If this concerns you, this is a good video.
Mr Ayoob is well known among in our
community for his expertise & objectivity.
Mr Ayoob is well known among in our
community for his expertise & objectivity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
After A Self Defense Incident, How To Talk To Cops
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Don't forget to drag the body back into the house
Good for you, perhaps.
But I no longer run all that fast.
I often hear that in jest.Don't forget to drag the body back into the house
But the reality is that evidence tampering
is generally a bad idea. A justified shooting
outside one's home is still justified. Defend
what happened, not some fiction that could
turn out far worse when caught in the lie.
One simply point that I think he is making, but didn't state outright is that self-defence is an affirmative defence.
That means it is up to you to prove that it was self defence. If it is established that you shot someone you are going to be found guilty unless you can prove some justification for your action. In a case like that silence will not help you. It is already established you shot the guy. You can't just sit back and do nothing. If you can't prove* your defence, the prosecution will win.
But unless you are trying to establish an affirmative defence, don't talk to the police is still good advice, whether you are guilty or innocent.
(* proof in this situation means by preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not. It doesn't necessarily mean beyond reasonably doubt)
Strictly legally, one needn't prove self defense to be
found not guilty. Of course, the real world shows
that proving one's innocence is always best.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Those are some of the same points Stand Your Ground people teach to get away with killing unarmed people, except this guy isn't hyping up the feeling threatened part but gives examples that actually are threatening.
And of course we know it's still your word against the cops.
And he's not up to date on the Kitty Genovese story.
And of course we know it's still your word against the cops.
And he's not up to date on the Kitty Genovese story.
It is indeed true that techniques to protect oneself
against prosecution can be employed by both the
innocent & the guilty. Nonetheless, we don't give
up our civil rights just so that cops & courts have
an easier time getting convictions.
The old saw "If you're innocent, then you've nothing
to hide" is a very dangerous idea that cops love to
promulgate. Remember this portion of the Miranda
Warning...
"Anything you do say can and will be used in court
as evidence."
Strictly legally - you are mistaken about this. You do need to prove self defence. If the facts are established that you shot the person, and if you are claiming self defence you need to prove self defence.
Now, understand, in this situation "prove" just means getting the jury (or judge if it is a bench trial) to believe you. If they take your word for it, that is proof enough. If they need forensics and witnesses then you need to make sure those things are presented.
That is why the guy in your video is saying it is important to preserve the evidence.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
The running shoes was a joke, my running stops after maybe 10 yards.
About guns though, I come from the UK where we just don't tend to own guns, so maybe I'm biased, but I've lived in the USA for 33 years now. In that time I've never owned a gun and never had anything happen that made me feel the need for one. Of course I haven't lived in high crime areas.
You are mistaken.
The jury need only rely upon reasonable doubt,
ie, that even if self defense weren't proven, if it
appears possibly true, then that is enuf to acquit.
But to reiterate, tis best to prove self defense
because judges & juries are not always rational
or observant of applicable law.
One a jury I served on, a couple gals wanted to
convict the defendant cuz he was "scary looking".
I too have led a charmed life...so far.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
And as I pointed out this guy gives definite examples of when someone is legitimately threatened and not using the "felt threatened" bull****.
So our disagreement is based on the definition of the word "proof". I have defined what I mean by that word a few times. And I am giving the legal definition that is appropriate in this kind of situation. If you don't understand this, I can't make you understand. Others perhaps will understand and that is good enough for me.
Have a good day.
Geeze Louise....some folk are quite full of themselves.
And some are full of something else.
How about creating & polluting your own thread, eh.
You are the one who made this personal. I was happy to disagree and leave it alone.
But here. Look at this if you still want to understand.
Affirmative Defenses: Definition, Types & Applications | Study.com
"
Affirmative Defense
An affirmative defense is one where the defendant admits that he or she committed the crime but that there exists a set of facts that when proven mitigates or defeats the charges against her. The law requires that before the defendant can claim an affirmative defense, he or she:
- must admit that they committed the crime
- has the burden to prove the set of facts required for the defense
- give notice of the defense in a timely manner"
Now, let's calm down, & consider the
innocent til proven guilty rule of US law.
Affirmative defense is useful, but it is
not required for acquittal under the law.
Moreover, shooting in self defense isn't
a crime, so one needn't admit to a crime,
just to shooting the assailant.
Last edited: