jmo but if even looking at this theoretically and saying I believe that she was in fear for her life and shot him in self defense..even in going with that scenario IMO the entire self defense issue still immediately flies out the window due to the fact that just how in the hell can even self defense justify the literal OVERKILL that she inflicted??
Fine, in fear for her life she grabs a gun and shoots to stop him from attacking... OK, fine if even it were true that the initial gunshot wound to the head allowed him to continue to attack her so she is forced to shoot him a second time or more..that IMO "could" be claimed AND IMO would fall under the catagory of self defense...
but just how in the hell does it in any way whatsoever even come close to equating self defense when she in fear for her life shoots him in the head and then proceeds to butcher him with a stab to the heart area, 29 ADDITIONAL STAB WOUNDS AFTER THE GUNSHOT TO THE HEAD AND STAB TO THE AREA OF THE HEART...AND THEN TO LITERALLY SLICE HIS NECK WITH SUCH FORCE AND POWER TO LITERALLY NEARLY DECAPITATE HIM!!
I would like to know just how in the hell that could even be claimed or justified as even anything even resembling self defence.. obviously it did not take a gunshot to head, stab to chest, knicking the vena cava, 29 additional stab wounds, and near decapitation in order to stop the attack and allow her to get away....
IMO self defense is inflicting bodily harm on an individual that is in that moment a direct AND literal threat to your life and you're being unable to escape...IMO the entire premise of self defense is to disable the aggressor from following through in taking your life..therefor allowing the victim to escape from the aggressor.. so, IMO the self defense scenario immediately flies out the window in that Jodi didn't just merely take the steps necessary to disable her attacker allowing her to get away..she instead went waaaaaaaaaaay past that point in her continuing to viciously slaughter him long, long after the point of simply disabling him to allow her to flee..
IMO fine if she shot him one or more times and as a result he died from those injuries that IMO would have been justified by it being self defense...but its a completely different ballgame with the OVERKILL of infliction of bodily harm from which he died as a result..long before that extreme amount of wounds were inflicted she could have at any of those times ceased the inflicting of bodily harm once he was disabled allowing for her to flee..
SO, IMO even when I look at the perspective of Jodi truly having been in a position of fearing for her life from Travis and this being just cause for her shooting him...it still does not even begin to equate self defence due to the fact that she went so far, above and beyond the necessary amount of bodily harm to disable her attacker thus allowing her to flee to safety..
IMO the fact that she did go so far beyond the point necessary for her to flee to safety IMO COMPLETELY DISQUALIFIES THE CRIME FROM BEING THAT OF SELF DEFENSE..am I not correct in this?..and that is NOT a rhetorical question but rather a question I honestly would like to know the answer to..
TIA to anyone who can shed any more light on this issue
