- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: John Kasich's GOP in Ohio rejects him! LMAO!
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:40 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:40 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
If you don't know your facts before you take a case to trial I'd say you're a shitty prosecutor.
Once again, the prosecutor is not the arbiter of what is fact and what isn’t. The judge or jury is.
You also didn’t respond to the question. How do you establish a negative without definitive physical evidence or a first hand account?
“Know all the facts before prosecuting” is a cop out and displays tremendous ignorance of the process
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 3:45 pm
3
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:45 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:If that happened, the object would be a weapon. There was no object, and no demonstrable wound inflicted. Just a blunt concussive blow to the side of the head.
If someone is hit in the head with an object
quote:BINGO!
In many states, the intruder being in your home is 100% physical evidence.
In many states . . . But not in Ohio!
That is the point.
In Ohio there must be a perceived threat to life (or presumably severe bodily harm), according to a citing earlier in this thread. So an Ohioan must prove the other guy was a perceived life threat. How exactly does one prove that, especially at the thresholds.
We saw in the Zimmerman-Martin case, a prosecution argue that a thug beating a victim in what witnesses described as "MMA style" does not meet such a threat threshold. Leaving a rogue prosecutor with free-rein claiming a defendant "should not" have perceived threat to life or severe harm is flat-out wrong.
At least in Ohio, there will be a greater burden to support such claims.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Just a blunt concussive blow to the side of the head.
Clear, physical evidence.
quote:
In Ohio there must be a perceived threat to life
Suffering a concussive blow to the head,with or without a weapon (which is in itself a crime), by an intruder (also a crime in itself) is clearly and by any and all jurisprudential standards a reasonable perception of threat to life.
The Zimmerman Case is in a different state and under totally different circumstances that your hypothetical. Zimmerman and Martin were involved in an altercation in public and both stories were mired in inconsistencies/contradictions. If you can’t see the obvious differences then you just don’t understand how nuanced this subject is.
Also, Zimmerman was acquitted, so I am not sure what your point is there.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:52 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:You keep raising that assertion. Perhaps you can provide an example?
How do you establish a negative without definitive physical evidence
I've noted the Zimmerman-Martin case here as an example of a prosecutor's approach simply because all are familiar with the details. I don't get your "establishing a negative."
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:54 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:IF IF IF under the old Ohio standard, it can be proven to have occurred.
Suffering a concussive blow to the head,with or without a weapon (which is in itself a crime), by an intruder (also a crime in itself) is clearly and by any and all jurisprudential standards a reasonable perception of threat to life.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:55 pm to NC_Tigah
I have put it forward several times. One man is dead, having been shot by the other in the chest from say 5-10 feet away. The surviving man has no physical defensive wounds of any kind, and there are no witnesses.
Now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not kill the other man in self defense.
Now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not kill the other man in self defense.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 3:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
IF IF IF under the old Ohio standard, it can be proven to have occurred.
No..... under those facts, as you put forward in your hypo, the prosecutor would never bring charges without some indication that the homeowner was not acting in reasonable self defense.
And in the impossible event that they are brought, the presence of a head injury (blow), and the presence of an intruder in the home (absent some other circumstance to cast doubt) is more than enough for any jury on earth to acquit. Defendants dont have to prove anything. Merely establish reasonable doubt that the crime was committed or affirmative defense by preponderance.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:06 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
I'm no Kasich fan, but self-defense is an affirmative defense. If it's raised by the Defendant, he or she should bear the burden of proving it. That's basic criminal or civil law.
So presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Gotcha!
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:08 pm to Jjdoc
quote:That crybaby still has supporters?
John Kasich
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:11 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:If he can't prove it, what then?
If it's raised by the Defendant, he or she should bear the burden of proving it.
Assumed aggressor?
Just because you can't prove self-defense, doesn't mean it wasn't self-defense.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:15 pm to Roaad
quote:
If he can't prove it, what then?
Its not about "proving" anything for the defendant. He needs to establish a credible self defense claim such that a jury believes him.
If he cant do that, its likely that the defendant will be convicted by said jury, since claiming self defense is essentially confessing to committing the underlying act but claiming that it is excusable by law.
I honestly had no clue so many people didnt understand what affirmative defenses are.
ETA: Can you think of any cases where a defendant acted appropriately in self defense, yet could offer zero credible evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to substantiate that claim? Seems highly unlikely in the real world.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:24 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:First, when it comes to prosecutors, NEVER EVER say never.
the prosecutor would never bring
Second, despite your "never" claims, if the prosecutor brought the charge, the defendant would be hosed. Think about that for a minute.
Third, if the homeowner had a bad history, a possible relationship of some sort with the intruder, etc., the prosecutor might well bring charges. At which time, given the scenario, it would be impossible for the innocent homeowner to PROVE himself innocent. Based on burden of proof, he'd be guilty.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:24 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
So presumed guilty until proven innocent.
You're admitting to the crime when you say it was done in self defense. You're only arguing the specific self defense aspect. That's the case with any and all affirmative defenses in the USA.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:25 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
If it's raised by the Defendant, he or she should bear the burden of proving it.
quote:Libertarian
SCLibertarian
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:30 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
John Kasich's GOP in Ohio rejects him!
Biggest douche to run for president in a long time. He brings nothing of worth.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:31 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
"Know all the facts before prosecuting” is a cop out and displays tremendous ignorance of the process
It's a cop out to ask that a competent prosecutor have the facts on his side before prosecuting a crime?
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:40 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
It's a cop out to ask that a competent prosecutor have the facts on his side before prosecuting a crime?
No it’s a cop out and a result of your ignorance to assert that a prosecutor should “know all of the facts” of any given case.
If every fact is well established, there’s not going to be a trial, there’s going to be a plea deal. The whole point of a trial is to determine the facts.
If it was clear, open and shut self defense, they dont prosecute. If there are factors that cast doubt on the party claiming self defense, then the prosecutor could choose to put the matter before a jury.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
, the defendant would be hosed. Think about that for a minute.
Wrong. Any lawyer in the country would get the defendant acquitted under the limited facts of your hypo.
quote:
if the homeowner had a bad history, a possible relationship of some sort with the intruder, etc.,
So now we are changing the hypo..
quote:
it would be impossible for the innocent homeowner to PROVE himself innocent. Based on burden of proof, he'd be guilty
Once again, utterly and completely wrong. He wouldnt have to prove anything. He would need to be credible enough for the jury to believe his claim of self defense. Period. Under the facts of your hypo, that would be a walk in the park for a first year law student.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:44 pm to slackster
quote:Right.
You're admitting to the crime when you say it was done in self defense. You're only arguing the specific self defense aspect. That's the case with any and all affirmative defenses in the USA.
MrsSlackster is home alone in bed, hears noises, and gets a pistol at ready. She then sees an intruder whom she presumes to be a rapist at her bedroom door, and shoots the "man" as he steps toward her. Police show up, and the "man" is actually an unarmed female burglar who is a 6'1" 230# Michelle Obama look alike and has been sleeping with MrSlackster while casing his house. Now MrsSlackster, unlike OJ, must prove her innocence.
In the old Ohio premise, she'd be in trouble.
So think about it.
OJ butchers two people but gets off due to "reasonable doubt".
MrsSlackster shoots a presumed rapist in her home, and has to prove her innocence??
Posted on 12/28/18 at 4:45 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
So presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Jesus Christ, how many times does this have to be explained? If you are charged with murder and later indicate to the Court, in a pleading or on the record, that you acted in self-defense, you are admitting that the act forming the basis of the charge did in-fact occur. The presumption of innocence thus becomes a moot point, since there is an admission under oath that a homicide occurred. The only question one must now ask is if there is a legal defense that excuses one from legal culpability for said homicide?
Because the Defendant is the moving party in asserting this defense, he has the burden to prove that, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, a reasonable person would fear for his or her life given the totality of the circumstances. This is not a high threshold to meet and has been the common law legal standard in this country, the UK and other Commonwealth nations for centuries.
If conservatives on this site are truly worried about protecting the innocent, urge your local legislators to support legislation that provides equal funding to public defenders and private investigators for the indigent. Urge them to pass legislation that makes it more difficult to bring a charge in the first place. Anyone can be indicted for anything in today's judicial climate. Urge them to abrogate qualified immunity for prosecutors and make it easier for wronged Defendants to sue. Lastly, elect solicitors and district attorneys who care about civil liberties. This is how you protect the rights of Defendants, but there's zero political will for any of these to actually occur.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News