2 months in prison for killing ur husband?

[pnazari]

this really pissed me off...if a male shot a female in the back while she slept you can guarantee he'll get more than 60 days in prison.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/0....ap/index.html

[Jzo19]

i hate how she played the "he's a monster and made me do all sorts of things you guys cant really prove" card , makes me [censored] sik

[Blarg]

Did Gloria Steinem testify for the defense?

[Los Feliz Slim]

This really is amazing. I didn't follow the case closely, and obviously they believed her testimony about physical and emotional abuse, but I would have thought the evidence would've needed to be more concrete to only get 7 months for murdering somebody in cold blood.

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
Mary Winkler's sister, Tabitha Freeman, asked the judge to give her a chance to be reunited with her children, and called her "the best example of a good person I can think of."

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sister murdered her husband while he was sleeping and not only do you want her to be set free you also think she should be given custody of her children?

Would anyone here back up their family like this? This woman really thinks that her nieces should be raised by the person who murdered their father. wtf

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
This really is amazing. I didn't follow the case closely, and obviously they believed her testimony about physical and emotional abuse, but I would have thought the evidence would've needed to be more concrete to only get 7 months for murdering somebody in cold blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

meh, her claims about the abuse she went through is kind of irrelevant to me. show me some evidence that makes me believe it was impossible for her to contact the police, then i'll let her off with 2 months.

even if she was abused, she should have called the police, not shoot him. but if there was a reason she couldn't call the police, then i might understand.

[NT!]

linktarding, *

[pnazari]

[ QUOTE ]
linktarding, *

[/ QUOTE ]

what does this mean? why is it wrong to post a link to the article? [censored] douchebag

[MicroBob]

I don't know why it's wrong either.

[Blarg]

I'm not sure I do either. We're not supposed to copy an entire article in, if it's long, because that would raise questions about fair use. So a link is the alternative. I guess a better explanation to go with the link might be the reason. The OP's post was just a quick one-off line that didn't lend itself to much discussion.

We used to see people just post a link here and nothing else, which I thought was completely retarded and didn't exactly stimulate discussion. Aside from which, who needs another anonymous rickroll or chance to get infected from some lame website?