Chance3290 said:
Yes, since your stories didn't occur in the US, then the US laws would be applicable.
In what country are you charged with murder because you have long hair?
And in your # four story, if someone comes after you with a knife and you take away the knife, you also take away your reason to use deadly force in self-defense.
You said he proved self-defense eight years later, and if he lived with the death penalty, he would have been executed. tookie lived on death row for about 20 years before he was executed.
Of course, these legal opinions are only applicable in the US, apparently not in the land of your stories.
The us is a common law jurisdiction.The "common law" is just that - it is common to the us,england,canada,trinidad,new zealand,australia,india,ceylon and other countries.Judges in all these countries accept arguments based on precedent established in other common law jurisdictions.The best known example is "habeas corpus" which was established in england but applies to all the above jurisdictions.
Bob was charged with murder because the police officer investigating took a dislike to him based on his appearance and attitude.Black people in the us (and other countries) are more likely to be charged with an offence if the police officer is white.It is not unusual for police officers to charge someone with an offence,knowing them to be innocent,just to cause inconvenience to them and get revenge for something like an insult.This is why lawyers advise clients to be polite to the police,even though there is no legal requirement to do so.Police everywhere have common values and attitudes and are usually unsympathetic to those who do not share those values.
If,having disarmed an attacker,someone has reasonable cause to believe that a further attack is imminent,then that person is entitled to use deadly force to defend themselves.In this case,the person charged was being slammed headfirst into a cupboard and other knives were lying nearby.The legal argument was about the likelihood of death resulting from the continued attack.A few years ago a detective discovered that 2 of his child relatives were being abused .the alleged offender was arrested,charged and bailed.the detective went to the alleged offender's house and shot him dead.He was subsequently acquitted on the grounds of self defence.
The death penalty was abolished 8 years before this happened.The procedure then was for any appeal to be heard within weeks of the verdict and if unsuccessful,the death sentence was carried out immediately.A number have been posthumously pardoned since then,which is not much consolation.Had the death penalty been in place then my acquaintance would have been executed and would have been able to get a retrial,a process which took 8 years of determined lobbying by a lawyer acting pro bono.
Without having any particular sympathy for williams he very obviously received 2 sentences for his crimes,the first being the 20 years on death row and the second being the actual execution.
