mathematics wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Murphy'sLaw wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
refthimos wrote:
Armstrong pleads not guilty and her attorneys are suggesting there is more to the story than has been reported. https://www.cnn.com/...ot-guilty/index.html
https://www.statesman.com/...october/65378126007/
My guess is some sort of self defense. Armstrong confronted her about trying to steal her boyfriend, Mo attacked her, and so she shot her.
You show up at somebody else’s place, with a gun, to confront them -
there’s nothing “self-defense” about that, at all.
Plus, the whole “fleeing the authorities, leaving the country, having cosmetic surgery to alter your appearance, etc”.
… totally the actions of somebody who was just defending themselves. 🙄
/ end pink.
No shit, but they have to come up with some kind of defense.
But also, this happened in Texas. The above course of events is way outside of innocence, but if they can craft a story where Armstrong 'exercised her right as a citizen to carry a firearm', made a legal if not morally questionable visit to a love rival, and then 'feared for her life' and 'exercised her right to self defense'.
The defense is also going to argue that fleeing the country, hair and face changes are not relevant to the case and try to keep them out of the evidence. It probably won't work, but weirder things have happened.
Yes, I didn't want to bring up the Texas angle too. You only need to get one contrarian, jack-off on the jury.