To: Roscoe
Only a lunatic or a blind zealot would consider that a defense.
Yup, incapable of rational thought and dealing with the evidence that points to his innocence. I gave you the actual law in both tort and criminal law, in Maryland law and other, and you simply ignore them, attacking them emotionally instead. And you come up with this statute, giving no reference to it, and calling it the actual statute. Oh well, been nice talking with you.
-The Hajman-
289 posted on
04/08/2002 11:52:24 AM PDT by
Hajman
To: Hajman
the evidence that points to his innocence. Which is?
290 posted on
04/08/2002 11:55:02 AM PDT by
Roscoe
To: Hajman
Well, Zito may
offer that defense, but a jury of his peers is extremely likely to throw it out--even if Zito was unquestionably correct on the Fourth Amendment issue (which, IMNHO, he isn't--at least, not to a level of absolute certainty).
Most folks do NOT view blasting away as soon as the door opens to be a reasonable application of deadly force under any circumstances. With the evidence at hand, I would certainly vote convict on manslaughter charges, and would probably convict on capital murder charges unless a LOT of extenuating circumstances are present that I do not see.
292 posted on
04/08/2002 11:59:35 AM PDT by
Poohbah
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson