That’s not what the case was about! Whoever is putting out that narrative is not doing RKBA any favors. Don’t go shooting people thinking that it gives you a better case of self-defense!!!
The trial court had ruled that pointing an allegedly unloaded gun at somebody was the same as shooting at them as a matter of law. The appellate court said no, it was not. That’s the case in a nutshell.
The appellate court said that it was up to the jury, not the judge, to decide both (1) whether the defendant used deadly force and (2) whether the use of that force, deadly or undeadly (ha-ha, Dracula), was justified. The trial court, in the maner it had instructed the jury, had taken the first question away from the jury, and the appellate court said it should not have done that.
August 27th, 2019 at 10:22 pm
That’s not what the case was about! Whoever is putting out that narrative is not doing RKBA any favors. Don’t go shooting people thinking that it gives you a better case of self-defense!!!
The trial court had ruled that pointing an allegedly unloaded gun at somebody was the same as shooting at them as a matter of law. The appellate court said no, it was not. That’s the case in a nutshell.
The appellate court said that it was up to the jury, not the judge, to decide both (1) whether the defendant used deadly force and (2) whether the use of that force, deadly or undeadly (ha-ha, Dracula), was justified. The trial court, in the maner it had instructed the jury, had taken the first question away from the jury, and the appellate court said it should not have done that.