Doesn’t seem like intent matters once you’re being attacked. Also he openly had a gun out. Doesn’t the argument go in the exact same way in the opposite direction? Why were THEY hanging around and attacking someone with a gun out?
And so let’s say he did instigate “the attack”. So now all I need to do to murder someone is just prove they instigated an attack of any kind? And if I show up already aggravated, then that’s proof of them instigating the attack by simply being there?
Why were THEY hanging around and attacking someone with a gun out?
I like how open-carrying where it's 100% legal to do so is "provoking a dangerous situation," but grabbing someone's gun isn't.
Guns are a deterrent. Dressing like a whore is an attractent.
Think before you speak son
But the prosecution is insisting that having the gun was an attractant. Having the gun caused the violent reaction.
You mean your fellow combatants?
(post is archived)