Posted by Snyper: A defendent has no obligation to "prove" anything, and the law doesn't change according to what they know or don't know.
The defendant's objective is to prevent the state for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that his action was
not self defense.
He must provide evidence to that effect.
Part of that evidence will pertain to his knowledge at the time of the incident.
Listen to all of the video posted in Post #111. Pay particular attention to the part that pertains to how the
defendant's training provided a basis for a reasonable belief that he had been faced with an imminent threat.
Let's go over that one more time: The defendant's use of force may be adjudged justified
if he can produce sufficient evidence of a reasonable belief that the alleged attacker had had the
ability (in this case, the knife) and the
opportunity (relating to distance) to inflict serious harm; that he had been in
jeopardy (as indicated by the alleged attaker's statements or behavior); and there is the issue of
preclusion.
This thread has been entirely about the question of
opportunity. In the case of the use of force against someone with a contact weapon, the outcome could hinge heavily upon the work of Dennis Tueller,
and upon what the defendant was able to relate about it from information he had before the fact--
what he knew or didn't know.
Your continuing unsupported denial of those very basic legal facts will not help you.
The video linked in Post #111 should explain the key points rather clearly to most people. One does have to listen and think about it.
If you would like to have a really good explanation of how what the defendant knew or did not know can influence the outcome of a criminal trial, and of what is necessary to substantiate assertions relative thereto, attend
this. Should you ever be faced with the need, the cost will seem very inconsequential indeed.
By the way, Frank Ettin has assisted Massad Ayoob in training sessions.
