Since I don’t wtf I’m talking about, I’ll only add that “self defense” in a legal defense need only introduce reasonable doubt in the jury’s minds. I assume it doesn’t need to be proved, just be reasonable.
No. Its different state by state, but when self defense is an affirmative defense (unlike in Florida) the elements of homicide are proven by the prosecution, then the defense has to prove that the homicide was justified because it was in self defense. Its not introduced to create an reasonable doubt as to whether or not you committed the homicide. It is introduced as an excuse for committing that homicide.
No matter how many threads people start about Trayvon Martin, it won’t bring him back to life.
I’m sorry but I’m missing your point here. A defendant can always choose to use an affirmative defence; the OP is about forcing the defendant to use one.
Random Man!
This. I think Zimmerman is a sketchy guy and he did some stupid things (not being illegal doesn’t make them smart decisions), but the onus should always remain on the prosecution to prove their entire case, not just that the person is dead by the defendant’s hand. Yeah, sometimes this means people that pretty much everyone agrees is guilty (eg, OJ Simpson), but it seems to me that the idea of requiring an affirmative defense in all situations of homicide goes against this presumption of innocence. Not all cases of homicide are (or should be) crimes.
If anything, it seems to me arguing self-defense when it’s fabricated ought to make the prosecutions case easier. The defendant is conceding the point that they killed the person, and by giving their own account of what happened, since it’s a lie, they now have more ways to poke holes in their defense or might even point to some evidence they might not otherwise have come across.
Is the OP asking whether there should be a trial of fact about every single death involving struggle between two people – that prosecutors and/or police should not have any choice BUT to bring charges?
No.
I think you are making a lot of assumptions. What I stated is correct, it is the basis of American law. If we had a clear proposal in the OP there would be many details to discuss, but based on what is expressed there it is in opposition to how the law works on the simple and accurate basis that I described. No defendant needs to provide a defense. And whether or not they do the burden is on the state to prove that a crime was committed, and that it was committed by the defendant. The way the OP reads we would have the state charge someone with a crime and that person would be guilty simply by not providing an affirmative defense without any requirement for the state to prove their guilt.
The OP is referencing the Zimmerman case. In the Zimmerman case the prosecutor had to prove that it was NOT self defense. In the past the defendant had to prove that the preponderance of the evidence showed that he was acting in self defense. He might have met this threshold but it is still a higher threshold than simply creating a reasonable doubt. I would suggest that self defense is tough to prove when you shoot an unarmed teen that you followed in your truck and the police asked you not to get involved.
Self defense ought to be an affirmative defense. It is not these days in most places but it used to be and I am not convinced that this is progress.
The state still has to prove the elements of homicide according to the OP. Then OP is clearly referencing the Zimmerman trial. The facts of the Zimmerman trial and the controversy surrounding it where it came to affirmative defense was clearly about who had the burden of proving self defense. I would think that all of those things are the inevitable assumptions you would make about what the Op is asking. If it only seems that way to me then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
The problem with the Zimmerman case was not that the evidence contradicted his account. The problem was that his account itself supported the charge of murder. The prosecution had all the tools they needed, under the law, to make a case. For unknown reasons, they chose not to.
I don’t think it’s about forcing a defendant to use an affirmative defense. It’s about categorizing a particular defense as an affirmative defense. I’m going to try to explain the difference. An ordinary defense such as an alibi must be disproven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. If I am charged with a homicide,and my defense is that I was in another state at the time it happened, the state must disprove my alibi beyond a reasonable doubt. An affirmative defense ( which might include entrapment or “insanity”) requires the defendant to prove that he was entrapped or that he lacked the mental capacity to know that his conduct was wrong *after the prosecution has proven that he engaged in the conduct *. The affirmative defense usually requires a lower standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The prosecution must prove the conduct, but they don’t have to prove that I was entrapped or that I am sane.
It’s not a matter of wanting to hold a trial for every single homicide - it’s a matter of what we want once the prosecution has enough evidence to bring charges. Do we want the defendant to have the burden of convincing the jury he was justified or do we want the prosecution having the burden of proving he wasn’t? Both categories of defense exist already - the question is where we put self-defense.
Here’sthe definition of murder under Florida law. Can you please cite the portions of Zimmerman’s account where he mentions his premeditation of murdering Martin, or where Zimmerman admitted in engaging in
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
And, in case you are going with the “aggravated stalking” part, keep in mind that this also has a specific definition -
(Cite). So I will also need to see the parts of Zimmerman’s account where he mentions making a credible threat against Martin. Again, thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
Does shooting a child=aggravated child abuse?
You forgot murder in the second degree, which doesn’t involve premeditation
This is a recipe for false convictions. The U.S. justice system has a lot of problems, but not convicting enough people ain’t one of them.
If there’s not enough evidence to prove murder, then there’s not enough evidence to prove murder, and no conviction should result.
Well, don’t tease us! Please, elaborate.
Even with those assumptions I still disagree. The state must prove that a crime took place and assuming that every homicide is a crime simply gives the state the opportunity to place a person in jeopardy without cause. It further requires the defendant to testify against himself in that circumstance. You can disagree if you like, you wouldn’t be alone, but I think that a homicide in self defense should not be a crime and it should be the obligation of the state to prove that the self defense was not justification. That doesn’t require the state to offer any such evidence, it usually isn’t necessary, but defendants should not be placed in the position of testifying against themselves and then saying they had a really good excuse if the state can’t prove all the elements of the crime including the lack of justification.
None of that has anything to do with the Zimmerman case. It probably would have turned out exactly the same if Zimmerman had to offer an affirmative defense because of the case presented by the state and the weakness of our criminal justice system for which Florida is the poster child.
Did you not read the last sentence of the OP? Which I quoted in my original response to the OP? I’ll repeat it here:
Zimmerman is actually irrelevant to that question.
WTF are you talking about. The prosecution HAS proven murder in my scenario. It is up to the defendant to prove that the murder was justified.
That is the nature of an affirmative defense. Typically, the defendant must prove with the preponderance of the evidence that the murder was justified in some way. This is the way we did things for centuries in most jurisdictions until recent times. Now the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it WASN’T self defense. Why not make the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant WASN’T insane as well?