Here in Arizona we do have some interesting gun laws for example in is entirely legal for me to go grocery shopping with my M-1 Rifle either in full view or concealed if the latter were possible.
What I believe 700cdl is trying to explain is the change in the law controlling the burden of proof in homocide cases where the immunity of self defence is alleged. Any death that is not attributable to accident,natural causes or suicide is homocide. Shooting a criminal in the comission of a violent crime against ones self or another is justifiable homocide provided the facts of the case support the justification.
Under the old law, the shooter was required to prove to the State that according to the facts and evidance surrounding the case,a reasonable person would have been in fear of loosing life or limb and that the application of deadly force was justified in order to save said life or limb.Simply stated, anyone claiming self defence in a homocide case had to prove to the authorities what was in their mind at the time of the killing ,this can get tricky, and presumably there were citizens charged with third degree murder or worse who should not have been.
Under the new law the authorities (instead of the shooter) must prove according to the facts of the case whether or not the shooter had reason to fear for life and limb which is now equally as tricky for the authorities since who can really prove what is going through anyones mind in a situation where everything goes sideways.
What I believe 700cdl is trying to explain is the change in the law controlling the burden of proof in homocide cases where the immunity of self defence is alleged. Any death that is not attributable to accident,natural causes or suicide is homocide. Shooting a criminal in the comission of a violent crime against ones self or another is justifiable homocide provided the facts of the case support the justification.
Under the old law, the shooter was required to prove to the State that according to the facts and evidance surrounding the case,a reasonable person would have been in fear of loosing life or limb and that the application of deadly force was justified in order to save said life or limb.Simply stated, anyone claiming self defence in a homocide case had to prove to the authorities what was in their mind at the time of the killing ,this can get tricky, and presumably there were citizens charged with third degree murder or worse who should not have been.
Under the new law the authorities (instead of the shooter) must prove according to the facts of the case whether or not the shooter had reason to fear for life and limb which is now equally as tricky for the authorities since who can really prove what is going through anyones mind in a situation where everything goes sideways.
Last edited: