Wow. Aren't allegations that are not about this incident excluded from courtroom testimony? Is this is a fact-finding mission about a specific event or a popularity contest after the fact? (I realize I am asking a foolish question.)
And would this mean the Darwin Award winner's violent criminal record--as I recall, he had one--would be detailed for the jury as well?
I wasn't there, okay? But regardless of this incident, since the St. Trayvon case, there seems to be a new criminal offense on the books in many states today: Surviving While White.
This Drejka guy is a menace to society.
I don't like the idea that I might be in some "invisible space" that's "owned" by a whackjob who's carrying concealed.
I don't have a problem with that. Markeis McGlockton DID have a "history of violence".
If I was a juror, I'd like to know that, also, in addition to the loose cannon's history.
But regardless of this incident, since the St. Trayvon case, there seems to be a new criminal offense on the books in many states today: Surviving While White.
= = = = = = = = =
I wasn’t there either.
IF the case is as been reported, HE drove by, saw them parking, turned around and came back, confronted the woman, her ‘man’ came out and confronted the guy, pushed him after some words and was (supposedly) retreating when the guy shot him.
First and foremost, the guy had NO BUSINESS going back, especially while armed.
As long as he is running around and carrying, HE is the poster boy for the ANTIS...he ‘proves their case’ that us Carriers are just running around, picking fights so as to give us an excuse to shoot someone.
If I were in the jury pool, the Prosecutor would definitely ‘expel’ me and the Defense would want me on the panel.
THEY would both be making a major mistake -
AS PRESENTED, I would be going after the Murder conviction not manslaughter (but would settle for it) but all this clown did was keep someone else from shooting the ‘victim’ down the road, if this is his reaction to everything.
MY point being the shooter had no business being where he was when he was there and HE is the instigator.
As stated often on this thread, first ‘rule’ of carry is don’t start anything.
The old ‘don’t start no $hiite and there won’t be any applies to ALL parties in the carry ‘game’.
I agree about the question of admissible but see post 63
Likely admissible
It’s more specific and shows prior intent