KiigelHeart said:
You should've watched those commentary clips someone posted. There's footage of the first victim before the incident and he doesn't seem to have any sense of self preservation. Aggressively looking for a fight an shouting "shoot me n****r".. second victim is with him so it seems unlikely they are trying to stop an active shooter but who knows. You're also missing the point someone else fires their weapon before this 17-year-old and his lawyers statement also takes note of this. edit. I have a hard time trusting anything defence lawyers say but at least it's on video. Unknown who fired and why though. |
No, I really shouldn't have, because I had no idea what was in the video. I'm not going to watch every video someone posts on the off chance it may contain something relevant. If someone wants me to watch a video they'd have to explain particularly what's relevant.
It's also a matter of time. If that's the information that's important, I got it in about 30 seconds from reading your post, rather than watching the whole video.
If what you said is true, (is the victim identified and clearly audible in the video? Can you timestamp it to the appropriate location?) then that would factor into whether a self defense claim is viable. At the same time, you'd have to get from "this guy is saying shoot me" to "this guy is going to try and kill me". You'd also have to rule out that the shooter was also acting aggressively. Even if we establish that the victim was crazy, the shooter is still obligated to act with reasonable caution to avoid a violent confrontation (based on my understanding of the law).
Assuming what you said is true, that makes for a better case, but still not clear without more.
