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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good for you, perhaps.Point 0; Don't carry a gun, wear running shoes.
I often hear that in jest.Don't forget to drag the body back into the house
One simply point that I think he is making, but didn't state outright is that self-defence is an affirmative defence.If this concerns you, this is a good video.
Mr Ayoob is well known among in our
community for his expertise & objectivity.
Strictly legally, one needn't prove self defense to beOne 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)
It is indeed true that techniques to protect oneselfThose are some of the same points Stand Your Ground people teach to get away with killing unarmed people...
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.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.
Good for you, perhaps.
But I no longer run all that fast.
You are mistaken.Strictly legally - you are mistaken about this. You do need to prove self defence.
I too have led a charmed life...so far.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.
And as I pointed out this guy gives definite examples of when someone is legitimately threatened and not using the "felt threatened" bull****.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."
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.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".
Geeze Louise....some folk are quite full of themselves.S If you don't understand this, I can't make you understand.
And some are full of something else.Geeze Louise....some folk are quite full of themselves.
How about creating & polluting your own thread, eh.And some are full of something else.
You are the one who made this personal. I was happy to disagree and leave it alone.How about creating & polluting your own thread, eh.
You are the one who made this personal.