The breakdown in communication is because Seon is describing how the evidentiary burden shifts to the defense if you try to claim self-defense. The State is no longer proving it's murder. The Defendant is trying to climb a (very small) evidentiary hurdle to show that it wasn't.
If you're not looking at it as a step-wise process, but merely as a probability cloud of outcomes, it's not murder unless the State wins the case. That's true.
amusingly in most jurisdictions in America, to prove a self defense claim you just need to explain a scenario that seems more likely to have occurred than the alternative scenarios, so it really is down to analyzing probabilities. A preponderance of evidence standard is pretty damned low indeed.
amusingly in most jurisdictions in America, to prove a self defense claim you just need to explain a scenario that seems more likely to have occurred than the alternative scenarios, so it really is down to analyzing probabilities. A preponderance of evidence standard is pretty damned low indeed.
It's a bit harder without suborning perjury, I guess. The system still makes it easier for cops to 'accidentally' murder someone than it is for regular citizens.
amusingly in most jurisdictions in America, to prove a self defense claim you just need to explain a scenario that seems more likely to have occurred than the alternative scenarios, so it really is down to analyzing probabilities. A preponderance of evidence standard is pretty damned low indeed.
So do I get this right; "I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self defence" is assessed as a balance of probabilities level like civil claims, and "but I didn't shoot the deputy" is assessed at a beyond reasonable doubt level like most criminal convictions?
Yeah depending on the jurisdiction. If you claim you didn’t shoot the deputy but deputy was shot with you holding a murder weapon nearby, you would be tried under beyond reasonable doubt standard.
if you claim you shot someone in self defense usually the court will judge you based on whether your claim is more believable than alternative scenario. There are exceptions, such as in Texas in which the prosecution must then prove that you did not act in self defense beyond reasonable doubt, but this is not universally true across America.
I didn't think I could be surprised by this any more, but I admit I am a little taken aback at how bloodthirsty some of our fellow CFC posters are...I mean imagine wanting to live in a society where killing a person is treated as legally justified unless the state can prove otherwise
amusingly in most jurisdictions in America, to prove a self defense claim you just need to explain a scenario that seems more likely to have occurred than the alternative scenarios, so it really is down to analyzing probabilities. A preponderance of evidence standard is pretty damned low indeed.
It must also be possible to layer a defense, though. Where you're both testing evidence that you had committed the offense AND that it would be justifiable if it had? Be super-careful of putting your witnesses into where they can be cross-examined, obviously. And watch out for perjury. But I can see places where a jury could have to hold both possibilities.
It would not be advisable. The courts do not appreciate layered defense like that. Expect incredibly hostile judge and jury if you attempt a defense of “I didn’t do it,” but then suddenly change tack mid way to “it would have been okay if I did it” and then finally to “I did it but it’s okay.”
I edited my question. And your answer indicates that it's one of strategy, but maybe not of law.
I was thinking of something slightly different from the Omar Khadr case, but close, imagining that a case could be made that one side was legitimately defending itself AND that the accused actually did not participate in that defense. It requires a slightly different scenario than the wiki link, but was what popped to mind.
You wouldn't want to cop to throwing the grenade if you thought the jury wouldn't like your self-defense claim but you also know that the State should not be able to prove that you threw the grenade.
It is definitely possible, just really not advisable.
In addition, it is definitely possible in certain jurisdiction that self defense claim can hold even if the state can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the supposed assailant did not actually intend to commit a felony crime against a person, only that the self defense claimer genuinely believed that they were acting in self defense.
In these cases the deceased assailant is declared as felon who got shot, as circular logic of self defense claim holds that anyone who got killed by self defense must have been about to commit a felony.
And thus Castile should never been hired to be around kids, QED.
There's a charge we'd not discussed so far, 'culpable negligence'. It's a vastly lesser charge to murder. Apparently it's easy enough to beat, as well, if a cop wants to kill a person.
Federal law enforcement shot and severely injured a protester Saturday night during demonstrations in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Portland.
Donavan LaBella, 26, was shot in the head by what friends and witnesses said was an impact munition.
Videos of the incident posted online brought swift condemnation from some local leaders, including both of Oregon’s U.S. Senators, who demanded answers from the federal government, and City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, who asked that federal troops leave Portland immediately.
Um how did I miss that federales were deployed in US cities?
I didn't think I could be surprised by this any more, but I admit I am a little taken aback at how bloodthirsty some of our fellow CFC posters are...I mean imagine wanting to live in a society where killing a person is treated as legally justified unless the state can prove otherwise
I'm not sure why you're associating bloodthirsty with an important limit on state power, hasn't history's most bloodthirsty regimes opted for your alternative where the accused is presumed guilty and has to prove their innocence? If you're ever charged with a crime who would you want stuck with the burden of proof?
I'm not sure why you're associating bloodthirsty with an important limit on state power, hasn't history's most bloodthirsty regimes opted for your alternative where the accused is presumed guilty and has to prove their innocence? If you're ever charged with a crime who would you want stuck with the burden of proof?
The contortions are wonderful. To limit the state, we must not presume the state is guilty when it guns people down in the streets. Chef kiss. Goebbels would give you a commendation.
I didn't think I could be surprised by this any more, but I admit I am a little taken aback at how bloodthirsty some of our fellow CFC posters are...I mean imagine wanting to live in a society where killing a person is treated as legally justified unless the state can prove otherwise
Well its been catching fire for a few weeks and it finally boiled over even under a red president. The images are awful and I must say I support the protesters. The men should be charged with at least 2nd degree murder.
Yeah, I mean the guy was high on fentanyl and had meth stuck up his posterior when he was stopped driving around trying to pass fake currency. A highly respectable citizen if you ask me. Also heard something about him serving prison time for holding a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach threatening to kill her and the baby, but then again who doesn't support abortion? Anyway, calling an ambulance and putting him in the hold they did was textbook for someone who's high as a kite and is experience excited delirium, but who really cares when the local Target and Apple stores are being looted. Ima get me a new phone and some Nikes because that's justice. Charging the cops with murder at the behest of our enlightened activists, rather than manslaughter or some form of gross negligence guaranteed they walk. Aren't Antifa and BLM smart? Then when the cops aren't convicted because the autopsy will be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether this model citizen died from asphyxiation from the hold, or from being really stupidly high Ima get me an iPad too.
What's also interesting is that most people know Floyd's story, but are continuing to protest police over reach regardless.
If they perceived net benefit from police services, they wouldn't be protesting. If they perceived there was actually a problem, they would be protesting.
All that aside, there is a chance that a reasonable fraction of the rage-stoking is due to intentional memetic interference
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
