nuggets wrote:kidnemisis wrote:Matthias wrote:Similarly, a criminal defendant's boxing or martial arts experience may be relevant to determining the validity of a self-defense claim. For instance, in _Idaho v. Babbit_, 120 Idaho 337, 815 P.2d 1077 (Idaho App. 1991), the defendant shot the victim and claimed self-defense. The trial court admitted evidence regarding the defendant's past training and experience as a boxer, concluding that it was relevant to a determination of whether the defendant truly believed it was necessary to shoot the victim in order to protect himself and others. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed.
Documented: A criminal defendant's experience in boxing or the martial arts may be relevant to deciding whether the elements of a criminal offense have been proven.
Did we ride the short bus to the cafe today? How can you really post anything like you two have when something like this exists in your own post?
why? because a fact which goes to prove the objective reasonableness of someone's belief in the requirement for further force has nothing to do with whether or not a separate part of the law involving the definition of the classification of things as deadly weapons involves hands.
as an example, if someone is blind and an unarmed teenager who is joking around stands in front of them says, "i have a gun. give me your wallet or i'll shoot" and the blind guy reaches into HIS coat and shoots the teenager, the guy's blindness is relevant in the self-defense determination. that doesn't mean his blindness is a deadly weapon. capiche?
see my earlier advice: read. think. speak.