do some of you really think that that 16 year old was whipping GZ's ass that badly? are you dumb?
No and maybe.
I just choose not to ignore certain things that are on the table just because they don't line up with reaching the conclusion I want to reach.
Also, "facts" was a bad word choice in my prev post.
I'm not ignoring anything. Let your common sense guide you.
Isn't that the rub, though? My common sense guides me to what I think is the same conclusion as your's about what actually happened. However, my conclusion is based on a bunch of facts and suppositions that the jury doesn't have or, although a reasonable conclusion, still leaves room for reasonable doubt.
So we're left in a situation where the law requires GZ to be allowed to get away with something I think he should be punished for. How do we correct that? Should the jury ignore the reasonable doubt standard? Should there be a different standard in a self defense case where the evidence is lacking because the defendant killed a key witness? Should GZ not be allowed to claim self defense because his prior actions, although not necessarily unlawful, precipitated the entire event?
Also, guns are here to stay in the US, imo. Is there a way to keep them away from idiots like GZ? I don't think so (provided said idiot doesn't have a restraing order as GZ did). Plus the idiocy gets compounded by the fact that the idiot is emboldened by carrying the gun. No fix for that from what I can see.
TM shouldn't have to be afraid to walk to kwik shop in his dad's neighborhood, but should neighborhood watch be allowed to ask a stranger what he's doing in the neighborhood at night? If so, how far should the watchman be allowed to go before the stranger is allowed to protect himself from the watchman? I don't think TM should be allowed to attack him the second GZ got out of the truck, but there is a line somewhere. Does the watchman get any of considerations (obviously not all) that a cop gets in the situation?
Go cats.
