07-09-2013, 05:51 PM
(07-09-2013, 05:39 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yeah, 100%.
As in, an eyewitness' testimony. If they'd been fortunate enough to have had one.
So, spin it however you'd like.
If it was proven GZ was the initial aggressor and then feared for his life (enough to justify homicide), you'd have a hard time convincing the jury of that.
I deal in reality, so quit trying to justify your ill conceived epiphany based on "what-ifs".
You're stuck with NO credible eye-witness (see how I've removed tubbie from the equation) . . . deal with it.
Again, for those LIKE YOU who didn't quite grasp the concept, the statute protects the initial aggressor after meeting specific criteria.
Concede tubbie WAS the initial aggressor AND THEN MAKE DAMNED SURE HE MEETS THE REQUIRED CRITERIA TO GET A PASS ON THE SHOOTING!
And then convict him because he killed a nigger and killing niggers makes the world sad.