This crap right here is why **Steophan **is such a shit poster.
That’s a contradiction - he is only guilty if found guilty by the court, until that point he’s innocent.
That’s a fair point, though - I was assuming fair juries. I’ll change what I said to someone should only be put on trial if there’s a high probability that a fair court would find them guilty. “High probability” is intentionally left vague, and should be left to prosecutional discretion; however, a prosecutor who fails to win a majority of cases he brings is, in my opinion, failing to do his job properly.
No, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defence. It’s not the judge that imposes that burden, it’s the law. And morality, and justice.
Killing someone in self defence is not a crime. It is not wrong. It is not an act that deserves punishment or censure, and it’s usually a sign that someone is a victim of crime. To convict someone who claims to have killed in self defence of murder without proving that it wasn’t self defence is, as I’ve repeatedly said, disgustingly wrong.
That it may be difficult to prove that is absolutely fucking irrelevant.
As I have demonstrated repeatedly, this is false. That you persist in perpetuating this misunderstanding of the law is despicable.
Well for me, it’s the racism first, but yeah otherwise I agree.
No, you haven’t. You’ve simply stated that it’s not, despite repeated cites, in this thread and many others, that it’s the way I say. The law is what it is, not what you want it to be.
Honestly, there’s no real excuse to be unaware of this law if you have any interest in the subject. It’s been all over the media, in relation to several high profile cases over the last few years. And yet people like you still try to claim that laws are still the way they were a decade ago, and worse still to claim that changes that make it harder to convict innocent people are bad changes.
Well you’ve both added a great deal to the threat with your posts that contain nothing but falsehoods and insults.
I think you know what I mean.
I think most of the disagreement here is inside the concepts here that are “left vague”, whether intentionally or not.
It seems to me that it’s entirely possible that the prosecution could establish a line of reasoning that the jury finds convincing enough to eliminate any claim of self-defense “beyond a reasonable doubt”…
For example, in a no-witness murder case in which the killer claims the victim attacked him first, but with evidence that the killer had planned the encounter, had a motive to kill the victim, and had previously told others that he wanted the person dead, the jury may decide that the case is established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense, despite the lack of physical evidence that would disprove that the victim attacked the killer first.
My understanding of the legal concepts of murder trials would allow a guilty verdict, which is (from my understanding) contrary to your assertions about what is required.
When has there ever been a case where the only evidence was the defendant’s claim of self defense? A circumstance where, for example, somebody walks into a police station and announces “I killed a guy in self defense and I’m not saying anything else”, i.e. providing no details police can use in their investigation. Assuming police identify the suspect and get a warrant to search their home and workplace (and find no victim or evidence of a victim), and question his associates (assuming they can find any) and get no information about a murder, and if they check for recent reports of corpses being discovered and find none that can be linked to the claimant, then I guess they would have to let him go and no prosecutor could continue or jury convict.
If there is a body, though, and witnesses to the circumstances and maybe a weapon that can be linked via forensics… then, yes, proceed to indictments, possibly trials, possibly convictions and possibly imprisonments. A claim of self-defense does not as a matter of practicality exist in a vacuum. For what it’s worth, Zimmerman’s defense involved calling witnesses to support his claim of self-defense; his assertion made before the trial (and to which he did not personally testify, though he was under no obligation to) was not enough to get the case kicked.
And the law says the claim of self defense must be “reasonable”. That is not a standard that can be reached objectively, like finding fingerprints or DNA. Demonstrating the quality of reasonableness is not proving that a crime has been committed, only that self-defense is not a valid defense. The prosecutor still has to present evidence that the defendant committed the crime. Since self defense is not a crime, determining the reasonableness of a self defense claim is not arguing guilt or innocence, only persuading the jury that it is unreasonable.
Why is that so hard for you?
I would hope, at the very least, that someone could not be convicted of murder in that circumstance, simply because it is possible that despite that planning and intent, the deceased did, in fact, attack the defendant without provocation in such a way that could justify self defence. To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt you would need to rule that possibility out.
If the law allows such a conviction, the law is immoral. This can, and will, lead to some people getting away with killing people when, if we had all the facts, they would be convicted. That is not a problem - convicting innocent people is a problem.
Why is what so hard for me? The state have to prove the defendant guilty. That’s not a complicated thing, but you (and others) seem unwilling to accept it. It’s been cited many, many times, by me and many others, in this thread and many others. If you refuse to accept what is clearly the case, I can’t help you.
I disagree on most of this, except that convicting innocent people is a problem. That’s a problem, but so is allowing innocent people to get away with murder. I don’t believe the scenario described puts an onerous burden on the innocent.
Of course. Guilt or innocence is an objective conclusion. But they only have to prove the claim of self defense is unreasonable. That is a subjective conclusion, so all a prosecutor has to do is present a line of reasoning that persuades a jury that it is unreasonable.
Mistake, or comment on my opinion that someone not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is innocent?
Either way, allowing people who can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a crime to go free is not a problem - it’s a fundamental part of justice.
The state have to (except in Ohio) prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in a self defence case. This is fact, well cited, here and elsewhere. Either what you are saying is a paraphrase of that, or it’s wrong. I cited the California law earlier, Florida law has been exhaustively cited, here’s another example.
I’m not going through every fucking state to prove you wrong (again), mainly because it’s already been done. It’s not some big secret that the right to self defence has finally started to be properly recognised across America in the last decade.
The law doesn’t work the way you want just because you want it to, no matter how much you claim it or how much you insult me.
A mistake.
This isn’t what we’re disagreeing on – we’re disagreeing on what might constitute “beyond reasonable doubt”, not whether this bar must be met.
You’re talking past him – he’s saying that if the prosecution demonstrates that the claim of self-defense is unreasonable, this can be enough (paired with other evidence, such as an admission by the defendant) to constitute “beyond reasonable doubt” for the jury.
No one is arguing that the jury does not need to be convinced it was murder beyond reasonable doubt, we’re just arguing about what can constitute a case that proves murder beyond reasonable doubt.