Whether the life of my pregnant companion & fetus was not being protected from imminent danger from real threat by two young men with burglary tools in their possession?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED » Stoneman v. Commonwealth 66.Va C2s Gat. BF (i874 Green ve CoOMMonwealth 122 va. BE62-974 S.E FYO cigs wes the [iFe oF My Pregnant com Panton & Fetus Not Wot, being Protected From imminent danger trom Teal Theent by two young men with burg lary Abclickon Sool$ 19 their PaSSesion? § 18.2 94 2%) Do the CircumStances of My Sitvation Such a2 the deceit, cecep Kon & connivance of the Yours, men is Conjvachion with my alement at the Yime not Con§htute my Svbgection ho, dutesc? Sam vi Common wealth 1% va. App. 312, 4 S.€ 2a G32 Ciaqi) 2 Dow can © Prove My Actua NNacence Schlup v. Des, 5'3, ViS~ 248 Ciaag) without obtaining Pegvegted d \Scovery without vuaAdve hardShip (may iNearcera tion) iA Which the Facts of Medttal Cecords and cout Frangesrets will entitle me to relief) See Walker ve MitChell 249 S.E.2d 698,699 (ve MER), E rdeqerak) Ve Begg 266 S:&.%d 615, 618 Cva. App. SB 7 a 4) wold wot the expert OPrnvON of MY State OF ming at time of “ofFenSe® determine whether There wad intent involved? Cfperly v: Commoner Mth, 224 va. 214244 Sig, 2¢ HH Liege) 3 .