| MTUpower |
07-15-2013 02:25 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel911
(Post 3176114)
Because of the other type of evidence; Circumstantial Evidence.
1. based on inference: containing or based on facts that allow a court to deduce that somebody is guilty without conclusive proof circumstantial evidence
So I think Z's actions previous to the Incident are considered Circumstantial Evidence. Who was Hunting Who?
...
|
So following someone is tantamount to instigating a confrontation? It's only a confrontation if both parties one or both parties are hostile. TM was hostile- he broke GZ's nose and bloodied his head. We don't know that GZ was hostile or if he was willing/wanting to get into a physical altercation- you can be suspicious and not willing to physically engage.
On the night of July 4th after midnight I heard some close firecrackers outside. I looked outside and two 25-30YO's I did not know were in the middle of the street and then they proceeded to my neighbors car. They ducked down and light a M-80 or equivalent and threw it over his fence and into his backyard- looked like they were aiming for the house. They ran for 10 seconds and then did it again to another neighbor. I brought my phone and walked outside and followed them at about 200 yards. They did not see me; I called the LEO and described them. I had no intention of being hostile or getting into a confrontation. If there had been a third to these two who I did not notice who watched me and then circled around and surprised me ... was I the one who can be considered guilty of "instigating a confrontation"???
Was I hostile?
Your "circumstantial evidence" argument holds very little water. |
