There are two critical elements here.
The first, and lesser of the two is the witness. But such “onlooker” testimony is seen as suspect compared to the testimony of someone actively involved.
More importantly, her drivers side window was shattered. If it was shattered by blunt force from the outside, she is acquitted. If it was shattered by her shooting through it, she just gunned him down.
The forensic evidence should be obvious. Either the shattered window has a bullet hole in it, or not, and most of the glass is either outside or inside of the vehicle.
Check the link at post #3. There is only a bullethole through it and the bullethole is far away from the door handle. Unless he was Kareem Abdul Jabar, it would be tough to have a hand on the doorhandle and get shot where the bullethole is at the same time.
“The first, and lesser of the two is the witness. But such “onlooker” testimony is seen as suspect compared to the testimony of someone actively involved.”
A ridiculous comment considering the only person “actively involved” was the person who would benefit from her testimony.
Regarding onlooker testimony, one guy says the only commotion that caught his attention was the gunfire. I don’t know about you guys, but when I am in public or doing something mindless like pumping gas, I tune out all background noise and my mind is on other things. I may not notice someone yelling with the cacophony of other noise in a big city. I would certainly notice gunfire, though.
FWIW, the article states the following:
Scott pulled her pistol and shot Ables once through the driver’s window