How is the self defense claim even possible? The video clearly shows the victim out of the frame as the lady reaches in her desk for her gun and shoots. It is beyond clear that the victim never tried to get her gun and likely didn't even know she had one until she shot him.

And don't tell me she feared for her life. She didn't get her gun until he started making his exit. She shot him to prevent his escape not to protect herself.

She belongs in prison. I certainly hope they can revoke her bondsman credentials and gun permit.

Does sound like a case of an unskilled prosecutor botching the case. I imagine the cicvil case will not work out as well for the lady, although I doubt she has many assets with which to satisfy any judgment.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:And you're a lawyer? I hope you don't deal wth criminal defense. Really, I don't.

Almost 20 years as a criminal defense attorney, public defender, special public defender and private, 72 jury trials to verdict (state and federal). And in my experience, that was the reason for the not guilty from the jury.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

(and I won a lot of cases using the NHI defense)

Ever have the balls to just come right out with it and tell the jury that the guy deserved to die? Or were you more refined with your arguments?

She might as well have turned and shot her boy with the next round, because sure as Hell she destroyed even that mother-son bond forever.

A sickening video.

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
Watching the vid..... self defense is bullshit. He never lays a hand on her, makes no threats or threatening actions, tries to evade her closing with him. Prior to the scuffle, he's cooperating, talking freely, I don't see why she felt the need to exert more control by trying to cuff him.

Wasn't the purpose of the meeting to cuff the guy, deliver him to custody, revoke bail, etc?

Premeditation doesn't take a long time. Contemplate an act, then do the act. Pick up pistol, aim, fire.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Oh, gosh yes, platitudes are an appropriate response.

I'm glad that you were able to determine that his life wasn't worth shit and that he deserved to be murdered because he'd been to jail.

And don't tell me that's not what you said, because it is what you said.

I never said the "his life wasn't worth shit", if you look at my post, the operative words are "Bet the jury felt..." You are confusing my personal beliefs with what I consider a viable defense. The jury came back NG, and it is my opinion that is why. The jury determined "his life wasn't worth shit" (and self-defense)

My only opinion given was what I believed to be the defense to the shooting and how the jury reached its conclusion. I made no determination, personally, of the victim.

I spent close to 20 years, defending the 6th Amendment (4th and 5th too) and your comment was quite typical of what many people would say to me, along with "how could I defend guilty people". Most just don't get it.

You totally missed my point, thought my post below was pretty clear:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
NHI defense. No human involvement. Bet that jury felt that, (1) he's was a felon, fuck him, (2) they would have shot him in the back climbing out the window of their house if had burglarized them. (3) he aint never going to break into someone's home again.

Add to that, he's a big dude, she's a woman. Jury probably wondered why the state even filed against her.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
Ever have the balls to just come right out with it and tell the jury that the guy deserved to die? Or were you more refined with your arguments?

Never had a murder case that that would have worked, didn't fit the facts, but plenty of Attempt murder, agg battery and the such, I did.

Drug rip-off armed home invasions were the best for that defense.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
You totally missed my point, thought my post below was pretty clear

I read every word of your post. I got your point, even the part you felt you had adequately concealed- your personal opinion.

And yes, by all means, let's make this thread about you.

Parabellem, I almost always share similar opinions as yourself, but find that I cannot on this occasion, wrt your opinion of SouthFlorida-law's views on this subject. SFL, if I gather correctly, simply gave an informed opinion as to what the jury's reasoning was while rendering their findings...as flawed an opinion as it was. The defendant (my opinion) should've been found guilty of, at the very least, 2nd degree murder. But that's simply one man's opinion. She had no cause to shoot, so if my opinion does not fit into OK law, maybe another charge should've been used. Bad shoot. Nothing can make this right. Hopefully (as others have opined) a civil court will rake her across the coals. But that won't bring this guy back. No winners here.

You can clearly see she is annoyed and pissed off as she grabs the gun, aims, and shoots.

He is off camera, but she isn't, he is not coming at her in the frame, no part of him is grabbing her, or her gun, he is nowhere to be seen as she aims and fires.

Her son clearly realizes she fucked up. Hes not thinking holy crap you just saved us mom! Hes thinking what the fuck! You just shot an unarmed man in the back!

This is clearly a bad shoot, I don't see how anyone could see that differently.

Maybe the guy was a POS and she did society a favor I don't know, but there is no self defense here

Jury's can be scary. We have seen that time and time again - capable of returning the most bizarre verdicts despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Emotion and prejudice almost always comes into play - remember - these are not professionals and are easily swayed by either side.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
NHI defense. No human involvement. Bet that jury felt that, (1) he's was a felon, fuck him, (2) they would have shot him in the back climbing out the window of their house if had burglarized them. (3) he aint never going to break into someone's home again.

Add to that, he's a big dude, she's a woman. Jury probably wondered why the state even filed against her.

No juror saw that video during the trial, and what you said pretty much sums it up. Unless she admitted on the stand that she shot him in the back while he was trying to walk away after not threatening her or her son in anyway - there's no way the jurors had a clear picture of what happened. Not sure they should have went for the murder charge.

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:
No juror saw that video during the trial,

Quotes from two different news sources on the first page of this thread say that the jurors did see this video. It just wasn't released to the public until after the trial.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
Watching the vid..... self defense is bullshit. He never lays a hand on her, makes no threats or threatening actions, tries to evade her closing with him. Prior to the scuffle, he's cooperating, talking freely, I don't see why she felt the need to exert more control by trying to cuff him.

Wasn't the purpose of the meeting to cuff the guy, deliver him to custody, revoke bail, etc?

Premeditation doesn't take a long time. Contemplate an act, then do the act. Pick up pistol, aim, fire.

My understanding from various news accounts is that the woman had heard a rumor from one of her sources that he was planning on leaving for Florida the next day. She was afraid he was going to jump bail and she was going to be out the money so she made up a story about her son wanting to buy his jeep to get him to come in.

Unbelievable! First off the prosecutor should not have shot for 1st Degree murder, or should have allowed the jury to pick a lesser charge. Second, I personally feel what she did was indeed premeditated. He was no threat to her and not causing her any duress, yet she went into a desk drawer to retrieve a gun as he was going out the window and shot him in the back. She knew exactly what she was doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:
No juror saw that video during the trial,

Quotes from two different news sources on the first page of this thread say that the jurors did see this video. It just wasn't released to the public until after the trial.

Well that's intersting - I was basing that statement off of the first post response in this thread that said otherwise. Simply hard to believe they would not convict, although you can't see the guy when she shot him. Our legal system at work?

What the hell was she thinking to begin with? Unless her or son is much more of a physical badass than either of them appear to be, why would she think they could take a muscled-up criminal into custody if he decided to resist? (Those are of course rhetorical questions.)

Seems she was doing things on the cheap. She was going to bring him back to jail, why couldn't she have gotten some big fellows to help her instead of just her and her son.

She didn't have much in her tool box; just spit for talking then scale up to gun with nothing in between.

That did a number on the son. He knew what happened and he didn't think his mother was in the right.

I have to say I would have cuffed him just to keep him from scratching his feet with his hands.

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:

No juror saw that video during the trial

That explains how anyone could come to a 'Not-Guilty' verdict. How could that video not be shown at trial?!

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:

No juror saw that video during the trial

That explains how anyone could come to a 'Not-Guilty' verdict. How could that video not be shown at trial?!

As stated multiple times throughout the thread, the video was definitely shown at the trial, it was a big reason for the prosecutor charging her with 1st degree murder. The original post is wrong and should be corrected.

It’s no too often that murder is captured on film. This happens to be one of them.