Sorry sks, but someone making statements like this without apology, that's too much for me. I'm out of this conversation.Those bruises are a nice touch and and I'd put money on him hitting her and bruising her face.....but I didn't see any blood.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Sorry sks, but someone making statements like this without apology, that's too much for me. I'm out of this conversation.Those bruises are a nice touch and and I'd put money on him hitting her and bruising her face.....but I didn't see any blood.
SKS, how old are you? Seriously? You sound like a young kid who hasn't had any experience in life whatsoever.
If she is proven to be justified in self defense she should get a lifetime ltc imo.now please just don't get into the licensing issue with the local chief after she gets off.
I know, Tom, and I'm sorry, I'm the one who doesn't like generalizations. There are many young people out there with good heads on their shoulders, thankfully!Hey now, lets not stereotype us young ones out here!
If she is proven to be justified in self defense she should get a lifetime ltc imo.
-Tom
Good points, Len! +1.
Even so, he never attempted to kill her before . . .
You are JUMPING to a conclusion! Do you KNOW this as FACT? I certainly don't!
You are JUMPING to a conclusion! Do you KNOW this as FACT? I certainly don't!
That picture, along with battered womens syndrome on her side, and I think she'll be just fine.
BTW, good for her if she was getting beaten!
BTW, good for her if she was getting beaten!
IN what context are you saying that?>
And I don't think it's ok to shoot and kill someone prevent a perceived future threat. Although this state is so screwed up I suppose someone could get away with it.
RGS, don't forget your popcorn! Here you go:
sksguns.........I'll stop posting here too.....
Um... no, actually, Ed, I think that everyone is presuming her innocent until she's proven guilty of something.
A point that a lot of people are overlooking here...
Cops show up and she has a gun. SHE SAID she shot her husband. She is NOT innocent here, she admitted her guilt. SHE KILLED SOMEONE !!!
Now that she killed someone and admitted it, wouldn't it be her problem to prove the rest of her story.
The cops were not there either, they don't know what happened previous to them showing up. All they know is that there is a dead guy in there and someone is admitting to shooting him. They have NEVER showed up at this residence for a domestic before so they don't have any history to clue them in that this is truly a self defence case.
GaryS has already rebutted most of your other points, so I'll just mention that a good friend of mine is dealing with a crazy bitch right now - argument, she stomps out, calls cops, claims he has a gun (pellet gun and paintball gun) and it threatening to kill her.I have been on the end of a lying bitch before. Its not fun getting restraining orders at 3 am. That would be me talking to the cops to keep my ex the hell away from my kids and myself.
Sorry but you people seem to forget the crazy bitch scenario.
Edin, I'm using your post to make a point, it isn't necessarily directed t you.I have been on the end of a lying bitch before.
I think this quote sums up nicely what's going on here. One lying bitch and all women are lying bitches. That's the problem with women who use this type of thing to make trouble for men. Problem is that isn't always the case, and I don't believe it's the case here.
In Massachusetts, once the defense raises the defense of self-defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts.
I don't pretend to me a lawyer, but I thought the prosecutor's case was already made - a homicide was committed and the onus is her to prove it was justified by jeopardy, dispartiy of force, prior bad acts, etc.
No, it's innocent until proven guilty, you are assumed innocent of charges until the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt you are guilty. Thats how it works in this country. She doesn't have to PROVE anything, they have to prove she did something wrong. Of course her account of what happened will have a bearing on how strong the case is or isn't against her.
I disagree. She defended herself by her own admission. She isn't guilty of any crime until proven so by a prosecutor. Homicide by itself isn't a crime, the intent behind it determines if it is a crime or not. And she doesn't have to prove it was justifiable, the prosecutor has to prove it wasn't justifiable. They have to prove the intent. There is a difference.