In response to Judge Barker's sentence of 12 years in prison to Michael Chambliss, reported at: http://www.lvrj.com/news/ex-civic-leader-gets-12-years-64067377.html
Chambliss' actions seem like a clear-cut case of self-defense or defense of others. A boxer, half Chambliss' age, attacked a woman and then shoved Chambliss around. Clearly Chambliss met this vicious and potentially lethal attack with at least equal force. I would like to think that a jury would have exonerated him. I think Judge Barker could have given him a much lighter sentence--such as probation.
Men should respect their elders and not hit woman, especially when their own hands could be considered deadly weapons. I'm confused that Chambliss gave in so easily and plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He was evidently afraid of trial and perhaps afraid of juries.
Did the boxer deserve to die? No. Does Chambliss deserve this severe of a punishment for standing up for a woman and himself against a guy half his age that could have torn him apart? No.
I hate what this story means. It means that an elderly person can be charged with murder or manslaughter for using a knife on a young person who is the primary aggressor.
But...if you are a police officer and you shoot and kill a handcuffed teen-aged suspect in the back or you shoot and kill a woman holding a pocket knife while on her knees with her children nearby...you don't even get charged with anything!