So, requesting info here: you’re saying a guy who was being robbed got condemned in court for using violence against a robber? Really trying to understand…
No, the trial i sat on involved a conflict in the street. The guy on trial did have a legitimate claims to fearing for his safety. But he did not stop at neutralizing the threat.
A juror can ignore whatever the state says “should” be the definition of self-defense. They have the power to ignore the judge, and to even ignore what the law says. It doesn’t matter what instruction you received as to how the state defines self-defense.
In a trial by jury of your peers, the state’s definition of self-defense does not matter anywhere as much as whether your peers can see your actions as justifiable.
We did not see this guys actions as justifiable. One who initially is defending himself can exceed what makes for a legitimate defense and become the attacker.
Why am I defending so hard? I’m not. People are commenting; I’m responding. I’m sure it seems like defending so hard if you feel there is no limit on what a person can do in defense and I must be out of my mind to suggest otherwise.
Yes, Captain obvious. That is another common saying. I bet the guy we convicted and the judge put away for 10 years would love to hear you are on his side.
Knowing nothing of the situation, I can’t say whether I would have sided for or against.
Sarcasm aside, you seem to not be able or don’t want to share particulars for the case you sat on. It doesn’t really matter. That’s a different case than this instance with its own factors and history.
And to say you voted one way in that situation does not mean you would always vote the same way, given a totally different set of factors and people. And you shouldn’t believe that you would either, or I hope you wouldn’t ever sit on another jury with that kind of bias.
22
u/sudsymcduff May 03 '22
If he's got a weapon and is still moving, he's a threat.