You know what will get you in boatloads of trouble? LIES..l.
...and there is the second point of light from this discussion.
If you're going to talk, tell the truth.
If you're going to lie, you'd be better off not talking at all.
You know what will get you in boatloads of trouble? LIES..l.
Sure, and sometimes you help that happen. Things you say and do reflect things about the kind of person you are, your values, your beliefs. So if you walk around wearing swastikas, if you receive white supremacist material in the mail, and if you commonly make racist and antisemitic statements in public, if the synagogue down the street gets torched, you are going to be one of the first people the authorities will want to talk with. And if you're charged, all those things, as well as any racist and antisemitic screeds you may have posted on the Internet will be used in evidence by the prosecution to help show intent and motive.Jason607 said:Well, just about anything can be used against you if someone thinks it can help them against you....
Not quite.Jason607 said:...people on these gun forums paint a picture of a trail where the prosecution sets the whole thing up, they choose the evidence, they choose the jury, they choose the judge, and get to present their case unchecked,...
Don't be too sure about that. To dismiss a prospective juror for cause, the side making the challenge must be able to convince the judge that there is actual prejudice or that the particular juror can not be impartial. Some judges take an awfully lot of convincing.Jason607 said:... the defense can just keep dismissing jurers all day long because they will have probable cause to do so....
In case you haven't been following the posts above, remember that in the case of an assault or homicide to which you're pleading self defense you have already admitted the acts constituting the crime.Jason607 said:...Then they have to prove without reasonalbe doubt that your broke the law...
OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing.
OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:....If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes.
OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:...There will be some facts which the prosecution and police investigators believe are inconsistent with self-defense. Counsel will have to wrestle with these facts and be able to explain to the jury why they do not disqualify the client from self-defense.
And what does a crooked, insanely ambitious and unethical prosecutor, who destroyed his career have to do with anything?Jason607 said:...Lets not forget Kenneth Nifong, the DA of the Duke Rape Case....
Intentionally hurting or killing someone is a crime absent a good defense, justification. Self defense is the defense to the act. The place at which one used force is treated as a crime scene. It is kept a sterile as possible. Evidence is identified and collected. And the entire event is investigated as a crime until either the conclusion is reached that the claim of self defense is valid or that it is vulnerable, and charges will be brought.Sarge said:Self defense is not a crime...
Nope, the elements of assault or of manslaughter go back to the Common Law. They may have been codified under the statutes of various states. And they will be essentially the same although there may be some variation in terminology. The bottom line is, Sarge, that I am an attorney, and you are not. You may want to go back and hit the books some again.Sarge said:To an earlier question asking 'what are the elements?' which must be proven, I simply answer 'depends on your state's statutes'....
The question was asked because you seemed to have some difficulty with the analysis. I know the answer and have stated it.Sarge said:I would think in this crowd of apparent attorneys, ...the question would not have even been necessary.
And what does a crooked, insanely ambitious and unethical prosecutor, who destroyed his career have to do with anything?
....and despite that wordy reply, self defense is still not a crime. If it is self defense, then no PC Affidavit will issue and no charge will be sought.
But unless and until the DA has decided to accept the claim of self defense, it will be investigated as a crime.Sarge said:...and despite that wordy reply, self defense is still not a crime...
You miss the point. We are discussing general legal principles. And since the crime of manslaughter is an ancient crime, the state codes in general will have adopted the historic elements of the crime in their statutory definitions. So state code definitions of the crime of manslaughter will be substantially the same, even though the terminology may vary. There may be minor differences from state to state, but for the purposes of our discussions, those differences are immaterial.Sarge said:...Nobody is going to be criminally charged under the 'common law' and you know it. If charged at all, they are going to be charged under the criminal code....
The elements of assault or aggravated assault were also similarly defined in the NACDL publication quoted by OldMarksmanOldMarksman in post 31 quoting fiddletown said:...So if the crime charged, and for which the defendant is on trial, is manslaughter, the state must in general prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant was there; (2) the defendant shot the decedent; and (3) the defendant intended to shoot the decedent....
These definitions are substantially the same for the purposes of this discussion. The point is that if you are claiming self defense, a prosecutor doesn't have to prove those elements of manslaughter or assault, as applicable because you have admitted them.OldMarksman in post 35 quoting the NACDL said:...being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor....
Yes the Nifong story does illustrate limits as well as retribution for grossly unethical behavior. Of course, fortunately a prosecutor like him doesn't come along often.Jason607 said:...it proves that the Prosecution has limits and boundries....
Just never lose sight of the fact that in a given case there may be some disagreement about whether or not it was a legit shoot. So it helps to recognize before hand that might be a possibility, and it's a good idea to be prepared for the possibility. One thing you can do to prepare is to watch what you say in public and to strangers.Jason607 said:I think that as long as it's a legit shoot and you tell the truth and don't say anything too stupid, and use your brain, preferably your lawyers, you'll be good to go...