I have actually been keeping up with this an watched the hearing this morning.
Up until the actual confrontation, no one had did anything wrong. Mr Zs story is that the kid confronted him, Mr Z reached for his phone an the kid hit him, knocking him to the ground an then the kid got on top of him an started bashing his head in to the sidewalk. Mr Z pulled his gun an the 2 fought for the gun up until the point that Mr Z shot him. If that is what actually happened then Mr Z did nothing legally wrong. Not that that means the kid did anything wrong ether.
There is no question at this point that it ended the way Mr Z said. How the fight started is the key question. The state has to prove to 12 that Mr Z was the aggressor to get a conviction of any crime.
Up until today I believed that if Mr Z is convicted it would be because of that 911 tape. He did nothing wrong in that tape an it has no legal power, nor does a dispatchers recommendations. It is admissible an what it does do is help sell a jury on the idea that Mr Z was the aggressor.
Today, after sitting threw the bond hearing I now believe that if Mr Z is convicted it will be because he failed to lawyer up. He talked enough to give the state a chance to try to say hes story contradicts its self. Weather it does or not, I dont know but the state will say it does.
As for weather he should have been charged? He said he committed a homicide. He clams self defense. If the DA truly believes it was an he has no chance of a conviction then the DA can chose to file no charges. But he has every right to file charges an let a jury decide. My opinion, he should have been charged right off. Not that I think they had a case. I think he will walk. But this was not a "no question" self defense case an the dead person was not committing a crime that caused the incident. Even if the DA did not think he could get a conviction, the kids family deserved there day in court.
