Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
How many cut knuckles does the shooting victim have?
How many cuts to the back of the head does the person shooting have?
Can we listen to a 911 dispatch? (Well, we have a lot of witnesses this time, so I guess we can wait for more information)
Or are you just purposely being dense and making analogies and comparisons when there aren't any?
|
Well it is the same state and the lawyers are already building up the self defence rhetoric with an "unknown object" as part of the "attack". The law only requires that someone fears harm, not that any harm was actually done. So a paper cut from the popcorn bag, or a errant kernel in the eye aren't even necessary. Just the fear of harm.
It really isn't that much of a stretch, based on past precedents, that this person could be found not guilty. The fact remains that an unarmed person died as a result of the trigger happy actions of someone who felt they were in a position of authority. All of this in a state and country that has an unhealthy obsession with firearms. And in a state with a law that protects people who use them at the first sniff of fear.
There are plenty of similarities - are you just selectively ignoring them? Or being dense?
