It's only the month of May, but you're in contention for the KOOTY post. You're hanging your entire argument on basis of the defender being arrested, while ignoring that he released the next day, and apparently the charges will be dropped - over-zealous law enforcement and all that. What exactly do YOU find him guilty of? More importantly, why does it matter what you think?
Seems you too could stand some improvement in your reading comprehension skills. Try reading it again, slowly.
Let's see if this is slow enough. I'm only going to parse your first two paragraphs because you bore me.
There are several important lessons in this news story. Discharging a firearm in an urban or suburban setting is an unbelievably huge, almost crippling responsibility.
Wrong - they let the defender go.The shooter is absolutely liable for any and all consequences resulting from each and every bullet sent out, even the strays.
Wrong - as many have already pointed out the felon is liable, not the defender.Nearly everywhere, the employment of deadly force is governed by statutes strictly limiting its application. In particular, the legal concept of self-defense is often misunderstood. So, here’s the deal as it applies to this dude’s unfortunate situation:
Your "deal" is wrong in it's entirety, or provide an example of statutes against returning fire.First, while a criminal defendant is absolutely presumed innocent until proven otherwise and the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, self-defense is only an affirmative defense which must be proved by the defendant.
Wrong - they let the defender go.The prosecution is usually not required to negate self-defense as part of its initial case. But, once the defendant has introduced evidence of self-defense, the prosecution then becomes obliged to negate it. This all comes as a shock to most people. True, if the pre-charging investigation discloses that the evidence of proper self-defense is compelling, a competent and reasonable prosecutor will decline to charge, in the interests of justice and judicial economy. However, a politically motivated prosecutor may lawfully charge regardless, and force the defendant to prove the self-defense at trial (costly, even if successful).
This is all a creation of your imagination. None of it happened. THEY LET THE DEFENDER GO.
