For the purposes of self-defense the affirmative defense for a self defense case just means the defendant has to make some defense. It could be as simple as just stating “I acted in self defense.” The jury will absolutely not be instructed that “unless the defendant proves his claim of self defense, you must convict.”
I think people often misunderstand what an affirmative defense means, really it’s best understood by contrasting it with a “normal” defense. If my wife disappears and the police believe I’ve murdered her, they have to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she’s dead and that I killed her. Tactically, if my lawyer feels the prosecution’s evidence was weak, I don’t have to present any evidence or testimony in support of my defense at all. I can just passively let the prosecutor present his case and the jury make a decision. I’m under no obligation to do anything.
Under an affirmative defense of self-defense you’ll at least need to present something like my statement to police as evidence. It doesn’t, however, mean that there is a burden of proof on me. And it absolutely does mean if I present a claim that is reasonable, unless the prosecution can show why that claim is unreasonable, I should be acquitted. Even if the prosecution presents 200 guilty scenarios that are reasonable, if he cannot undermine the single reasonable scenario I put forth where I acted in self defense, I would be properly acquitted at trial.
Some affirmative defenses are different, and you’d have to do research on those. For example I know that under some claims of mental defect a judge can rule that you cannot use that defense in court under certain circumstances. That’s an area I’ve seen come up in the news before but I don’t now much about it other than that.
That has nothing to do with the general concept of self defense or Stand Your Ground statutes, there is nothing in common law self defense or the Stand Your Ground statutes that change the nature of the job of the police or change the way in which they must interpret statements taken from suspects. How police interpret those statements is not set in statute but is part of police procedure.
SYG and general self defense have nothing to do with what you’re talking about here.
That’s because you apparently not reading the actual law and are simply taking the rambling opinions of various non-attorneys on the internet as legal precedent.
The law allows you to
“prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony”
It does not, as some would apparently have you believe, give you carte blanche to shoot anyone in the face because you feel like it and then claim they were attacking you.
Legally, it is typically the role of the executive branch officers to investigate crimes and then make decisions about whether to put them before a jury.
In some states Grand Juries can independently investigate any crimes in their jurisdictions and bring charges, although that is much rarer today than it was, say, 200 years ago.
I think we both agree a jury should be a finder of fact. Do we also both agree that in some scenarios the police will rightfully decide not to pursue an arrest? And that in some scenarios a prosecutor will rightfully decide not to pursue a trial?
It has everything to do with this case and the law in general. This is how you are interpreting it. In this case there was no evidence of this being self defence other than the ‘it’s all cool’ word of a potential murderer and some superficial injuries that could have any number of causes.
The police chose not to investigate even to the extent of checking the phone records and discovering he was talking to someone at the time of the alleged attack on the gunned up guy with his deadly arsenal of skittles.
A guy walks up to you out of nowhere and grabs your arm, “Hey faggot!”
You pull your arm away and keep walking.
They guy pulls your arm and says, “I’m talking to you, bitch.”
You say, “Fuck off.”
The guy pushes you. You stumble and keep walking faster. The guy pulls your arm trying to stop you. You spin and say, “keep the fuck off me!” and take a swing at the guy’s nose.
That guy,* in that instant* is then totally justified in shooting you in the face. *And that’s a good thing? *
Only if there’s enough evidence to take it to trial. If there’s no reason to doubt the statement of self defence, there’s no trial, as there’s no evidence of a crime.
This isn’t the situation in the Zimmerman case, which is going to a Grand Jury, who will decide if there is enough evidence to charge him.
There is nothing in the SYG statute that states the police must accept anyone’s word at face value. There is nothing in the SYG statute that mandates any changes to how police investigate crimes or come to decisions on who to arrest.
If there is a full and thorough investigation that brings up real evidence that supports self defence. That is emphtically not the case here. This looks to me like a clear case of pre-meditated murder. He pursued the victim whom he had no reason to suspect of a crime and against the instructions of the dispatcher. He got out of the safety of his vehicle and confronted the victim and then claimed he had to shoot an unarmed kid in self defence.
Nothing about that scenario suggests self-defense, except on the part of the kid.
This looks for all the world like a gun-toting fantasist out looking for any excuse and it beggars belief that the police essentially took him at his word.
Running down the street with a knife is not what Garcia would be charged with. He would be charged with stabbing someone to death. Given the physical evidence (presumably physical evidence on the knife plus the surveillance tape), plus the putative motive, the state has made its prima facie case for murder. It is up to the defendant then to offer evidence of self defense. You are saying that all he has to do is say that he was attacked, and then the state has to prove that he wasn’t attacked. Are you a lawyer? I would like to hear what an actual lawyer has to say about that.
The “fact” that Garcia pleaded self defense is not any kind of evidence of anything. The state has to prove that Garcia killed Roteta; based on the evidence, this is not even in dispute. The state does not have to prove a negative, i.e. that there was no assault on Garcia. If any evidence of such an attack was offered, it would be up to the state to refute or counter that evidence if it could. If all the defense has is the say-so of the accused, I think the state’s job is done.
If a homicide is proven, it is incumbent on the defense to provide evidence that it was justifiable. You are correct that the defense can just say “but he attacked me”. I don’t believe any judge or jury in their right mind would accept that without any further evidence.
Of course. And I am saying this should not be one of those scenarios. Under the facts of the Martin Case it is an abuse of discretion to fail to make an arrest.
If you disagree, then please address my standing-over-my-wife-with-a-smoking-gun scenario. If I say “It was self defense!” should that be the end of the matter?
The guy grabbing your arm in that scenario was engaged in unlawful activity.
Even in states without a stand your grand law, there are always things that must be weighed anytime a fight breaks out and one person kills another and claims self defense.
Provocation is a legal concept that if I provoke you into assaulting me, that can diminish or even eliminate your legal culpability.
How provocation intersects with the right to use self defense to protect yourself from great bodily harm is no simple issue. If I provoke you in the scenario above, and then immediately shoot you it’s possible I can successfully argue self defense. However under the letter of the law I think it is most likely I would not be able to sustain my claims in that scenario.
It’s a complicated issue, though. If I provoke you into attacking me, do you think that means at no point in the attack should I be able to legally use self-defense? Even if I provoke someone, I don’t believe (opinion) that gives them the right to beat me to death.
Instead, if I provoke someone I think it means there should be a higher bar for a self-defense claim. In many States if you have provoked a fight you can only legally use self defense if you fear grave bodily harm or death is imminent, and you have no means of escape. That’s often the official requirement for any self defense, though.
I’m not talking about a specific case. However, in general at what point do you think police should make an arrest if they see a claim of self defense where they have some doubt as to the suspect’s claim?
My opinion is that there is not a straight forward answer to that question. If I’m a police officer and I arrive on the scene of a homicide and the shooter is there freely admitting the act but claiming self defense you’ll obviously take him in for questioning. If during questioning he puts forth an “initially plausible” claim of self defense but where I see some potential holes, I don’t know that the right decision is to arrest right away.
I’d have to weigh a lot of different interests. Do I think this guy is going to be an ongoing threat? If so, you might need to arrest right then.
But if not, and if I believe maybe his story doesn’t hold up, I think it is tactically superior to release him. That puts him at ease, maybe a few days later you call him back in after you’ve collected some more physical evidence. You call him in under the pretense that “you need some help with the case, just because your boss needs you to dot all your i’s and cross all your t’s to get the paperwork finished.” Then when you reinterview him you start subtly contrasting some new physical evidence with his previous testimony…suddenly he starts changing his statement to reflect the new evidence, however parts of how he change it undermine other parts of his original statement. You eventually reveal to him that his story no longer makes sense, and the evidence you have on hand suggests he is lying.
Then you start empathizing with him and trying to basically get him to admit to what really happened. A huge majority of criminal cases, to my understanding, end precisely like that: with police soliciting a confession. It also very often happens with no defense counsel present.
If I arrest someone, the chance that they get counsel goes up dramatically. If I arrest someone, they know I think they’re guilty, and they are much less likely to help my case by stupidly coming in for a second interview where I expose their lies and inconsistencies.
So to go back to my original point, don’t you think it is often very reasonable for police to not arrest someone immediately in a case of claimed self defense?
I suppose it’s possible that this varies by jurisdiction, but most typically, if you assert an affirmative defense, you do have the burden of proving that defense (typically by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt).
Do you have some information indicating that Florida law is otherwise?
If Garcia presents one single reasonable alternative to the prosecution’s claim of malicious murder/homicide, by proffering a reasonable self defense claim, the prosecution must undermine that reasonable claim.
Reasonable being interpreted by a jury…meaning if there is a reasonable claim of self defense to a jury the prosecution will either disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt or suffer a defeat at verdict time.
That’s what I mean when I say a “reasonable claim of self defense.” There is not a device in a court room with an indicator gauge that lights up when a claim of self defense has been made that seems reasonable to the jury. It’s up to a jury to decide if it is reasonable or not. If the self defense claim is reasonable, then there is reasonable doubt that still exists as to whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime he is charged with. So if the prosecutor does nothing to disprove that reasonable claim, he has left reasonable doubt on the table and the defendant will be acquitted.
If you want to get precise on legal terminology however, the requirement of a defendant to produce their claim of self defense is referred to as the burden of production, if they assert self defense they have to produce an actual defense, they can’t just present no defense and hope that the prosecutor lacks evidence necessary for a conviction (at least not if they want to be acquitted.) However it is not properly considered a burden of proof.
Killing is not against the law. The state has to prove a crime was committed. It seems they won’t have a hard time in this case, though.
In general, regarding other comments in this thread, I don’t believe every case of self-defense need appear before a jury. It is the job of the police to collect evidence of a crime and present it to the prosecutor for possible prosecution. If the police and prosecutors don’t think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, then that’s that. Innocent until proven guilty, even with a dead body.
There is also a further ethical question. If I’m a prosecutor I can be assumed an expert in the law. If during an investigation a large amount of compelling evidence is found making a self-defense claim not just reasonable but very likely to be true, and I personally believe it I think it would be unethical for me to proceed with a trial against that person. Prosecutors are not ethically supposed to prosecute people who to the best of their professional legal opinion they believe to be factually innocent.
In a hypothetical case where I chase someone down to kill them in revenge for stealing from me, the stand your ground statute does not protect that behavior.