Not a very informative article as to the facts of the case.
I think that's the real issue. People on this forum are arguing other topics, but what are the facts?
Scenario 1 (assumed by most posters to this board): Intruder breaks into house and gets shot. End of argument, and the judge should let the innocent self-defender off.
Scenario 2: Two friends, well known to each other, sit around drinking in an apartment belonging to one of them. They have an argument, and the apartment dweller shoots the other guy, then declares him to have been an intruder.
I know which one I think is more likely, but the whole point is that determining which of those two (or other) scenarios really happened is the job of the jury, not the judge. However, I don't find the law as written all that unclear, so I'm siding with the common sense interpretation once the facts are established.
posted on 07/31/2006 10:37:21 AM PDT
Good post - just what I was trying to say, only more clear!
posted on 07/31/2006 10:38:25 AM PDT
(I've always wanted to be 40 ... and it's as good as I anticipated!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson