re: John Kasich's GOP in Ohio rejects him! LMAO!

quote:

---

Non-self defense Murders 

---

Not at all. You prove the person committed murder.

Then I'd suggest you not charge people with murder who acted in self defense.

quote:

---

Self-defense has the burden of proof on the defendant in every state in this country except Ohio.

---

Homicide defendants do not have burden of proof. The state does. Granted, in cases of extenuating circumstance, the defendant may have to demonstrate what those circumstances were. Of course, the degree to which such circumstances are considered varies by jurisdiction.

It even varies within Ohio.

quote:

---

“As long as the person’s not invited in your residence and appears to be presenting a threat, it’s presumed that the use of deadly force is legitimate in that situation,” attorney Jon Paul Rion said. “It’s a very difficult situation and people react differently.”

---

quote:

---

If someone won't leave your home: You can't shoot them, unless they start to attack you. Witmer-Rich used the example ... has to make you feel as if you're about to be killed in order to shoot him.

---

So here you have two Ohio lawyers discussing the same statute, yet providing entirely different interpretations. On top of that, the OH statute is different than self-defense as defined in FL. So to discuss this completely, we'd need define self-defense in "every state" vs the statute in Ohio. The more constrained the statute, the more honorous the proof.

In terms of burden of proof, these things are 51-49% propositions. Flip the responsibility, and it's still a 51-49% proposition. Good! We live in a world where Zimmerman is attacked by Martin in a witnessed attack, and yet prosecutors still charged with 2nd degree murder. That is horseshite. The prosecutors should absolutely have burden.

If lawyer-types here don't like the Ohio move, start policing your own rogue prosecutors.

It is an absurdity to claim prosecutors must prove Charles Manson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet MsNC blows away an unarmed home intruder, and her guilt is determined by her ability to prove her innocence by a preponderance of evidence.

quote:

---

So here you have two Ohio lawyers discussing the same statute, yet providing entirely different interpretations

---

Two lawyers characterizing the law in different words absolutely does not mean that the law itself varies. Not at all. OH has one standard for this, as do all other states. That those standards may be different is irrelevant. Florida's definition of self defense is not relevant in Ohio state court.

quote:

---

The prosecutors should absolutely have burden

---

Prove lack of self defense when one person kills another without witnesses and the survivor lacks physical defensive wounds of any kind. You can't. You're just going off the word of the survivor at that point.

quote:

---

Two lawyers characterizing the law in different words absolutely does not mean that the law itself varies. Not at all.

---

So I offered a hypothetical earlier, in which an unarmed assailant was shot in the back by an armed defendant. Incredibly, you claim the case "would never be brought to trial". Given burden of proof, what is the basis for your claim?

quote:

---

So I offered a hypothetical earlier, in which an unarmed assailant was shot in the back by an armed defendant. Incredibly, you claim the case "would never be brought to trial". Given burden of proof, what is the basis for your claim?

---

If I recall correctly, your hypo involved someone who was struck in the head in their own home by an intruder, who they then killed. Assuming that the homeowner's story is not contradicted by physical evidence, there is absolutely no way charges are filed. No prosecutor would file charges there.

There is ample evidence of the self-defensive nature of the killing. There would have to be some sort of contradictory evidence casting doubt on the homeowner's for that case to move forward.

Before you go there, if an overzealous prosecutor WERE to bring that to trial without being fired by their boss, any jury in the world is acquitting in the face of physical evidence of the homeowner being attacked with deadly force by an intruder in his own home

quote:

---

How does a defendant prove fear or fear for life? How does a prosecutor attempt to discredit that? The arguments are identical. They are identical. The only difference is as to which side the burden of proof resides.

---

No they aren't. You prove fear of life or harm, etc circumstantially, physically,with witness, or in some states merely by the fact that someone was intruding etc. The prosecutor in disputing that would either use evidence, attempt to show that the person was no longer in fear of their life, or that they acted unreasonably. They key point being each of those things can be shown circumstantially and meet the burden of proof.

That is not the same thing as a prosecutor having to show that something did not happen. You cannot prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt when there is no direct evidence.

quote:

---

You cannot prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt when there is no direct evidence.

---

FWIW, the standard in Ohio for demonstrable self-defense is proof by a preponderance of the evidence -- 51% to 49%.

quote:

---

How does a prosecutor come to this conclusion

---

If you don't know your facts before you take a case to trial I'd say you're a shitty prosecutor.