Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj2112
If you read why that decision was made, it had nothing to do with not having the duty to retreat, it had to do with incompetence on the part of the states attorney. The state has the burden of proof, and they dropped the ball.
The fact that the defendant wasn't required to retreat is not what got him a not guilty verdict...it's the fact that the state poorly prosecuted the case by not even questioning what the defendant was thinking at the time, or whether that thought process was reasonable in the eyes of the law.
|
Maybe the state prosecution was just wrong to charge the manager in the first place and he really did think that the deceased was going to get a gun and kill him?
That's why:
Quote:
|
The state failed to specifically deny by traverse under oath the allegations that defendant believed the deceased was [**3] going for a gun, and this fact is considered admitted by the state.
|