Gun Control & RKBA

petronius

(26,597 posts)

49. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that to succeed with a claim of self-defense, the shooter

Reply to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:27 PM

Nov 2012

would need to demonstrate a reasonable fear - that burden would exist under SYG or DTR, and if legitimate SD can't be shown than the rest doesn't matter.

But if the law is DTR, it seems to me that, once the shooter has shown the existence of a reasonable fear, then the question of whether or not retreat was possible would arrive. I'd say that the shooter should not be required to prove that no retreat was possible, but rather that the prosecution should prove that the shooter neglected a sure escape...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge denies 'stand your ground' motion in retired OPD officer's shooting of son [View all] SecularMotion Nov 2012 OP

Sounds like the law is working, trial forthcoming.nt Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #1

Sounds like the judge is working. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #5

That doesn't even make any sense glacierbay Nov 2012 #6

Which demonstrates my point. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #10

It surely didn't confuse the judge glacierbay Nov 2012 #11

Exactly! Judge made a good call. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #16

Wow! Are you against all motions by defense or just any using SYG? aikoaiko Nov 2012 #7

No, I would have made the same motion. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #12

Why does it need rewriting? ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #20

Quite simple. No DTR. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #22

the burden of proof should always be on the Crown/State you prove that a crime was committed by gejohnston Nov 2012 #23

Absolutely. And it is. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #26

no, because gejohnston Nov 2012 #31

Only when there is evidence to the contrary. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #39

unless there is political pressure gejohnston Nov 2012 #42

DTR would be a repeal, not a rewrite ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #24

I agree with the Illinois law Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #30

it still involves having to prove your innocence. gejohnston Nov 2012 #37

As is any affirmative defense ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #46

how is the law not working? gejohnston Nov 2012 #8

How does that example relate to anything? Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #13

my point was gejohnston Nov 2012 #14

You know what my problem with the law is. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #17

that is not actually true either gejohnston Nov 2012 #18

Illinois Law is not the same. There is a duty to retreat outside the home. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #19

that is castle doctrine, there is a difference gejohnston Nov 2012 #21

Look at it again. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #25

that would involve having to prove yourself innocent of a crime gejohnston Nov 2012 #29

Wrong! The onus is always on the prosecution. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #34

So at least it is clear you do not support Castle Doctrine either ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #40

Even under DTR, shouldn't the burden be on the state to prove that you failed to retreat? petronius Nov 2012 #41

Actually any claim of SD is effectively an affirmative defense ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #44

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that to succeed with a claim of self-defense, the shooter petronius Nov 2012 #49

You are quite correct, they are separate issues before the court ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #50

The poster has a long history of conflating the two and calling it SYG ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #38

Not these lies again ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #28

You want to travel the ugly path of personal insults? Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #32

Sometimes the facts are ugly. Your continued posting of clear misinformation needs countered ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #35

Wow! n/t TPaine7 Nov 2012 #9

The accused try to "hide" behind any law they think will work in their favor. Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #52

Very true. Meanwhile, we'll await the next guinea pig. Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #53

Isn't this why we have a justice and court system? Remmah2 Nov 2012 #2

Video is inconclusive sarisataka Nov 2012 #3

The system seems to be working the way it is supposed to. ManiacJoe Nov 2012 #4

Sounds like SYG is working. ileus Nov 2012 #15

Sounds Like Stand Your Ground Laws are Used to Defend Themselves Against Criminal Charges fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #27

Its called an affirmative defense ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #33

Unnecessary fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #36

Absolutely Necessary ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #43

Clarified Nothing fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #45

Actually it did, often codifying what was precedent in many states ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #47

Two Defenses When One Would Do fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #48

If it was that simple, there would not have been the need for CD nor the whining over SYG ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #51