Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
Yeah, that's gong to be a tough one given the time it likely took to get law enforcement there. Maybe they can get credit card receipts to see how much beer was bought that weekend.
This is an interesting he said/she said case. Will there be any witnesses who saw drunk boaters, and does it matter? And if there are no witnesses, do you convict the guy because there's a dead body, or do you acquit him because you can't prove whether he was being attacked by a bunch of drunks?
|
On 2nd degree murder? Seems to me you have to acquit him.
But if the jury believes the testimony of the others in the group, then you
have proved that he wasn't being attacked by a bunch of drunks, in which case you can convict.
Witness testimony is sufficient proof. Well, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The key for the prosecution is to establish that the parties that are testifying on behalf of the prosecution have no
legal motive to lie; they're not on trial here. Meanwhile, the guy that shot someone in the face certainly has a motive to fabricate the events. And frankly, it's a whole of witnesses vs. 1 here.
Though I feel like the media's screwed up the Castle Doctrine again (and I'm convinced they'll never get 'stand your ground' right). The defense here isn't going to be a Castle Doctrine defense; at least it shouldn't be. Rather, the defense should be simple old self defense. His story is that they were throwing softball sized rocks at him and converging on him after he told them to leave. Well if it's a dozen vs 1 and that dozen is throwing big rocks at you, you're probably in 'justifiable fear of grievous bodily harm' - at which time lethal force is authorized.
This isn't a Castle Doctrine case. Once the defense centered around a drunken mob angrily throwing rocks at an old man, it became good ol' fashion self defense.
But that doesn't get people to think about Trayvon and buy your newspaper, so it's not nearly as sexy.