Originally Posted by munchausen
I really don't think you need to be an attorney to figure it out. It's all spelled out in fairly plain language. It's the amateur attorneys who are trying to lawyer it up to make the guy guilty.
Honestly, I've gone from thinking the guy was a shithead who was going to get away with something that was wrong but not illegal, to thinking that the guy really didn't do anything all that wrong (maybe some things that were foolish) and is being punished unfairly.
Which one is it munchausen? On one hand you say you don't need to be an attorney to figure it out then you go into a diatribe about amateur attorneys?
I said early on that if I was to just look at the actual incident involving the shooting I would not have a problem saying it looks like a pretty clear cut case of self defense. Did I not? The problem is that it's not so clear cut when this singular event is kept in context with the entire event.
Now that you've come out and said you're an attorney I guess the next question would be in what area do you practice? Criminal defense?
You're real good at picking a bone with me about what I said but as of yet you have not offered anything to counter my very reasonable and rooted in law argument about possession and lawful use of a firearm and I admiited I have no idea how, if true, these little details effect the lawful use of deadly force with a firearm in a self defense situation.
Just answering with I'm a lawyer and I say so doesn't cut it. I'm also not interested in any more deflections as well. Impress me with staying on point and while doing so chain each piece of your argument together with some logic and a modicrum of common sense.