First degree murder.
At least in my state, as a juror you would be instructed by the judge to disregard this. She has no duty to leave her own house to retreat from danger.
What is the most damaging to the defense case is the last bullet to the head, execution style. Her attorney must address that point head on and convince the jury that her, nor any other reasonable person in her situation, viewed the situation as such. Everything happened so fast that she did not have an instant to contemplate each individual act.
1st Degree Murder conviction.
I’m going with not guilty by reason of insanity. Technically, she’s guilty but I’d bend over backward to find a way to let her off. I have very little sympathy for violent and abusive men, especially ones who do so in the presence of their children. Plus he’s a dumbass for sticking around after hearing a gun discharge after he just tried to kill his wife.
In reality I’d need a lot more detail in the way of jury instructions on how to differentiate between the various options, but I voted Involuntary Manslaughter as my first impression, and also as what seems “fair” in the abstract.
I’d caution the OP not to take the results of this poll as necessarily representative. I don’t know from where in Virginia the jury is being drawn, but I’m sure there are parts of that state that are a lot less liberal (i.e., with more stereotypical “law & order” types) than this message board.
Not guilty, self defence. Being in the house with that guy, he’s a constant imminent threat to kill her.
The idea that the second shot isn’t acceptable is bullshit as well. If you shoot, you shoot to kill, and keep shooting until you’re sure they’re dead. If she had the right to shoot in the first place (she did), she had the right to continue shooting until he was either dead or he made an obvious and believable surrender. And there’s no way she could have believed him.
Anyone who would vote to convict is voting that they’re OK with domestic violence.
This is obviously false.
Nope. If you think someone can repeatedly beat and attempt to kill their partner, and yet don’t find their partner not guilty of a crime when they kill them, you’re supporting domestic violence.
Now, if you think someone’s right to life is more important than their partner’s right not to be beaten and nearly killed, that’s up to you, but have the fucking moral courage to own that belief.
And anyone who votes for no conviction is okay with first degree murder. And probably just doing it to cover up their own history of domestic violence too.
So what the law has to say about the issue is immaterial? In a court of law?
Is this even ethical for you as her lawyer to be discussing this in an open public forum?
I don’t have all the facts to make a judgment, nor would I trust that you as the defense would provide me with all the relevant facts
Not true. If self defense is appropriate, one shoots until the threat ends, not when the 19th bullet enters the corpse. Someone lying on the floor gurgling his own blood qualifies as “threat ends.”
I’m sure that you don’t believe that commission of domestic violence gives the alleged victim (remember he hasn’t been convicted) the right to execute her perpetrator at any time, right?
So, we are just talking about a matter of degrees. Can she execute him 5 hours after an incident of domestic violence? 5 minutes? Once the threat is over, she must stop “defending” herself.
Not guilty. She was either going to act as she did or wind up dead.
With someone like that, the threat doesn’t end until he’s dead or locked up. The authorities refused to take steps to lock him up (for whatever reason), so she was entirely justified in acting in self defence at any point.
If you treat domestic violence of this kind as a series of incidents, rather than an ongoing situation (which is what it actually is), it’s no wonder you’ll end up on the side of the abuser in cases like this.
I’m OK with the “first degree murder” of people who keep their partners in a state of continual fear and suffering. Not sure what my history, or lack of it, when it comes to domestic violence has to do with anything.
The law permits me to nullify.
With respect, this is just nonsense. It is vigilante justice. If the authorities don’t do what you think is right, then execute someone yourself without trial? It’s absurd.
This position would make sense in the case of a homicidal stalker (although I’m not sure the law would entirely support this logic), but remember that this is a case where she was LIVING with the guy VOLUNTARILY right until the moment she shot him!
No facts have been presented that show she couldn’t just have walked away at any moment prior to the strangling. For all we know she could even have walked out the door without issue afterwards. Without evidence to the contrary I would also assume that she could have called the police when she was upstairs.
That’s the wrong way round. She’s the accused, you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, if she’s to be found guilty, that she both could do those things, and that a reasonable person in her situation would have known she could do those things.
Not guilty. The standard isn’t “she might be guilty, so we convict her”.
No, you *defend *yourself. You can’t seriously be suggesting that someone has to wait for a trial before they can defend themselves against an aggressor?
The authorities had plenty of opportunity to defend her, as was their responsibility, and failed. It’s not like he punched her once and she killed him, the police ignored it on multiple occasions.
He was no longer a threat and her need to defend herself was over when he was lying on the floor. The last bullet was an execution.