if you had one? at the very least to ward the person off?... As for the second sentence, is it pretty bizarre.

[bmulls]

That is insane, but like longtime lurker pointed out, I don't see how it's not possible that he feared for his life and thus swung at her.

Also, isn't against the law for her to murder someone and just take off without reporting her own actions to the police?

You can not assault somebody with a deadly weapon and then claim you tried to stab them because you feared for your life :lol

You fcking clowns are too much :lol

[Scholar]

If somebody was noticeably angry and approaching you with a knife in hand, wouldn't you at that point pull out a gun if you had one? at the very least to ward the person off?... As for the second sentence, is it pretty bizarre.

You make a valid case. I don't know what caused the altercation nor do I know why it escalated to death, so I'll wait before passing judgment.

[Jackass18]

I'm against SYG laws, but damn, you try to call someone's bluff and attack them when they have a gun on you? Dumb as hell. Still though, that video shows why I don't like those laws. No duty to retreat, no duty to defuse a situation, just blast away. I think if you can get away and/or defuse a situation, then you should do that, but with those SYG laws you don't even have to entertain other options, which is kind of scary to me. She could have driven away, but she decides on popping the trunk and pulling out a gun instead. Wild Wild West.

[KNOW1EDGE]

obviously self-defense

Dude was coming at her with a knife, hitting her with an umbrella.

She just has to claim she was in fear of her life(which seems reasonable)and she is justified.

[AlphaWolf24]

I'm against SYG laws, but damn, you try to call someone's bluff and attack them when they have a gun on you? Dumb as hell. Still though, that video shows why I don't like those laws. No duty to retreat, no duty to defuse a situation, just blast away. I think if you can get away and/or defuse a situation, then you should do that, but with those SYG laws you don't even have to entertain other options, which is kind of scary to me. She could have driven away, but she decides on popping the trunk and pulling out a gun instead. Wild Wild West.



True...but the most important thing...


- Don't start swinging on a innocent person just trying to get some cot DAMN GAS!!!!!

- F### that Sh!T.....Woman just tryin to fill up her car and some Homely AZZ M'fer starts herassing her and punching her....

Blast away....

- real talk.....F### the " retreat" stuff man.....she shouldn't have had to leave.....she deserves a Fing medal.

[rezznor]

so the guy who led rallies against stand your ground laws and protesting the Zimm verdict in houston is now supporting this woman


HOUSTON -
The woman accused of shooting and killing a man during an argument at a southeast Houston gas station held a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

Shanequia McDonald was soft spoken and stood by community activist Quanell X as she explained why she shot and killed a man in a gas station parking lot.

"I just went to the gas station to get gas. I didn't go to hurt or harm anyone and I was just protecting myself from what happened," McDonald said.

The deadly shooting happened Sunday night at a gas station on Cullen Boulevard in southeast Houston. McDonald says she was pumping gas when a man, identified as 58-year-old Louis Daniels, started making sexual advances towards her.

The advances, McDonald says, then became violent and he was armed with a knife.

Seconds later, video surveillance shows McDonald opened her trunk, grabbed her rifle and opened fire. Bullets hit the ground and ricocheted, hitting Daniels.

Before leaving the gas station, the video shows McDonald topping off her tank and snapping a picture of the man. Quanell X says McDonald took the picture to prove Daniels had a knife.

"His behavior on videotape shows he was a man begging for the graveyard," Quanell X said.

Quanell X is the same man who has lead marches in Houston surrounding the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, but on Tuesday he put his support behind McDonald.

"Ms. McDonald followed the law and the law in the state of Texas says you do not have to retreat when your life is in danger. She stood directly behind that law and that law was written just for cases like Ms. McDonald," he said.

McDonald, 23, has not been charged, but the case is being referred to a Harris County Grand Jury for review.

We'll have more on this story today on Local 2 News at 6pm.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/woman-accused-in-fatal-shooting-at-gas-station-speaks-out/-/1735978/21131982/-/12wr34v/-/index.html

[qrich]

Didn't watch the video, but if she was swung at first, and fully believed her life was in danger, then not on Murder 2 charges. Maybe ManSlaughter (Indictment doesn't mean conviction, but a trial).

She should definitely be indicted and convicted of leaving the scene of a crime however.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Firstly, for the woman, just get in your damn car and drive.

Secondly, for the man, you really gonna attack a woman who has a gun pointed at you, in Texas, AT A GAS STATION.

Dude deserved it for being that dumb. She's an idiot as well, but I suppose under the law, not a criminal. Though sometimes I wish being so utterly stupid was criminal. Negligence, or something.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Firstly, for the woman, just get in your damn car and drive.

Secondly, for the man, you really gonna attack a woman who has a gun pointed at you, in Texas, AT A GAS STATION.

Dude deserved it for being that dumb. She's an idiot as well, but I suppose under the law, not a criminal. Though sometimes I wish being so utterly stupid was criminal. Negligence, or something.

did you watch the video??

He had a knife, and was approaching her, making un-wanted sexual advances. Why should she try and run? She has a right to pump her gas without being attacked. She pulls out the gun, warns him to leave her alone, he charges, hits her with the umbrella, she defended her self by shooting him. There is nothing negligent about it.

[DonDadda59]

She shouldn't be indicted because Texas is an SYG, aka Wild West West statute, State. You can blow away anyone you perceive as a threat and it's 100% legal.

Doesn't mean it was the proper way to handle that situation. She could've gotten in her car and called the police. Situation would've been settled with a misdemeanor arrest/fine for disorderly conduct instead of a homicide.

But according to the letter of the law she was completely within her right to make a crater in his chest, just as he would've been legally justified in slitting her throat once she pulled the gun out on him.

[qrich]

did you watch the video??

He had a knife, and was approaching her, making un-wanted sexual advances. Why should she try and run? She has a right to pump her gas without being attacked. She pulls out the gun, warns him to leave her alone, he charges, hits her with the umbrella, she defended her self by shooting him. There is nothing negligent about it.

Maybe not the shooting.

But leaving the scene of a crime is. If you can get time for leaving the scene of a car accident, you should for leaving the scene of a murder, even a justifiable by law one.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Maybe not the shooting.

But leaving the scene of a crime is. If you can get time for leaving the scene of a car accident, you should for leaving the scene of a murder, even a justifiable by law one.

Very true.

Id be surprised if she does time though, but I said id be surprised if Zimmerman walked and look what happened. lol

[DonDadda59]

According to a tweet I read, in the wild west you were only allowed to shoot someone if you were threatened with a gun.

A tweet!

Times change. You can do more damage with an umbrella than you ever could with a Smith and Wesson.

Can't have people like that walking around, all alive and shit.

[ace23]

Maybe not the shooting.

But leaving the scene of a crime is. If you can get time for leaving the scene of a car accident, you should for leaving the scene of a murder, even a justifiable by law one.
There is no such thing as justifiable murder.

[BrooklynZoo]

im pretty sure the "stand your ground" law doesnt mean you can kill anyone who touches or pushes you...

[ace23]

im pretty sure the "stand your ground" law doesnt mean you can kill anyone who touches or pushes you...
He attacked her with a knife in hand.

[qrich]

There is no such thing as justifiable murder.

My bad. Meant homicide instead :rolleyes:

[MavsSuperFan]

im pretty sure the "stand your ground" law doesnt mean you can kill anyone who touches or pushes you...

Watch the video, man she was fully justified in ending his life. Who knows what that guy would have done if she didnt have a gun. Probably at a minimum raped her.

[MavsSuperFan]

Times change. You can do more damage with an umbrella than you ever could with a Smith and Wesson.

Can't have people like that walking around, all alive and shit.

He was armed with a knife too.

[DonDadda59]

im pretty sure the "stand your ground" law doesnt mean you can kill anyone who touches or pushes you...

According to the SYG laws, you don't have to be attacked or even touched/pushed. You just have to have a 'reasonable' fear of bodily harm or death.

Hell, you can shoot into a car that's driving away from you, kill a kid, and still get off because you thought something might happen:


In Louisiana, 21-year-old Byron Thomas started shooting into an SUV full of kids that was driving away after a verbal altercation over marijuana. Fifteen-year-old Jamonta Miles was shot in the head and killed. A stun gun and some fireworks, but no firearms, were found in the SUV; Miles was unarmed. Byron Thomas claimed self-defense and the grand jury cleared him. There will be no indictment.

Although the SUV was allegedly driving away when Thomas opened fire, Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre said to local media that as far as Thomas knew, someone could have jumped out of the vehicle with a gun. Thomas, said the sheriff, had “decided to stand his ground.”

http://my.firedoglake.com/cranestation/2012/06/18/when-stand-your-ground-goes-too-far/

It's all about state of mind, grasshopper.


He was armed with a knife too.

I don't know the details of how the whole thing began or if it was physical beforehand, but seems from the video that until she pulled out the deer hunter from her trunk, it was just a verbal confrontation at that point. The guy was actually within his rights at that point to stab her to death. He had every right to stand his ground in that situation, as she did. It's all about who the fastest gun is in these situations and unfortunately for Mr. Lewis, he brought a knife to a gun fight. Oh well.

[ace23]

My bad. Meant homicide instead :rolleyes:
lol in trolling mood. don't roll your eyes at me. :lol

[qrich]

lol in trolling mood. don't roll your eyes at me. :lol

Just did bitch.

Feeling threatened? Gon' shoot me now?

:bowdown:

[Rubio2Gasol]

did you watch the video??

He had a knife, and was approaching her, making un-wanted sexual advances. Why should she try and run? She has a right to pump her gas without being attacked. She pulls out the gun, warns him to leave her alone, he charges, hits her with the umbrella, she defended her self by shooting him. There is nothing negligent about it.

Firstly, she fired the gun into the ground before he attacked her with the knife, which is breaking a law within itself. This is just exacerbated by the fact that it's a ****ing gas station.

Secondly, whatever, his daughter says the argument was over unpaid debt, her word against his, not that I really care what the argument is about.

Third, she apparently fired four rounds, so she was definitely trying to kill him (and apparently everyone else, seeing as she's just spraying bullets around a damn gas station).

But ignoring the dude long enough to finish filling gas and driving away, that's unheard of.

[BrooklynZoo]

Watch the video, man she was fully justified in ending his life. Who knows what that guy would have done if she didnt have a gun. Probably at a minimum raped her.

at a minimum raped her? it was in broad day with people standing around and he pushed her. i dont know the letter of the law but its pretty dumb if you could kill someone when you can reasonably avoid the situation (ie. walk away). i dont think at any moment she feared for her life. she got pushed and then decided to kill the guy. I could just walk up to someone, provoke them and kill them before they kill me. Whoever ends up surviving can just claim they were just standing their ground (i dont think thats the intent of the law)

[DonDadda59]

at a minimum raped her? it was in broad day with people standing around and he pushed her. i dont know the letter of the law but its pretty dumb if you could kill someone when you can reasonably avoid the situation (ie. walk away). i dont think at any moment she feared for her life. she got pushed and then decided to kill the guy. I could just walk up to someone, provoke them and kill them before they kill me. Whoever ends up surviving can just claim they were just standing their ground (i dont think thats the intent of the law)

SYG in a nutshell. Best thing that ever happened to gangs in American cities that enacted the law :applause:

[ace23]

at a minimum raped her? it was in broad day with people standing around and he pushed her. i dont know the letter of the law but its pretty dumb if you could kill someone when you can reasonably avoid the situation (ie. walk away). i dont think at any moment she feared for her life. she got pushed and then decided to kill the guy. I could just walk up to someone, provoke them and kill them before they kill me. Whoever ends up surviving can just claim they were just standing their ground (i dont think thats the intent of the law)
Yes, that's the problem a lot of people have with the law.

This was on video though, so I don't know how you can say this wasn't justified. The dude had a knife.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Yes, that's the problem a lot of people have with the law.

This was on video though, so I don't know how you can say this wasn't justified. The dude had a knife.

She had a gun and shot first.

[longtime lurker]

Firstly, she fired the gun into the ground before he attacked her with the knife, which is breaking a law within itself. This is just exacerbated by the fact that it's a ****ing gas station.

Secondly, whatever, his daughter says the argument was over unpaid debt, her word against his, not that I really care what the argument is about.

Third, she apparently fired four rounds, so she was definitely trying to kill him (and apparently everyone else, seeing as she's just spraying bullets around a damn gas station).

But ignoring the dude long enough to finish filling gas and driving away, that's unheard of.

This. I don't understand how someone doesn't have a responsibility to deescalate the situation or try to avoid killing someone. I've read that there is a 10% increase in homicides in states that have stand your ground laws.

[Replay32]

She shot at his foot 1st ( you can see dust come up from the ground). Then he socked/slapped her( He socked her because she shot at his foot). Then she shot him.

The question would be...did he threaten to kill her with the knife before she tried to shoot off his pinky toe? Or did he pull out the knife after she pulled out the gun? Can't tell from the video.

Good thing it's on video and there was a witness who saw the whole thing.

[DonDadda59]

She shot at his foot 1st ( you can see dust come up from the ground). Then he socked/slapped her( He socked her because she shot at his foot). Then she shot him.

The question would be...did he threaten to kill her with the knife before she tried to shoot off his pinky toe? Or did he pull out the knife after she pulled out the gun? Can't tell from the video.

Good thing it's on video and there was a witness who saw the whole thing.

If that's true, then she should be sentenced to 20 years behind bars like this monster:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/petitions-seek-woman-stand-ground-article-1.1402574

If she just shot him multiple times and killed him, 'sall good. She's a hero :pimp:

[bmulls]

If you think this was anything other than 100% justified please don't ever have children. Your retardation needs to be eliminated from the gene pool.

[longtime lurker]

If that's true, then she should be sentenced to 20 years behind bars like this monster:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/petitions-seek-woman-stand-ground-article-1.1402574

If she just shot him multiple times and killed him, 'sall good. She's a hero :pimp:

This case was just ridiculous.

[Jello]

If that's true, then she should be sentenced to 20 years behind bars like this monster:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/petitions-seek-woman-stand-ground-article-1.1402574

If she just shot him multiple times and killed him, 'sall good. She's a hero :pimp:
Hey gtfo with your misleading bullshit. Stop leaving out important facts like she shot a warning shot in a house full of kids after she went to her car and came back into the house with a gun. You also conveniently left out she rejected a plea deal and faced the maximum sentence as a result.

[MavsSuperFan]

at a minimum raped her? it was in broad day with people standing around and he pushed her. i dont know the letter of the law but its pretty dumb if you could kill someone when you can reasonably avoid the situation (ie. walk away). i dont think at any moment she feared for her life. she got pushed and then decided to kill the guy. I could just walk up to someone, provoke them and kill them before they kill me. Whoever ends up surviving can just claim they were just standing their ground (i dont think thats the intent of the law)

he pulled out a knife when she rejected his advances.

Pulling out a knife as a response to a rejection from a female is ok to you?

Also who is to say he couldnt use that knife to get her to another location.

She got out the gun after he got out the knife. read the article.

[DonDadda59]

Hey gtfo with your misleading bullshit. Stop leaving out important facts like she shot a warning shot in a house full of kids after she went to her car and came back into the house with a gun. You also conveniently left out she rejected a plea deal and faced the maximum sentence as a result.

True or Flase: If she had shot her husband in the heart and he died, she would've gotten off scott free instead of facing 20 years for firing a warning shot instead.

[longtime lurker]

Hey gtfo with your misleading bullshit. Stop leaving out important facts like she shot a warning shot in a house full of kids after she went to her car and came back into the house with a gun. You also conveniently left out she rejected a plea deal and faced the maximum sentence as a result.

She shot a warning shot at a wall, no kids got hit. She went to her car, she didn't have her keys and the garage door was locked she grabbed her gun and her boyfriend was blocking her way. The guy admitted that he beat her and threatened to kill her. The judge didn't let her consult with her legal counsel the night before the trial and the judge could have reduced the sentence, 20 years wasn't mandatory. There was so much ****ed up shit with this case. She tried to avoid killing someone and got 20 years :wtf:

[Jello]

True or Flase: If she had shot her husband in the heart and he died, she would've gotten off scott free instead of facing 20 years for firing a warning shot instead.
True or False? You don't know shit about the case.

She retrieved her gun from the garage and brought back into the house, pointed it at her husband with her children in the same room and shot a warning shot.

[Jello]

She shot a warning shot at a wall, no kids got hit. She went to her car, she didn't have her keys and the garage door was locked she grabbed her gun and her boyfriend was blocking her way. The guy admitted that he beat her and threatened to kill her. The judge didn't let her consult with her legal counsel the night before the trial and the judge could have reduced the sentence, 20 years wasn't mandatory. There was so much ****ed up shit with this case. She tried to avoid killing someone and got 20 years :wtf:
She brought a gun into a room with her children, pointed it in their direction and shot it. Irrelevant where she was aiming, that is child endangerment. She was offered 3 years, she decided to take her chances at trial and LOST so she got the max. SHE WAS WRONG.

[qrich]

Just watched the video, kind of crazy. Don't think any sort of indictment for Murder 2 should ever occur, but wouldn't be shocked a Manslaughter trial coming up, though I don't believe that should be the end game either.

Does deserve a Felony charge, however, for leaving the scene of a crime. I mean, if leaving the scene of an accident that results in death or serious injury, in Texas, is 2-10 years. Not saying 10 years is deserved, just making a point.

And Jello, don't bother with dude. He is obviously just :facepalm

[bmulls]

True or False? You don't know shit about the case.

She retrieved her gun from the garage and brought back into the house, pointed it at her husband with her children in the same room and shot a warning shot.

Sounds less like a "warning shot" and more like she was trying to scare him after they had just had an argument

[RidonKs]

She brought a gun into a room with her children, pointed it in their direction and shot it. Irrelevant where she was aiming, that is child endangerment. She was offered 3 years, she decided to take her chances at trial and LOST so she got the max. SHE WAS WRONG.
talk about misleading.... :lol

[Jello]

talk about misleading.... :lol
That is exactly what happened.

[longtime lurker]

She brought a gun into a room with her children, pointed it in their direction and shot it. Irrelevant where she was aiming, that is child endangerment. She was offered 3 years, she decided to take her chances at trial and LOST so she got the max. SHE WAS WRONG.

She fired a warning shot at the ceiling. She rejected a deal because guess what she felt that she did nothing wrong. I watched this topic on CNN and all their LEGAL EXPERTS agreed that this verdict was wrong! Again she shot a warning shot in the air, if she'd killed the guy she'd be hanging out the mall right now.

[Jailblazers7]

I wouldn't kill a dude for hitting me with an umbrella, but I'm a great guy.

:oldlol:

[qrich]

She fired a warning shot at the ceiling. She rejected a deal because guess what she felt that she did nothing wrong. I watched this topic on CNN and all their LEGAL EXPERTS agreed that this verdict was wrong! Again she shot a warning shot in the air, if she'd killed the guy she'd be hanging out the mall right now.

Unfortunate, but it is the law.

I mean, you can kill someone, not even get remanded, nor bail and just have to drug test once a month. Fail the test, and then still no bail/remand, and now drug test once a week. Despite you have a prior drug conviction.

:confusedshrug:

[MavsSuperFan]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9180568

How can anyone blame this woman?


He said, "He came at her with a knife. So she came out of her trunk with a gun and started shooting him. You know what I'm saying, like three or four times. He turned around, took one step and just fell and he died."

That doesnt sound like a situation with the potential to become rape to some of you guys? A dude that pulls out a knife and threatens a woman after she rejects him.


I'm against SYG laws, but damn, you try to call someone's bluff and attack them when they have a gun on you? Dumb as hell. Still though, that video shows why I don't like those laws. No duty to retreat, no duty to defuse a situation, just blast away. I think if you can get away and/or defuse a situation, then you should do that, but with those SYG laws you don't even have to entertain other options, which is kind of scary to me. She could have driven away, but she decides on popping the trunk and pulling out a gun instead. Wild Wild West.

So if you are this woman, some dude tries to pick you up, you reject him and then he comes at you with a knife in hand.

You run instead of getting your gun? What if he stabs you from behind before you can get in your car.

After you grab your gun, he punches you in the face and comes at you again. You wait until you get stabbed?

:biggums:

[Rasheed1]

The guy was a threat to her... but could she have left the scene and both people still be alive? i think the answer is yes..

I dont like the idea of people having the right to kill other people so freely.. seems like we are losing the value of life when we allow people to kill each other soo easily. She is a woman so I dont expect her to fight him.. and he basically asked for it by provoking her.. but still, she had the chance to leave and she spent that time getting her gun and continuing the argument..

she basically brings out the gun to scare him off and when that doesnt work, she has to use it..

[Jello]

She fired a warning shot at the ceiling. She rejected a deal because guess what she felt that she did nothing wrong. I watched this topic on CNN and all their LEGAL EXPERTS agreed that this verdict was wrong! Again she shot a warning shot in the air, if she'd killed the guy she'd be hanging out the mall right now.
Elaborate on why it's wrong.

[Jello]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/Order-Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

Page 4.

I wasn't misleading at all.

[RidonKs]

That is exactly what happened.
i don't know the case, just commenting on "where she aimed is irrelevant" coming right after "she aimed at the children", which was funny to me. i see your point now though, re child endangerment

[Jello]

i don't know the case, just commenting on "where she aimed is irrelevant" coming right after "she aimed at the children", which was funny to me. i see your point now though, re child endangerment
I never said she aimed at the children. Read please. She pointed the gun in their direction where the husband was. She could have been aiming at the wall, husband, etc. That's irrelevant.

[DonDadda59]

True or False? You don't know shit about the case.

She retrieved her gun from the garage and brought back into the house, pointed it at her husband with her children in the same room and shot a warning shot.

SYG doesn't take into account all of those extraneous factors. There's plenty of cases where the person exonerated by the statutes leaves the scene of the altercation and goes to retrieve a weapon and kills the other person. Doesn't matter who's around, kids or not. If she had shot the man dead, she would've been exonerated by SYG.

If people don't see what's wrong with this, then might as well just hand the keys over to China. It's been a good run. :lol

Scenario 1: Woman feels threatened by man, goes to car/garage to retrieve gun, fires warning shot.

20 to life.

Scenario 2: Woman feels threatened by man, goes to car to retrieve gun, fires warning shot in crowded gas station. Then fires multiple shots at man, killing him, then videotapes him dying, drives off.

Will most likely be 100% exonerated.

Nothing? :confusedshrug:

[Jello]

SYG doesn't take into account all of those extraneous factors. There's plenty of cases where the person exonerated by the statutes leaves the scene of the altercation and goes to retrieve a weapon and kills the other person. Doesn't matter who's around, kids or not. If she had shot the man dead, she would've been exonerated by SYG.

If people don't see what's wrong with this, then might as well just hand the keys over to China. It's been a good run. :lol

Scenario 1: Woman feels threatened by man, goes to car/garage to retrieve gun, fires warning shot.

20 to life.

Scenario 2: Woman feels threatened by man, goes to car to retrieve gun, fires warning shot in crowded gas station. Then fires multiple shots at man, killing him, then videotapes him dying, drives off.

Will most likely be 100% exonerated.

Nothing? :confusedshrug:
First scenario, she deserves the full 20 and justice was served.
Second, she didn't merely just "feel" threatened, what a joke. She was hit and threatened with a deadly weapon. Fully justified self defense.

[RidonKs]

I never said she aimed at the children. Read please. She pointed the gun in their direction where the husband was. She could have been aiming at the wall, husband, etc. That's irrelevant.
ooooh, pointing something in a direction is different from aiming. sorry.

i don't care about this case, i was just browsing and found your post oddly contradictory. i see what you mean now. but srsly, i suggest you re-read your own post because you didn't even mention the husband. just the kids.

additionally, just skimming the link, the kids weren't hers at all. so again, not entirely accurate.

but i repeat none of this matters, im just one-upping you for fun

[Jello]

ooooh, pointing something in a direction is different from aiming. sorry.

i don't care about this case, i was just browsing and found your post oddly contradictory. i see what you mean now. but srsly, i suggest you re-read your own post because you didn't even mention the husband. just the kids.

additionally, just skimming the link, the kids weren't hers at all. so again, not entirely accurate.

but i repeat none of this matters
When you put stuff in quotes, then you're putting words in people's mouths. SO read before you quote. Simple request.
Now drop the semantics please.

[RidonKs]

wildly inaccurate paraphrase, my apologies

[DonDadda59]

First scenario, she deserves the full 20 and justice was served.
Second, she didn't merely just "feel" threatened, what a joke. She was hit and threatened with a deadly weapon. Fully justified self defense.

Unless that was the edited version of the video, looked like it was just a verbal confrontation until she went to her trunk and pulled out a rifle and fired a warning shot in a crowded gas station. The irony of SYG is that if he had stabbed her through the heart and killed her, he would've been immune to any prosecution because he could've easily claimed he feared for his life, had no duty to retreat, and was justified in using deadly force.

But since this is the old west all over again, fastest gun wins :applause:

[MavsSuperFan]

SYG doesn't take into account all of those extraneous factors. There's plenty of cases where the person exonerated by the statutes leaves the scene of the altercation and goes to retrieve a weapon and kills the other person. Doesn't matter who's around, kids or not. If she had shot the man dead, she would've been exonerated by SYG.

If people don't see what's wrong with this, then might as well just hand the keys over to China. It's been a good run. :lol

Scenario 1: Woman feels threatened by man, goes to car/garage to retrieve gun, fires warning shot.

20 to life.

Scenario 2: Woman feels threatened by man, goes to car to retrieve gun, fires warning shot in crowded gas station. Then fires multiple shots at man, killing him, then videotapes him dying, drives off.

Will most likely be 100% exonerated.

Nothing? :confusedshrug:

I am unfamiliar with the case, but if she fired her gun in self defense the woman from scenario one should be innocent.

Sometimes justice doesnt work out. It is not a good argument that it should never work out.

[MavsSuperFan]

Unless that was the edited version of the video, looked like it was just a verbal confrontation until she went to her trunk and pulled out a rifle and fired a warning shot in a crowded gas station. The irony of SYG is that if he had stabbed her through the heart and killed her, he would've been immune to any prosecution because he could've easily claimed he feared for his life, had no duty to retreat, and was justified in using deadly force.

But since this is the old west all over again, fastest gun wins :applause:

are you trolling people?

[DonDadda59]

are you trolling people?

Troll... moi? :confusedshrug:

[Jello]

Unless that was the edited version of the video, looked like it was just a verbal confrontation until she went to her trunk and pulled out a rifle and fired a warning shot in a crowded gas station. The irony of SYG is that if he had stabbed her through the heart and killed her, he would've been immune to any prosecution because he could've easily claimed he feared for his life, had no duty to retreat, and was justified in using deadly force.

But since this is the old west all over again, fastest gun wins :applause:
Doesn't look like a warning shot, looks like an actual shot aimed at his foot. And nice try with the if scenarios. We have video and eyewitness proof. It is obvious who instigated first in an aggressive manner with a deadly weapon.

[DonDadda59]

Doesn't look like a warning shot, looks like an actual shot aimed at his foot. And nice try with the if scenarios. We have video and eyewitness proof. It is obvious who instigated first in an aggressive manner with a deadly weapon.

So you don't agree that he would be exonerated under SYG if he had killed her when he didn't swing at her until A) She went to get a rifle and pointed it at him B) Fired at him, whether it was a warning shot or not?

He would've had every right to stab her right in the chest and kill her dead and the law would've exonerated him because his situation would've met all the prerequisites of SYG- he feared great bodily harm or death (chick pulled a gun on him, aimed, fired), he had no duty to retreat, he was justified in meeting force with deadly force.

Again, doesn't matter who instigates conflicts. The SYG case logs are filled with people starting conflicts and then later getting off because they claimed they feared for their safety. A lot of people feel George Zimmerman falls under this category.

Gangs are using this ridiculous law to literally get away with murder because they know they can start beef on their rivals' turf, kill them, and then walk away scott free because of SYG.

Fastest gun wins.

[MavsSuperFan]

So you don't agree that he would be exonerated under SYG if he had killed her when he didn't swing at her until A) She went to get a rifle and pointed it at him B) Fired at him, whether it was a warning shot or not?

He would've had every right to stab her right in the chest and kill her dead and the law would've exonerated him because his situation would've met all the prerequisites of SYG- he feared great bodily harm or death (chick pulled a gun on him, aimed, fired), he had no duty to retreat, he was justified in meeting force with deadly force.

Again, doesn't matter who instigates conflicts. The SYG case logs are filled with people starting conflicts and then later getting off because they claimed they feared for their safety. A lot of people feel George Zimmerman falls under this category.

Gangs are using this ridiculous law to literally get away with murder because they know they can start beef on their rivals' turf, kill them, and then walk away scott free because of SYG.

Fastest gun wins.

no there is clear proof he got the knife first. Lots of witness as well. Even his brother's account has him getting the knife out first.

People who feel Zimmerman used a stand your ground defense are wrong. Its like feeling that the moon landings were fake.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense
Zimmerman to argue self-defense, will not seek 'stand your ground' hearing


(CNN) -- George Zimmerman, set to stand trial in the 2012 shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin, on Tuesday waived his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial immunity hearing. Zimmerman's attorneys have decided they will try this as a self-defense case.
Florida's deadly force law, also called "stand your ground", was passed in 2005. It allows people to meet "force with force" if they believe they or someone else is in danger of being seriously harmed by an assailant. Under the law, a person can use deadly force anywhere as long as he is not engaged in an unlawful activity, is being attacked in a place he has a right to be, and reasonably believes that his life and safety are in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else.
In a pretrial immunity hearing, a judge would have ruled whether Zimmerman's actions were protected under the "stand your ground" law; a ruling in favor of the defendant would have meant that no criminal or civil trial could proceed.

People can feel a bunch of stuff doesn't make it true. Are you going to argue that you feel CNN is wrong next?

EDIT: provide some evidence of all the gang members getting away with murder because of SYG. I dont even support SYG, but that seems made up. You still need a judge to declare that SYG applies in your case. I dont see many judges giving gang members that.

[DonDadda59]

no there is clear proof he got the knife first. Lots of witness as well. Even his brother's account has him getting the knife out first.

Doesn't matter. It was a verbal confrontation until she went to her car, pulled out a rifle from her trunk, aimed, and fired at him. He swung in response. Both have/had a claim to standing their ground. It was all a matter of who landed the deadly blow first.

Advice to anyone living in an SYG state- practice your quick draw skills. Never know when a petty argument at a gas station or with your neighbor on trash day will require you to be the faster gun.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1210279/fistful-of-dollars-quick-draw-o.gif


People who feel Zimmerman used a stand your ground defense are wrong.

The SYG statutes were part of the jury instructions handed down by Judge Nelson. So yes, the defense didn't evoke SYG, but it was part of the jury's decision-making that led to his acquittal.


"Stand Your Ground" Did Indeed Play a Role in the Zimmerman Trial

Over the past week, I've heard endlessly from various talking heads that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law had nothing to do with George Zimmerman's acquittal for killing Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, they said, was actually acquitted on ordinary grounds of self defense. I've gotten really tired of hearing this obvious misconception, and today Mark Follman and Lauren Williams finally demolish it for good. You should read the whole thing, but here's the key bit:

The jury instructions—and a reason for their verdict: Just because Zimmerman's defense team didn't bring up Stand Your Ground in the trial (more on that below), that doesn't mean the law was irrelevant to the jury's decision. To the contrary, Judge Debra Nelson made clear in the jury instructions (PDF) that they should consider the law:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/stand-your-ground-did-indeed-play-role-zimmerman-trial



EDIT: provide some evidence of all the gang members getting away with murder because of SYG. I dont even support SYG, but that seems made up. You still need a judge to declare that SYG applies in your case. I dont see many judges giving gang members that.

Yeah... No


Stand Your Ground Works -- for Criminals
By Fred Grimm, The Miami Herald

Aug. 05--A gang of young street thugs drove into a rival gang's turf, guns at the ready, looking for a fight.

Thirty shots were fired that day in 2008. A 15-year-old kid was killed. Two of the invading gang members faced homicide charges.But the case fell apart this spring, lost in the chasm between gun reality and the gun myths promulgated by the Florida Legislature.

The actions of the two gun-wielding Tallahassee gangbangers, a Leon County Circuit Court judge ruled, were protected from prosecution by the 2005 "Stand Your Ground" law that expanded the definition of justifiable self-defense into something vague and plainly dangerous.

Someone claiming to feel "threatened" no longer has an obligation to retreat, call police or avoid the use of deadly force. "What this means, as illustrated by this case, is that two individuals, or even groups, can square off in the middle of a public street, exchange gunfire, and both be absolved from criminal liability if they were reasonably acting in self-defense," wrote Circuit Judge Terry Lewis.

'LIKE THE WILD WEST'

"It is very much like the Wild West," said the judge, as he tossed out the charges against the two Tallahassee gun thugs in May. "Maybe that is not what was intended, but that seems to be the effect of the language used."

"Before this law, I kind of had an obligation to avoid going to a gunfight, to avoid deadly force," Second Circuit State Attorney Willie Meggs said Wednesday. "Before this law, I kind of had an obligation to call the police. Now, I can go to a gunfight and stand my ground."

Meggs, president of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association back in 2005, had warned that Stand Your Ground legislation would spawn unintended consequences. He called it the "shoot your Avon lady law."

The narrative in 2005, when this law was shoved through the Legislature by the National Rifle Association, was that this would protect innocents forced to fend off home invaders, muggers or carjackers. The mere claim of fear would now come with the legal presumption that deadly force was justifiable.

BAD GUYS ARE HELPED
The law has complicated once-routine homicide prosecutions. "We have been forced to spend significant time and resources litigating defense motions which, in essence, seek court-ordered immunity for defendants charged with violent crimes," Palm Beach State Attorney Michael McAuliffe told me via e-mail Wednesday.

McAuliffe described a 2007 first-degree murder case that twice hung with juries unable to resolve the murky reach of Stand Your Ground. "The confusion that can surround the "Stand Your Ground" law makes for difficult hurdles even in cases where we have violent, aggressive conduct. The law has the great potential to be misapplied and could well protect violent criminals in specific cases."

Miami-Dade prosecutors are grappling with similar complications. And lawyer Zachary Weaver, in a 2009 study of Stand Your Ground for the University of Miami Law Review, warned that the amorphous law has given defense lawyers as much a "plea-bargaining chip" as an actual defense.

None of this is surprising to anyone who listened to the warnings of prosecutors or police chiefs back in 2005. And none of this has inspired legislators to rethink a flawed piece of legislation.

"It's unfortunate," Meggs said Wednesday. "We can't seem to get their attention."

Just a small taste:


• Jackson Fleurimon had been arrested for battery, aggravated assault and drug possession. Witnesses said he was in a beef over drug turf when he shot and killed a man in Orange County in 2009. A judge granted him immunity.

• Tavarious China Smith was a drug dealer with multiple arrests who killed a man during an 2008 argument over drug territory in Manatee County. He claimed self-defense and went free. Less than three years later, he was back in front of prosecutors for a different homicide, this one the result of a shoot-out outside a nightclub. Smith once again went free by claiming stand your ground.

• In Tallahassee, Dervaunta Vaughn had been accused of battery at least six times before police arrested him in a gangland shoot-out that left one person dead in March 2009. After Vaughn invoked "stand your ground," prosecutors struck a plea deal that dropped murder charges and sent Vaughn to prison for eight years for illegally carrying a gun.

• Alexander Lopez-Lima's run-ins with the law began two days after his 15th birthday. His half-dozen arrests include battery, selling and possessing marijuana and attempted strong arm robbery, court records show. In 2011 a judge decided the then-18-year-old Lopez-Lima was standing his ground when he wound up in an armed battle and killed another teen who had come to his house to smoke marijuana.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with-florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378

Like I pointed out in another thread, SYG laws have done nothing to stem violence and crime statistically in the states that enacted them, but those same states have seen an 8% increase in homicides in the decade since they were first made into law. I suspect with more attention being paid to the statutes since the Zimmerman fiasco made national news, that number will only continue to increase.

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]
Yeah... No


Stand Your Ground Works -- for Criminals
By Fred Grimm, The Miami Herald

Aug. 05--A gang of young street thugs drove into a rival gang's turf, guns at the ready, looking for a fight.

Thirty shots were fired that day in 2008. A 15-year-old kid was killed. Two of the invading gang members faced homicide charges.But the case fell apart this spring, lost in the chasm between gun reality and the gun myths promulgated by the Florida Legislature.

The actions of the two gun-wielding Tallahassee gangbangers, a Leon County Circuit Court judge ruled, were protected from prosecution by the 2005 "Stand Your Ground" law that expanded the definition of justifiable self-defense into something vague and plainly dangerous.

Someone claiming to feel "threatened" no longer has an obligation to retreat, call police or avoid the use of deadly force. "What this means, as illustrated by this case, is that two individuals, or even groups, can square off in the middle of a public street, exchange gunfire, and both be absolved from criminal liability if they were reasonably acting in self-defense," wrote Circuit Judge Terry Lewis.

'LIKE THE WILD WEST'

"It is very much like the Wild West," said the judge, as he tossed out the charges against the two Tallahassee gun thugs in May. "Maybe that is not what was intended, but that seems to be the effect of the language used."

"Before this law, I kind of had an obligation to avoid going to a gunfight, to avoid deadly force," Second Circuit State Attorney Willie Meggs said Wednesday. "Before this law, I kind of had an obligation to call the police. Now, I can go to a gunfight and stand my ground."

Meggs, president of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association back in 2005, had warned that Stand Your Ground legislation would spawn unintended consequences. He called it the "shoot your Avon lady law."

The narrative in 2005, when this law was shoved through the Legislature by the National Rifle Association, was that this would protect innocents forced to fend off home invaders, muggers or carjackers. The mere claim of fear would now come with the legal presumption that deadly force was justifiable.

BAD GUYS ARE HELPED
The law has complicated once-routine homicide prosecutions. "We have been forced to spend significant time and resources litigating defense motions which, in essence, seek court-ordered immunity for defendants charged with violent crimes," Palm Beach State Attorney Michael McAuliffe told me via e-mail Wednesday.

McAuliffe described a 2007 first-degree murder case that twice hung with juries unable to resolve the murky reach of Stand Your Ground. "The confusion that can surround the "Stand Your Ground" law makes for difficult hurdles even in cases where we have violent, aggressive conduct. The law has the great potential to be misapplied and could well protect violent criminals in specific cases."

Miami-Dade prosecutors are grappling with similar complications. And lawyer Zachary Weaver, in a 2009 study of Stand Your Ground for the University of Miami Law Review, warned that the amorphous law has given defense lawyers as much a "plea-bargaining chip" as an actual defense.

None of this is surprising to anyone who listened to the warnings of prosecutors or police chiefs back in 2005. And none of this has inspired legislators to rethink a flawed piece of legislation.

"It's unfortunate," Meggs said Wednesday. "We can't seem to get their attention."

Just a small taste:

[INDENT]

[ace23]

She had a gun and shot first.
If someone approaches me in an attempt to attack me with a knife in hand, I can reasonably fear for my life and kill him/her.

Open and shut

[Rubio2Gasol]

Does the stand your ground law apply to the man, she shot at him before he went at her with the knife. She really, really lost me with those fake tears in her interview. You shot the guy 4 times, took pictures of the guy afterwards, then drove off, but expect us to believe she was just a victim of circumstance. No, she wanted to kill the guy, so stop the bullshit.

Also there has to be some sort of reckless endangerment charge for shooting up a gas station.

Endagerment + Leaving the Scene + Firing a gun during the commission of a crime + Murder/Manslaughter (Possibly).

Seems enough to get some serious time.

[MadeFromDust]

My question is why in the hell does this idiot even approach someone he doesn't know at a gas station? He must have just been up to no good. Respect other people and mind your own f'n business. Just because they are in your range of vision doesn't mean you have the right to bother them. :rolleyes:

[ace23]

Does the stand your ground law apply to the man, she shot at him before he went at her with the knife. She really, really lost me with those fake tears in her interview. You shot the guy 4 times, took pictures of the guy afterwards, then drove off, but expect us to believe she was just a victim of circumstance. No, she wanted to kill the guy, so stop the bullshit.

Also there has to be some sort of reckless endangerment charge for shooting up a gas station.

Endagerment + Leaving the Scene + Firing a gun during the commission of a crime + Murder/Manslaughter (Possibly).

Seems enough to get some serious time.
He had the knife in hand when he hit her with the umbrella. Draw a lethal weapon on someone unprovoked and you've given up any "stand your ground" footing.

[Jackass18]

- Don't start swinging on a innocent person just trying to get some cot DAMN GAS!!!!!

Yeah, I already said it's dumb as hell to swing at a person with a gun. They were both dumb.


F### that Sh!T.....Woman just tryin to fill up her car and some Homely AZZ M'fer starts herassing her and punching her....

Well, we don't know what happened. She claims he was making sexual advances and then it turned violent, but the family of the deceased says the argument was over a debt of $30. He didn't have money, and she didn't like that answer so it turned violent.


- real talk.....F### the " retreat" stuff man.....she shouldn't have had to leave

She shouldn't have had to leave, but it's better than the alternative of killing someone. It's better to defuse a situation instead of inviting trouble in. What good is going to come from going to your trunk and getting a rifle instead of driving away? Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. Drive away, call the police, and report his ass.

[Jackass18]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]According to the SYG laws, you don't have to be attacked or even touched/pushed. You just have to have a 'reasonable' fear of bodily harm or death.

Hell, you can shoot into a car that's driving away from you, kill a kid, and still get off because you thought something might happen:

[INDENT]In Louisiana, 21-year-old Byron Thomas started shooting into an SUV full of kids that was driving away after a verbal altercation over marijuana. Fifteen-year-old Jamonta Miles was shot in the head and killed. A stun gun and some fireworks, but no firearms, were found in the SUV; Miles was unarmed. Byron Thomas claimed self-defense and the grand jury cleared him. There will be no indictment.

Although the SUV was allegedly driving away when Thomas opened fire, Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre said to local media that [B][COLOR="Red"]as far as Thomas knew, someone could have jumped out of the vehicle with a gun. Thomas, said the sheriff, had

[Jackass18]

So if you are this woman, some dude tries to pick you up, you reject him and then he comes at you with a knife in hand.

That's what she claims. Don't you understand that people will try to make themselves appear as innocent as possible (a la Zimmerman)? That woman seems a bit violent (convicted twice of assault and once for harassment). That's not to say she's lying, but it's possible she is. The victim's daughter says it was about an unpaid debt of $30.


You run instead of getting your gun? What if he stabs you from behind before you can get in your car.

Then, how are you going to get your gun from your car? Is it going to teleport from inside your car to your hands or something? She went to the driver's side and popped the trunk. There's more of a chance you get stabbed getting a gun from your trunk, then there is from getting in and driving away.


After you grab your gun, he punches you in the face and comes at you again. You wait until you get stabbed?

What I'm getting is that she fired a warning shot first and then he swung at her. Also, the guy didn't come towards her after he swung at her. He was backing away after he swung. There's some things we don't know. Did the guy brandish the knife and threaten her first? Did she threaten him first?

[dude77]

my question is .. was he charging her when she shot him or was he just standing there

[KNOW1EDGE]

my question is .. was he charging her when she shot him or was he just standing there

Did you watch it?

And does it matter?

And if he wasn't charging, Can you be in fear of your life without having your attacker charging you?

[dude77]

Did you watch it?

And does it matter?

And if he wasn't charging, Can you be in fear of your life without having your attacker charging you?

it cuts off before the shot but I'll assume he wasn't moving towards her ..

you can be in fear without him charging you .. I would think if you have that much distance between you and the guy like she had that she would give the guy a 'chance' to run the other way .. but it looks like she didn't

[KNOW1EDGE]

to me it did kinda seem like he hit her with the umbrella, and then was ready to back up and retreat, but she didn't give him the chance.

I think it was justified, cuz she doesn't know if this man is gonna stab her or what, she cant just assume he is done and is not gonna hurt her. She got attacked, she defended herself, which I think she had the right to.

I think shell be acquitted, but ive been wrong before. cough..Zimmerman...cough.cough

[Jackass18]

my question is .. was he charging her when she shot him or was he just standing there

The guy was backing away after he swung at her and kind of stood there for a second probably shitting himself knowing that she was about to unload on him. But, it doesn't matter under SYG laws. Look at one of the stories DonDadda posted. The people were driving away when the guy open fired on them killing one of them. He walked free.

Check out other cases
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_4
Shot the other guy in the back of the head while he was climbing out of the water and they weren't close together when the shot was fired. Acquitted.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36
Shot the other guy as he was turning to leave. Not charged.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_51
Went chasing after a guy after a drug deal went bad and shot him. Took a manslaughter plea.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_104
Shot the other guy as he was being dragged away. Granted Immunity. The judge in this case wrote: "The statue makes no exception from the immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_115
I threw this one in because apparently you can shoot someone for doing cartwheels and setting off car alarms.

Granted, those are all from Florida, and Texas statutes might be somewhat different.

[Jackass18]

Did you watch it?

And does it matter?

And if he wasn't charging, Can you be in fear of your life without having your attacker charging you?

She wasn't in imminent danger when she open fired on him. The guy was shitting himself from a fair distance. He was only armed with a pocket knife and he wasn't Dhalsim. It doesn't matter, though.

"He kept jumping at me with that knife," McDonald said.

She told police that she grabbed a rifle from her car when the man continued to threaten her with the blade."

That's all she needs. Well, unless witnesses say otherwise.

I'm becoming more dismayed reading about various SYG cases. Might as well rename them Get Away with Murder laws.

[BigTicket]

She was clearly warning him to back off when she went to get the rifle, and he still decided to hit her anyway. At that point I don't blame her at all for shooting him.

What did he expect to happen when he hit a person who had already pulled out a weapon ?

[Rubio2Gasol]

She wasn't in imminent danger when she open fired on him. The guy was shitting himself from a fair distance. He was only armed with a pocket knife and he wasn't Dhalsim. It doesn't matter, though.

"He kept jumping at me with that knife," McDonald said.

She told police that she grabbed a rifle from her car when the man continued to threaten her with the blade."

That's all she needs. Well, unless witnesses say otherwise.

I'm becoming more dismayed reading about various SYG cases. Might as well rename them Get Away with Murder laws.

Except, according to the witness, she shot at his feet before he attacked her with the knife.

[ace23]

Except, according to the witness, she shot at his feet before he attacked her with the knife.
Why do you keep repeating this? Who cares? He had a deadly weapon drawn when he attacked her with the umbrella.

[qrich]

Why do you keep repeating this? Who cares? He had a deadly weapon drawn when he attacked her with the umbrella.

Umbrella serial killers

My idols.