It's such bullshit that you can just claim you feared for your life (because gasp, your neighbor knocks on your door) and it gets charges reduced.
US stand your ground laws are barbaric and insane. Most of the world knows it, but a significant number of Americans still stand by them.
Also, I don't get why they have to reduce the charges before the trial? Can't they charge both manslaughter and murder and let the jury figure it out?
Stand your ground was not the reason the charges were reduced, it was the reason why she wasn't arrested immediately. The charges were reduced because the prosecution doesn't have sufficient evidence for 2nd degree murder charges to stick, so they are bringing charges they know they can prove in court. I have no clue why they can't do both charges and I totally agree with you on the stand your ground laws...
Shooting someone isn't good enough evidence to change for murder? What other uses do guns have?
I think for 2nd degree murder the prosecution have to prove malicious intent.
Shooting someone isn't malicious?
As much as people don't want to hear this, the actions of the victim will likely lead to her getting off. At least if the initial articles are to be believed. The initial articles described the victim as being fairly aggressive in how she pounded on her door and demanded the woman come out. If that plays in court at all, you won't get a jury to convict her.
How is aggressive pounding on a door justification for shooting through said door? She wasn't the Hulk. She couldn't knock the door down.
Because that's the way the law works. The Florida stand your ground law will let her get off if she can demonstrate that she was fearful. If the woman is aggressively pounding on the door and demanding she come out then it's very easy to use that as a defence and at least one person the jury will likely believe that and she won't be found guilty. As for being able to break down the door, you don't know. Even if she couldn't break down the door, she might have broken a window and forced the door open or gone through a nearby window. It doesn't matter how plausible it is, it's the aggressive behaviour that makes all of that a possibility and what will form her defence.
Other articles provide a bit more context here:
Dispatch: I need you to lock all your doors and windows, OK
Caller: I have
Caller: Her sons said they were going to come and kill me.
Dispatch: And did you know her?
Caller: Yes, she's come after me several times because of her children. Her children keep trespassing over here. They're bothering me and >bothering and won't (expletive" stop")
followed up by:
Caller:"Oh my God, this lady just tried to break down my door. I shot through the door. (inaudible) (heavy breathing, emotions)Yes. The >woman was screaming and yelling, and she was trying to break down my door."
Dispatch: It was a female?
Caller: Yes
Caller: "I didn't know what to do. I grabbed my gun and shot at the door cause I thought she was going to kill me...oh my God.
Caller: I shot at the door because she wouldn't stop. I told her 'get away,' and she wouldn't and (inaudible).
To be clear, I'm not defending her, or saying what she did is right. I'm only saying that with the way the law is, and with the circumstances, it's very likely she'll get off because the victim decided to be aggressive instead of calling the police and letting the police deal with it.
It would 100% not surprise me if she took a plea rather than go to trial, and pleading not guilty is just the start of that process of setting up a plea she will plead guilty to.
Lorincz allegedly “called [Owens’] children racial slurs”. But the attorney thought there was insufficient evidence that she had “hatred, spite, ill will or evil intent toward Owens”.
A lot depends on the credibility of those allegations. If they’re good enough for the independent to report, shouldn’t they be good enough to support “ill will”?
The independent reporting allegations means that they're reporting what one of the parties is saying. Not that the independent has evidence of it. That's as wrong as saying "They plead not guilty - if that's good enough for the independent to report, shouldn't it be enough to support them not being guilty?"
Either way, it's going to court, and likely she'll be convicted of manslaughter.
Fair point
Well, to be fair, she isn't guilty of manslaughter; I completely agree with that...
fatally shot
Weird way of spelling "murdered"
This is Florida the absolute racist shithole of the country. I expect nothing less from these savages.
Shes from Florida so Desantis will probably give her a medal and she'll be brought on his presidential campaign tour to screech about woke mind virus and cancel culture.
Oh I'm just waiting for them to say some violent act or other is justified because they were fighting wokeism. It's coming.
Far out, why the hell isn't firing a deadly weapon at a person not sufficient evidence that you bore them "ill will"?! The fact that she feared for her life when confronted by the person should only cement that evidence.
"This woman made me fear for my life so I fired my hugs and kisses gun at her in the hope that she would feel my genuine love and empathy for her. I was not aware that my hugs and kisses were so powerful they could kill a person. I am sad we shall never be the best friends that I dreamt of as I racially and physically abused her small children."
Of course Florida.
LOL its again the one and only - US of A. Nothing to see here. Move along 🙈
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.