bob wrote:I'll take it then that you think it more looks like he got scratched by a cat than that he had his head pounded on the pavement.
Doesn't matter what I think. But, no, I think it looks like he had his head pounded on the sidewalk. Maybe the word pounded
means something different to you? But, as I have posted repeatedly, the defense of self defence only requires that GZ reasonably feared imminent
serious bodily injury or death. Maybe GZ was able at the time to resist some of the force used by TM to pound his head against the sidewalk. But, maybe GZ felt his neck muscles tiring. Maybe he felt that he would soon be unable to resist TM's force?
Remember the standard of proof.
bob wrote:I mean, it's all about the evidence right? You got an eyewitness. You got the accused and his statements. And you got injuries. If the injuries are not consistent with his statements then there is evidence that the he is lying and if he is lying about this his credibilty in general is suspect, right? Maybe we can't believe anything he says.
Blood and contusions on the back of the head are
consistent with having the head pounded against the side walk. Because of the imminent
aspect of the self defense right, we don't need to argue about how much blood was flowing from GZ's head. Some people will look at the photo and think that there isn't much blood. Others will look at it and faint!
bob wrote:(I'm enjoying the heck out of this whole thing btw and appreciate the law course you are teaching here. Thing is, I'll argue about "anything." Anyway, thanks.)
Always a pleasure talking to you, bob!
But, I'm not teaching anything! The jury could very well decide that GZ is guilty of 2nd. degree murder.