![]() |
Quote:
Assault and Battery is an offense. |
You got a gun Tom?
|
Quote:
At least sitting here and reading and responding to this thread is keeping Me off the Streets. That has to mean it is doing some good. It has also made Me do some thinking on another subject. I always thought that People ought to do what the thought was the right thing to do. If Z thought He was doing the right thing I guess I am wrong about that and have to add as long as they do not hurt someone else in the process. |
Quote:
And, while He got hurt the Gun did give Him the upper hand in this situation. I keep wondering which one of them was the actual Victim. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So if We are not allowed to assume facts not in evidence concerning Z than the same has to go for T as far as the reason goes for the start of the Fight. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There is evidence from anyone else but Z as to how the Fight started? There is no outside testimony that Z did not start the Fight. If Z started the Fight then it was T who was defending Himself from a Crime being committed on Him (meaning T). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Dubyagee;3181522]Unproven, no witnesses self defense.
He was beating Z into the ground. Broke his nose and kept hitting. The best thing to learn from this is to never assume the guy your whipping is unarmed or legally restrained from using a weapon.[/QUOTE] In Hindsight another conclusion that could be made is that T's assault/defense was not violent enough to save His life; T might have been to Humane. They tell Women who are being assaulted to grab the Assailant's Ears with their Finger and shove their Thumbs into the Assailant's Eyes; it works the same if Men do it. Sounds like T could have crushed Z's Trachea without too much problem. It would have taking an unusual Person to still have reached for their Gun and shoot with their Eyes gouged or Trachea crushed. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Two experts argued the facts in the case for six weeks before a jury. The jury weighed all of the facts and arguments presented and reached a conclusion. I did not sit in the court and listen and watch everything. I watched a couple of hours. It was riveting. In my botanical opinion based on those two hours, both sides did a very good job arguing with the facts at hand. I accept that the jury came to the best conclusion. Outside of that, all of us experts are entitled to whatever speculative, ill-informed opinions we want to advance. |
Regardless, if Z approached M and asked him what hes was doing, THAT IS NOT A CRIME.....And, if M then assailed Z or ambushed him w/o being confronted by Z, there is the crime. True, we have one side here, but seemingly, the evidence supported the conclusion. Even IF Z confronted M, he still had a right, after being assualted and fearing for his life (his decision, not ours) he had the right to use lethal force. Its the law. And, its the law in many states. Don't like it? Change it, but I doubt if that is going to happen. People in this country are tired of thuggery.
oh, the prattle about Z being emboldened by the fact he was legally carrying? well that's the point of a self defense weapon. Free people may walk about and do things without as much trepidation b/c they know they are more safe due to the defense weapon. Don't like guns? fine, but don't prevent those who wish to legally carry & defend themselves and their families from scumbags from doing so. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website