So she could serve only a year and half to two years?

That's what they call justice, huh? :irked:

So she could serve only a year and half to two years?

That's what they call justice, huh? :irked:

 

If the juror were convinced that she murdered him out of cold blood for no reason then guarantee she'd have been convicted of the murder charge. Something inside that courtroom told them otherwise and I'd venture to say it has to do with the fact that he was an abusive husband. I am of the thought that wives who are abused should just leave, but I have never been in the situation so I don't know how I'd handle it. If I were scared for my childrens lives or my own, I don't know what I'd do.

 

They reached the correct verdict, and I think the sentence is appropriate.

You are right, there are zero facts to back that up.

 

I shoudl re-state because I knew you would take this tired path.

 

I have no first-hand knowledge. However, the agreement reached during the trial tells us there was abuse and I can tell you that I know for a FACT that she has showed up in public (work, social events) with a black eye and other bruises. I know for a FACT that had the agreement not been in place that someone I know directly and another person I know through him would both have been called to testify to what I said.

 

Anyone that denies there was abuse has their head in the sand and both hands firmly planted over their eyes.

So she could serve only a year and half to two years?

That's what they call justice, huh? :irked:

No, that's what they call "the system." Justice doesn't have a lot to do with it.

No, that's what they call "the system." Justice doesn't have a lot to do with it.

 

That is accurate. Criminal law is about advocacy and not fairness.

 

The jury system has been utilized for in excess of 789 years, and much as we would like to believe that Lady Justice wears the blindfold while holding the scales, the fact of the matter is that juries are made up of imperfect, biased, and flawed human beings, and the "he needed killin'" defense is as alive and well now as it was when the Magna Carta was signed.

I shoudl re-state because I knew you would take this tired path.

 

I have no first-hand knowledge.

Not being in the house, you or anyone else cannot say definitively what did or did not happen. You can rely only on hearsay and conjecture. If holding to the truth is a tired path, I'll take the tired path every time. Fortunately, the situation is now in the past, and we can move past this ugliness.

If the juror were convinced that she murdered him out of cold blood for no reason then guarantee she'd have been convicted of the murder charge. Something inside that courtroom told them otherwise and I'd venture to say it has to do with the fact that he was an abusive husband. I am of the thought that wives who are abused should just leave, but I have never been in the situation so I don't know how I'd handle it. If I were scared for my childrens lives or my own, I don't know what I'd do.

 

They reached the correct verdict, and I think the sentence is appropriate.

The abused wife thing doesn't work for me, they can leave. She shot him in cold blood, he was asleep. Regardless of rather there was abuse going on or not, I can't see only having to serve 20% of the sentence. That's nowhere close to justice. Our system is really screwed up.

The abused wife thing doesn't work for me, they can leave. She shot him in cold blood, he was asleep. Regardless of rather there was abuse going on or not, I can't see only having to serve 20% of the sentence. That's nowhere close to justice. Our system is really screwed up.

 

 

With all due respect, you do NOT understand BWS.

With all due respect, you do NOT understand BWS.

Just to be fair, we don't have any definitive proof that it even came into play in this particular case.

Just to be fair, we don't have any definitive proof that it even came into play in this particular case.

 

I don't want to steer this thread off course, but BWS is SO much more complicated than having definitive proof.

I don't want to steer this thread off course, but BWS is SO much more complicated than having definitive proof.

Not when it's a case of yes or no.

Not when it's a case of yes or no.

 

So you know for a fact she was not physically abused?

With all due respect, you do NOT understand BWS.

I don't understand ET either...

I don't understand ET either...

 

 

I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive with the ET comment, but I can tell you that to some, it would seem you're trivializing BWS.

You guys seriously need to stop!