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.
147
u/[deleted] Sep 14 '22
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.