Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassturbed
IANAL so i'm not sure where the burden has to fall in this case - but
1) either the defendant has to prove that she was in immediate danger of grave bodily harm and/or death and she couldn't retreat ... (forensics will say a lot about this)
OR
2) the prosecution has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that what transpired was "merely"  simple assault, for which deadly force was not justified.
without knowing the specifics of the case, it looks like to me #2.
to make it worse: based on the newspaper accounts, she probably violated armed citizen cardinal rule #1 post-shooting: "STFU and lawyer up." What she said to the cops can and will be used against her. |
OR
3) the Commonwealth has to find 12 jurors who will unanimously agree, without one dissenting vote, that she deserves to be sent away for life for what she did.
All it'll take for that not to happen is one juror who'll tell the other 11, "she should have shot the no-good SOB years ago. You folks do what you want. My vote's not guilty and you won't change my mind"
