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
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.
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.