Why Self Defense Cases Go to Trial

[bradsteen]

Interesting video from The Armed Attorneys, breaking down how and why prosecutors will use certain types of evidence against a person. Key takeaway, it's not just your public postings on forums or social media that are potentially fair game - your phone call and text message history might wind up as evidence as well. Not surprising, but good to see it laid out in a reasonably clear fashion.

View: https://youtu.be/q-DXfvDX-nI?feature=shared

Read More

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

This begs the question* that it is a self defense shooting. Seems fair game to me to do discovery to determine if it really was self defence . . . as long as the discovery is actually done fairly



* Please to note the correct usage of that expression

 

[bradsteen]

This begs the question* that it is a self defense shooting. Seems fair game to me to do discovery to determine if it really was self defence . . . as long as the discovery is actually done fairly



* Please to note the correct usage of that expression

Yep. The point they make is that evidence may be brought in unrelated to the self defense issue with the intent to inflame the jury against the defendant's character as opposed to their actions. The trial is supposed to be focused on whether or not deadly force was justified in that specific situation, not whether the person doing the shooting would qualify as a role model of upstanding citizenry.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Yep. The point they make is that evidence may be brought in unrelated to the self defense issue with the intent to inflame the jury against the defendant's character as opposed to their actions. The trial is supposed to be focused on whether or not deadly force was justified in that specific situation, not whether the person doing the shooting would qualify as a role model of upstanding citizenry.

Sure, but my point was that what if the evidence goes beyond showing if you were a "good person" and shows that the shooting (or whatever) was premeditated to put you in a position to murder someone under the guise of self defence

 

[bradsteen]

Sure, but my point was that what if the evidence goes beyond showing if you were a "good person" and shows that the shooting (or whatever) was premeditated to put you in a position to murder someone under the guise of self defence

Then that would be a legitimate piece of evidence against you in a murder trial.

 

[Knobgoblin]

This begs the question* that it is a self defense shooting. Seems fair game to me to do discovery to determine if it really was self defence . . . as long as the discovery is actually done fairly



* Please to note the correct usage of that expression

Just don't go around using the word " fair " when discussing normal American citizens on trial for self defense. Especially in a socialist utopia like Washington state

 

[Nosferatu]

I figured they went to trial because the body wasn't properly disposed of. Otherwise, it's just a missing person.

 

[bradsteen]

Then that would be a legitimate piece of evidence against you in a murder trial.

To clarify, evidence of premeditation would have to be specific enough to imply an intent to cause harm. General bashing and crap-talking doesn't do that.

 

[Knobgoblin]

 

[Camelfilter]

Sure, but my point was that what if the evidence goes beyond showing if you were a "good person" and shows that the shooting (or whatever) was premeditated to put you in a position to murder someone under the guise of self defence

What about the criminals past acts?

-For whatever reasons our criminal justice system DOESN'T allow dirt baggers histories…

 

[Nosferatu]

What about the criminals past acts?

-For whatever reasons our criminal justice system DOESN'T allow dirt baggers histories…

I'm not sure that's true. I recall from my youth a streetmate that got extra time because of his past digressions.

That was in Oakland in the early '90's, so maybe things have changed?

 

[Koda]

Just don't go around using the word " fair " when discussing normal American citizens on trial for self defense. Especially in a socialist utopia like Washington state

I have no confidence in "fair" trials when recent high profile self defense shootings have been brought to trial based on political motivations. I'm sure the discovery of the defenders political bias was uncovered "fairly" though.

 

[L84Cabo]

In a fair and just world, Kyle Rittenhouse NEVER would have been arrested, let alone charged and tried. His situation was textbook self defense and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Koda]

In a fair and just world, Kyle Rittenhouse NEVER would have been arrested, let alone charged and tried. His situation was textbook self defense and we all know how that turned out.

In a fair and just world his attackers would have been arrested, charged, and tried. I'm guessing there would have been plenty of evidence on line to secure their conviction.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

What about the criminals past acts?

-For whatever reasons our criminal justice system DOESN'T allow dirt baggers histories…

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but that wasn't my point.
I was going try and and come up with a hypothetical scenario to help explain it, but I couldn't come up with one that was clean and simple, but the caffeine reached my brain and I realized I didn't need to do that! All I had to do was remind ya'll of the time that the ANTIFA dude shot the Patriot Prayer dude in downtown Portland and calmed it was self defence, but it didn't take long to find that his words and "public postings on forums or social media" painted a portrait of someone looking to place himself in a position of killing (or at least inflicting grave harm) someone while being able to cry self defense

Should the investigators been prohibited from looking at everything he said and posted at any time prior to the actual shooting? If so he more than likely would have walked on a clean self defence claim.
But lets spin that a bit and pretend that the Patriot Prayer dude was the one that had posted that he (hyperbole warning) "couldn't wait to find someone on a dark street and mace and beat them" or something like that and he was found dead with a can of bear spray and a collapsible baton. Should that information be off limits?

 

[Stomper]

It's adorable how some folks think the judicial system is about, "justice".

It is (and always has been) about winning to mark that "W" on your career record (whether you're right or wrong) and nothing else, and as we've all learned (most of us anyway) having lived life; when it comes to any competition some will lie, cheat, steal, stack the deck, and abuse the "rules" to win at any cost.

I once was pulled over in Washington for speeding (which I wasn't actually), and I told the WSP Trooper that I was paying particular attention to not go over the speed limit…. when I went to court the judge read the trooper's report and that MFer wrote it to make it sound like I said I was being inconvenienced by the posted speed limit. I went OFF and pointed out the actual context of my statement…. the judge tossed the ticket out.


I guess the judge liked me…. LOL!

That's our "justice" system.

 

[Koda]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but that wasn't my point.
I was going try and and come up with a hypothetical scenario to help explain it, but I couldn't come up with one that was clean and simple, but the caffeine reached my brain and I realized I didn't need to do that! All I had to do was remind ya'll of the time that the ANTIFA dude shot the Patriot Prayer dude in downtown Portland and calmed it was self defence, but it didn't take long to find that his words and "public postings on forums or social media" painted a portrait of someone looking to place himself in a position of killing (or at least inflicting grave harm) someone while being able to cry self defense

Should the investigators been prohibited from looking at everything he said and posted at any time prior to the actual shooting? If so he more than likely would have walked on a clean self defence claim.
But lets spin that a bit and pretend that the Patriot Prayer dude was the one that had posted that he (hyperbole warning) "couldn't wait to find someone on a dark street and mace and beat them" or something like that and he was found dead with a can of bear spray and a collapsible baton. Should that information be off limits?

The answer to this question, legally, is if the beligerants knew of the other persons postings online befor or at the time of the crime/shooting.

As far as i know if you claim self defense you cant lawfully use the other persons crimes, past, history of violence etc. unless you already knew of that history.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The answer to this question, legally, is if the beligerants knew of the other persons postings online befor or at the time of the crime/shooting.

As far as i know if you claim self defense you cant lawfully use the other persons crimes, past, history of violence etc. unless you already knew of that history.

To that point, yes. IIRC (and based on a foggy memory of a Massad Ayoob article) back in 1982 when Officer Luis Alvarez shot Nevell Johnson Jr. calming self defence the officers lawyers were not allowed to bring in Johnsons alleged violent past because Johnson had never been arrested and/or convicted on anything that Alverez would have had knowledge of at the time of the shooting. It might have ended there except the prosecutor made some statement along the lines of "everyone that knows Johnson will tell you he wasn't a violent person" and that opened the door for the defence team to bring in a long list of people that had previously filed police reports identifying Johnson as the person that had robbed them at gunpoint.

 

[Camelfilter]

I'm not sure that's true. I recall from my youth a streetmate that got extra time because of his past digressions.

That was in Oakland in the early '90's, so maybe things have changed?

Extra time, yes. 3 strikes rules and such. For prior convictions at sentencing AND no plee bargaining. That system is now pretty much gone bye bye. Its too hard on criminals to criminal, so the current system is incredibly more lenient to let the criminals continue criminaling. Until they get to the point of violent crime...and getting caught.

However in court, during the trial, I am under the impression that the criminals prior bad acts (including convictions & plee's) cannot be brought up.

Sounds as its ok to bring up defendants thoughts as intent though...

I'm not a lawyer (obviously), so am just posting up my opinions on the matter.

 

[Koda]

To that point, yes. IIRC (and based on a foggy memory of a Massad Ayoob article) back in 1982 when Officer Luis Alvarez shot Nevell Johnson Jr. calming self defence the officers lawyers were not allowed to bring in Johnsons alleged violent past because Johnson had never been arrested and/or convicted on anything that Alverez would have had knowledge of at the time of the shooting. It might have ended there except the prosecutor made some statement along the lines of "everyone that knows Johnson will tell you he wasn't a violent person" and that opened the door for the defence team to bring in a long list of people that had previously filed police reports identifying Johnson as the person that had robbed them at gunpoint.

That shows how "fluid" the legal system can be.

And on this note, Im remembering a case where a guy shot a guy in self defense but his previous comments online were used against him.


Iirc, he was convicted based on his previous comments he posted online...
why would a prosecutor be allowed to use those?