TotallyObsessed
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,096
- Reaction score
- 1
All true. However, if your life truly were in danger (and you could prove that), then the level of force necessary to save your life would have to be considered 'reasonable.' A gun shot or 2 is (reasonable) in such a situation. Stabbing someone 27+ times, including in the back, then slitting their throat ear to ear is not a reasonable defensive response. It smacks of pure rage and revenge. A jury will have to consider whether Arias' actions that day were 'reasonable' and if she had to stab him 27+ times to "defend her life."
She didn't. No one does. If she didn't have the gun and/or knife with her in that bathroom, then when she went to get them she could have kept running away as she was dressed. If she had those items with her in the bathroom, then she needs to explain why and why she would go in a bathroom with weapons while this "abusive guy" was in the shower, with the door closed. Bottomline: in either scenario she could have gotten away, she had the advantage at every point, and her story doesn't make sense and her actions are not 'reasonable' for someone trying to save her own life and escape. No matter how much any juror likes her or may feel sorry for her or may even believe her ramblings, when all is said and done, they will have to deliberate with their fellow jurors and explain exactly why Arias' killing in that way was reasonable and her only choice. And good luck with that!
Great Post! :clap::clap: