Posted on 11/12/2021 1:19:38 PM PST by Az Joe
To successfully claim self-defense, the defendant must prove four elements.
First, with exceptions, the defendant must prove that he or she was confronted with an unprovoked attack.
Second, the defendant must prove that the threat of injury or death was imminent.
Third, the defendant must prove that the degree of force used in self-defense was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Fourth, the defendant must prove that he or she had an objectively reasonable fear that he or she was going to be injured or killed unless he or she used self-defense.
I never agreed that the defendant had to prove anything.
Is this Wisconsin Law?
Otherwise this is nonsense.
It is an affirmative defense. Hence, asserting the defense must be proven by the person making the assertion.
Most of the elements above miss that the defendant only has to show his subjective belief was reasonable, not that it was objectively true.
Ah…. Who is it exactly that needs to PROVE something?
Yes, I thought that, once self-defense is claimed, the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense wasn’t existing.
I’m not an attorney.
” or if the defendant withdraws from the attack and the attacked individual persists.”
Even if Kyle provoked the attack by aiming his. gun at a third part as. the prosecutor claims, it is clear that Kyle withdrew.
And he never attacked.
All of that is unconstitutional.
The prosecution has to DISPROVE all those elements were not present.
These days the burden of proof is on those who the Left hates, otherwise the worst criminals are “mostly peaceful”. When next the Left-tard idiots riot they’ll be sympathized with, and their rampage excused.
Ain’t post-constitutional Amerika great?!?!?!?
The LEFT wants their verdict, evidence be damned.
Understood. I just never agreed with that, philosophically.
There is nothing about affirmative defenses in the constitution however there is the presumption of innocence.
Being that people do actually defend themselves, I think it should be up to the state to overcome any reasonable doubt that that is the case.
The state doesn’t like this because it’d mean a lot of people could literally get away with murder. Unfortunately, the current way, the trade off is that a lot of innocent people (those defending themselves) are put through the wringer and get jailed themselves.
“Otherwise this is nonsense.”
What is nonsense? Please cite Wisconsin statutes to support your claim.
In the court of public opinion you are correct because, as we all know, public opinion is manipulated by state media. In court though it’s supposed to be the opposite if Constitutionally is protected.
Yeah, this is trash. Florida’s laws put the burden of proof on the prosecutors, not the defendant.
I’m not sure an online correspondence course in criminal justice is the best source for legal analysis related to this case. It’s a general summary of what self defense is, those aren’t listing of statutes. So, from that standpoint, it’s nonsense in this context.
The prosecution has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by this defense. In order to meet this burden of proof, the prosecution must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of the above numbered conditions.
Imagine if Mark David Chapman had entered a “self defense” plea in the John Lennon murder case. How can a prosecutor possibly prove that Lennon did NOT punch Chapman in the face and threaten to kill him?
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.