[FunkyZero]

not guilty doesn't imply it was self-defense. It simply implies that he did no commit murder in the 2nd degree which would have to be malicious and something else in the description that I can't remember. The charges are very specific, you must be guilty of the exact crime you are charged with and there must be no reasonable doubt.

For instance, if I am driving drunk and crash my car into something resulting in no damage, I could be charged with criminal damage, go to court and be found not guilty since I didn't damage anything, but I was still drunk and crashed. A not guilty decision does not mean I am innocent, it just means I didn't commit the very specific offense I was charged with. 2nd degree murder has very specific stipulations and requirements. If you do not meet all of them, you may still be guilty of murder, just not in the second degree. I'm not opining that GZ is in fact guilty of something, just saying that's how it works.

[SE Mom]

I get that and appreciate your time in clarifying.

I’m just stuck I guess on the self-defense idea. If I say yes, I killed John Doe but he was threatening me, he hit me and I pulled out my gun and shot him. Now the state decides I murdered John Doe and throw all kinds of charges at me. Isn’t the ONLY thing the jury needs to decide is whether or not I acted in self-defense?