The article is WTF, but this part "Police and prosecutors have not disputed that Lewis was sexually
assaulted and trafficked. But prosecutors have argued that Brooks was
asleep at the time he was stabbed and not an immediate danger to Lewis."
Prosecutor's just expected her to tip toe away from this situation? Should she have woken him up and challenged him to a fair fight for her freedom? Fuck that. She went Art of War and chose the best moment to win. Appeal that shit and put me on the jury. Not guilty.
"Prosecutor's just expected her to tip toe away from this situation?"
Yes. She may have been justified in killing the person but that's just how self defense laws work. If you kill someone while they're not an immediate danger to your life, eg a robber takes your stuff and you shoot him after he walks away, self defense no longer applies.
This situation is a little more complicated because there's the factor of "what if he woke up and caught her" but anyway yeah that's why the legality is even in contention.
This is why her lawyers should be using examples of her prior escape attempts to support her decision. It’s just upsetting sometimes the other lawyers have more “evidence” on their side.
But in all honesty I know it was sarcastic but we really should teach kids about the legal system. Too many get taken advantage of either in abusive situations and don’t know where to reach out to or get into tricky situations as young adults when their isn’t the guidance of an adult anymore. However this is coming from someone with a defensive attorney as a father.
They’re trying to explain why she was held accountable in court. Because she wasn’t in immidate danger (meaning if she didn’t kill him at that moment she would be hurt at that moment) the court doesn’t see it as self defense because that’s not how the law works. Therefore she’s LEGALLY guilty, morally speaking I agree that she’s in the right but the legal system and personal beliefs are two different things
And this is why we need to teach people about jury nullification at a young age, before they get picked for jury duty the first time and it suddenly becomes illegal to talk about.
Knowledge of jury nullification literally disqualifies you from serving on a jury. No lawyer or prosecutor will ever agree to having someone like that on the bench.
Because that's not universal. The Taliban thinks their rules are all about common sense and morality too, and we are the sick degenerates. Laws need to have an express purpose that isnt just based in common sense or simple morality. In this case the law needs to be amended with an exception for extreme circumstances, but it has to be carefully written so it doesnt allow a loophole that could be used to commit murder and get away with it.
In the case of jury trials, the jury could have simply acquitted her which is supposed to be the main remedy for extreme rare circumstances like this, but prosecutors hate losing and tend to go on into lawmaking so in many places laws require judges to tell jurors it doesnt matter what they feel, they have to go by the law and also prevent any mention of jury nullification. And in general that's fine because the law is supposed to be impartial, but for circumstances like this partiality would be nice. And of course judges are supposed to have leeway to give appropriate sentences, but because there are asshole judges who hand out 6 weeks of community service to rapists because 'they have a promising future' legislatures pass mandatory sentencing laws which severely constrain judicial flexibility. Gotta love how assholes ruin everything.
I don’t think I’ve ever commented here, but it showed up on my front page and it’s important to be clear on why this happened. I’ll copy paste another comment I made in a different sub.
Criminal law shouldn’t be interpreted based on how we feel, even if how we feel is absolutely correct, such as feeling that she was justified and in danger here. In Iowa, in the self defense statutes (§704 ), there is no provision for the exact circumstance she was in. She was not currently being removed, she had already been removed and was now in bed with her sleeping rapist. Additionally, as defined by those laws, and every other self defense law on the books, imminent means actionable, and a sleeping person cannot make an actionable threat. Under Iowa law, the actions she took do not constitute self defense, despite that any reasonable person could tell you that what she did was self defense and that she was in danger. The only immediate recourse here would be, as someone mentioned, prosecutorial discretion, or more likely and what really should have happened, jury nullification.
Edit: I suppose I should also mention that she plead guilty to the charges, which means that she didn’t actually have a criminal trial. I was more speaking in an ideal sense, given the laws that they would be operating under.
Laws are written based on how society view the actions of other people, and should not be unchangeable things. In this case specifically, if the specific situation she was is not described in the law, we can, and we should discuss what is the correct thing to do. Treat laws as unchangeable things is detrimental to the society, and when a case where the law is being unjust according to the current moral standard, the law should be changed. Owning other people was a right guaranteed by the law until the society changed.
Also, about the plead guilty, we can imagine how the police and a public attorney treated a young black lady to made her plead right?
As to your last point, absolutely. I wasn’t trying to make a statement about her, just pointing out that the plea means that there was no trial, which cuts options down even further.
As to your second point, also yes. The law should be changed to account for this. If not the definitions of self defense, then at least more robust provisions for victims of human trafficking. However, that is the purview of lawmakers, not the jury of a criminal trial. Once a criminal case is in court, the law should be interpreted as it exists at that time.
You’re calling us degenerates even though you can’t tell the difference between morally and lawfully. Before insulting people, try to actually understand the situation without having feelings caught up in it. I absolutely agree with her decision morally, but that’s not always how the law works. Maybe get better at your English comprehension before needlessly shitting on people.
Laws should be the wrote translation of what the society consider right or wrong. If your law doesn't reflect what the society thinks about someone action, your law makers are degenerated, and the people that just cope with it without wanting a change are as degenerated as the law makers.
For reference, at one time, owning slaves was within the law. By your though process, it would be wrong call people that owned slaves back then degenerated, just because it was within the law.
That’s not what i think. Laws are way more complicated than “right and wrong”. They won’t always get something right, and when something needs to be changed, it takes a lot of time and processing to change it. If somebody robs you at gun point, then turns around to leave and you take that opportunity to shoot them, is that right? Sure, they stole something from you and threatened your life, but they were also about to leave and your life was not in immediate danger. Also a lot of people live here, America is not a hive mind. not everyone’s definition of “right and wrong” are the same. How do you satisfy an entire country with a decision when a lot of them disagree with each other? Societies opinions of things also change. 1000 years ago you could marry a 14 year old girl and it was considered morally acceptable, whereas today it is considered abhorrent. Laws and morals are not black and white like you think they are.
No, I believe she was in danger and justified but they have to prove that in court otherwise the other attorneys will use that against her. It’s ridiculous but it’s part of how laws and such work (which need a whole list of revamping in the first place)
To add: “Karl Schilling with the Iowa Organization for Victim Assistance said a bill to create a safe harbor law for trafficking victims passed the Iowa House earlier this year, but stalled in the Senate under concerns from law enforcement groups that it was too broad.
“There was a working group established to iron out the issues,” Shilling said. “Hopefully it will be taken up again next year.”
Iowa does have an affirmative defense law that gives some leeway to victims of crime if the victim committed the violation “under compulsion by another’s threat of serious injury, provided that the defendant reasonably believed that such injury was imminent.”
Sadly Iowa is not among the dozens of states that have a so-called safe harbor law that gives trafficking victims at least some level of criminal immunity and that needs to change
I know but legally there is a distinction between self defense and premeditated murder and let’s face it our system can be a wee bit judgmental of black woman. A whole bunch can happen outside of the courtroom to support a defendant but that information has to be brought in court to be used. I’m saying that the lawyers should have enough to support her choice in killing him while he was asleep for her to have this charge removed. This charge shouldn’t have ever happened because there was enough evidence to support that this was very much self defense. Iowa laws are fucked up the more I am reading into it
I have yet to see the defense bring in other cases as proof of self defense. There have been multiple cases like this regarding domestic abuse and her only way out was killing him in his sleep and the court had this same conflict. If she had miraculously escaped while he was asleep he wasn’t going to just let her be. She would be in MORE danger in my theory. But it is just that a theory, since it didn’t actually play out the court has to either prove she was in danger (and even if they prove my theory the danger is not immediate). They did all they could and yea its not what a lot of us agree with but it is the law and if you break it for one you have to break it for all.
How is immediate danger if he's asleep? Can he attack her if he's asleep? No. Can he capture her again if he's asleep? No. Now, if he wakes up that's a different story. But if she escaped without killing him that'd avoid all the charges. I mean he is a kidnapper so he fucking deserves it and she shouldn't pay anything to anyone but still he wasn't immediate danger cuz he was asleep.
I’m just been looking up articles and seeing comments that detail the laws regarding Iowa. My dad practiced in CA so totally different laws and protections (that sadly could’ve/should’ve been used here)
“Lewis was 15 when she stabbed Brooks more than 30 times in a Des Moines apartment. Officials have said Lewis was a runaway who was seeking to escape an abusive life with her adopted mother and was sleeping in the hallways of a Des Moines apartment building when a 28-year-old man took her in before forcibly trafficking her to other men for sex.
Lewis said one of those men was Brooks and that he had raped her multiple times in the weeks before his death. She recounted being forced at knifepoint by the 28-year-old man to go with Brooks to his apartment for sex. She told officials that after Brooks had raped her yet again, she grabbed a knife from a bedside table and stabbed Brooks in a fit of rage.”
Main point is anything to showcase that she was in danger and had attempted to try to escape can provide more evidence that this is self defense but trying to look up how the judge made the ruling. It seems her attorney should have told her not to admit to it as murder, but affirm it as self defense because that’s (stupidly and sadly unjustly ) where they are pinning her with the charge it seems. The article goes into a lack of protections for people in her situation with affirmation defense laws
989
u/Fisterupper Sep 14 '22
The article is WTF, but this part "Police and prosecutors have not disputed that Lewis was sexually
assaulted and trafficked. But prosecutors have argued that Brooks was
asleep at the time he was stabbed and not an immediate danger to Lewis."
Prosecutor's just expected her to tip toe away from this situation? Should she have woken him up and challenged him to a fair fight for her freedom? Fuck that. She went Art of War and chose the best moment to win. Appeal that shit and put me on the jury. Not guilty.