Heyo
Veteran Member
You have to prove self defence in court, not to the cops.
Give them your name and address and describe what happened. Then call your lawyer, he can deal with their questions.
-
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
Give them your name and address and describe what happened. Then call your lawyer, he can deal with their questions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am pretty sure that he is right. In a murder case the prosecutor only needs to prove that someone killed someone else. An affirmative defense is saying "Yes, I killed him but I had to". The defendant has taken on the burden of proof in that statement. He has to show that he did shoot in self defense. The prosecution has already made their case. Man A is dead and man B shot him.
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.
He's making a fallacious argument, ie, that
shooting someone in self defense is a crime,
& therefore one must be proven innocent
in order to be acquitted.
Can you cite a law making shooting in self
defense a crime?
Don't forget to drag the body back into the house
And don't post pictures of it on facebook.
No of course it is not. I was only discussing those situations like what was discussed in the video you posted. I think I indicated that is what I was doing by using phrases like:
"If it is established that you shot someone",
"It is already established you shot the guy.",
"If the facts are established that you shot the person, and if you are claiming self defence you need to prove self defence."
and
"That is why the guy in your video is saying it is important to preserve the evidence."
Are you ok now? When I said that you were mistaken, that was just because you were mistaken. It wasn't a personal insult. You are still the undisputed King of RF. All hail Revoltingest!
But sometimes you are wrong.
Dramatic post.
I've nothing to add.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, he is not. He is merely stating that if one claims "self defense" that one must be ready to prove it. That was all. Shooting in self defense can be justified, but when one makes that claim one does take on the burden of proof. He was right that it is an affirmative (damn it! How many "f"s does afffirmative have?) defense. That is not a statement that shooting someone is a crime.
In a murder case the prosecution needs to prove first and foremost that the accused did kill someone else. In some ways an affirmative defense makes the prosecution's job easier since a person is saying "Yep, I sure as **** shot him". Now the defendant has to explain why he shot the person and provide evidence. If one did not have to do that every murder suspect would simply say "yep, I killed in self defense, prove that I didn't". Luckily that is not how the law works.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Your disagreement is over procedure. @Revoltingest is suggesting a person can be found “not guilty” because of reasonable doubt created in the jurors mind for whatever reason. States laws can vary but some states require a higher standard when asserting an affirmative defense. The model penal code show a standard that @Revoltingest favors in their jury instruction :
The defendant has offered evidence of having acted in self-defense. Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in reasonable self-defense.
You can compare that with the model penal code for justification:
The defendant contends that [his] [her] conduct was justified. Justification legally excuses the crime charged.
The defendant must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded that the things the defendant seeks to prove are more probably true than not true. This is a lesser burden of proof than the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of [specify crime charged].
A defendant’s conduct was justified only if at the time of the crime charged:
1. the defendant was under an unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury;
2. the defendant did not recklessly place [himself] [herself] in a situation where [he] [she] would be forced to engage in criminal conduct;
3. the defendant had no reasonable legal alternative; and
4. there was a direct causal relationship between the conduct and avoiding the threatened harm.
If you find that each of these things has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, you must find the defendant not guilty.
As you can see, some affirmative defenses require the defendant to meet a standard of proof while others do not. Different states have different standards. SCOTUS has upheld affirmative defense requirements, so some states are or could be exactly as you have suggested, while others are exactly as @Revoltingest suggested. But, I think there is a hidden point in @Revoltingest statement. I think he is suggesting that if the reasonable doubt standard is challenged even in the minds of the jury, they have the authority to find the defendant not guilty regardless of standards of proof and jury instructions.1. the defendant was under an unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury;
2. the defendant did not recklessly place [himself] [herself] in a situation where [he] [she] would be forced to engage in criminal conduct;
3. the defendant had no reasonable legal alternative; and
4. there was a direct causal relationship between the conduct and avoiding the threatened harm.
If you find that each of these things has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, you must find the defendant not guilty.
Well, duh.
If one can prove one's innocence, this is
far better than relying upon reasonable doubt.
I said that before. He still got the vapors over it.
Dang....I really didn't need to add that,
having said it all before. You tricked me!
If cops come to your door with no warrant, then
stay inside with the door closed. (This assumes
no hot pursuit situation.)
Why?
If you're outside, they can detain & arrest you.
They can justify it with vague false claims, eg....
creating a disturbance, interfering with an investigation,
acting suspiciously, officer safety, smelling marijuana,
suspicion of a crime. If your door is open, the risk is
that they might reach in or enter.
If you're inside with a shut door, they can't legally enter.
In this video, the cops order (not lawfully) him to step
outside so he can prove his innocence. (That's not the
plan.) The cops even admit wrongdoing, ie, they have
no evidence of the accusation made, so they will just
charge him with "something".
stay inside with the door closed. (This assumes
no hot pursuit situation.)
Why?
If you're outside, they can detain & arrest you.
They can justify it with vague false claims, eg....
creating a disturbance, interfering with an investigation,
acting suspiciously, officer safety, smelling marijuana,
suspicion of a crime. If your door is open, the risk is
that they might reach in or enter.
If you're inside with a shut door, they can't legally enter.
In this video, the cops order (not lawfully) him to step
outside so he can prove his innocence. (That's not the
plan.) The cops even admit wrongdoing, ie, they have
no evidence of the accusation made, so they will just
charge him with "something".
Last edited: