You are correct that it’s the same, in that they don’t have to demonstrate the necessity at all (in 49 states). If there isn’t strong evidence that it wasn’t self defence, the process that is due is to not charge them with a crime.
We don’t make people prove their innocence, we expect those accusing them to prove their guilt.
This refers to charging them with a crime, not with them keeping their job - it may be right to sack someone who can’t be proven guilty of a crime. But that person still keeps their presumed innocence, as far as the law is concerned.
I’ll say again what I’ve said before. Someone who kills in self defence is (in almost all circumstances) the victim of a crime, not a criminal. The other circumstances are tragic mistakes, when they are still not a criminal. What you are asking is that the victim of a crime prove themselves not to be a criminal - that is morally unacceptable, and fortunately becoming legally unacceptable in more and more places.
Except that we **do **make people who kill in self-defense prove that they are in fact a victim and not a criminal. That’s how we determine it was self-defense and not just a post hoc excuse tagged on to murder. Were you not aware of this?
Only in one of the 50 states is that the case. Self-defence is no longer an affirmative defence anywhere else in the US. Hopefully everywhere will follow that, and stop making the victims of crime prove their innocence.
It’s almost certainly sarcasm, but in light of Steophan’s latest, it seems logical to make certain the other person is dead in any self-defense situation (or what can be later claimed as such). Even if they’re running away, chase them down and finish them off to minimize later “second guessing”.
Adaher, is that you pretending to be Steophan? 'Cause that’s about the dumbest statement I have come across on the SDMB in a long, long time. In your fight against ignorance, you have knocked yourself out.
You seem to be confusing the ‘burden of proof’ carried by the state (except in Ohio) with ‘presumption of innocence.’ Prosecutors are not bound by any such presumption; in fact it’s their job to determine if an admitted killer can be charged with a criminal violation for that act and if so, if they can then be prosecuted on that charge with a reasonable expectation of success.
So yes, the state must prove false beyond a reasonable doubt one or more of the statutory elements (which differ from state to state) necessary for a jury to determine the validity of a self-defense plea. But that plea can and should be defended in court whenever a prosecutor sees a good case for criminal liability.
What?? I can’t just shoot someone in a dark alley and then claim self-defense if they catch me. If there are no witnesses, how can the state prove me wrong.
Nope, it’s a fact that has been cited repeatedly in this thread and others. You appear, like many people here, to be confusing what you think the law should be with what it actually is.
The prosecutor may not require the defendant to prove themselves innocent. The burden is always, and entirely, on the prosecutor to prove guilt. And they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, not just “one or more”.
Yes, if there’s strong evidence that it was not self defence they should be tried. But only in that case, and in the absence of that evidence they retain the innocence they are presumed to have.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, hit on why most people don’t falsely claim self defence when they’ve actually committed a murder - because it requires admitting to all the other elements of murder, including killing someone.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Your first two paragraphs are incorrect, and your third paragraph begs the question. I’ll keep the explanations simple for you.
First, “elements of the crime” is not the same thing as ‘elements of self-defense’. Disproving self-defense can be done by showing that any of the conditions typically required by law for justification were not present: reasonable fear, reasonable belief that the force used was necessary, that the ‘defender’ did not provoke or instigate the altercation, that the incident did not occur while the defendant was engaged in other criminal activity. In some states, that the defendant did not ignore a reasonable and clear route of retreat.
Second, “presumption of innocence” is not the same thing as presumption of self-defense. Unless evidence actually exists to show self-defense, the state does not presume it merely because it’s asserted by the killer they’ve identified. The state is supposed to investigate wrongful deaths and prosecute those who perpetrate them if evidence exists that points to an individual who committed the act. They don’t look for evidence that a killing was not self defense, they look for evidence that x person was killed and that y person or persons did it. Credible or strong evidence that points to self defense is indeed a reason not to prosecute, but absent that evidence for self defense, the state should prosecute.
Third, you assume that self-defense is rarely claimed falsely and offer as evidence the fact that a claim of self-defense requires admitting you killed somebody. That’s not a valid construction.
When I googled “Is self-defense an affirmative defense” I got a mess of links, none of which address the question directly, but all of which presume that the answer is yes, and many of which seem to be written by lawyers. They are not all speaking about the same state’s jurisdiction, either.
Can you provide some documentation for what you’re saying here?
Later claims “self-defense” and says kid was driving right at him. However…
"The autopsy revealed the first shot entered Hammond’s left rear shoulder, said Bland, and the second one entered five inches away at a downward angle into his side from behind — cutting through the man’s heart and lungs before exiting his lower right side.
“The shots were so close in proximity to each other that it would be physically impossible unless the car was stopped and the officer came up very close to an open window,” Bland said. “Picture a car going 20 miles an hour and I’m fortunate enough to get a shot off, and I hit you — there’s no way I can get the second shot if the car’s going 20 miles an hour.”"
The elements of the offence of talking out one’s ass are:
Having made an asinine statement, and
Having done so intentionally.
If the prosecution proves with evidence all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, then a conviction will follow unless the accused succeeds with an affirmative defence, such as imbecility.
In fairness to Steophan, he never studied law, doesn’t live in the country, and educates himself solely through message board postings. So go easy on the guy.
And, in fairness to me, I never studied law either, and only have access to the same internets as everyone else. Maybe he should stop skimming articles for language that seems to support what he already believes. (Just a thought, Steophan. It works for other people.)
