Mormon Attorney
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 415
- Reaction score
- 2,078
If I am understanding you correctly, you are stating that CPR would have just made him bleed out all the more, and the focus should have been stopping the bleed out? That makes sense to me. Although, at some point, he must have gone in to cardiac arrest, and CPR *and* holding the wounds would have been needed. Is this directionally what you are pointing out?
Tragic
Amateur opinion and speculation
That was what I was originally saying but, given what Catmammy said and the prosecution emphasis that he was alive while she was in the room, it sounds like she should not have attempted CPR at all (because, according to Catmammy, you do not do CPR on a beating heart). But, yes, during the questioning of AG, it bothered me as the prosecutor focused on CPR and I just kept thinking that, with a chest wound, that would just expedite bleeding out which would have insured his death. It was a factual issue that bothered me.
The reason I leave this to the jury (among others) is that I once had my little boy fall in a lake in front of me at 3 years old. We were fishing. He was right there with me and I am a very protective mama. When he fell in, I froze. I had never felt anything like it in my life. I would give my life for my child and be glad to do it yet my husband had to physically shove me out of the way to jump in and save him. I still do not understand why I experienced that and did nothing to help my son.
Before everyone responds that I was not sexting at the time (before or after), I, too, wish every life saving measure had been taken at the scene. I also thought the call was weird that the dispatcher did not ask if he was alive or dead. Maybe she understood he was alive by the fact that AG wanted EMS too. I do not know.
I am saddened no actions were taken. I do understand also that shock is an overpowering experience where people, like me when my son fell in, do not act according to training.
I do not like the actions afterward. I do think they are something the jury will consider but, for me, it does not go to reasonableness at the time.
Also, at a ccw class, they warned that if you ever had to shoot someone, you will be in shock and repeat your last thought again and again. So the 21 times of repeating at the apartment makes sense to me.
I also once got into a vehicle at Walmart that wasnt mine. It was extremely similar. If I was ever questioned, I could see a prosecutor saying-
You didnt notice the license plate of another state? The personal effects in the car? The different air freshener? The fact that it was 2 lanes over?
And the truth is - not till after I tried to start it and the key didnt fit. If the key HAD fit, I would have probably driven a block before realizing it. Sad, but true. I would look like an idiot on the stand.
I could go round and round all day long on this. There are many facts both ways and there are many things the defendant herself probably wishes she had done differently. I definitely think she thought it was her apartment but I am grateful I do not have to be the jury to decide on reasonableness.