Defender acquitted in FLA case
I'd posted earlier on a Florida case where a fellow decided to attack a guy walking his dog, got two other folks (one a gang leader) to help him pulverize the person ... and they found to their dismay that the person was armed and able to shoot.
He's been found not guilty. In the meantime, tho, he sat in jail for eight months, his house has been burned down and his dogs been euthanized (I assume they were picked up when he was). The prosecutor's comments leave me wondering why he went ahead with the case (and note that a baseball bat was found near one of the dead thugs -- they obviously would have demolished the guy had he not been able to shoot):
"Williams, who argued that only Borden's first five shots could be construed as self-defense, said it was difficult to overcome the evidence that even the surviving victim, Juan Mendez, conceded the men planned to beat Borden.
Williams said he was upfront with the jury about the reputations of the men involved as well as their plans to hurt Borden because he wanted a fair trial.
"The truth hurt me in this case," said Williams, who expressed no surprise at the verdict. "They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. It's tough to put yourself in that guy's shoes and say he didn't act appropriately. It's really tough.""