N.R.A.’s Influence Seen in Expansion of Self-Defense Laws

[iverglas]

8. "Castle Doctrine is derived from UK common law"

Absolutely false, no matter how many times you chant it.

It derives from English common law in the same way as rotten meat derives from cows.

As my esteemed cousin wrote in Woolmington v. D.P.P. in 1935 (my emphasis):

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.

English common law has NEVER given impunity to anyone for assault or murder. Someone who claims to have acted in self-defence must raise that issue at trial, and then the prosecution must prove it untrue, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is how the Canadian Judicial Council recommends that the jury be charged:

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_sd_defence34_2_en.asp

... {name of accused} is justified in killing or causing grievous bodily harm to defend himself/herself and must be acquitted if all of the following three conditions are present:

1. NOA killed or caused grievous bodily harm to NOC to repel an unlawful13 assault (or what s/he reasonably perceived to be an unlawful assault)14 on him/her by NOC; and

2. NOA reasonably believed that s/he would be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm as a result of NOC's assault; and

3. NOA reasonably believed that s/he could not otherwise preserve himself/herself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Unless the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of these conditions for self-defence was absent, you must acquit NOA of (specify offence).

NOA is not required to prove that s/he acted in self-defence. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he did not.

There has never, ever, ever been anything in English common law that granted immunity from prosecution to anyone who uses force against another person.

While Wyoming has a Castle Doctrine (SYG in the home)

"Castle doctrine" IS NOT "SYG in the home". It is not. Please stop saying it. It is NOT TRUE.