Posted on 04/08/2009 5:53:32 AM PDT by SLB
Some weird stuff in this story.
Yep. They live in a weird part of the county.
It will be interesting to follow this to trial.
Aside from the peculiar family situation, what stood out for me was all the complaints about the “low” bail ... even though she’s still in jail, so it obviously hasn’t made any difference.
yep, something just does not add up here....need more info to formulate an opinion
Just damn.
I’ll have to ask my FIL and MIL about this one. They’re pretty tuned in to Hardin County gossip. FIL hangs out with his McDonalds crew every AM, and MIL has her bridge club.
I’d need a lot more info before making a judgement on this case.
“The burden of proof is on the state.”
Umm...isn’t that one of our chiefest principles?
Innocent until proven guilty?
Were they cousins...
This is a correct statement, assuming 230 years fits into one's definition of "a couple years ago".
...
If you read long enough it starts to make sense:
[Victim’s] father, Charles Stanford West, mayor of a West Virginia town and criminal defense attorney by trade...
Not in the case of affirmative defenses. In most states if you are trying to use "justification" as an affirmative defense against a murder or assault charge, the burden of proof is on you to show you were justified in committing what would otherwise be a crime.
The essence of the affirmative defense is: "Yes, I committed murder by killing that man, but I was justified in doing so because..."
That's the most important element of any "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" law - the legal presumption in favor of the self-defender, turning self-defense from an "affirmative defense" to a "presumption of innocence."
If your legislators are trying to pass such a law without that presumption in favor of the self-defender, they need to fix the bill.
By all means I think if a stranger breaks into your house you should be able to shoot them, because you have no idea if they are armed and by the time you find out it may be too late.
OTOH Someone that a person knows is a poor test of this law, because it is too hard to tell. For example maybe the man was a threat, or maybe he was there to tell her he was leaving her for someone else and she shot him? More details need to be known.
The moral of the story may be that dorking another guy’s wife could carry health risks.
Kentucky? Nah! Kentucky’s not weird. San Francisco, that’s weird. New York Cit, that’s weird. Kentucky’s just on the far edge of normal compared to them.
It’s some weird stuff, though. Can’t believe the husband, myself.
Interesting case ping...
That's the problem with situations like this. Perhaps she was defending herself against violent assault. Then again, perhaps she decided to lure him over for whatever reason, shot him, and then banged her arm against some furniture to make some good-looking bruises. It can be too easy to make premeditated murder look like self-defense.
That said, shooting some stranger busting into your house should be open-and-shut self-defense, especially if the shot person had prior offenses.
““With the new law that went into effect a couple years ago, we have to prove this was anything other than justified,” Pavey said. “The burden of proof is on the state.””
What a stupid thing to say. Isn’t the burden of proof always on the state? What? Did you have to prove your innocents before?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.