State of Alabama vs. Brittany Smith

This was a simple story; not a fantastical one. Told respectfully. The fact the prosecutor and the judge declined comment, meant this could only be told this far. The take-away from watching this is that the judicial system in Alabama is still heavily prejudice towards women (and as stated, towards minority groups).

I found this an honest portrayal of life for communities, that suffer the ills of neglect and financial hardship. Banality and rampant drug abuse - a common source for this self destruction that leads to the penal system mill; is a forever told story, but one that never ceases to draw attention and doesn't appear to want to fix itself. Selfish, tired and old; this kind of governance eats it's young and tube feeds it's corrupt establishment. This is the story of a broken system with it's pitiful outcome.

Leaves you empty but how else to tell it.

Important and a lesson to be learned documentary on the judicial and civil rights of womanhood.

A man shot cause hes being a threat to the homeowner, a woman in this case, is usually coverd by an alabaman law that says you have the right ''to stand your ground''...no matter the crime, the juudge of this case overulled selfdefence in this case due to inconsistencies in a 911 call, police cam dialouges and interviews done at the station, merely things happening in the heat of the moment...

here in norway were not taking to a gun or knife to protect our grounds, usually it ends in a fight on the knucles, but selfdefence killings have occured every 2-3 years. So ''having the lawfull right'' to... well it sounds absurd because here in norway we have a lawset common right to trespass as long as its done in a sensible way and has a reason. Also the equality of genders have come farther than in the southern states of usa...so there is some primitiveness over the fact that such a law exists at all in my mind...

but thats just a grumpy old mans mind, that doesnt matter at all. I consider this as a pilot project for a netflix series, its quite amazing really...

This is an extremely biased piece of work. It muddles an extremely complicated situation to conform to the author, and director's, narrative.

The author, Elizabeth Flock, has written about this case and made this poor piece of film. Rather than using the facts and details to tell the story, she is selective to the point of extreme bias and the utilises victimisation to try to support her point of view, such "there are no perfect victims", which there aren't, but that does not make it ok to try to frame information to shape your narrative.

Ultimately, there is no question that Brittany is a victim of abuse. That does not justify the crime she committed in this instance.

What was played down was the testimony Brittany gave, she lied and changed her story, this makes the ability to trust her account difficult. Additionally, McCallie came back to the house with a gun rather than informing the police, these are only a couple the facts totally played down by Flock.

Just read up on it, this particular case is not a "stand your ground is for white men" example and Elizabeth Flock is our looking for more of these cases now... no one ever seems to have explained let the evidence lead you to the outcome to her, she is clearly working backwards from an outcome.

A completely one-sided and biased presentation with the usual sparse case facts that is common with a low budget Netflix documentary. The documentary is so frustratingly one-sided that you find yourself shaking your head as to the point of the film. Little to no information is given surrounding the event. A ridiculous small amount of time is given to detailing the crime scene. No explanation of the court proceedings. This entire documentary is a showcase for the supposed racist and gender biases in the Stand Your Ground law of Alabama and across the United States. Perhaps there is a compelling story in this extremely poorly presented Netflix documentary... but seemingly no one felt the need to make the effort to do so.

It's clear from the start that this documentary is trying to push a narrative. This would be fine if they told the whole story, and had a strong case for that.

The details they left in and inconsistencies they tried to explain away muddied up that narrative as well as implying that the female judge had something against women.

The details they left out, which I looked up after watching this, make it very clear that this isn't a simple stand-your-ground case, as this documentary claims. This made me feel like I wasted 40 minutes on falsehoods.

I watched a 15 min breakdown by Dr. Todd Grande on YouTube on this case, and learned more than watching this.

In retrospect, she is very lucky with the plea they offered her.