Again, it only makes sense ...

.
... if you're the government:

Sheehan and her attorney, Michael Dowd, still have an appeals process to deal with to try to get Sheehan acquitted of the criminal possession of a weapon charge she was convicted of in the self-defense shooting of her husband Raymond in February of 2008.

"It doesn't make sense," Henry said. "You've been acquitted, but you're guilty of having a gun?" That potential legal conflict is likely to be the crux of Dowd's appeal argument for his client.

This regarding the woman who killed her police officer husband after claiming years of abuse. In my mind, if there's credible evidence that the husband did abuse her, the fact that she used his own weapons (two of them!) to kill him and that she killed him while he was brushing his teeth is irrelevant. She had suffered abuse, and was likely to suffer abuse in the future.

Why can't people understand things like this?

pm