Just watching the closing arguments. Now again, the defense lawyer is going to say what they have to say and do what they can, as they should. But his argument that the defendant "could have" shot and killed Ahmad from the start upon first contact, but did not. Not the point. The defendant and the two others, chased Ahmad for almost 5 minutes. Then the defense lawyer argued his client was scared for his life. How does that make sense? 3 against 1, no mention of "citizens arrest to Ahmad, and even the defendant admitted that. If the defendant was so scared, why did he, and the two others pursue for so long?
And the "criminal trespass" argument is also bullshit. Wells Fargo fleeced countless customers and investors, and got a mere fine, with iron clad evidence. But if a minority steals a candy bar, that gives vigilantes the right to murder them?
The defendants were not scared, they wanted to play hero. They only became fearful at the end because they realized they were in over their heads. No matter what anyone thinks of Ahmad, he did not deserve to die.
And the "criminal trespass" argument is also bullshit. Wells Fargo fleeced countless customers and investors, and got a mere fine, with iron clad evidence. But if a minority steals a candy bar, that gives vigilantes the right to murder them?
The defendants were not scared, they wanted to play hero. They only became fearful at the end because they realized they were in over their heads. No matter what anyone thinks of Ahmad, he did not deserve to die.
