JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
1,369
Reactions
2,530
Some of you have read my posts referencing Andrew Branca - arguably the most knowedgeable attorney in the US today regarding the legal use of lethal force for self defense.

The link below is to a page on his website where he discusses his proposal to begin to look into creating legislation to hold the State and prosecutors accountable for malicious prosecution of a defendant who used lethal force to avoid death or serious bodily harm.

It's the initial discussion of a concept. But at least someone with some credibility is talking about it.

If you're interested, here's the link.


Cheers
 
I support the idea, but it begs the question what the metric would be to determine if a prosecutor maliciously charges someone with self defense?
 
Some of you have read my posts referencing Andrew Branca - arguably the most knowedgeable attorney in the US today regarding the legal use of lethal force for self defense.

The link below is to a page on his website where he discusses his proposal to begin to look into creating legislation to hold the State and prosecutors accountable for malicious prosecution of a defendant who used lethal force to avoid death or serious bodily harm.

It's the initial discussion of a concept. But at least someone with some credibility is talking about it.

If you're interested, here's the link.


Cheers
Like this idea, kick these fascist as_ses and make them accountable for their arrogance and misconduct..
 
I support the idea, but it begs the question what the metric would be to determine if a prosecutor maliciously charges someone with self defense?
Basically, if the prosecutor fails to disprove BRD, defender walks. If prosecutor fails to disprove even to "preponderance" then the penalties kick in.
 
Basically, if the prosecutor fails to disprove BRD, defender walks. If prosecutor fails to disprove even to "preponderance" then the penalties kick in.
if that was the metric, then nobody would ever be charged with murder. Preponderance is subjective... The problem is trials in themselves do not have a perfect track record for serving justice. Many innocent people get convicted, many guilty people get acquitted.
There needs to be a metric to determine if the prosecution is pressing charges maliciously, such as for political, monetary gain or personal political bias.
 
Some states, such as WA oddly enough, have legal reimbursement for those acquitted on the basis of self-defense. It would be nice if all states did the same. WA law also clears individuals of any legal jeopardy if found to have defended themselves.
Some states like AZ protect those using SD from civil liability as well.

I'm all for Kyle's Law and at the same time there should be criminal penalties to DA's that refuse to there job and are not prosecuting scumbags because of race and/or political affiliations.
 
if that was the metric, then nobody would ever be charged with murder. Preponderance is subjective... The problem is trials in themselves do not have a perfect track record for serving justice. Many innocent people get convicted, many guilty people get acquitted.
There needs to be a metric to determine if the prosecution is pressing charges maliciously, such as for political, monetary gain or personal political bias.
Different standard... basically, it requires the prosecutor show that he was bringing his case in good faith, and if the jury doesn't think he did Break Out the K-Y. Branca explained it in his page, IIRC...
 
There needs to be a metric to determine if the prosecution is pressing charges maliciously, such as for political, monetary gain or personal political bias.
That is a very good point! I say leave all the BS aside and use the actual law to determine if charges are to be filed.
 
Different standard... basically, it requires the prosecutor show that he was bringing his case in good faith, and if the jury doesn't think he did Break Out the K-Y. Branca explained it in his page, IIRC...
Branca is trying to put a metric on the preponderance of evidence. So does this mean that a case shouldn't be prosecuted if there isn't more than 50% of the preponderance of the evidence? The problem is, a lack of actual evidence doesnt mean innocence in all self defense claims.
 
A case like this may well lead to new law. When I was in AZ they passed some version of "stand your ground" over this kind of thing. Guy shot a person stealing his tools. Said he was trying to fire warning shot as his livelihood was in those tool boxes. DA tried him for murder. Jury took almost no time to say no way. Voters were so pissed off they started to put a law on the ballot. Law makers seeing the wave of anger passed one on their own to keep the voters happy. I hope the anger from what they did to this kid boils over and the state gets a lot of new law makers over it.
 
Branca is trying to put a metric on the preponderance of evidence. So does this mean that a case shouldn't be prosecuted if there isn't more than 50% of the preponderance of the evidence? The problem is, a lack of actual evidence doesnt mean innocence in all self defense claims.
No, make the bar of evidence to find misconduct for a prosecutor "preponderance of evidence", which is a pretty low bar. I was being facetious. That is the same bar used for most red flag laws. It is essentially guilty until innocent.
 
In regards to the courtroom misconduct we just witnessed by the ADA team in the Rittenhouse trial, had I been the judge I would have fined them on the spot for each offense committed for so much GD money that they would've essentially been working for free for 30 days a pop.
 
In regards to the courtroom misconduct we just witnessed by the ADA team in the Rittenhouse trial, had I been the judge I would have fined them on the spot for each offense committed for so much GD money that they would've essentially been working for free for 30 days a pop.
It ain't over... by a long shot.
Lots of fallout still yet to come for the DA's in this case.

They tried to sabotage their own case with a mistrial to keep this from a jury. Even the judge knew this.
 
I support the idea, but it begs the question what the metric would be to determine if a prosecutor maliciously charges someone with self defense?
Yeah.....basis.
Perhaps, it would/could be based on....the color of one's skin?

Anyway, when you think about it.....
Everything.....is racist now a days.

LOL. All you gotta do is make a claim. And some people will immediately fold.

Aloha, Mark
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top