This is not that complicated imo. It’s a criminal trial. And self-defense is an affirmative defense so the defendant actually has to prove she acted in self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. She has not done so. Not even close. She’s guilty. Whether she was subjected to manipulation, control etc is irrelevant, honestly. At the moment she shot him, by her own words, he was not threatening her life/great bodily injury. Not even close. She was lying and acting on the stand. Very obvious.
JMO
