Self defense laws

[PIGMAN]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And to the gentalman that quoted other statues. You contradicted the very wording of the S.D. statues, clearly not capable of interpreting the statues and need to contact the attorney here for a clear interpretation, it may leave standing corrected.

"Other statues"? First, it's "statutes," not "statues." I didn't quote "other" statutes," I quoted the Arizona statutes that cover when it is legal to use physical force and deadly physical force in self defense. YOU opened this discussion with the statement that

In my state we don't carry the burden of proof. We can use any weapon for any circumstance that threatens our personal safety or that of another.

The statute does not say that. I quoted the entire body of the two pertinent statutes. Please note the 13-405 regarding the use of deadly physical force begins by referring to the preceding section, so you can't look only at 13-405, you also have to read 13-404. Read together, you simply cannot arrive at a conclusion that there is no burden of proof.

Starting with 13-404, the use of physical force is justified (under Arizona statute) only "... to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force."

So even to use physical force (we haven't even gotten to deadly physical force yet), you are subject to a "reasonable person" standard ... which means you could be arrested and charged, and you would have a burden of proof to convince a jury that the hypothetical reasonable person would have done as you did in the same situation.

Then we move on to 13-405 and the use of deadly physical force.

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

...

Paragraph 1 takes us back to Section 13-404, which imposes a "reasonable person" standard (in other words, a burden of proof) for the use of ANY force in self defense. And then Paragraph 2 of 13-405 reiterates the reasonable person criterion for the use of deadly physical force.

Any time the use of physical force or deadly physical force is predicated on a "reasonable person" standard, there IS a burden of proof. You can be arrested and charged. Your defense is that you used physical force or deadly physical force because you believed it was necessary in that situation. In invoking that defense, you will have to convince the judge or jury that the "reasonable person" mentioned in the statutes would have acted the same way you did in the same sitation.

The statute does NOT remove the burden of proof.

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.

Got a citation? The statutes I quoted were taken directly off the State of Arizona's web site (I provided the link), and they do NOT say what you are claiming they say. If the statute on the state's web site is out of date, where's the citation to the revised statute?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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. ...

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....

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 ...

I am very familiar with this change in Arizona law. And while it is a great improvement for the citizen, it is not quite as simple as you outline. It is actually a fairly technical distinction. So there are a number or errors in your outline.

[1] The change in the law applies any time one claims self defense, whether or not a homicide is involved. So if you used force to defend yourself or another, whether or not the assailant dies, your legal defense would be under that same rules.

[2] If you are charged with a crime as a result of your use of force in what you are claiming is justified self defense, you don't have to prove you were justified. But you still have the burden of putting on evidence that that you satisfied every element necessary under the legal standard for your conduct to have been justified. You still have the burden of putting on a prima facie case of self defense, i. e., sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact can infer that you satisfied the legal standard for self defense.

[3] Only after you have made a prima facie case for self defense will the State have the burden of proving that the legal requirements for justification were not satisfied.

[4] The new Arizona law is set out in ARS 13-205A, which I quoted in post 10: ""...If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification...." (emphasis added)

[5] Some of the provisions of chapter 4 of Title 13 of the ARS setting the legal standards justifying the use of force against another person were quoted by me in post 10 and by Aguila Blanca in post 18. They are apply a reasonable person standard, so it would not be sufficient for the person claiming self defense to present evidence that he was in fear; he must present sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would have been in fear.

[6] But note, if you are on trial for manslaughter or assault and are claiming self defense, you will still need to present a convincing case even if you don't have the burden of proof. You have admitted committing an act of extreme violence on another human being. This is something that most people, probably including most of the jurors, naturally find repugnant. You stand before the jury bearing the mark of Cain. The less convincing your self defense case is, the easier it will be for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof.

 

[ipscchef]

Apology

I apologize to all, I will not post further on this matter. Or on anything that the OP here states.
Bill Henderson