That's your opinion, and you are not the arbiter.banging could also mean they were simply trying to wake sleeping person lol
there is nothing factually about banging that relates to waiting in or breaking in, that is all speculation and without further evidence rendered completely meaningless
The level of noise caused by the banging would be hard to prove through anything other than the homeowners testimony. Are you saying that unless the young woman tried to force the door open, or dented it somehow, that the banging wasn't loud within the dwelling? Because that would also be nothing but your own opinion.banging is absolutely meaningless without further evidence, dents in the door, evidence of attempted forced entry etc which there were none
Again your opinion. It absolutely can be dark enough to not see clearly. In any case this is for the prosecutor to prove....The burden is on her.also its either a dark neighborhood and he couldn't see or he could see so well he knew what she looked like and could GUESS at her state of mind it cant be both, just saying. Not implying you said its both just pointing out those would totally contradict eachother in a trial.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out....Just remember, the homeowner is innocent until proven guilty....Let me repeat....Innocent until proven guilty.then theres his statement of it was an accident, its a factor
the major factor that probably makes some type of conviction almost a lock is shooting through a locked door, thats going to be huge
No, I have already shown you the statute where his hurdle is rather low in that regard....The burden of proof is on the prosecution.the fact remains without further evidence, his thoughts will have zero support in logic, facts and reality
Your opinion.there isnt credence without factual or rational evidence
We shall see. But this is still your opinion.if there was evidence of forced or attempted forced entry then yes, without it, nope.
I agree, unless we hear more about his intent, then Murder 2 is out the window.as for your question for Murder 2
IMO its too much and Im guessing its being used to deal and nothign more thats why the multiple charges and not a single charge
Your opinion.Manslaughter seems like a lock with all the facts we currently know
his mind isnt any hurdle at all it has to be reasonable and there has to be evidence to support it, it always has to be reasonable with support from evidence and reality.
Now, there seems to be a lot in your post here that points to you touting yourself as some kind of final authority or something. Also, you seem to be approaching it as though the homeowner has to prove himself innocent...That's backwards. The burden of proof is on the state here. You should bear that in mind, especially with the Zimmerman trial so fresh and so many, (including you I believe) were so sure, and smug about it that Z was guilty, yet a jury acquitted him of charges there...So, I wouldn't be so quick to be spouting off as though you know something everyone else doesn't....
Now, I don't know if the man will be found guilty of any, or all of the charges, or innocent of them, but let's at least approach this like it should be, and that is innocent until proven guilty...That shouldn't be controversial....