By law, where is the burden of proof? Is self-defense under Stand Your Ground a positive defense against a murder charge? Or rather, is self-defense under Stand Your Ground supposed to render even the possibility of a murder charge null?
In other words, is a DA supposed to charge someone who has claimed SYG rights, whereupon it’s their responsibility to prove an SYG situation occured as a positive defense? Or alternatively, is the DA supposed to not even have people arrested if he can’t prove SYG didn’t apply?
Hence the “make my day” appelation for a related law. These laws are for fantasy world superheros who are in reality predisposed to be afraid of the world.
Re the Martin-Zimmerman case: of course we know an attack occurred - Trayvon Martin was killed as a result of it. But Martin didn’t instigate shit. He had been walking home minding his own business. It was Zimmerman’s bright idea - on a hunch of, golly, that black kid looks suspicious (for some fucking reason, I’m sure) - to instigate confrontation.
Martin end up dead and Zimmerman ends up the centerfold of NRA Monthly.
That’s exactly my question as well. Blake claims that the self-defense claim is evidence that the killer was attacked. If this is true, then these laws are the worst idea ever–all you have to do is confront your victim somewhere where there are no witnesses, and you can murder them with impunity. There’s not really any conceivable physical evidence that can prove you weren’t threatened; so no reasonably intelligent person could ever get convicted of murder. (The victim was unarmed? “Well, officer, he said he had a gun and reached into his pocket. I was naturally afraid for my life–if he did have a gun, and I waited for him to actually point it at me, it could have been too late!”)
If self-defense is still an affirmative defense under the SYG laws–as I’m assuming it must be–then the burden of proof lies on the killer to demonstrate that he really was reasonably in fear of his life. It can’t be enough just to claim it. (Or shouldn’t be …)
If the former is the case, I recommend that Martin’s survivors just hang around Zimmerman’s neighborhood for a while, until they get a chance to shoot him under circumstances where nobody can demonstrate it wasn’t self-defense. That’s how we do things here in the Old West, right? And they should have an even easier time with that SYG defense, since they have demonstrable grounds to believe that Zimmerman carries a firearm and is prepared to use it. I know that I’d be in reasonable fear of my life if he was in my vicinity. Do unto others before they do unto you!
Why? He is not required to prove that it was self defence, only to claim it. The state has to prove it was not self defence, and if they don’t feel they can it is pointless to take it to court.
SYG laws have changed nothing to do with this, so you are arguing against any right to self defence.
But again, it is the police who have discretion to make an arrest. You seem to be arguing that in certain cases that the only proper outcome is an arrest. There are always going to be cases where the police make a decision the public does not like, that isn’t immediate evidence of abuse of discretion.
Deciding whether something is a valid claim of self-defense has always been decided by police and the prosecutors, in many cases they do not pursue criminal charges.
Cite? Normally, the burden of proof when a defendant makes an affirmative defense (of which a self-defense claim to assault or murder is the classic example) lies on the defendant. IANAL, but I’m not aware of any contrary examples …
Martin would not even have been aware of Zimmerman’s existance, if Zimmerman hadn’t come after him. Martin wasn’t packing heat, out on a heroic patrolling of a gated community. He was walking down the street with a bag of Skittles. He did not go after Zimmerman. Zimmerman went after him. He fucking said as much on the phone to the 911 guy. In fact, at one point Zimmerman said Martin was running away!
Claiming self-defense in this instance is utterly moronic. George ‘Barney Fife’ Zimmerman initiated confrontation. End of story.
George Zimmerman’s own description of Martin, which describes a person trying to get away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman then pursued him. Sounds like Zimmerman started it.
Someone has to speak for Trayvon Martin. This has to go to a jury.
I walk for exercise. I wear a hat and gloves when it’s cold. If someone decides to shoot me while I’m walking and claim self defense, I would hope that a jury would decide if I was justifiably killed. After hearing both sides, of course. Seems only fair.
But they don’t differ in this respect from any existing law in the western world.
I don’t think you quite get this. These laws haven’t changed the *evidential *standard for self defence. In every jurisdiction in the western world that I am aware of, the testimony of the killer is all the evidence that is required for an acquital due to self defence.
I don’t think you quite grasp that these laws haven’t changed that in any way at all. In any state in the US, if you follow a thief down the street and he attacks you, you can kill him, then be acquitted solely on your testimony that it was self defence.
The only thing that these laws have changed is that you no longer have to prove that you could have run back home when he came at you. That’s it. That is the sole change.
It does not change the existing law, which dates back to English common law, that personal testimony is sufficient evidence for acquital on the grounds of self defence.
Understand?
So explain why this doesn’t happen under the existing law because nothing has changed in this regard under the new laws.
Of course what you are overlooking is that just because you make a defence, that doesn’t mean the court is going to buy it. Just because there isn’t any evidence that you weren’t threatened, that doesn’t explain why there isn’t any evidence that you were. It also doesn’t remove whatever motive you had to kill the person.
Once again, I think people are falling prey to this Hollywood conception that the world is full of clear-thinking, genius, homicidal maniacs. People who want to kill complete strangers for no reason at all, and who are clear-thinking and dispassionate enough to do so in a situation that looks like self defence, and ingenious enough to concoct a scenario and story that perfectly matches the physical evidence.
I have news for you. That only happens on TV.
In the real world 99% of people don’t want to kill anyone.
Of the remainder, 99% want to kill people they know, so a self defence plea is kinda hard to swallow. Of the people who do kill people they know and try to plead self defence, almost none manage it because it is damn near impossible to manipulate someone into a physical position that will match your story of self defence. It does happen of course, but once again, as that example proves, nothing has changed in this regard under the new laws.
Of the people who do want to kill complete strangers, none of them are dispassionate geniuses who can manipulate people into a situation where they can plausibly claim self defence and then concoct a story that gels with the physical evidence.
While this idea of thousands of cold blooded homicidal geniuses may make for a good crime thriller, it’s not reality.
So explain why this doesn’t happen under the existing law because nothing has changed in this regard under the new laws.
Under US law the burden of proof is never on the accused to prove their innocence. The burden of proof i always on the state to prove their guilt.
If the state fails to prove beyond reasonable that a person is guilty simply because he *says *that he was acting on self defence, then he goes free. It’s that simple. The accused never has to *prove *anything. The burden of proof is always on the state. The accused just has to produce reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. If he can do that simply by testifying that he acted in self defence, then that is all that he needs to do. No proof is ever required.
I don’t know where you got the idea that the burden of proof falls on the accused. That’s total anathema to the whole English justice system and its descendants.
And you really think the prosecutor wouldn’t be able to convince the jury that they had motive for murder? :rolleyes:
Ahh I see. “It sounds like” is now taken as fact in GD is it?
How about this scenario.
Zimmerman walks after Martin with the intention of asking him what he was doing in the area and, if he didn’t have a good excuse, asking him to leave.
Martin, seeing that he is being followed, begins to run.
Zimmerman then also starts to run after Martin. Martin turns, runs towards Zimmerman with the intent to assault him to prevent further pursuit.
Is this scenario not perfectly reasonable? Wouldn’t this scenario also explain Martin describing a person trying to get away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman then pursuing him?
So in fact it doesn’t sound like Zimmerman started the violence at all. The recording doesn’t give any hint as to who started the violence. It is perfectly consistent with either side initiating the violence.
When when you stated as fact that Zimmerman started the violence, you actually had no evidence at all for that claim.
If all they have is the word of the Not Dead Guy that it was self-defence, hell yes it goes to court. Otherwise it’s just Open Season On Black Kids in some parts.
In what sense is “all the physical evidence shows that an attack occurred” just the word of the not dead guy.
Can we have some evidence for this assertion that there are large numbers of people who want to kill black children and are able to manipulate a situation so that there is no physical evidence that contradicts a story of self defence.
Seriously, this is a bizarre and extremely racist assertion, and I would like to see your evidence for it.
Are you willing to pay 80% of your income to the massive taxes you must now raise to fund a 50 fold increase in law enforcement investigators, prosecutors, and judges?
Your “yes” is an opinion you are entitled to, but I doubt you’ve thought it through. If prosecutors were always required to prosecute self defense cases even when they viewed compelling evidence that in their professional opinion made a conviction highly unlikely we would either have a completely non-functioning criminal court system crushed by the weight of massive case loads that could never be worked through or we’d have no personal income because we’d have a criminal court system that employed massively more persons to keep the wheels rolling.