This is factually incorrect.<quoted text> The situation is grossly different.
She left, returned days later demanded he leave, he would not.
She went to her car and got a gun and demanded he and her children leave. He would not so she fired the gun.
Now you please explain when her life was in danger?
She could have , and should have just left.
The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.
She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.
Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.
One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.
There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.