Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
You’re reading a LOT into a choice of wording in a headline there. We do not know anything about the circumstances of the “confrontation” in question. Nothing there indicates that he, for example, went out of his way to get into a fight when he didn’t have to.
Correct. It is not, in fact, criminal to do that. Defendants are given significant leeway in self-defence claims precisely because the law does not expect people to make the right judgement call in a split second. If you responded to a seemingly legitimate threat in a moment of panic, that’s still covered by self-defence. What’s not covered is a) going out of your way to get into a fight, and b) using force that is clearly unnecessary or disproportional to the threat against you. Everything else is fair game.
Remember, the charges against this guy were dropped. Even though his assailant ended up on death’s door, in an emergency room, covered in lacerations and bleeding to death, that was still considered fair and reasonable self-defence. You’re panicking over nothing.
Where did I sound like I was panicking? All I’ve been trying to do is have an opinion, share that opinion, discuss that opinion, and defend that position when it is attacked by people turning the things I’m saying into catastrophic strawmen.
It’s not even that strong of an opinion, if I’m being honest, but I do believe in the principle that these are discussions worth having and if that means I have to be devil’s advocate then so be it, but it doesn’t mean I have to be treated like the literal devil.
I was being charitable. As we’ve just discussed, fear makes otherwise smart people come to bad conclusions.