Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges

And the poo scene! LOL

WT also indicates that shots were fired at ST, which is the first I have heard.
This makes a HUGE difference to Sean's defense.

i have a feeling that there wont even be a trail, i read somewhere that there was a second phase of the fight and one of the people shot at taylor. the police decide if they want to prosectue taylor or not, i dont think it will happen. or if it does, i bet he finds a way not to be found guilty

PSU Skins, what do you think about shots being fired at Sean in helping his defense?

PSU Skins, what do you think about shots being fired at Sean in helping his defense?

Really just depends on when they were fired.

If ST pulled the gun in the initial confrontation and waived it around, then got fired at, the shots probably don't have any bearing on the ST's defense. In fact, the other guys would have a strong self-defense argument that they feared ST was going to shoot them, so they had to fire at him in self-defense.

Certainly if the shots were fired before ST ever pulled his gun, he's absolutely home free. Pulling his gun out after being fired on would make for a very solid self-defense argument.

Now let's assume the shots were fired in the second confrontation, but that the other guys showed ST their guns in the first confrontation: In this situation, again, ST could claim that he only pulled his gun in self defense when he saw that the other men were armed. Again, he's home free.

Really it all just depends on the sequence of events. The key factor is going to be who was the first one to either threaten deadly force, or fire shots at the other. Whoever pulled their gun first is going to be the one that the prosecutor is going to go after. After a gun has been pulled or shots have been fired, then the prosecution's case gets much weaker because formidable (sp?) self defense arguments arise.

Do you see it the same way RamseyFan?

I'm also thinking about this. Since they proved that Sean did not discharge a weapon and if they prove that the other people did, isn't it Sean's word against theirs? And if they DID indeed fire a shot, it would make their case that much weaker.

Well, yes and no. Again, it's all going to come down to the sequence of events. If ST pulls his gun in confrontation #1........then comes back for more........now those guys all know he's packing. It could be reasonable for them to fire on him in self-defense if they believe he's going to shoot at them. In that case, the jury is probably going to sympathize more with the guys who just got confronted by a rather large man with a gun, and the other guys don't make bad witnesses (in this scenario).

Also remember that the criminal case is not a case of the other guys versus ST. Rather, it's going to be a case of the State versus ST. Yes, the other guys would be called as witnesses at ST's trial by the prosecution, but it's not a matter of the other guys having a case against ST. It will be their word versus his as witnesses, however, and that's where the facts will either make or break the case against ST. If ST pulled his gun first, and then the other guys shot at him, ST probably doesn't really have a self defense argument because he was the one that initiated the "gun play", if you will. If these other guys fired on or threatened ST first, then they would make terrible witnesses, ST would have a strong self-defense argument, and the prosecution probably would drop the case. It's all going to hinge on then the guns came out.

If he just wouldn't have come back the second time, it would be much easier to defend. If THEY pulled the guns first, why in the hell would he have come back NOT packing?

If they pulled the guns first, why in the hell would he have come back period?

That's why I'm concerned about the likely sequence of events. Obviously we're not dealing with rational and reasonable individuals (on either side), but I find it really hard to believe that ST would have come back if either the other guys flashed guns in the first confrontation, or shot at him in the first confrontation........and those might be the only scenarios that get ST off.

COMPLETE SPECULATION on my part, but doesn't it seem much more likely that ST surprised the other guys in the first confrontation, pulled a gun to scare the hell out of them, hit one of them with his fist, had his buddy chase one with a baseball bat...........and THEN came back for a second round (perhaps with more reinforcements) after a long enough time that the other guys could round up their guns and fire on ST as soon as they saw him? I hope I'm wrong, because he's screwed in that scenario. But I just can't figure out how he would have pulled his gun and not fired it AFTER being fired on by the other guys? Anything is possible I suppose. If he was dumb enough to confront them himself in the first place, he's dumb enough to go back and risk getting his head blown off I suppose.

You know who we haven't heard from yet? SC.

I bet he would be having a FIELD day.