Ethos

According to Section 35.15, " A person may, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he/she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use of imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person" In other words the law of the land clearly says that if a person is threatened, so she is allowed to defend herself from her abusive husband. It was only a matter of time till she stuck up for herself after years of abuse that increased in severity each year. We managed to get in contact with Lee Harris: staff member on Options for Battered Women for 10 years, he revealed " She called their hotline on March 7, 1990. She reported that her husband pushed her down the stairs, hit her with a golf clubs, and many other counts of verbal abuse." How could you not take into account the word of a person who works with these issues daily for ten years and to make something up like that would be sick, so the calls had to be true. These are very credible sources with one being a helping hotline operator and the other being in the laws of the USA so the sources speak for themselves. Its up to you the jury to take these into consideration.

Pathos

This woman needs you the jury to see and feel for her. First of all she stated, "Both my parents are dead", so right off the bat she is already vulnerable to abuse because she has no one to fall back on for support and since he kept her locked away in their home she really couldn't receive any help. As her time with Clint continued he progressively got worse and worse with verbal abuse, striking her, and ultimately threatening her and her child. As you can see this man is a monster. He began to change their son's behavior, Donna reported that she was in shock when she caught her son " beating his teddy bear with a toy tennis racket. Shouting 'Whore...bitch...whore...bitch.'" This supports Clint's abusive behavior was real because a normal child would never do that without seeing it firsthand from the people involved in his life. Like his mother he didn't get to go out much so there really isn't another factor for him to learn this malicious behavior from except Clint. Once again, it is evident that Clint's behavior has rubbed of on his own flesh and blood. For the sake of the child, he needs his mother because he already has lost his father. Do you really want to rip this child's mother away from him in his greatest time of need?

Logos

As you all know it is unethical to hit anyone let alone a man striking a woman. There was clear evidence on the night that he was killed that he had the bat in his hand when he was shot dead. Logically why else would he be at the bat rack in the garage if he wasn't going to do what he said? He had intent of striking Donna and who knows what he would have done to the child as well. It was late in the evening when this situation began and we all know no one after a long day of work is gonna go to the field and hit a few balls. Also he never had a past mention that he was an avid baseball player so it is only supported that he was going attack her with the bat. The town knew him as a golfer, if there is a defense on him wouldn't he go golfing if he planned to go out? The evidence is against Clint and Donna did shoot him twice, but if you counter with the fact she shot him twice, you need to account the fact that getting shot in the back once isn't going to kill a man. We all can agree Donna would not have the time or the composure to set up a precise shot to any vital organs on a moving target. In conclusion the two shot were theoretically shot out of distress and weren't able to hit a vital organ and do enough damage to kill him in one shot. You the jury need to see that the evidence justifies the outcome and proves that Donna had to do what she did to ensure her and her child's safety.