Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat
I might be completely wrong here but I got the impression from O'Mara's summation that the evidence showed without question that the threatening conflict was started by Martin when he hit GZ in the face and nose (and that this overrides any other minor acts such as getting out of the car or even possibly appearing to follow).

I think that was what O'Mara was trying to establish with Witness Root when has asked Root to delineate the increasing stages of appropriate response in acts of violence.

I can't remember how that was spelled out in the jury instructions (I listened to them but cannot remember).

Bottom line, regardless of who initiated the argument, a fear of grievous bodily harm and potential death is a defense against murder 2 and manslaughter.

1,895 posted on 07/13/2013 4:16:37 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (You can't eat Sharia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1807 | View Replies ]


To: RoosterRedux
"Bottom line, regardless of who initiated the argument, a fear of grievous bodily harm and potential death is a defense against murder 2 and manslaughter."

You forgot part of it: "Is a defense against murder 2 and manslaughter unless you be a Creepy Ass Cracka attackin a brutha..."

1,905 posted on 07/13/2013 4:19:24 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1895 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson