1. The verdict was fair especially based on the information given after the case. The defendant didn't have to hit the victim that many times and push him to the ground if he was defending himself. He even instigated by calling up and asking the victim if they were coming to the park.
2. The defendant was submissive during the questioning and didn't really give much information other than what happened. He could have been more informative but he chose to keep information that would hurt him to himself. He avoided certain questions as well.
1) I feel that verdict was too lenient. The defendant was proved guilty and I believe that due to the fact that some people believed it was simply a part of the game the verdict was lenient. According to the elements of the crime he was guilty and he did not seem to regret his actions.
2) I believe that the defendant was not being entirely truthful throughout the case. I believe that at times he would be truthful but at the same time he would attempt to make himself look like the victim.
1. I think it was fair because all the elements were thought carefully about
2. I don’t think he was truthful it seemed like he wasn’t being honest and tried to switch his story up
1) I feel like he was innocent because Tyler was doing the hitting in self defense because the other guy pushed him first
2)Yes because he was trying to let all he’s testimony out and especially if the last part was true then the case just go worse because it was an adult to a teen
The verdict wasn’t fair because he wasn’t guilty. He acted out of fear. He explained that he had problems with the kid before and went the fight happened he was scared the boy was going to hit him again.
I believe the defendant was being truthful because everything he said matched with what the statement said. Everything added up and made sense. He explained thoroughly everything that had happened.
1. I don’t think that the verdict was fair because as he said he was scared for his life in that moment and they both had history together so they obviously didn’t like each other but he shouldn’t pushed him first
2. I do feel that he was telling the truth the whole time as he didn’t seem nervous at all he felt calm and confident in every answer
Q1: I do feel like the verdict was fair however I feel that we should have given more community service hours because it would have benefited the defendant.
Q2: I feel that the defendant was avoiding answering questions for example when he was asked where he got into the mentoring program he keep giving blunt answers. We later found out his mom was a probation officer and got his case pulled back so it wouldn’t show on his permanent record.
1. I don't feel the verdict was fair because the jury did not ask the proper questions.
2. I do believe the defendant was being truthful through out the case because everything seemed reasonable and realistic.
Q1: I do feel the the verdict was fair because the defendant could have the left the fight and ran to the police.
Q2:the defendant was being truth up to a certain point but left out specifc details in the case.
Q1: I thought the verdict was fair because the defendant did not engage the fight instead he ran to the police station, and did the responsible thing to do.
Q2: I did believe the defendant was being truthful just forgot to mention key details about the action the parents did or did not do.
Q.1 In some sense I do believe it was fair because us the jury did not punish him as harass as we should have, but he did not have any records of any prior of fighting.
Q.2 Yes I felt like he was speaking the truth because every answer he responded he sound confident that the story he told was the honest truth
Q1- In some sense the case was fair, but i do beileve the case could have given a stricter punishment.
Q2- No i beileve there wasnt as much trust in his case. He was avoiding alot.
I believe the verdict was fair in the sense of looking out for the defendant,they assumed this was to show the defendant not to do something like this again and there is consequences to one actions.
I believe the defendant was being truthful in the case by how he admitted to throwing the first punch and bringing up the prior incident between him and victim.
i believe the verdict was fair in the sense of looking out for the defendant, to show the defendant not to do something like that again and there’s consequences to one actions.
I believe the defendant was being truthful by how he admitted to throwing the first punch and bringing up the prior incident between him and the victim.
Q1: Yes i feel that the verdict was a little bit unfair because he looked like a good kid.It also dint seem like all of this was a really big deal but it ended up being more than just a small fight.
Q2: I feel that most of the time he was being truthful and wasn't trying to lie or was lying
Q1- Yes I believe the verdict was correct because I don’t think that she was guilty and should have gotten more punishments.
Q2- yes I believe she was being truthful because she was taking it serious and didn’t laugh when people would ask her questions.
Q1: I believe the verdict was unfair because the right questions weren't being asked. There was a lot about the situation that was left unclear. The was the defendant explained the story expresses a self defense case, but the report said otherwise.
Q2: I believe the defendant was being truthful throughout the case. He was doing his best to fill in the gaps. He didn't go back on his word and didn't change his story.
I feel the verdict was not fair because the boys were playing a sport which was basketball and basketball is a physical sport. Also, the boys had a past and the defendant was only defending himself.
2.I do believe the defendant was being truthful because just the way he spoke he seemed like he was not lying. Also, he was very energetic and never hesitated.
1) I feel that the verdict was unfair, he should have been not guilty. He had a good reason for what he did. It was because of his past and he was scared. He was just trying to defend himself and trying to stand up for himself.
2) I believe the defendant was being truthfull throughout the whole case, he is a good kid who has good grades. I don’t think he said anything he didn’t mean to say, he told the truth of what happened that day.
Q1: I feel like he was innocent because he is a very active kid that has only gotten into fight in the past. He is also top of his class.
Q2: Yes, I believe the defendant was being truthful throughout the whole case because we had witnesses to contradict his story if he was lying.
Q1- I did not think the verdict was fair at all. The young boy had went to the lark to play basketball with his friends but things got a little intense and the two boys ended up fighting. The reason I had thought he was innocent though is because in the 6th or 7th grade the boy the defendant had fought had severely hurt him by pushing him into a steel pole and giving him back inflammation and causing him to go to the hospital. With that being said the defendant knew exactly what that other boy was capable of and reacted before it could happen again. Therefore the defendant reacted in self defense and should not have been convicted guilty.
Q2-I do believe that the defendant was being honest throughout the case. The whole story had made complete sense and if he were lying things would not have fully added up. The defendant did not look like he would want to start problems unless previous trauma was involved like it was.
1. I do believe the verdict was fair, but at the same time, I believe it was too lenient. There should have been more community service added so that the defendant could learn more from his actions.
2. I do not believe the defendant was being entirely truthful. He would keep information and also make himself look like the victim and would constantly switch up his story.
1) I feel like the defendant was innocent because he was hitting in self defense because the other individual threw the first punch.
2)Yes, he was trying to explain how he was the victim and even worse, an adult attempted to made contact with him with intent. (The mother of the other underage boy)
1. I don’t think the verdict was fair because he stated many times that it was self defense and he wasn’t gonna let the kid hurt him. Besides they already had problems in the past which explains why the defendant found the urge to defend himself from any violence.
2. The defendant was being truthful because the answered every question that was asked from the jury correctly which matched the statement that was provided.
The vertdicr was not fair because i voted not guilty there was some evidence that could of indecated that i believe that the past trauma made him acted in self defense.
The defendant was being truth and I believe that he was innocent because he complied and answered all the questions asked.
1) I believe that the verdict was unfair because there was a possibility that the defendant acted in self defense due to past trauma.
2) The defendant I believe was truthful he did not hesitate when asked questions and he was very compliant.
The verdict wasn’t fair because he wasn’t guilty. He acted out of self-defense. He explained that he had problems with the kid before and went the fight happened he was scared the boy was going to hit him again & he didn’t want to risk it.
I believe the defendant was being truthful because everything he said matched. Everything added up and made sense. He explained thoroughly with detail everything that had happened & put us in his perspective.
I believe the verdict was not fair. It was a little too lenient because the defendant was at fault on multiple occasions. The defendant didn't give clear answers and did not seem to regret his actions.