OK, I understand this is lawyer speak but isn’t that an oxymoron? If he “Reasonably Believed” can he be “Incorrect”? I mean really, either you reasonably believe you need to defend yourself or you don’t. I guess the court/trial can make it look like it was incorrect but in the end if one really, reasonably believes, it seems they are guilty only of defending ones self.
“May shot Kauva once in the chest, his defense attorney Rudy Bautista said during Friday’s hearing, and did so “while reasonably but incorrectly believing that he was legally justified or excused by self defense.”
Is his lawyer testifying?
Just a guess but what is reasonable to you at the time may not be reasonable to 12 other folks.
- Some dots are missing. IE: what happened before the confrontation. Could it have been avoided ? Seems like it was planned.
- when we hear ( self defense shooting ) we Assume or would like to think it was justified. In Reality this is part of a even bigger problem in that charges are plea-bargained down in firearm criminal cases. ( So let’s make more gun laws )
Think about it.
May shot Kauva once in the chest, his defense attorney Rudy Bautista said during Friday’s hearing, and did so “while reasonably but incorrectly believing that he was legally justified or excused by self defense.”
Kauvaka and his brother-in-law had met May and another man, Edgar Omar Esquivel, at the Sunnyvale Apartments, 3990 S. 700 West, to fight after Equivel allegedly threatened to kill a woman and her infant son, police said.
You don’t go to a fight armed and shoot someone claiming “self defense”!
Yep, going planning to fight is NOT self defense
I suppose he questioned his actions because he took a plea deal.
I’m sorry, I don’t care if I’m accused of Jay-Walking, if I’m not guilty I’m sitting in orange until trial. Assuming there was no bond on his charge.