Well those are extenuating circumstances the wife had the right to shoot him as the husband from what it sounds like was committing acts of domestic violence...
You are making a baseless assumption. You ignored my advice about jurors. The wife did not have any 'right' to shoot her husband, even if she was abused. Not only did you ignored my advice about jurors but you jumped to conclusion without knowing the facts about the case.
She was charged with 2nd degree murder....
Murder (United States law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.
Not premeditated or planned. That is the key.
She was an abused wife but
NOT on the day of the killing. Her husband was intoxicated from both hallucinogenics and alcohol. He threatened to kill himself because of how they were: poor and struggling. There was a struggle as she tried to take the revolver from him. The weapon accidentally discharged and he died. The prosecution tried to portrayed her as a vengeful wife because of her abused condition -- motive. She was no angel as she was complicit in their substance abuse lifestyle. The prosecution never denied there was a struggle because there were signs of it all over the area. The neighbors testified that the husband-wife relationship was never a peaceful one.
We deliberated for about 3 hrs and when you have four out of six jurors have firearms experience, what they know from their personal lives are going to influence how they mentally (re)create the event, which will influence their conclusions -- individually.
A person who intends to commit suicide will direct the weapon at his own body. If anyone tries to reorient the direction of that weapon, he will find there will be strong physical resistance to that effort. You are talking about a man with superior muscle mass and strength than a woman. He is holding a gun pointing at himself. It does not matter if he points the gun at his head or his body. His weapon arm is curled towards himself. Ever arm wrestle with another man? You would be doing what that woman was trying to do on that event -- point the gun away from the man, and when the trigger pull is only a few pounds, even for a revolver, when both persons are struggling over the same weapon, the odds of having a fatality increases.
Four of us six jurors have handgun experience. We have no choice but to include our own experience in deliberation. It would be a gross injustice if we did not.
Now zimmerman's attorney painted Trayvon as a thug and zimmerman as a mindful neighbor. this case is the finest example of jury nullification
No, it is not. Both attorneys did what they believed to be the best tactics to increase the odds of convincing a jury. Inevitably, one side must fail. Jury nullification is when the jury did not agree with the law itself...
Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.
It is important to note that even though you may be guilty under a law, if that law is an immoral one, jury nullification is not about your guilt but about removing you from punishment and a jury will do that by declaring you 'not guilty'. The issue with jury nullification is about the law, not necessarily the charge. The law here about murder. The charge here is about murder. There is nothing immoral about charging someone with murder. In this case, the jury believed the defendant (via his attorney), based upon evidences.