Gun Control and self defense: Zimmerman and other examples

In the interesting of not derailing a thread. I would like to start a thread on discussing the law and self defense.

Under the law.. when you declare that you killed someone in self defense... you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have waived that when you admit to killing someone. Now you have the responsibility to prove that you were in reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grave bodily harm.

That's basically the law.. otherwise.. criminals would always claim the self defense gambit.. and say "prove it wasn't self defense"..

In the case of Zimmerman, he got away with one.. because he was not held to that standard.

jaeger19 said:

In the interesting of not derailing a thread. I would like to start a thread on discussing the law and self defense.

Under the law.. when you declare that you killed someone in self defense... you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have waived that when you admit to killing someone. Now you have the responsibility to prove that you were in reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grave bodily harm.

That's basically the law.. otherwise.. criminals would always claim the self defense gambit.. and say "prove it wasn't self defense"..

In the case of Zimmerman, he got away with one.. because he was not held to that standard.

Click to expand...

Um, wow. But since you have your shovel out digging up dead horses. He was put on trial. He was charged. He walked. Pretty simple stuff.

jaeger19 said:

In the interesting of not derailing a thread. I would like to start a thread on discussing the law and self defense.

Click to expand...

Everything you said up to this point is correct.

jaeger19 said:

Under the law.. when you declare that you killed someone in self defense... you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have waived that when you admit to killing someone. Now you have the responsibility to prove that you were in reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grave bodily harm.

That's basically the law.. otherwise.. criminals would always claim the self defense gambit.. and say "prove it wasn't self defense"..

In the case of Zimmerman, he got away with one.. because he was not held to that standard.

Click to expand...

The state has the burden of proof always in a criminal case. The state was unable to meet that burden in the Zimmerman case because the evidence didn't support the charge even though the state withheld evidence they knew would exonerate Zimmerman.

Of course if you have case law that shows that I am incorrect I am open to reviewing what you have.

CRUE CAB said:

Um, wow. But since you have your shovel out digging up dead horses. He was put on trial. He was charged. He walked. Pretty simple stuff.

Click to expand...

Nope.

In most any other situation.. he would have been convicted.

AND more in point.. his actions have hurt the gun lobby and gun owners supporting him give gun ownership a black eye.

jaeger19 said:

In the case of Zimmerman, he got away with one.. because he was not held to that standard.

Click to expand...

This is you not understanding the law.


He got away with nothing
He acted appropriately and legally to an aggressor who was endangering his life.

jaeger19 said:

In the interesting of not derailing a thread. I would like to start a thread on discussing the law and self defense.

Under the law.. when you declare that you killed someone in self defense... you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have waived that when you admit to killing someone. Now you have the responsibility to prove that you were in reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grave bodily harm.



That's basically the law.. otherwise.. criminals would always claim the self defense gambit.. and say "prove it wasn't self defense"..

Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand the law.

The person isn't waiving anything.
They are saying that they killed the person legally.
It is stipulated by the the claim that the person was killed and it is no longer an element which must be proven by the prosecution. Nor does it relieve the prosecution form proving all other elements of a charged crime.

jaeger19 said:

In most any other situation.. he would have been convicted.

AND more in point.. his actions have hurt the gun lobby and gun owners supporting him give gun ownership a black eye.

Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts.

LagerHead said:

Everything you said up to this point is correct.



The state has the burden of proof always in a criminal case. The state was unable to meet that burden in the Zimmerman case because the evidence didn't support the charge even though the state withheld evidence they knew would exonerate Zimmerman.

Of course if you have case law that shows that I am incorrect I am open to reviewing what you have.

Click to expand...

Actually the burden of proof is not always on the state..

Self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a violent act (such as a homicide), which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In a self-defense claim, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (i.e. that he or she committed a homicide or other violence against a person), but justifies the act by claiming that it was necessary to save him- or herself from death, great bodily harm, or other unlawful uses of force. In the context of a homicide, a defendant claiming self-defense essentially says: “Yes, I killed. But I did not murder (commit an unlawful killing) because, under the facts and circumstances, my acts were legally justifiable.” Under common law and in most criminal cases today, the question of justifiable self-defense is a factual question for the jury to resolve at trial. The jury is the “fact-finder.” They decide whether the act was sufficiently justified so as to insulate the accused from criminal liability and punishment.

Click to expand...

in other words.. the defendant has the burden to prove to the jury that his actions were sufficiently justifiable..

Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

Excon said:

This is you not understanding the law.


He got away with nothing
He acted appropriately and legally to an aggressor who was endangering his life.



You clearly do not understand the law.

The person isn't waiving anything.
They are saying that they killed the person legally.
It is stipulated by the the claim that the person was killed and it is no longer an element which must be proven by the prosecution. Nor does it relieve the prosecution form proving all other elements of a charged crime.



Wrong on both counts.

Click to expand...

I clearly do know the law.. while you clearly do not.. which is the thrust of this thread.

The burden of proof is on the defendant that his actions were justifiable...

And I am right on both accounts.

Anyone supporting Zimmerman is doing a disservice to law abiding gun owners.

jaeger19 said:

Actually the burden of proof is not always on the state..



in other words.. the defendant has the burden to prove to the jury that his actions were sufficiently justifiable..

Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

Click to expand...

The burden of proof does not leave the state at all.
They still have to prove every element of the crime charged.

The burden on the defense is only one of "showing", which can be done by the defendant or by presenting evidence from other sources such as from the prosecutions case or witnesses, as was done in Zimmerman's case.
Once that showing is made the jury instruction can them be made.

jaeger19 said:

I clearly do know the law.. while you clearly do not.. which is the thrust of this thread.

The burden of proof is on the defendant that his actions were justifiable...

And I am right on both accounts.

Anyone supporting Zimmerman is doing a disservice to law abiding gun owners.

Click to expand...

Is that so? iLOL :lamo No, you clearly do not.
That is why you are making a false argument.

Excon said:

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Code:

[COLOR="#000000"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

David Beneman
Maine CJA Resource Counsel
Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman
P.O. Box 465
Portland, ME 04112
...

I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses

A. What is an Affirmative Defense?

An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
element of the crime charge. [highlight][COLOR="#000000"]To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
before the jury sufficient proof [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]to generate a jury instruction[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] on the particular defense theory
sought.[/COLOR][/highlight] Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
accused.

B.  How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?

[U]An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, [highlight][B][COLOR="#000000"]be
it testimonial or physical[/COLOR][/B][/highlight][/U]. [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR]
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.


C. Types of Defenses

There are two categories of defense.
1. I did not do it defenses, and
2. I did it but defenses.
Affirmative defenses are available in both categories.


[...]


[B]D. Burdens[/B]
The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
Three different burdens exist; 
[INDENT][COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"][B]burden of proof [/B](always on the government)[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR],
[B]burden of production[/B] (normally on the defense), and
[B]burden of persuasion[/B] (normally back on the government).[/INDENT]
The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD [highlight][COLOR="#000000"]starts with
and ALWAYS stays with the Government.[/COLOR][/highlight]
The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense.
This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged.
The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense.
Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden
of producing an affirmative defense, [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]the Government has the additional burden of [B]persuading[/B][/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] the jury
not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.

[INDENT][INDENT]I. [B]Burden of Proof[/B] Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they must prove.
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense generates an affirmative defense,
[highlight][COLOR="#ff0000"][U][COLOR="#000000"]the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt.[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR][/highlight]
Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/COLOR]

[URL="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw"]Source[/URL]

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Actually the burden of proof is not always on the state..



in other words.. the defendant has the burden to prove to the jury that his actions were sufficiently justifiable..

Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding what your quote means. It doesn't mean the state's burden is changed. In fact, not all justifiable homicide cases result in charges or court cases. If you claim justifiable homicide and the evidence supports your claim, there is no reason for the state to charge you. If they do charge you, you are not being charged with a self defense killing or with justifiable homicide, you are being charged with murder. That means the state has completely rejected the claim of self defense. The fact that admitted to the killing will certainly be used as evidence against you, but the burden of proving intent or premeditation still lies with the state.

Now, since you have admitted to the killing it will certainly change the case to some extent. There is no longer the need for the state to prove that you killed someone when you have admitted it. However, they must present forensic or other circumstantial evidence to show that you did not act in self defense. If they come into court and say, "Well, he admitted to killing the guy but said it was in self defense. My gut tells me he is lying. The prosecution rests," do you honestly think you are going to get convicted? Don't think so.

However, the fact that your claim of self defense might be rejected by investigators is just another in an endless list of reasons why you should NEVER talk to the police. Don't ever give them anything to use against you, no matter how well-intentioned you are.

I'm really not sure what the stand your ground laws have to do with the question though. Stand your ground laws don't change murder into self defense, they just mean you don't have to be tired from running before you exercise your rights to defend yourself with deadly force.

jaeger19 said:

I clearly do know the law.. while you clearly do not.. which is the thrust of this thread.

The burden of proof is on the defendant that his actions were justifiable...

And I am right on both accounts.

Anyone supporting Zimmerman is doing a disservice to law abiding gun owners.

Click to expand...

The state failed to prove that Zimmerman left his vehicle with the intent of killing Martin. Anyone who doesn't support the outcome of this case is doing a disservice to every unjustly convicted person who sits in jail. How Martin was killed is in fact immaterial to the question of murder and the case had absolutely nothing to do with stand your ground laws.

WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE


When there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury to yourself or another innocent person!


Dissect and understand each and every word in that statement. Each word in that phrase has literal meaning to it. Learn it, know it, live it.

The two words, "otherwise unavoidable" are just as important as the rest. Live by that phrase and employ lethal force only when that situation presents itself and you'll generally be okay in all 50 states.

An "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death" is generally looked at in terms of the attacker possessing the following three components: Ability/Opportunity/Jeopardy.

Ability: The attacker must possess the ability to kill or cripple you. This generally means that he has a weapon capable of inflicting lethal or crippling injury such as a gun, knife (or other edged weapon), a club of sufficient size and weight that is capable of killing or maiming.

Opportunity: The attacker must at least have the opportunity to use the weapon to kill or cripple you. For example, a gun can be used against you at considerable distance, whereas a man threatening you with a two foot piece of lead pipe, standing across the parking lot, 30 yards away does not have the opportunity to kill you with it (at least not until he closes the distance).

Jeopardy: Often the word is interchanged with intent, and means that the attacker must be actively threatening to harm you with deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats which are believable. A man casually standing there with a holstered weapon on his person certainly has the opportunity and ability to kill or cripple anyone in the immediate area, but unless he is actually placing you in jeopardy by deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats, you aren't warranted in responding with lethal force until said person actually places you in jeopardy by his actions and intent to hurt you.

All three of those components, (ability, opportunity and jeopardy) must be present all at the same time to be construed as placing a person in what is referred to as "Immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury". Only then would you be justified in using lethal force of your own to repel the attack.

sar_in_fl said:

WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE


When there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury to yourself or another innocent person!


Dissect and understand each and every word in that statement. Each word in that phrase has literal meaning to it. Learn it, know it, live it.

The two words, "otherwise unavoidable" are just as important as the rest. Live by that phrase and employ lethal force only when that situation presents itself and you'll generally be okay in all 50 states.

An "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death" is generally looked at in terms of the attacker possessing the following three components: Ability/Opportunity/Jeopardy.

Ability: The attacker must possess the ability to kill or cripple you. This generally means that he has a weapon capable of inflicting lethal or crippling injury such as a gun, knife (or other edged weapon), a club of sufficient size and weight that is capable of killing or maiming.

Opportunity: The attacker must at least have the opportunity to use the weapon to kill or cripple you. For example, a gun can be used against you at considerable distance, whereas a man threatening you with a two foot piece of lead pipe, standing across the parking lot, 30 yards away does not have the opportunity to kill you with it (at least not until he closes the distance).

Jeopardy: Often the word is interchanged with intent, and means that the attacker must be actively threatening to harm you with deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats which are believable. A man casually standing there with a holstered weapon on his person certainly has the opportunity and ability to kill or cripple anyone in the immediate area, but unless he is actually placing you in jeopardy by deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats, you aren't warranted in responding with lethal force until said person actually places you in jeopardy by his actions and intent to hurt you.

All three of those components, (ability, opportunity and jeopardy) must be present all at the same time to be construed as placing a person in what is referred to as "Immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury". Only then would you be justified in using lethal force of your own to repel the attack.

Click to expand...

Pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, especially as it lacks any real substance.

The law tells us what is allowed.

LagerHead said:

You're misunderstanding what your quote means. It doesn't mean the state's burden is changed. In fact, not all justifiable homicide cases result in charges or court cases. If you claim justifiable homicide and the evidence supports your claim, there is no reason for the state to charge you. If they do charge you, you are not being charged with a self defense killing or with justifiable homicide, you are being charged with murder. That means the state has completely rejected the claim of self defense. The fact that admitted to the killing will certainly be used as evidence against you, but the burden of proving intent or premeditation still lies with the state.

Now, since you have admitted to the killing it will certainly change the case to some extent. There is no longer the need for the state to prove that you killed someone when you have admitted it. However, they must present forensic or other circumstantial evidence to show that you did not act in self defense. If they come into court and say, "Well, he admitted to killing the guy but said it was in self defense. My gut tells me he is lying. The prosecution rests," do you honestly think you are going to get convicted? Don't think so.

However, the fact that your claim of self defense might be rejected by investigators is just another in an endless list of reasons why you should NEVER talk to the police. Don't ever give them anything to use against you, no matter how well-intentioned you are.

I'm really not sure what the stand your ground laws have to do with the question though. Stand your ground laws don't change murder into self defense, they just mean you don't have to be tired from running before you exercise your rights to defend yourself with deadly force.

Click to expand...

First.. even your own post refutes what you are saying..

If you claim justifiable homicide and the evidence supports your claim, there is no reason for the state to charge you

Click to expand...

See right there you are stating IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM .. in other words your claim is that it was justified. That means that IF YOU meet the burden of justifiable.. not the state having to meet the burden. Which is exactly what the link on the Florida's law stated.

If they do charge you, you are not being charged with a self defense killing or with justifiable homicide, you are being charged with murder. That means the state has completely rejected the claim of self defense. The fact that admitted to the killing will certainly be used as evidence against you, but the burden of proving intent or premeditation still lies with the state.

Click to expand...

Actually no.. you do not have to be charged with murder.. you can be charged with all sorts of lesser charges such as manslaughter in the various degrees. Generally what would happen is that you would be charged with multiple counts and the jury would decide what level it rose to. So for murder.. yes.. that would be a higher burden then manslaughter or negligent homicide.

However, the fact that your claim of self defense might be rejected by investigators is just another in an endless list of reasons why you should NEVER talk to the police.

Click to expand...

Actually that's a bad idea.. that's what criminals do and that gets the police thinking you are a criminal. IF you get into this situation.. you need to affirm that you were defending your life and that you feared for your life. You might also want to point out things that support your case. THEN.. you tell the police that you would be happy to talk further but only with your lawyer present because you know that often people get sued in civil court over these things. (police understand that).

I'm really not sure what the stand your ground laws have to do with the question though

Click to expand...

Stand your ground does not alleviate the burden that the defendant has to show that he was reasonable in fear for his life or grave bodily harm.

sar_in_fl said:

WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE


When there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury to yourself or another innocent person!


Dissect and understand each and every word in that statement. Each word in that phrase has literal meaning to it. Learn it, know it, live it.

The two words, "otherwise unavoidable" are just as important as the rest. Live by that phrase and employ lethal force only when that situation presents itself and you'll generally be okay in all 50 states.

An "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death" is generally looked at in terms of the attacker possessing the following three components: Ability/Opportunity/Jeopardy.

Ability: The attacker must possess the ability to kill or cripple you. This generally means that he has a weapon capable of inflicting lethal or crippling injury such as a gun, knife (or other edged weapon), a club of sufficient size and weight that is capable of killing or maiming.

Opportunity: The attacker must at least have the opportunity to use the weapon to kill or cripple you. For example, a gun can be used against you at considerable distance, whereas a man threatening you with a two foot piece of lead pipe, standing across the parking lot, 30 yards away does not have the opportunity to kill you with it (at least not until he closes the distance).

Jeopardy: Often the word is interchanged with intent, and means that the attacker must be actively threatening to harm you with deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats which are believable. A man casually standing there with a holstered weapon on his person certainly has the opportunity and ability to kill or cripple anyone in the immediate area, but unless he is actually placing you in jeopardy by deeds, actions, behavior or verbal threats, you aren't warranted in responding with lethal force until said person actually places you in jeopardy by his actions and intent to hurt you.

All three of those components, (ability, opportunity and jeopardy) must be present all at the same time to be construed as placing a person in what is referred to as "Immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury". Only then would you be justified in using lethal force of your own to repel the attack.

Click to expand...

Pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, especially as it lacks any real substance.

The law tells us what is allowed.


The previous one in defense of property and this one in defense of a person.

LagerHead said:

The state failed to prove that Zimmerman left his vehicle with the intent of killing Martin. Anyone who doesn't support the outcome of this case is doing a disservice to every unjustly convicted person who sits in jail. How Martin was killed is in fact immaterial to the question of murder and the case had absolutely nothing to do with stand your ground laws.

Click to expand...

The state doesn't have to prove that Zimmerman left his vehicle with the intent of killing martin to get a conviction..thats because they did not charge him with first degree murder. Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder..Second degree murder can be committed either by an intentional killing without premeditation, or by acting in a way that isn’t designed to kill, but is reasonably certain to kill or seriously harm someone.

In addition..the Jury had the option for manslaughter. Manslaughter has two fundamental branches, each of which requires a finding that the defendant killed the victim without justification.

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional homicide that would constitute murder if not for mitigating circumstances. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, occurs when a defendant kills through a reckless act. The defendant must be more than negligent; an accidental killing through negligence does not arise to manslaughter.

How Martin was killed is essential to the case before the jury.

Sorry man but that's the law.

You wouldn't think beating a dead horse was this much fun, but I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

Goshin said:

You wouldn't think beating a dead horse was this much fun, but I guess everyone has to have a hobby.



View attachment 67182614

Click to expand...

You will have to forgive me.. but I have not seen a good thread on the law and what constitutes self defense on this forum.

jaeger19 said:

You will have to forgive me.. but I have not seen a good thread on the law and what constitutes self defense on this forum.

Click to expand...

That is because you have already shown you do not understand the law.

jaeger19 said:

You will have to forgive me.. but I have not seen a good thread on the law and what constitutes self defense on this forum.

Click to expand...

I've given very concise legal explanations of what constitutes self-defense, and what the legal requirements are, many many times in many threads on DP.

Most states have the following requirements for a killing to be considered legal self-defense:

1. You must be without legal fault in causing the situation (ie can't have committed a crime in creating it)
2. You must be, or believe yourself to be, in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
3. A reasonable person in the same situation would also believe #2.

Some states have a duty to retreat if possible under certain circumstances, others do not.


To be REASONABLY in fear of your life or grave bodily harm requires three elements:

Opportunity, Ability and Intent/or Jeopardy. These concepts are well defined in law and understood by most of us that carry guns. I've explained them many times.

Ability: The subject must have the ability to harm me. A man in a wheelchair threatening to whup my ass probably lacks the Ability to carry out his threats.
Opportunity: Someone threatening to shoot me over the phone lacks the opportunity to do so. Someone who says he is going to shoot me from 20 feet away while reaching into his jacket is credible.
Intent/Jeopardy: the subject's behavior must indicate that he has intent to harm me and intends to do so right now (imminent threat).

jaeger19 said:

The state doesn't have to prove that Zimmerman left his vehicle with the intent of killing martin to get a conviction..thats because they did not charge him with first degree murder. Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder..Second degree murder can be committed either by an intentional killing without premeditation, or by acting in a way that isn’t designed to kill, but is reasonably certain to kill or seriously harm someone.

In addition..the Jury had the option for manslaughter. Manslaughter has two fundamental branches, each of which requires a finding that the defendant killed the victim without justification.

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional homicide that would constitute murder if not for mitigating circumstances. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, occurs when a defendant kills through a reckless act. The defendant must be more than negligent; an accidental killing through negligence does not arise to manslaughter.

How Martin was killed is essential to the case before the jury.

Sorry man but that's the law.

Click to expand...

No need to apologize. You proved my point for more. Regardless of the charge, it's the state's burden, and the state's burden alone, to prove their case.

jaeger19 said:

First.. even your own post refutes what you are saying..

See right there you are stating IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM .. in other words your claim is that it was justified. That means that IF YOU meet the burden of justifiable.. not the state having to meet the burden. Which is exactly what the link on the Florida's law stated.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to grasp the concept of "burden of proof." Burden of proof applies ONLY in court.

jaeger19 said:

Actually no.. you do not have to be charged with murder.. you can be charged with all sorts of lesser charges such as manslaughter in the various degrees. Generally what would happen is that you would be charged with multiple counts and the jury would decide what level it rose to. So for murder.. yes.. that would be a higher burden then manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Click to expand...

No, the burden is the same: beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot secure a criminal conviction with anything less, regardless of the charge.

jaeger19 said:

Actually that's a bad idea.. that's what criminals do and that gets the police thinking you are a criminal. IF you get into this situation.. you need to affirm that you were defending your life and that you feared for your life. You might also want to point out things that support your case. THEN.. you tell the police that you would be happy to talk further but only with your lawyer present because you know that often people get sued in civil court over these things. (police understand that).

Click to expand...

Find me a lawyer worth his salt that agrees with you. No competent lawyer would ever give any of the advice you have given in this thread. You really need to watch the following video. I know you won't, but you have no credibility on this matter and I would LOVE for you to refute what both the law professor and the police officer BOTH agree is your absolute best course of action. Yea, the cops might act like you're a crook because you don't talk to them, but it is neither grounds for pressing charges nor to be assumed as evidence of guilt.

jaeger19 said:

Stand your ground does not alleviate the burden that the defendant has to show that he was reasonable in fear for his life or grave bodily harm.

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to provide relevant case law that shows that there are any instances in which the state is relieved of its burden of proof in a murder trial simply because the defendant claimed self defense. Until you provide some, you're simply talking out your ass. I'm sorry, but your opinion means nothing to me on this matter. In fact, it means nothing to anyone who has ever had to sit before a jury while charged with any crime. So if you can't provide it, simply say so. It's OK, we all know.

jaeger19 said:

Nope.

In most any other situation.. he would have been convicted.

AND more in point.. his actions have hurt the gun lobby and gun owners supporting him give gun ownership a black eye.

Click to expand...

So if you look hard enough for a strawman, you can say it was a "rigged" trial. LOLOLOLOL

jaeger19 said:

In the interesting of not derailing a thread. I would like to start a thread on discussing the law and self defense.

Under the law.. when you declare that you killed someone in self defense... you are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have waived that when you admit to killing someone. Now you have the responsibility to prove that you were in reasonable fear of IMMINENT death or grave bodily harm.

That's basically the law.. otherwise.. criminals would always claim the self defense gambit.. and say "prove it wasn't self defense"..

In the case of Zimmerman, he got away with one.. because he was not held to that standard.

Click to expand...

No, that's not accurate. It is not illegal to kill someone. It is only illegal to illegally kill someone. The burden of proof remains on the government.