Character A has been arrested for assaulting a police officer. Even if he hasn’t been convicted he is the only one of the two, at least as far as we know, with any kind of criminal history. You’re right that there’s no way to know whether character B has any juvenile record but there’s no reason to suspect that he does.
The reason that A being armed is important is quite simply that Z was not. When an unarmed Z ends up dead after being followed by an armed A, it’s very difficult for A to claim self defense.
And I was just trying to be funny with the Skittles comment. As for the “tardiness”, I’m sure I’ve seen several FReepers mention that that’s what he was suspended for. It’s the only disciplinary problem he’s had that we know of.
Then it is completely irrelevant. Being arrested and not convicted says nothing about one's history.
You’re right that there’s no way to know whether character B has any juvenile record but there’s no reason to suspect that he does.
If it is unknowable, then how does it inform us?
The reason that A being armed is important is quite simply that Z was not. When an unarmed Z ends up dead after being followed by an armed A, it’s very difficult for A to claim self defense.
Not if A was beaten to a pulp by Z.
And I was just trying to be funny with the Skittles comment.
But this is the problem. Your emotional bias was apparent from the get-go. I was a police officer for 20 years and investigated many homicide scenes. It must be done without emotion, as a surgeon cuts his patient. You made it impersonal on the surface with your "Character A" and "Character Z" monikers, but then immediately fell right back into the trap.
In criminal law, for purposes of guilt in an instant case, criminal history is entirely irrelevant.
In criminal law, skittles are entirely irrelevant.