Ala. woman claims self-defense in shooting death of husband at couple's home

Dec 20, 2010 Read more: WHNT-TV Huntsville 12

Police say a Northport woman told investigators she shot and killed her husband in self-defense after he attacked her.

Read more

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#1 Dec 22, 2010
It's not self defense to shoot someone AFTER they attack you, it's a revenge killing or what's commonly known in criminal law as MURDER. I bet the broad's story doesn't hold up after several detective interviews. She'll goof up on her details and the experienced criminal investigators will use their interview techniques to find flaws in her story and she'll attempt to cover for this which means she'll have to change her story and then they'll have her conflicting her own statements.

Amendment V of the US Constitution reminds government of a person's right to remain silent, but this gal done spilled the beans already and those beans are going to lead to her eventual criminal charging in this death and her own words are going to convict her.

NORTHPORT, Ala.(AP) Police say a Northport woman told investigators she shot and killed her husband in self-defense after he attacked her.
guest

Huntsville, AL

#2 Dec 22, 2010
This is a sad situation. I believe her. It is too bad that she had to do it before she had a chance to safely leave him. Men who hurt women never change and possibly she gave him one chance too many.

This is sad for everyone. I do hope she and all an heal. It will take time.
guest

Huntsville, AL

#3 Dec 22, 2010
P.S. remember he was there with a gun!
sarabeth

Chattanooga, TN

#4 Dec 22, 2010
Richard_ wrote:
It's not self defense to shoot someone AFTER they attack you, it's a revenge killing or what's commonly known in criminal law as MURDER. I bet the broad's story doesn't hold up after several detective interviews. She'll goof up on her details and the experienced criminal investigators will use their interview techniques to find flaws in her story and she'll attempt to cover for this which means she'll have to change her story and then they'll have her conflicting her own statements.
Amendment V of the US Constitution reminds government of a person's right to remain silent, but this gal done spilled the beans already and those beans are going to lead to her eventual criminal charging in this death and her own words are going to convict her.
NORTHPORT, Ala.(AP) Police say a Northport woman told investigators she shot and killed her husband in self-defense after he attacked her.
It says he threatened her with a gun and then began kicking and hitting her at which point she shot him...What more do you want for a self defense case? Did you even read the article or just the headline?

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#5 Dec 22, 2010
sarabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
It says he threatened her with a gun and then began kicking and hitting her at which point she shot him...What more do you want for a self defense case? Did you even read the article or just the headline?
Of course the killer said those things.

Regardless, self defense use of reasonble force is to prevent FURTHER harm; if she took the gun away from the man and he stopped his attacke then she has met the letter of the law in regards to use of reasonable force, if she then went ahead and shot the man simply because she was angry, then she has committed murder.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#6 Dec 22, 2010
guest wrote:
P.S. remember he was there with a gun!
That's what SHE said. For all we know, she got mad at the man during an argument, retrieved the pistol from wherever he kept it and point blank shot the man.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense, the state has no obligation whatsoever to PROVE an accused person's affirmative defense. Hence, the smart person who becomes involved a shooting in self defense might oughtta know their right to remain silent and to not answer police questions without an attorney present.

This dumb bunny might have been well within her rights to shoot the man, but her jabber jaw could lead her right to a jail cell. Once you make statements to the police, even if they are in error...completely totally by mistake, you can never take those statements back.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#7 Dec 22, 2010
sarabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
1)It says

2) he threatened her with a gun and then began kicking and hitting her

3) at which point she shot him...
1) "It says?" What's an "it"? The news article says the woman CLAIMS that is what happened. Evidently, you don't know the difference between the definition of an assertion and a fact.

2) That's what the killer CLAIMS occured.

3) No, the article states that woman had enough strengh and physical endurance to remove a firearm from a man, then instead of holding him at gunpoint until the police arrived, she shot him. That's what the article says. What the article doesn't say, is whether or not she shot the man to prevent FURTHER attack. If the man gave her the finger after she got the gun on him and it made her mad so she shot him, then she's committed murder of one degree or another. You can use self defense as an excuse for getting even with someone for something they did in the past tense.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#8 Dec 22, 2010
My last sentence was supposed to read, "YOU CANNOT use self defense as an excuse for getting even with someone for something they did in the past tense.
sarabeth

Chattanooga, TN

#9 Dec 23, 2010
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>Of course the killer said those things.
Regardless, self defense use of reasonble force is to prevent FURTHER harm; if she took the gun away from the man and he stopped his attacke then she has met the letter of the law in regards to use of reasonable force, if she then went ahead and shot the man simply because she was angry, then she has committed murder.
Aren't most cases that are ruled self defense based upon the testimony of the person that was defending themselves? What about eye witness testimony? Should we disregard eye witness tesimony in every case just because the witness could be looking for some form of personal gain from it? She didn't "take the gun away from the man." He set it down so he could beat the crap out her easier. She just managed to get to it and reacted. Can you honestly tell me that if someone had held a gun to your head and then set it down to beat you and you managed to get to the gun that you wouldn't shoot the person? And if you say you wouldn't then you're nothing but straight out lying because that's your reflex. Humans, or any other animal or that fact, tries to protect themselves. Assuming he was bigger than her, which is probably a pretty safe assumption, what would have kept him from wrestling the gun away from her and shooting her? I hope you are never faced with this situation, but you need to think how it would feel to be in her shoes before you judge her!!!!!!... And was 3 responses really necessary?!... wow

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#10 Dec 23, 2010
sarabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't most cases that are ruled self defense based upon the testimony of the person that was defending themselves? What about eye witness testimony? Should we disregard eye witness tesimony in every case just because the witness could be looking for some form of personal gain from it? She didn't "take the gun away from the man." He set it down so he could beat the crap out her easier. She just managed to get to it and reacted. Can you honestly tell me that if someone had held a gun to your head and then set it down to beat you and you managed to get to the gun that you wouldn't shoot the person? And if you say you wouldn't then you're nothing but straight out lying because that's your reflex. Humans, or any other animal or that fact, tries to protect themselves. Assuming he was bigger than her, which is probably a pretty safe assumption, what would have kept him from wrestling the gun away from her and shooting her? I hope you are never faced with this situation, but you need to think how it would feel to be in her shoes before you judge her!!!!!!... And was 3 responses really necessary?!... wow
There were no "eye witnesses", dunce.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#11 Dec 23, 2010
sarabeth wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't most cases that are ruled self defense based upon the testimony of the person that was defending themselves?
Yes, everytime someone murders someone and then claims self defense, the courts let that person go because they said so.
sarabeth

Chattanooga, TN

#12 Jan 6, 2011
Richard_ wrote:
<quoted text>There were no "eye witnesses", dunce.
DA, I didn't say there was an eye witness. I was likening taking her word for it to taking the word of an eye witness. READ!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Northport Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How Do You Feel About Judge Moore's Refusal To ... Apr 15 jray691 15
rodney boat captain random hoes Apr 13 angry lover 1
Heather McCulllar (Jul '14) Apr 7 Mini Van 4
Gerald Allen... Not to smart. Apr 7 going backwards 1
Review: Mimi And Layla African Hair Braiding Dec '14 Shameka 4
kellie romaine (Sep '14) Sep '14 cat 1
dangerous man (Oct '13) Oct '13 Tiffany 1
More from around the web

Northport People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]