Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj2112
We don't know that from the information given about this case, we only know that the state failed to even address this issue during the case.
|
How do you conclude that this:
Quote:
|
As manager of the cafe, defendant was not obligated to retreat from his place of business. See Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 584 (1972). Self defense is a valid defense.
|
doesn't contradict your position?
Quote:
|
The fact that the defendant wasn't required to retreat is not what got him a not guilty verdict...
|
besides, he didn't get a "not guilty" verdict; the case was dismissed.
EDIT: cj, do you know what the legal term "deny under traverse of oath" means? If there wasn't any legal basis for the dispute of the material fact that the defendent thought the assailant was going for a gun, then they can't challenge it or may even stipulate it.
On what basis do you think the state could have denied the defendant's belief as a factual matter?
The only way to dispute his belief about the victim obtaining a gun would have been to have witnesses saying that he didn't really believe it, or a confession. Short of either of those, there wasn't much for the prosecutor to do other than state as opinion that the defendant wasn't really in fear of his life. I'm not sure where you got the notion that the state was incompetent.