Excellent find.
I was considering the concept of "
duty to retreat" at law in NC because it varies greatly from state to state. This link is useful and gives a simple explanation:
https://www.robertslawteam.com/Crim...orth-Carolina-Can-You-Stand-Your-Ground.shtml
"...North Carolina
Stand Your Ground law (
N.C.G.S. §14‑51.3)
[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
b) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2, generally that you are in your home, workplace or car and are in fear for yours or another's life [
Castle Doctrine]
There are exceptions to the use of deadly force in self defense against the following people:
- Police officers or law enforcement
- Bailbondsmen
- A landlord or other person who also has a legal right to be in the place where you are
In addition, if the person has retreated or has stopped the threatening behavior, the use of deadly force may no longer be justified because the threat is no longer considered imminent. ...
...Self defense is an
affirmative defense, meaning you admit that you attacked or caused harm to another person, but that you were justified in causing that harm to protect yourself or another. To succeed on a self defense claim,you must
NOT:
- Have been the aggressor
- Have used unreasonable force
- Have continued to pursue the other person after he or she retreated
- Have had an intent to kill, but only to defend yourself or another ..."
IMO this testimony that they struck blows while JC was in the bed, that they struck blows while JC was falling down against the wall, that JC was struck while on the floor with the spatter going up both MM's pajama pants and the inside hem of TM's boxer shorts, and that they continued to strike JC after he was dead - ALL of this is indicative of unreasonable force and continued pursuit after JC was no threat to them, eg, failure of the affirmative defense of self-defense. I also do not believe that JC was the aggressor in the physical fight and I see no evidence of that. I wonder if they called for legal advice immediately to know they must claim JC was the aggressor, only claiming to defend self and another.