Sfdebris.net

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/inde ... ed_hu.html

She had a restraining order against him. The police were involved. She shot him as he charged at her.

Apparently "self defense" and "stand your ground" are only relevant for white men.

No. Self-Defense and Stand Your Ground are defenses to be raised at trial. Whether or not you get arrested post shooting is up to local law enforcement, but you should most definitely plan on it if you shoot someone, no matter how justified you feel the shooting was.

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is the matra of the concealed carry groups here in Texas.

Arrested pending investigation - does that sound familiar?

I just think it's interesting how this woman is detained but if a policeman shot an unarmed child six times it's a struggle to even get them to trial.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:16 pm I just think it's interesting how this woman is detained but if a policeman shot an unarmed child six times it's a struggle to even get them to trial.

A better comparison would be this woman and Michael Drejka, since they are both private citizens who killed someone while ostensibly protecting themselves. (Prosecuting law enforcement is a whole 'nother ball of wax) This woman was arrested, Michael Drejka was not, even though his shooting was at least as egregious as hers. But this goes back to what I said in my first post - it's up to local law enforcement whether or not you are actually arrested after a shooting...things like self-defense and stand your ground are intended as possible defenses to be raised at trial, not shields against prosecution. Texas Police decided to arrest this woman, a Florida sheriff decided NOT to arrest Michael Drejka. Although for what it's worth, most people, even the freakin' NRA, think the Florida sheriff screwed up here, and that Drejka SHOULD have been arrested. I certainly do.

This is not the first time this has happened, that a woman was arrested for defending herself. Marissa Alexander was given 20 years for firing a warning shot in self-defense. Seriously.

Well, yes, technically she was sentenced to 20 years. But only because that was a legislatively mandated minimum sentence. (exhibit 41321 as to why mandatory minimum sentences tend to backfire) She was released after 3 years under a plea deal.

But the larger lesson here is that warning shots are a terrible idea. If you ever find yourself at the point where the gun needs to be fired, you're at the point where someone needs to get shot.

Try to make sure it isn't you.

I mean, even three years is fucking awful. Especially since that's going to haunt her for the rest of her life on job interviews and stuff. All for DEFENDING herself. It's not like she shot him, for God's sake! At least it's good to know she didn't spend 20 years in jail. Still, this is why I call it "the legal system" and not "the justice system." There is no justice. Not on this planet. Merely ordered authority systems to keep chaos from running rampant.

I agree. I feel like I'm missing some information here, though. In the US, defensive use of firearms usually doesn't land one in prison, unless you happen to be in a state very unfriendly to firearms to begin with, like California or New Jersey.

Unless there's more to the story it's arrested, not convicted. Someone's died and whenever that happens it really should get a proper investigation, which will have to include arresting the person who did it. Whether or not there's an injustice or not depends upon what happens next.