05-25-2013, 08:56 AM
(05-25-2013, 08:43 AM)ramseycat Wrote: The bottom line is that G had no idea who T was or what his past was and he pursued him despite being told to stand down. T didn't beat G's ass to the point where G needed to shoot him. G overreacted and now he has to pay the price. The defense can paint T to be a punk ass thug but it doesn't change the fact that AT THE TIME of the incident he was just walking home from the store. Those are the facts and they are undisputed. (Said in my Kevin Bacon voice )Exactly at what point when you have some big ass black kid standing over you pounding the shit out of your face would you think it might be OK to use a weapon?
The law does not require that you suffer any injury, in fact it allows you to put a stop to it before it happens. Within the very narrow scope of the letter of the law Z should walk.
I am not saying it was right because Z instigated the thing in the first place and made a whole string of mistakes that got him in the situation where he purportedly feared for his life.
Thats the problem with SYG as its written, it does not go far enough to limit the scope and the authors apparently did not anticipate the law being used in this kind of situation where the shooter is accused of being the aggressor