spanky
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,431
- Reaction score
- 979
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The point was that he may have been up to "no good".
I don't think the juries going to buy that and I also don't think the judge will allow any of the school jewelry evidence in at trial EVEN IF the def can tie them to a reported theft.
The fact is none of that was known by Z at the time, all he's got is the walking funny, looking at houses stuff and it's pretty weak if you ask me.
IMO the pross is going to be able to persuade the jury that Z racially profiled TM based on his hoodie and that he was a young black kid and Z's comments "they always get away" and "frakking punks" isn't going to help his cause as it goes to his state of mind as to why he got out of the car and why he wan't the cops apprehending TM.
Add to that the fact that Z has been inconsistent in his statements about how and when the altercation started, and where it ended up and I think Z has a big problem.
However, based on Z's injuries the jury may decide that notwithstanding all the other evidence that TM was the aggressor and Z fired because he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm, they may give him a pass.
But if they believe Z had an integral part in the incident, inflamed it, and the only reason he fired was because TM got the better of him in what amounts to a gated community bar fight, I say Z takes a plea deal for manslaughter.