I demand justice for Daniel AdkinsJr

[houie925]

Sorry, I apparently wasn't clear enough with the question. I said that his lawyer would instruct him to say what was necessary to get him the lightest sentence, or preferably off, possible. You responded that he would say what he had to and the jury would decide the outcome. My question, how is this different?, stems from that. How is what you said, other than fleshing it out because your assuming that a lesson in the justice system is needed, any different from what I said. Hopefully that clears up your confusion on that point.

I'm not arguing that he should get away with it, but that he might just as I feel Z did. I think anyone who resorts to deadly force as a first reaction, or because they purposely put themselves into that situation, should have the book thrown at them.

Here is another fine example of wrongful assumptions and overreaction.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-fatal-shooting-of-13-year-old-neighbor?lite=

Jude's initial statement indicated his use of deadly force wasn't justified, again judging by the limited information I have, but is likely to get him a manslaughter conviction because it seems he mistakenly believed at the time that he was justified. More evidence or witness testimony obviously may change that to a not guilty or a murder two conviction.

Zimmerman's initial statement, as well as every statement after, indicated he was in a situation that would justify deadly force in self defense. The evidence supported his claim as did the witness testimony regarding the fight.

What I was clarifying was that Jude's initial statements, if admitted in court, will have to be weighed against whatever Jude or his lawyer say during the trial and the jury has more to consider than just his statements and testimony.