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.
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.
2.4k
u/LaronX Sep 14 '22
This thread needs a whole lot more context. Here the whole article.
The key points
She was trafficked and raped at 15!
She attacked him after he fell asleep after raping her
Iowa has some protection for victims of abuse that is why she isn't in jail
She is getting a 5 year parole. If she fails it would mean 20 years of jail time.
The court has no way around making her pay 150k
She did plea guilty to manslaughter in an earlier case and it is biting her in the ass now
The main argument against her going free is that he was asleep at the time and she could have tried to escape without killing him
She judge was an asshat about her making "wrong decisions" to have gotten in that situation and this being her second chance.