Was she justified? She admitted to have shot a man twice, after taking him to the woods. Apparently, he had been abusing a daughter, which he had not
I am sorry but this is fucking crap. If it is literally a momentary thing and one fears for one’s life or for the safety of others, then maybe, just maybe, it is justified but this was all premeditation.
Yet again, the Snapped programme tries to mitigate the actions of a woman.
Whatever happens, you just walk out of the door if something bad is happening; you do not kill them in a premeditated way or you call the police
This is a pathetic example of Sky Crime trying to balance all of the male so called offenders with incidents involving women.
No evidence of sexual assault of a 3 year old child. How can you believe anything that a 3 year old child, any child be believed.
Apparently, the perpetrator had been sexually abused as a child but there was absolutely no evidence of sexual abuse
Guess what, she took a plea bargain.
- Husband got 10 years
- Associate got 5 years
- She got 13 years, with parole after 10
Victim survived but was paralysed from the neck down but later died.
So many interviewees supported the perpetrator for which there was ABSOLUTELY no evidence.
As he had died, she was sentenced to 18 years. Just 5 years for killing or not killing him.
They talk about vigilantly justice but the chap who was killed was innocent and had not interfered with the daughter.
I have just had enough of this programme. I tried to keep an open mind but even though, time after time, the woman was guilty, there are plenty of people interviewed to mitigate what this woman did
But, this post will be read by many thousands of people, who will pass it onto many others and then the message will be spread like a virus