“Homicide” in this instance meaning actions or willful inactions that lead to a human death, regardless of whether that meets the standard of a crime. Harking back to the infamous Martin/Zimmerman case, we had a situation with two competing narratives:
[ul]
[li]Pro-Zimmerman: in a neighborhood with previous burglaries, neighborhood watch investigates suspicious person, gets viciously attacked, and has to use lethal force in self-defense.[/li][li]Anti-Zimmerman: racist cop wannabe profiles African-American youth, puts himself in harm’s way, initiates a confrontation, and when he’s getting his butt kicked pulls an equalizer. Another black youth dead at a white person’s hands.[/li][/ul]But ultimately Zimmerman was acquitted (after the authorities initially saw insufficient evidence even to indict) because under Florida law making someone dead is not in and of itself a crime- the elements of murder or manslaughter have to be proven to be present, and there was no compelling evidence contradicting Zimmerman’s account. By the letter of the law technically correct; but short of inventing a time viewer there are millions of people who will always believe that Zimmerman got away with murder. So should all homicides require an affirmative defense against criminal charges?
I’m curious about the details of the highlighted part of the narrative, but to answer the main question: even if we’re just constraining the discussion to homicides within the United States (I assume you don’t want to put our soldiers on trial for shooting / bombing bad guys overseas), NO! It’s a horrible idea to want to hold a trial and have the defendant establish an affirmative defense for every single “homicide”. For starters, there are more than 30,000 deaths each year from traffic accidents. The consensus is that most of those people don’t deserve to be put on trial / imprisoned for tragic accidents. Even if we constrain the discussion to just “intentional homicides”, plenty of those are justified, and there’s often enough evidence that they’re justified, that a trial would be a waste of time and resources. Let the prosecutors / grand juries decide, just like they do now in, if the evidence supports bringing charges.
A few points about the Zimmerman case -
[ul][li]It is not simply the case that there was no evidence contradicting Zimmerman’s account. There was a fair amount of evidence confirming it. [/li][li]There is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated violence or acted illegally towards Martin.[/li][li]Possibly Bricker or one of the other Great Legal Minds of the SDMB will weigh in. I hope so, but my understanding is that Zimmerman did use an affirmative defense of self-defense, and FL law required only a small amount of evidence (I think the phrase is “a scintilla”) apart from Zimmerman’s statement to establish the defense.[/ul][/li]
Also -
[ul][li]There was significant evidence to back up Zimmerman’s account. [] Those who posted to defend him were not simply taking his word for it without evidence.[]It is not true that Zimmerman’s account was or should be taken at face value without evidence.[]Some of Zimmerman’s statements did not have evidence to back them up. Those statements should IMO be classed as Unproven.[]The rest did.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
Should all homicides require an affirmative defense to not be manslaughter or murder?
Do you mean instead of the constitutionally guaranteed obligation of the prosecution to prove guilt without the defendant being compelled to testify against himself?
I’m going to vote No on this one.
Well to be honest I composed this thread while thinking of the various gun threads we have going in which anti’s have all but denied the very existence of such a thing as a justified shooting, at least by a non-cop. “Vigilante”, “murderer”, “killer”, “yahoo” are some of the more loaded terms being thrown about. Apparently shooting someone is prima facie murder in their opinion. If narrowing the thread to shootings highlights the issue, let’s do that.
I think what the OP is asking is whether self defense ought to be an affirmative defense. I think it ought to be. I don’t think we ought to make the prosecution prove that something WASN’T self defense, I think we ought to make the defendant who is claiming self defense (as a defense to murder) prove that they were engaging in self defense.
No.
And if you can’t see any space in between calling George Zimmerman a vigilante and a yahoo on the one hand, and not believing in a presumption of innocence on the other, I think this isn’t a problem that’s going to be resolved by a robust debate about legislative policy.
Traditionally, the self defense has been an affirmative defense. It was the majority view among the states when I went to law school but this flipped and now in many places, the prosecutor has to prove that the defense does not exist for that defendant. In what way is the defendant being obligated to testify against themselves?
Is a defendant being obligated to testify against themselves when they claim the insanity defense?
(post shortened)
Is the assumption to be that a defendant is guilty until proven innocent?
Someone comes forward to state that it was George Zimmerman at the grassy knoll. A police investigation finds that GZ was born 20 years after the JFK assassination, and that neither the Kennedy’s or Connally’s possessed a can of ice tea. In spite of what the media outlets may claim, should charges be brought against GZ?
Of course, if no charges are brought, then no defense is required, but assuming that a State Attorney could be pressured to bring charges, what defense would be required when it becomes obvious during cross examination that the defendant wasn’t born at the time of the murder?
I’m in favor of retaining the innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
No.
(post shortened)
If an insanity defense is attempted, the defendant’s legal team is obligated to prove that the defendant was unable to determine right from wrong (legally-speaking) at the time of the murder.
No. In the American justice system, the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. That burden is 100% on the prosecutor. Otherwise, you no long have an “innocent until proven guilty”
No: we have presumption of innocence for very good reasons.
No. The state must prove their case. You don’t have to prove your innocence.
So why am I being called a murderer and a killer vigilante for saying in gun threads that on rare occasions it’s rightful to shoot someone?
Because this is the Dope.
Right, the burden shifts. Once the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they meet the requirements to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, it is then up to the defendant to prove that the murder was committed in self defense. Just like it is up to the defense to prove that the defendant was insane.
No that’s not true. The MAJORITY rule for centuries was that self defense was an affirmative defense.
Affirmative defenses have a LONG HISTORY of being proven by the defense AFTER the underlying crime is proven by the prosecution.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about. In fact, almost nobody here seems to know wtf they are talking about. The sum total of the law cannot be put on a series of bumper stickers.