These are brought over from the previous thread;
It is unbelievably stupid they even posed that question. That's common sense. If a guy pulls a gun on you, you can't shoot innocent people while trying to shoot them.:banghead:
I can't cry. I'm enraged. Right now I'm extremely glad I never had children. I'd be a wreck leaving someone in this world for the future.
That's a great post and I'd be willing to bet diamonds to donuts that someone on the jury has pointed that out. To me, that is foolproof logic. Unfortunately, someone or someone's on the jury can't understand that line of thinking. JMO
He probably couldn't do that without crafting the language with both the prosecutor and defense attorney. They wouldn't be done til June. JMO
I have a feeling that there is a juror or jurors with an agenda or severe stupidity.
I think a conversation like this is taking place;
A juror - "Let's see, he lied about calling the police, he lied about telling his girlfriend about his seeing a gun, he lied about being afraid they'd come back to the hotel for him, there's an independent witness who heard him scream 'YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO ME LIKE THAT' Just before shooting, he said he saw a long gun but one was never found, no witness, other than MD saw one, so why do you think he's not guilty?"
A different juror - "Well I don't think that people should have to actually see something if they're afraid of being killed. God forbid somebody dies because they were waiting to see the weapon before acting in self defense."
JMO
:goodpost: