Stand Her Ground

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.

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.

source: Stand Her Ground

Would have been much more interesting if they focused on the case itself instead of going off on a tangent. Here we have a case where the documentary itself proves Ms. Smith's "stand your ground" defense failed because her actions did not qualify under that statute. This was made crystal clear and even demonstrated the whole case was properly handled by a female judge. As a result, the documentary fails to address what motives this judge would have to support its ultimate conclusion. A rather important omission. Next, we learn about the insanely great deal Ms. Smith was given. This too should have been addressed by any worthy documentary but wasn't. A real shame this documentary did not delve into the facts. What was true and what was not? Why the lies harmed her credibility, the motives for telling them, and whether or not the shooting was justified to truly save her brothers life. In the end, it is the actual story that is interesting but, unfortunately, they failed to properly present it.

The story of Brittany Smith brings up many questions. The first is why is the state believed she was a murderer yet would accept a 6-month incarceration and 18-month probation be the sentence? A woman in Brittany's situation is very susceptible for abuse which includes law enforcement and the judicial system is not in question. A man with the known criminal record of the deceased including multiple instances of domestic violence would be a likely on-going problem, especially when extremely intoxicated by methamphetamines. Corroborating witnesses expressed the deceased person's penchant for violence. The accused has never been accused of any kind of violence previously yet cannot be availed of the "stand your ground" defense. All these things together seem to be a very odd mix. If the case would go to trial all parties knew justice was still a gamble obviously. So, the ridiculous sentence was an out for everyone. Is this justice? By the facts of the film Brittany was railroaded to accept a murder plea with an outcome that dangled like a carrot on a stick. A person so beat down naturally would accept this over the gamble of going to prison for life. This seems to be a travesty of justice. If one goes by facts presented in this film Brittany was innocent. If someone has already assaulted you and is in the process of another assault it seems Brittany's actions should have been protected by the "stand your ground" defense she was denied. Now, does the film tell everything? We don't know as it is rather short and pointed, but it remains compelling and believable. The deceased was asked to leave by Brittany's brother and then attacked him which I wholly do believe.

So...she takes a plea deal and is given 6 months and 18 months probation for murder. 6 months??? Are you serious? 6 months for murder...this doesn't sound right. And she's complaining????? She lied from the gate...whatever her logic was...i know, "stand your ground laws only apply to white men"...blames her brother, etc. I consider her lucky...damn lucky. I have never in my life heard of someone only getting 6 months for murder. Oh wait, I have 4 minutes left of the documentary...did I miss something...no. There are a lot of other innocent people in jail more deserving of a "documentary" than this case. What a waste...

This woman did everything wrong. While yes, it's a stressful situation with dangers to you or others there needs to be complete transparency. I do not doubt things would be different if she had simply kept her story straight from the beginning. Based on the evidence, Todd had it coming, either that or prison time. But, Britney thinking her mom could've got him out of the house is ridiculous. She most likely would have taken the gun and shot him. Lying destroys credibility, and I can't say I blame the system for how they handled things. You let one person lie, you have to let them all lie. It's a slippery slope.

Regardless of the topic, I just want to thank the creators for making a short and concise documentary. I can't stomach another drawn out show with ridiculously dramatic reenactments, 1 minute pauses between each spoken line, and boring unnecessary backstory in order to run out the clock. This was fast moving and straight to the point. As for the topic... depressing (which was to be expected). Although violence against women is nothing new, the prevalence of drugs and poverty alongside it makes it feel like things are getting worse, not better. I know there were grumbles against the system, but I also see their plight, too. The system is inherently flawed because humans are. It requires everyone to break the vicious cycle of drug use, violence, lack of education, etc. I imagine the county where Brittney lives is overwhelmed and underfunded. I don't know if she had been more honest it would have swayed in her favor, but there's a mighty lesson to be learned that honesty is the better policy. It's sad for her and her family, and it's sad that the assailant chose the dark path that led to his death. Like I said... depressing.

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.

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.