Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection
PSU Skins, what do you think about shots being fired at Sean in helping his defense?
|
Really just depends on when they were fired.
If ST pulled the gun in the initial confrontation and waived it around, then got fired at, the shots probably don't have any bearing on the ST's defense. In fact, the other guys would have a strong self-defense argument that they feared ST was going to shoot them, so they had to fire at him in self-defense.
Certainly if the shots were fired before ST ever pulled his gun, he's absolutely home free. Pulling his gun out after being fired on would make for a very solid self-defense argument.
Now let's assume the shots were fired in the second confrontation, but that the other guys showed ST their guns in the first confrontation: In this situation, again, ST could claim that he only pulled his gun in self defense when he saw that the other men were armed. Again, he's home free.
Really it all just depends on the sequence of events. The key factor is going to be who was the first one to either threaten deadly force, or fire shots at the other. Whoever pulled their gun first is going to be the one that the prosecutor is going to go after. After a gun has been pulled or shots have been fired, then the prosecution's case gets much weaker because formidable (sp?) self defense arguments arise.
Do you see it the same way RamseyFan?