SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[zincwarrior]

Florida code:



Emphasis added. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

There was no pretrial immunity hearing.

Further, thats Florida, land of Florida Man. Other states don't have that.

 

[zukiphile]

Remember, typically self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is then on the defendant, not the prosecution.

In which states does the defendant carry the burden of proof on the issue of self-defense?

 

[zincwarrior]

Besides Florida, which states don't? Texas is affirmative defense for one. https://www.cogdell-law.com/blog/2015/december/overview-of-affirmative-defenses-in-texas-crimin/

Defendant is admitting the crime occurred, but is issuing an affirmative defense to that act.

 

[manta49]

I found this enlighten. It details his other behaviour threatening people with firearms etc. The fact that the shot entered the side of the victims chest as he turned away to retreat for example. As i said a loose cannon, better off the streets.

Michael Drejka's request for lower bond denied | Court hearing ... Its easy to find if the link does not work.

 

[zukiphile]

Besides Florida, which states don't? Texas is affirmative defense for one. https://www.cogdell-law.com/blog/201...-texas-crimin/

Defendant is admitting the crime occurred, but is issuing an affirmative defense to that act.

I see. You thought that an affirmative defense is one in which the defendant carries the burden of proof. That is incorrect.

I don't purport to be an expert in the area, but Ohio sources indicated that Ohio was the last state to require a defendant to carry the burden of evidence on a self-defense claim. Ohio changed that earlier this year.

Under Ohio Revised Code Section 2901.05, a defendant is required to prove all elements of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Recent case law and the development of the status of self-defense strongly suggest that shifting the burden to a defendant in this manner is unconstitutional. Ohio’s burden shifting rule effectively changes the standard of proof necessary for the government to secure a conviction in self-defense cases.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/problems-ohio’s-current-laws-burden-shifting-self-defense-cases

An article by Branca unpacks the shift.

In 49 states it is the prosecution rather than the defense who bears the burden of persuasion on self-defense, and who must disprove the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and this has been the case for many years.
That said, it used to be fairly common across the United States that the burden of persuasion for self-defense was placed on the defendant, rather than on the state, and that the defense was required to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the state disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Over the last several decades, however, every state has abandoned this approach and instead decided to make self-defense effectively a negative element of the crime charged, and adopted the burden described in the prior paragraph.
In effect, every state has made self-defense—once the burden of production has been met by the defendant—a “negative element” of the criminal charge, such that the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and also disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
And this makes sense, because if a use-of-force was self-defense, then legally speaking no crime was committed by the defender at all, just as if the defender hadn’t committed some required element of the criminal charge itself.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/ohio-finally-enters-modern-era-of-self-defense-law/

 

[davidsog]

Speak for yourself, i definitely would not have shot in that situation. And anyone that did shoot as this case shows, could have plenty of jail time to reflect on their actions. The jury who were in possession of the facts disagreed that any reasonable person would have done the same.

I do not believe the jury was in possession of all the facts.

I believe the Jury was racist and reactionary to a a very political case with something rotten in the representation.

 

[zincwarrior]

I see. You thought that an affirmative defense is one in which the defendant carries the burden of proof. That is incorrect.

I don't purport to be an expert in the area, but Ohio sources indicated that Ohio was the last state to require a defendant to carry the burden of evidence on a self-defense claim. Ohio changed that earlier this year.



https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/problems-ohio’s-current-laws-burden-shifting-self-defense-cases

An article by Branca unpacks the shift.



https://lawofselfdefense.com/ohio-finally-enters-modern-era-of-self-defense-law/

EDIT: Upon reviewing some other states, thats interesting. It does look like it has shifted a good bit. I am going to concede that my knowledge of the burden may have aged out at this point.

I believe the Jury was racist and reactionary to a a very political case with something rotten in the representation.

You have literally offered nothing to support this statement, which you have made several times.

 

[MTT TL]

You have literally offered nothing to support this statement, which you have made several times.

I agree, it kind of reminds me of the leftist mantra that is so popular these days.

 

[zukiphile]

Nope. In an affirmative defense you have to prove your defense.

When you are given an opportunity to read something the better practice would be to read it.

You'd not have repeated your assertion of you had just gone up the page and looked at the Florida code bolded. It's an explicit example of an affirmative defense, here self defense, having to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

Had you taken the time to review the linked material, you would appreciate the difference between a burden of persuasion and a burden of production. Branca notes,

Every state placed the burden of persuasion on self-defense on the state beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, except for Ohio, which until today was the last state to still place the burden of persuasion on self-defense on the defendant and by a preponderance of the evidence. It is this outdated legacy of self-defense law that finally ends today with Ohio’s adoption of the same burden of persuasion as the rest of the nation: the prosecution in Ohio is now required to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A party's statement that "I acted in self defense" is evidence of the proposition satisfying a burden of proof. Whether you light a cigar is your option. The burden of persuading the trier of fact that it wasn't self defense, now even in Ohio, rests with the state.

 

[zukiphile]

I believe the Jury was racist and reactionary to a a very political case with something rotten in the representation.

I can think of a number of more likely causes for a jury reaching a verdict I wouldn't reach other than racism. For instance, when jury instructions become a bit complex, a lot of jurors have trouble with them. The jury appears to have asked some simple questions to which the court responded with a repeat of those same instructions. That isn't uncommon.

 

[zincwarrior]

When you are given an opportunity to read something the better practice would be to read it.

You'd not have repeated your assertion of you had just gone up the page and looked at the Florida code bolded. It's an explicit example of an affirmative defense, here self defense, having to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

Had you taken the time to review the linked material, you would appreciate the difference between a burden of persuasion and a burden of production. Branca notes,



A party's statement that "I acted in self defense" is evidence of the proposition satisfying a burden of proof. Whether you light a cigar is your option. The burden of persuading the trier of fact that it wasn't self defense, now even in Ohio, rests with the state.

Please note the post you are referring to again. I edited before you replied.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Pushing someone down on concrete. Concrete is an impact weapon.

I do not see it that way. Maybe if the *intent* of the person doing the shoving is to inflict serious harm, injury, or death, then that argument might be valid. But if I ever find myself getting in a screaming match with another person, and a third party steps in to shove me away, I doubt my thought process is going to jump immediately to 'oh no, I've been blindsided by an act of extreme violence, I better use my gun'.

But that's probably going to be due to my not being mentally unstable, and prone to fits of rage over the misuse of a parking spot. You know, because I am SANE.

 

[zukiphile]

Please note the post you are referring to again. I edited before you replied.

Thanks. I'm glad you read it.

 

[davidsog]

I can think of a number of more likely causes for a jury reaching a verdict I wouldn't reach other than racism. For instance, when jury instructions become a bit complex, a lot of jurors have trouble with them. The jury appears to have asked some simple questions to which the court responded with a repeat of those same instructions. That isn't uncommon.

I am sure that happened, just as I am sure it was deliberate.


I live just a few miles from the courthouse and area this shooting occurred. It was very racially charged event although it had nothing at all to do with race.

Many claimed the State of Florida and Sheriff was a racist for not charging the man right from the beginning. It is obvious to those who live here something is rotten in the proceedings and neighborhoods were placated.

I believe when the venue moves to a less emotionally charged arena, the outcome will be different.

 

[davidsog]

But if I ever find myself getting in a screaming match with another person, and a third party steps in to shove me away,

He did not shove him away. He assaulted him so violently the man flew back several yards ending up on the ground nearly unconscious.

You make it sound like everyone was being so civil until this guys pulled a gun.

The man was in a verbal confrontation. You counter verbal with verbal or your feet to walk away.

 

[OldMarksman]

In his dazed condition and from the ground, could he tell that the threat was probably over and stop before he pulled the trigger? I don't know. Did the jury even consider that? Don't know that either.

The jury was undoubtedly instructed to take in to account the defendant's condition

However, immediately after the incident, the defendant claimed to be uninjured and to not be dazed.

The jury heard testimony to that effect, and that the defendant had refused medical attention.

That did not help him a bit.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

Of the several barroom fights and keg party brawls I've witnessed, getting shoved down would be among the least violent acts. I won't bore y'all by telling about them,but several were started over a lot less than some idiot screamig at another man's woman. In none of those incidents have I seen anybody get beat to death, or even hospitalized. Lots of bloody noses, a couple of teeth knocked out, knuckle bumps on the skull, cuts and bruises. Nobody ever yanked a gun because they felt their lives were in danger. The insinuation that getting shoved down was an extremely violent attack just doesn't compute for me. My take is, that way of describing the event is calculated to persuade people that the guy that shoved the idiot coulda woulda mighta killed the other guy. Remove "extremely violent attack" from the description and its a darned hard sell that killing the shover was appropriate. Just my $0.02

 

[zxcvbob]

You have to wait until *after* the attacker Ryan Diviney's you (recent news, look it up) before you shoot.

 

[thallub]

i've seen lotsa bar fights. Was involved in a few myself. There were lots of bruises, black eyes and hurt egos but seldom any major damage. In days long gone no one resorted to guns. Very few held grudges.

Most serious injury i saw was a broken leg. During a party with several others some stranger assaulted a huge friend with a knife and missed. Ray grabbed the guy saying: "You are too quick, I'm going to slow you down". With that he broke the attackers leg over his knee.

We can make excuses for this shooter and it won't matter. If the idiot had minded his own business he would have never been found guilty.

Having worked as a corrections officer, i can say the shooter will have a difficult time in prison. He needs to quickly make friends with the Aryan Brotherhood bunch.

 

[zxcvbob]

Y'all are talking about mutual combat, not a sucker-punch.