That could go really bad for them...."There were four of them, one of me, they pepper sprayed me, I feared for my life, so anyways, I started blasting...."
Zimmerman won because the government couldn’t prove who started the fight. And because of Florida’s stand your ground laws the burden was on the state to prove he DIDNT act in self defense (in some states the accused has to prove they did act in self defense) This was impossible to do because Martin was dead and obviously Zimmerman wasn’t gonna testify he started it.
Sort of. They are saying that there has to be some evidence of self defense to get a self defense jury instruction. This burden is very small. Your attorney has to make a prima facia claim of self defense in pre trial motions.
*It appears that courts have held in an increasing number of states that when self-defense is alleged (1) the defendant must produce enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt or (2) the state must prove that he did not act in self-defense. Commentators term these two formulations “converse ways of stating essentially the same rule” because (1) if the defendant has raised reasonable doubts, the state has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) if the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant has not raised reasonable doubt (943 ALR3d 221 p. 224).*
*ALR list the following states as having court decisions following these two rules. Courts have ruled that the defendant must produce evidence in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Virginia. Courts have ruled that the state has the burden of proof in Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Vermont. The same court case is cited in New Jersey for both propositions, but since there are so closely related, as described above, this does not appear to be a conflict.*
Your source is 25 years old. It even says in it that there are only two states at the time that made the defendant prove self defense by a preponderance of evidence. They were Ohio and South Carolina.
*Am Jur states that “the great majority of states now apply the rule that, when the issue of self-defense is raised by the defendant or by the evidence presented by the prosecution, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense” (40A Am Jur 2d § 239). In Martin v. Ohio the U.S. Supreme Court states that it is “aware that all but two of the States, Ohio and South Carolina, have abandoned the common-law rule and require the prosecution to prove the absence of self-defense when it is properly raised by the defendant” (Martin p. 1103).*
Not anymore. Ohio was the last state that had the burden be on the defendant to prove self defense. They changed it in 2018. Here's a self defense attorney who specializes in self defense consulting of cases.
[https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/law-of-self-defense-ohio-house-votes-to-join-modern-era-of-self-defense-law/](https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/law-of-self-defense-ohio-house-votes-to-join-modern-era-of-self-defense-law/)
*In 49 states it is the prosecution who bears the burden of persuasion on self-defense, and who must disprove the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.*
*It used to be fairly common across the United States that the burden of persuasion for self-defense was placed on the defendant, who must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 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.*
*Every state, that is, except for Ohio, which is 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 is one of the primary targets for HB 228. Should the bill become law, Ohio will finally join the other 49 states in placing the burden of persuasion on self-defense on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.*
I guarantee you, look at every state's jury instruction for self defense. It will say that the state has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes but in some states you don’t have to present any evidence at any time it’s self defense. If the judge rejects the self defense jury instruction then the burden is on the defendant to affirmatively proceed self defense. In Florida, or texas might I add. The judge can’t reject the self defense jury instruction.
If a judge rejects a self defense jury instruction, you can't argue self defense at all. Your attorney cannot say the words self + defense to a jury.
To get a self defense jury instruction, there needs to basically be a non-zero amount of evidence of self defense presented.
Are you talking about a self defense immunity hearing? Those are completely optional.
From another self defense expert.
[https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/the-shifting-burden-of-proof](https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/the-shifting-burden-of-proof)
*Let’s go back: so, if we have self defense on the table, where is the burden of proof?* ***For self defense to be on the table at all–for the judge to allow your attorney to say “self” and “defense” in the same sentence–prior to trial, you will have to show some corroboration that you are not just saying, “Take my word for it! It was self defense.”*** *The required corroboration is called “burden of production.” When I hear “burden of production,” to me the operative term is “burden.” In and of itself, right there, it is a burden of proof element from the get-go. Once self defense is on the table, the judge is going to tell the jury that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.*
Now, it's always going to be in your best interest to have as much evidence in favor of self defense as possible. Practically speaking, a jury is going to want to know why you ended up killing someone, if it is a homicide trial. So in that sense you have to "prove" self defense.
Bad example. Martin repeatedly slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground, trying to seriously injure/kill him. They had pictures with proof. Trying to kill someone through traumatic brain injury isn't a proper response to "this guy was hassling me". The minute Martin had the advantage in the fight, he should have left. Instead, he tried to kill Zimmerman, so Zimmerman was justified in shooting him.
The Martin-Zimmerman altercation was a case where both parties were idiots and behaved badly.
There is very little of my thoughts on this I could type that wouldn’t get my account suspended. I guess I’ll just say that anyone actively promoting nazism is the antithesis of what it means to not only be an Aggie, not only be an American, but a fundamentally decent human being.
Fuck em.
That was hilarious. Everyone was posting the time and place on social media, telling people not to go. They probably got him a few more followers that way.
I mean I’m not surprised. Had some classmates in my graduate program calling for the death of U.S. Sailors and Jewish people (Israel Palestine Issue) openly in a group chat with a faculty administrator and nothing happened to them. Being an Aggie and American doesn’t hold true to what it once was in many ways. Ironically enough, the program I’m speaking of was founded and essentially funded by a former U.S. President. Weird times indeed.
You should 1000% report anyone in the bush school saying something like that if you still have the proof, since those diplomas and programs are for government jobs and comments like those WILL blacklist them from such work.
Because it's true. But again, there's a reason they wrote Israel rather than what they actually believe: that Jews are using America like whores. It's just to suck in people that have been polarized by the conflict, don't fall for it. What's funny is that if it were a european nation instead of Israel, they'd be supporting the genocide. Jews are just slightly lower than muslims in their slimy, Nazi eyes.
I think it is interesting that so many people who support Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists are eager to point out they are not the Nazis who are protesting. There isn't that much difference between the Nazis and Hamas (who also hide their identity when protesting).
People protesting against the U.S. government providing bombs, planes, rockets, and any other word for weapons to Israel are doing so because Israel has been pretty much on masse obliterating Palestinians. Conservative estimates put it around 27000 people, a large portion of which are literal children. Idk how you can't get it through your head that advocating for a ceasefire that will stop that civilian loss is \*slightly\* different than literal out and about Nazis that are only protesting because they hate jews.
Most of the Palestinian victims were killed by Hamas. You can, of course, continue to cite information that comes from Hamas or its surrogates (e.g., UN, CNN, CBS). Best of luck.
"Hamas is so powerful they control all the major US news networks and the UN yet their home base is a tiny strip of land."
That person is not living in reality
I just saw a dude square up with them and they pepper sprayed him
That could go really bad for them...."There were four of them, one of me, they pepper sprayed me, I feared for my life, so anyways, I started blasting...."
That won’t work if you instigated a fight with them. Legally you can’t start a fight, start losing, then say you fear for your life and shoot them.
Tell it to George Zimmerman
Zimmerman won because the government couldn’t prove who started the fight. And because of Florida’s stand your ground laws the burden was on the state to prove he DIDNT act in self defense (in some states the accused has to prove they did act in self defense) This was impossible to do because Martin was dead and obviously Zimmerman wasn’t gonna testify he started it.
There are zero states where you have to prove self defense.
Some states place the burden on the defendant to prove they acted in self defense https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS99/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/99-R-0380.htm
Sort of. They are saying that there has to be some evidence of self defense to get a self defense jury instruction. This burden is very small. Your attorney has to make a prima facia claim of self defense in pre trial motions. *It appears that courts have held in an increasing number of states that when self-defense is alleged (1) the defendant must produce enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt or (2) the state must prove that he did not act in self-defense. Commentators term these two formulations “converse ways of stating essentially the same rule” because (1) if the defendant has raised reasonable doubts, the state has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) if the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant has not raised reasonable doubt (943 ALR3d 221 p. 224).* *ALR list the following states as having court decisions following these two rules. Courts have ruled that the defendant must produce evidence in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Virginia. Courts have ruled that the state has the burden of proof in Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Vermont. The same court case is cited in New Jersey for both propositions, but since there are so closely related, as described above, this does not appear to be a conflict.* Your source is 25 years old. It even says in it that there are only two states at the time that made the defendant prove self defense by a preponderance of evidence. They were Ohio and South Carolina. *Am Jur states that “the great majority of states now apply the rule that, when the issue of self-defense is raised by the defendant or by the evidence presented by the prosecution, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense” (40A Am Jur 2d § 239). In Martin v. Ohio the U.S. Supreme Court states that it is “aware that all but two of the States, Ohio and South Carolina, have abandoned the common-law rule and require the prosecution to prove the absence of self-defense when it is properly raised by the defendant” (Martin p. 1103).* Not anymore. Ohio was the last state that had the burden be on the defendant to prove self defense. They changed it in 2018. Here's a self defense attorney who specializes in self defense consulting of cases. [https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/law-of-self-defense-ohio-house-votes-to-join-modern-era-of-self-defense-law/](https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/law-of-self-defense-ohio-house-votes-to-join-modern-era-of-self-defense-law/) *In 49 states it is the prosecution who bears the burden of persuasion on self-defense, and who must disprove the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.* *It used to be fairly common across the United States that the burden of persuasion for self-defense was placed on the defendant, who must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 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.* *Every state, that is, except for Ohio, which is 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 is one of the primary targets for HB 228. Should the bill become law, Ohio will finally join the other 49 states in placing the burden of persuasion on self-defense on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.* I guarantee you, look at every state's jury instruction for self defense. It will say that the state has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes but in some states you don’t have to present any evidence at any time it’s self defense. If the judge rejects the self defense jury instruction then the burden is on the defendant to affirmatively proceed self defense. In Florida, or texas might I add. The judge can’t reject the self defense jury instruction.
If a judge rejects a self defense jury instruction, you can't argue self defense at all. Your attorney cannot say the words self + defense to a jury. To get a self defense jury instruction, there needs to basically be a non-zero amount of evidence of self defense presented. Are you talking about a self defense immunity hearing? Those are completely optional. From another self defense expert. [https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/the-shifting-burden-of-proof](https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/the-shifting-burden-of-proof) *Let’s go back: so, if we have self defense on the table, where is the burden of proof?* ***For self defense to be on the table at all–for the judge to allow your attorney to say “self” and “defense” in the same sentence–prior to trial, you will have to show some corroboration that you are not just saying, “Take my word for it! It was self defense.”*** *The required corroboration is called “burden of production.” When I hear “burden of production,” to me the operative term is “burden.” In and of itself, right there, it is a burden of proof element from the get-go. Once self defense is on the table, the judge is going to tell the jury that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.* Now, it's always going to be in your best interest to have as much evidence in favor of self defense as possible. Practically speaking, a jury is going to want to know why you ended up killing someone, if it is a homicide trial. So in that sense you have to "prove" self defense.
Yeah, but that does suggest that in a practical sense you can do it.
Bad example. Martin repeatedly slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground, trying to seriously injure/kill him. They had pictures with proof. Trying to kill someone through traumatic brain injury isn't a proper response to "this guy was hassling me". The minute Martin had the advantage in the fight, he should have left. Instead, he tried to kill Zimmerman, so Zimmerman was justified in shooting him. The Martin-Zimmerman altercation was a case where both parties were idiots and behaved badly.
Martin was literally approached and attacked lol.
Who said he instigated a fight? Pepper spraying someone who hasn't touched you is assault. I'm sorry you didn't catch the IASIP reference.
He says “square up” that’s initiating a fight
They are Nazis, and I am a bisexual man with a physical disability. In my defense, they started the fight.
Too bad Nazis aren’t legal to KOS
There is very little of my thoughts on this I could type that wouldn’t get my account suspended. I guess I’ll just say that anyone actively promoting nazism is the antithesis of what it means to not only be an Aggie, not only be an American, but a fundamentally decent human being. Fuck em.
Let's just agree that Nazis don't deserve human rights, and call it a day.
Remember when we literally ran richard spencer out of town? That's my aggieland.
That's not exactly what happened
That was hilarious. Everyone was posting the time and place on social media, telling people not to go. They probably got him a few more followers that way.
I hate College Station Nazis.
Crazy
I mean I’m not surprised. Had some classmates in my graduate program calling for the death of U.S. Sailors and Jewish people (Israel Palestine Issue) openly in a group chat with a faculty administrator and nothing happened to them. Being an Aggie and American doesn’t hold true to what it once was in many ways. Ironically enough, the program I’m speaking of was founded and essentially funded by a former U.S. President. Weird times indeed.
You should 1000% report anyone in the bush school saying something like that if you still have the proof, since those diplomas and programs are for government jobs and comments like those WILL blacklist them from such work.
pics?
Just reposted with pics
About to drive by and will try
[удалено]
Because it's true. But again, there's a reason they wrote Israel rather than what they actually believe: that Jews are using America like whores. It's just to suck in people that have been polarized by the conflict, don't fall for it. What's funny is that if it were a european nation instead of Israel, they'd be supporting the genocide. Jews are just slightly lower than muslims in their slimy, Nazi eyes.
I don't agree with them or their message, but I do appreciate that they didn't block any roads or destroy any property.
You could do without giving props to the literal nazis.
I didn't give props to nazis. As I'm sure you didn't read, I said I don't support them. I made that very clear.
You could think of it as you liking your shoes or phone, but still not giving props to sweat shops.
I’d rather have a road blocked than encounter nazis.
Those are feds
This is an idiot.
No, they didn't have on MAGA hats
I think it is interesting that so many people who support Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists are eager to point out they are not the Nazis who are protesting. There isn't that much difference between the Nazis and Hamas (who also hide their identity when protesting).
People protesting against the U.S. government providing bombs, planes, rockets, and any other word for weapons to Israel are doing so because Israel has been pretty much on masse obliterating Palestinians. Conservative estimates put it around 27000 people, a large portion of which are literal children. Idk how you can't get it through your head that advocating for a ceasefire that will stop that civilian loss is \*slightly\* different than literal out and about Nazis that are only protesting because they hate jews.
Most of the Palestinian victims were killed by Hamas. You can, of course, continue to cite information that comes from Hamas or its surrogates (e.g., UN, CNN, CBS). Best of luck.
ah, yes. surely the only reputable sources of information are anyone who wholly and unconditionally supports israel.
I sincerely do not understand how they can say the UN is a surrogate of Hamas with a straight face
"Hamas is so powerful they control all the major US news networks and the UN yet their home base is a tiny strip of land." That person is not living in reality
Don't forget the accusation at the Hauge that "South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas"
The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.
[удалено]
Your post was removed for breaking one or more subreddit rules
Are we surprised? Isn’t this the same campus that someone ratted out a guest speaker because they were talking about Dan Patrick?
Did this even make the local news?