[Exaday]

Originally Posted by observer53

No. Once he started following THEM into the cul de sac, (if that's what happened) he became the aggressor, and self-defense no longer applies. If he thought they had a gun when they were both driving down the road earlier, that's one thing. But he had the opportunity to get out of the situation after that, and did not.



Agreed. If what's coming out now is what happened and what's presented at trial, self-defense is not going to work.

You seem to be forgetting who has the burden of proof. Most people do when it comes to these cases. That and there is a lot more to the story. You think you know the facts, but you don't.

For starters I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the kid was the driver.

There was something going on between the two parties, they were both following each other at different times. Both had weapons. The kid was a passenger in a car.

That the kid was not in reasonable fear of his life you can't prove. It's hilarious to me that some people think this is an open and shut case. Really? Okay.

If he can secure good counsel I see no reason he can't get out of this. He might also be convicted, I just don't know.

The public always makes the mistake of thinking they know things that are not actual facts.

[Exaday]

Originally Posted by icarian

Umm. No. He is done for, we are just waiting for the formalities (a grand jury indictment and trial).

Um yeah, burden of proof falls on the prosecution. You can't prove that he was not in reasonable fear of his life.

We don't know all the facts, this is not an open and shut case.

[Exaday]

Originally Posted by pommysmommy

Really? He followed them home and then bragged on FB about killing them first. If he feared for his life, he would have called the police.

I think you're precious too in a condescending sort of manner.

His facebook was last updated in 2013, what else are you wrong about?

I mean no disrespect, you might have read something similiar to that in a headline somewhere. Headlines are not admissible in court.

Most people are not media literate. They can't sort through the BS to find the facts.

Scoop is actually pretty good at it and has been on point the whole time.

[Exaday]

Originally Posted by pommysmommy

That would be hard to prove without witnesses. The mother who is dead cannot testify. I am still left astounded that the kid who fired the shot that killed someone showed zero remorse. He comes across as a sociopath.

You don't have to prove that they fired first. That's not how court cases work. You just have to prove that it was possible that they fired first.

Reasonable doubt, remember that. All the kid needs is good counsel.

Now I don't know what other evidence to police have, but none of the evidence I've heard about so far convicts him 100%

I'm not saying he won't be convicted, I'm saying it might be hard to convict him.

[icarian]

Exaday. Not a juvenile, not a kid. He is welcome to be an adult. He shall be treated as such, whether he is ready for this reality to slap him in the face or not.

As long as the facts of his car coming back into the cul de sac AND he was the aggressor in that particular instance, yeah, this man is toast. It isn't even wholly circumstantial. Burden of proof for the prosecution? As long as those two allegations (first sentence/this paragraph) are even moderately supported, he most cordially remains...toast. And if the everwinding allegations in this story do change, well? Who knows. NONE of us surely do unless one of us is a detective on the case that escapes to City Data in his down time. And if so, he/she isn't telling.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Exaday

You don't have to prove that they fired first. That's not how court cases work. You just have to prove that it was possible that they fired first.

Reasonable doubt, remember that. All the kid needs is good counsel.

Now I don't know what other evidence to police have, but none of the evidence I've heard about so far convicts him 100%

I'm not saying he won't be convicted, I'm saying it might be hard to convict him.

I would be a little careful here. The FL statutes would require that the prosecutor disprove a self defense if it was successfully asserted. That is not true here. The standard is the homicide statute beyond a reasonable doubt...but not to prove that it is not self defense. The defense can assert self defense but must use it to overcome the "beyond a reasonable doubt". Defendant is much better off in FL.

[bayview6]

Have the police recovered the weapon used to shoot the deceased?

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Exaday

You seem to be forgetting who has the burden of proof. Most people do when it comes to these cases. That and there is a lot more to the story. You think you know the facts, but you don't.

For starters I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the kid was the driver.

There was something going on between the two parties, they were both following each other at different times. Both had weapons. The kid was a passenger in a car.

That the kid was not in reasonable fear of his life you can't prove. It's hilarious to me that some people think this is an open and shut case. Really? Okay.

If he can secure good counsel I see no reason he can't get out of this. He might also be convicted, I just don't know.

The public always makes the mistake of thinking they know things that are not actual facts.

I'm not forgetting that at all. And of course, everything depends on what is actually presented at trial in terms of what happened. There's a lot of information flying around right now, and more to come. But, I do know how self-defense is interpreted, and how the jury is instructed on that issue. Selfdefense doesn't last forever. If the imminent danger goes away, you lose the defense. Here, he, too, with what's been reported now, he could have just removed himself from the danger just as she could have, but instead went looking for the person he at least thought had a gun, and ended up back at the cul de sac, where a second person actually did have a gun (which I wasn't thinking about with my last post). What is actually presented, and how the lawyers show it to the jury (and the jury instructions)will all be very interesting to see.

This appears to have involved a lot of people acting rashly (all the principal players, including the victim). How it all plays out at trial, we wait and see.

Waiting to hear more about the six foot tall man. Or rabbit. Who knows, with what's happened here so far.

[UKWildcat1981]

Guns are good, people are bad end of story.

[Exaday]

Originally Posted by icarian

Exaday. Not a juvenile, not a kid. He is welcome to be an adult. He shall be treated as such, whether he is ready for this reality to slap him in the face or not.

As long as the facts of his car coming back into the cul de sac AND he was the aggressor in that particular instance, yeah, this man is toast. It isn't even wholly circumstantial. Burden of proof for the prosecution? As long as those two allegations (first sentence/this paragraph) are even moderately supported, he most cordially remains...toast. And if the everwinding allegations in this story do change, well? Who knows. NONE of us surely do unless one of us is a detective on the case that escapes to City Data in his down time. And if so, he/she isn't telling.

He's a kid, not in the legal sense, but he's a kid.

I don't think you really understand how the criminal justice system works very well it seems. You also seem to be neglecting the fact that he was not driving the car. I can tell by your response that separating what is important from what is not, is an area where you lack proficiency. You'll take my criticism as an insult, but it's true. There are a lot of pieces to this story and it will continue to evolve. He might plea for all we know. at


You've already convicted this kid based on hearsay from newspapers and that's a little discomforting but not at all shocking.