Apparently "she started it" is justification for shooting someone now.
It takes considerably more than that, even here in gun happy Texas.
Apparently "she started it" is justification for shooting someone now.
while its not a law everywhere, ive always been a proponent of proportional force. Shooting someone seems excessive unless the other attacker had a weapon, was hugely larger than you, choking you, something.
Seems like a good facial connection/sock might have ended it sufficiently. For then.It takes considerably more than that, even here in gun happy Texas.
And?The article completely leaves out the progression of events from argument to shooting. They're just going for a knee jerk reaction to omg somebody shot a pregnant woman.
So we're left with this...
That reads like the grand jury found the pregnant woman to be the instigator/aggressor and that she took it to enough of a threat or force level to justify a self-defense shooting.
It happened in front of a store. I bet they have video and eye witness to back that up.
True. That is some sad shit. Amazing she would risk her & her child's safety that way. I'd like to know the backstory on why they had this throwdown that got to that point.You'd think losing your unborn kid would be a pretty bad fuckin' punishment on its own.
"If it was she wouldn't have gotten into a fight "You'd think losing your unborn kid would be a pretty bad fuckin' punishment on its own.
And?
Nothing you said is a good reason to charge someone who was shot with manslaughter.
Pointing out how the article is a good example of everything wrong with journalism.
Totally slanted.
Leaves out critical info.
Tries to paint her as the victim when she is the aggressor.
Agenda pushing.
Have to go deep in the article to find any real info yet still no details.
Etc.
Etc.
Y'all can argue the validity of the charge. It's not like they're coming after her for having a glass of wine while pregnant.
She apparently instigated and continue to escalate a situation all the way to legit use of deadly force against her that resulted in the death of her baby.
Real shit situation. Probably get pleaded down to some kind of assault.
points 1 and 2 are literally the third sentence in the article.
And?Pointing out how the article is a good example of everything wrong with journalism.
Totally slanted.
Leaves out critical info.
Tries to paint her as the victim when she is the aggressor.
Agenda pushing.
Have to go deep in the article to find any real info yet still no details.
Etc.
Etc.
SHe precipitated and continued the throw down. It sounds like maybe the shooter was willing to back off and she instead kept coming. At some point(maybe it would be clearer in a video of the event) it might have been self-defense for the shooter. The child/fetus was basically an innocent bystander, to an assault that was fended off with gunfire. Ironically, the mother of said fetus was the assailant.And?
How does it make sense that the shooting victim is being charged?
The gun felt threatened.
True. That is some sad shit. Amazing she would risk her & her child's safety that way. I'd like to know the backstory on why they had this throwdown that got to that point.
Irrelevant yet interesting(always) to those studying human behavioural patterns. 1 or 2 lives(depending on your viewpoint) ruined over who loves the baby daddy better. FFS.There's undoubtedly more to the story. All this article mentions is that it appears to be over the father of the kid.
I can't prove it, but I'd bet the rent money he knows what both those chicks look like naked.
Irrelevant yet interesting(always) to those studying human behavioural patterns. 1 or 2 lives(depending on your viewpoint) ruined over who loves the baby daddy better. FFS.
inaccurate. he wouldnt say sorry
And?
How does it make sense that the shooting victim is being charged?