IIRC, In Affirmitive defense cases, the state has to make a strong case with evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mike, is this correct?
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
- Thread starter dyabolical
- Start Date
IIRC, In Affirmitive defense cases, the state has to make a strong case with evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mike, is this correct?
All criminal cases require beyond a reasonable doubt.It is the burden of proof for the prosecutor.
So if you get shot and killed in a situation like this, you're comfortable with the burden of proof being on the state to completely convince 12 people that the person who killed you was not doing so because he felt threatened? I think if an altercation occurs and one person decides that deadly force is necessary, the burden of proof should be on them to show that such action was justified. I don't know about you but if someone shoots me to death in the street I would like them to be forced to prove to law enforcement officials or a court that they needed to kill me, not that the state needs to prove to 12 random people that the person who killed me didn't feel a certain way. As it stands, the state has to go in and prove a negative - I think everyone here is intelligent enough to realize how difficult that is, especially in a courtroom setting.
It strikes me as odd that the same people who express serious misgivings about the government's ability to do anything right so often seem willing to assume the one thing it can do right is prosecute criminals effectively. When I was deployed to Iraq the ROE stated that we were justified in using deadly force if we "felt threatened". It's sad to think that we are adopting a wartime mentality in our peaceful country - I'm a pro-gun person but when state legislation starts to look like the ROE of a military occupation, there should be cause for concern.
Last edited:
If I'm dead, I think my comfort level will be just fine.
That said, the burden of proof is always on the state to prove any crime.
If the person is asserting self-defense then that is an affirmative defense and the burden is on the person asserting self-defense contrary to what any anti-gun politician, prosecutor, or journalist may write or tell you.
This IS how it is and that is well-known by anyone who is informed in these matters. If Zimmerman is to assert self-defense, as he must in any stand your ground case, he must demonstrate that he NEEDED to use force.
I have been employed as expert witness or a responding officer in a number of these types of cases and seen it first hand.
Anyone who tells you different is either uninformed (no matter their title) or lying.
Since you are quoting me in your response, I would ask you to provide some sort of example of where I have expressed "serious misgivings about the government's ability to do anything right".
I am confident that you cannot because that is generally not my opinion.
As far as your comparison to the ROE, .......come on now.
That's just silly emotional argument.Michael Brown
I think that's the biggest crock I've seen on here in a long time.Way to go "wiki".The statement "preponderance of the evidence" is straight from civil court and not applicable in criminal courts."Beyond a reasonable doubt" is one of the first and last things the judge says to a jury.
Of course it is, but SYG effectively makes killing someone not a crime unless the state can prove you weren't acting in self-defense. In most murder trials as you know, the main question is whether or not the defendant committed the crime. In a trial like this, the jury is asked to determine the mindset of the victim and make a value judgment of that mindset. SYG allows for situations like this one, in which we have the word of a man on trial for murder against the word of a dead kid. Justice is not easily meted out in such situations because as stated before, the prosecution must prove a negative - that the defendant wasn't in danger when he made the choice to kill another person.
The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman, it is on the DA. Hypothetically Zimmerman could just not hire a lawyer and sit there during the trial, and if the plaintiff conducts a poor case then he could go free without Zimmerman having to do anything. That is not a situation in which the burden of proof is on the killer. Reasonable doubt is on Zimmerman's side, not the DA's here. The DA has to show that Zimmerman was not acting in a reasonable manner, which is waaaay different from requiring Zimmerman to show that he was acting reasonable.
No, this is not correct. The DA has the burden of proof here. Zimmerman will certainly help himself by attempting to show that he "NEEDED" to use force here, but all the defense "needs" to do is counter the DA's claims, not assert their own. The DA must show strong evidence that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Martin, which means they must show both unreasonable behavior and intent. The difference between SYG laws and sane murder laws could be summed up here: (this is assuming in both cases that murder was actually committed)
Scenario A (Non-SYG) - Bob kills Jim on a neighborhood lawn - no eye witnesses. Bob is arrested at scene for murder despite claims of self defense. At trial, he pleads self defense. He can't show evidence of self-defense, so he gets sentenced.
Scenario B (SYG) - Martin kills Trayvon on a neighborhood lawn - no eye witnesses. Martin is not arrested because he claims self defense. At trial, he pleads self defense. DA can't prove he wasn't acting in self-defense, so he goes free.
As far as your comparison to the ROE, .......come on now.
Yes it is an emotional argument, or more specifically, a normative argument. Arguments made with value judgments embedded in them aren't inherently incorrect. It's sad to me that we have adopted wartime standards for the use of violence in our own streets. I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is objectively wrong.
What part of "Affirmative" don't you get??? Seriously, you're not even beating a dead horse, you're beating a make believe horse that was never alive in the first place!
Mike, when did you start feeding trolls?
What part of "Affirmative" don't you get??? Seriously, you're not even beating a dead horse, you're beating a make believe horse that was never alive in the first place!
Mike, when did you start feeding trolls?
I have also recently been advised that the sky is NOT blue.
Michael Brown
Glocktogo, you didn't address any of my specific points - as usual. I'll re-post them and we'll see if you can actually participate in the discussion rather than drop a few emoticons and insults, which seems to be your usual M.O. I may disagree with Mr. Brown here, but I very much respect his willingness to defend his position clearly and succinctly, instead of treating this like some sort of cheerleading contest in which our personal reputations are on the line.
-Of course it is, but SYG (at least in FL) effectively makes killing someone not a crime unless the state can prove you weren't acting in self-defense. In most murder trials as you know, the main question is whether or not the defendant committed the crime. In a trial like this, the jury is asked to determine the mindset of the victim and make a value judgment of that mindset. SYG allows for situations like this one, in which we have the word of a man on trial for murder against the word of a dead kid. Justice is not easily meted out in such situations because as stated before, the prosecution must prove a negative - that the defendant wasn't in danger when he made the choice to kill another person.
-The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman, it is on the DA. Hypothetically Zimmerman could just not hire a lawyer and sit there during the trial, and if the plaintiff conducts a poor case then he could go free without Zimmerman having to do anything. That is not a situation in which the burden of proof is on the killer. Reasonable doubt is on Zimmerman's side, not the DA's here. At the end of the day, all other considerations aside, the state of Florida must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin Zimmerman committed murder. The DA has to show that Zimmerman was not acting in a reasonable manner, which is waaaay different from requiring Zimmerman to show that he was acting reasonable.
-No, this is not correct. The DA has the burden of proof here. Zimmerman will certainly help himself by attempting to show that he "NEEDED" to use force here, but all the defense "needs" to do is counter the DA's claims, not assert their own. The DA must show strong evidence that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Martin, which means they must show both unreasonable behavior and intent.
Affirmative defense is somewhat irrelevant in Florida law because the way the SYG law is written, self defense must be disproved by the prosecutor if the SYG defense is invoked. It may be different here in OK but in Florida, this is not the case.
-Of course it is, but SYG (at least in FL) effectively makes killing someone not a crime unless the state can prove you weren't acting in self-defense. In most murder trials as you know, the main question is whether or not the defendant committed the crime. In a trial like this, the jury is asked to determine the mindset of the victim and make a value judgment of that mindset. SYG allows for situations like this one, in which we have the word of a man on trial for murder against the word of a dead kid. Justice is not easily meted out in such situations because as stated before, the prosecution must prove a negative - that the defendant wasn't in danger when he made the choice to kill another person.
-The burden of proof is not on Zimmerman, it is on the DA. Hypothetically Zimmerman could just not hire a lawyer and sit there during the trial, and if the plaintiff conducts a poor case then he could go free without Zimmerman having to do anything. That is not a situation in which the burden of proof is on the killer. Reasonable doubt is on Zimmerman's side, not the DA's here. At the end of the day, all other considerations aside, the state of Florida must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin Zimmerman committed murder. The DA has to show that Zimmerman was not acting in a reasonable manner, which is waaaay different from requiring Zimmerman to show that he was acting reasonable.
-No, this is not correct. The DA has the burden of proof here. Zimmerman will certainly help himself by attempting to show that he "NEEDED" to use force here, but all the defense "needs" to do is counter the DA's claims, not assert their own. The DA must show strong evidence that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Martin, which means they must show both unreasonable behavior and intent.
Affirmative defense is somewhat irrelevant in Florida law because the way the SYG law is written, self defense must be disproved by the prosecutor if the SYG defense is invoked. It may be different here in OK but in Florida, this is not the case.
Similar threads
