Question

A woman is at home with her two children when her estranged husband arrives and begins threatening and assaulting her, following a pattern of alleged past conduct with this woman and prior women. Fearing for her and her children’s safety, she flees to the garage but later claims she was unable to open the garage door. Instead, she gets a gun out of her car and returns to the house. Her husband tells her he will kill her, and their young son witnesses the threat. The woman fires a warning shot that hits the wall behind the husband and then deflects into the ceiling, injuring no one. The woman is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, but she lives in a “stand your ground” jurisdiction and argues that she acted in self-defense. How can the prosecutor argue that the woman had no right to “stand her ground” and exercise her self-defense rights? What other options did she have in the situation?

Answer 1

The prosecutor argues that even she has a threat of being killed she must not have to opt out for fire on the person.

She has to to follow the duty to retreat only but coming up with the gun and exercised it with the fire is no solution as the opponents were with out any weapon .

She must try to safely retreating the situation not to open a fire on air .It is against the self defence right where she go and take out the gun.

She must have to opt out for the immediate help from the neighborhood or should call the police on urgent numbers.

She must try to avoide the threating situation as she was with her child .She must to run out of the house while screaming for help.

- she can ring to her knowns and ask them to come immediately and try to talk to the husband and change his mind.

Thanks