He has misstated the Law several times and has made arguments that I’ve never seen a prosecutor make before.
Ex: I have never read/heard/seen the argument: “defendant is a pussy for using a weapon cuz he should have just fist fought the 3+ guys”. Arguments against self defense almost always turn on if there was an actual threat of bodily harm to defendant and if the force used in defense was reasonable in comparison to the threat.
Here, the prosecution is arguing that Yes, there were multiple threats to (and actual) bodily harm but self defense shouldn’t apply cuz it was just a simple fist fight. This is AFTER one of the attackers gave sworn testimony in court that Defendant did not shoot him until attacker pulled a handgun and pointed it at Defendant. This testimony was corroborated with 2 different sources of video evidence from law enforcement.
So AFTER it has been established the self defense didn’t happen until a gun was drawn and pointed the prosecution is STILL arguing self defense shouldn’t apply cuz just boys being boys fist a cuffs basic locker room stuff why you being a pussy using a gun?
Never seen anything like it.
Given the evidence on record. (Attacker testimony, video x2, defendant testimony) Arguing self defense shouldn’t apply because use of a gun was unreasonable after NOT trying to impeach the attacker witness (and the video evidence x2) is literal bad faith arguing.
PS: not to mention their argument of “well he brought a gun so he was asking for it” is literally “rape victim was asking for it dressed like that”. I also see some media and blue checks on Twitter using this argument of “well he had a gun so he was hunting for trouble”… amazing. The argument lacks logic or any legal basis. It’s one thing for idiot journalists and blue checks on Twitter to say but the District Attorney and assistant DA arguing this in court is insane.