Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.
TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.
.
|
i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.
TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.
to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.