• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

MysteryMen said:
Yeah, this isn't right either. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and the defendant definitely has the burden of proof.

Maybe time to retire the armchair legal analysis.
Click to expand...

Spare me the implied notion the defense in asserting its defense faces anything remotely as tough as the prosecution does in proving its case and earning a guilty verdict. As I noted (and you seem to conveniently ignore) the defense has to be able to present evidence the defense can apply. But, as you know, in every criminal case the larger burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not the person asserting a defense.

Since you keep on demanding more details, Yanez has to present evidence that supports the defense. And the jury has to look at that evidence and determine if in total it supports the defense. But that "preponderence" of evidence standard, as you know, is not at all like what the prosecution must prove - the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Here are the items Yanez could offer that would support his defense he had a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death:

1 He and his partner thought Castile may have been an armed robber.
2 Castile told him he had a gun (easy to prove because of the dash cam)
3 He saw Castile's gun
4 He told Castile not to reach for the gun (easy to prove because of the dash cam)
5 He saw Castile reach towards the gun
6 Expert testimony as to how long it would take Castile to fire off a shot

We know the jury bought this defense because of interviews with MPR. As soon as they determine the defense applies the prosecution has no case and has failed. But even if they did not buy the defense the prosecution would still have to prove every single element of their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

To further put the lower burden associated with Yanez's asserted defense, if Yanez were held to a similar standard as the prosecution how many people here would conclude he did not prove his fear beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably a lot. And they'd point to how he couldn't really prove he saw the gun or that he saw Castile reach for it, etc. - the things he has no clear evidence are true beyond his word. Instead the jury gets to weigh the totality of all these items - pretty much decide if they believe his story - and make a judgement call.

By contrast the prosecution has to try and wreck his defense (cast doubt on it) and prove every single element of its own case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a way, way, way tougher job, and you know it.
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
Spare me the implied notion the defense in asserting its defense faces anything remotely as tough as the prosecution does in proving its case and earning a guilty verdict. As I noted (and you seem to conveniently ignore) the defense has to be able to present evidence the defense can apply. But, as you know, in every criminal case the larger burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not the person asserting a defense.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it doesn't make it any more correct. The defense doesn't just "ha[ve] to be able to present evidence the defense can apply." It has to prove that self-defense does apply. The prosecution most certainly does not have to prove that the defense does not apply. This is all basic 1L hornbook law.

There is no "larger burden of proof." It's a multi-step process and the two questions are distinct from each other. First the jury determines whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof on the elements of manslaughter. Then the jury considers whether the defendant has met his burden of proof on the affirmative defense.
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
I'm not working from the assumption that Castile is "bad". We already know in hindsight that he wasn't bad.

But hindsight doesn't play legally. What I'm trying to get all you legal eagles to understand is that legally the case doesn't hinge on whether Castile was, in fact, good or bad, but rather on the Cop's state of mind as he approached that car and interacted with Castile. He was charged with manslaughter. And his defense hinged on whether he felt an imminent threat that he'd endure significant bodily harm or death. That is the standard.

And if the tables were reversed Castile would be convicted. For starters, by disobeying the police's instructions he would have broken the law. And there is no doubt he'd have a much harder time asserting a self defense claim.
Click to expand...

This is not the standard. The standard is objective, not subjective.

DeacMan said:
So what is the standard, Ph, for each type of homicide and what are the defense standards for each type of homicide. You keep on proclaiming you don't like the standard. What should it be - keeping in mind you'll be overturning hundreds of years of jurisprudence. Good work.

And you've already demonstrated you don't know much. You don't know the facts of the case and you sure as hell don't know the law.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he knows what the law is, but you definitely don't.

DeacMan said:
I've given you the current standard, almost certainly more than once, on this thread.
Click to expand...

Nope. You've tried lots of different possibilities. But haven't hit it yet.

DeacMan said:
In general the standard for voluntary manslaughter self-defense is that you act reasonably and justifiably to prevent someone from causing you serious injury or death. In many states that standard of defense is expanded specifically for law officers so that it covers not only situations where you may face such injury or death but also third parties (i.e. you arrive at the scene and a man is firing a gun at another man who is unarmed - in that circumstance the cop can fire at the assailant). In fact, the law goes even further in granting officers defenses (e.g. preventing someone likely to commit a felony involving potential death or great bodily harm to others from escaping). But that wouldn't be relevant to this particular case. The actual words of the defense standard might vary a bit from state to state but that is the general standard for self defense. IIRC, in Minnesota the words speak to "apparent death" or "great bodily injury or harm" - something along those lines. That would make the defense even slightly more accessible than it might be in other states.
Click to expand...

Finally! This is actually pretty close to the right standard. Doing great.....

DeacMan said:
Further, remember, the prosecution has to show the standards of manslaughter were met beyond a reasonable doubt. So while the defense has to show some evidence the defense might apply it isn't the defense's responsibility to "prove' the defense. Rather the prosecution has to show the charge of manslaughter should stick beyond a reasonable doubt (and, among other things, that essentially means showing the defense should not apply once asserted).

Finally, keep in mind that if you alter standards either to prosecute or defend you are going to create a host of unintended consequences.

Again, I'd focus my time not on trying to gain legal victories after the fact but rather on how to prevent more of these instances from happening in the first place.
Click to expand...

.....until things go off the rails in the next paragraph. The defense most definitely does have to prove the defense. That's literally one of the requirements in succeeding on an affirmative defense.

DeacMan said:
Spare me the implied notion the defense in asserting its defense faces anything remotely as tough as the prosecution does in proving its case and earning a guilty verdict. As I noted (and you seem to conveniently ignore) the defense has to be able to present evidence the defense can apply. But, as you know, in every criminal case the larger burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not the person asserting a defense.
Click to expand...

This is gibberish that is not even close to what the law is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom line: it's pretty dumb to come on here and start lecturing people about the law when your knowledge of it is limited to Drudge or whatever other websites you're reading. It's doubly dumb to be a dick while doing it.
 
MysteryMen said:
It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it doesn't make it any more correct. The defense doesn't just "ha[ve] to be able to present evidence the defense can apply." It has to prove that self-defense does apply. The prosecution most certainly does not have to prove that the defense does not apply. This is all basic 1L hornbook law.

There is no "larger burden of proof." It's a multi-step process and the two questions are distinct from each other. First the jury determines whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof on the elements of manslaughter. Then the jury considers whether the defendant has met his burden of proof on the affirmative defense.
Click to expand...

You are a lot smarter than this. Proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is very different from being able to assert a defense by a preponderance of evidence. Those are different standards - which you know. If they were the same standard they'd be named the same. As you also know the jury hears the entire case - the arguments of both sides - before they deliberate. And they also look at the arguments for and against prosecution and defense.

The jurors interviewed in the Yanez case described what happened as "it felt reckless". When asked why he was cleared they said " we couldn't see what he saw but we 'believed' him". IOW they thought it more likely than not he was telling truth based upon what was verifiable and his story. That isn't the same bar the prosecution has to pass over at all.

Also, as you know, the prosecution has to prove their case and, effectively, disprove his defense. He merely has to assert his defense with a preponderance of evidence to walk or disprove their case against him. By definition he has an easier road - because that's how our system works. It is set up to make things more difficult for the state. You don't need to be a 1L to know this. You're taught it as a child.
 
He'll need at least 6L if he thinks there are not different standards for a defendant to assert a defense than for a prosecutor to prove his case.

Mystery seems hung up in the notion I have not directly noted a jury has to accept a defense. That's obvious. The jury obviously isn't simply being told a defense was asserted. They have to accept it. His statement there is no lower burden for the defense is wacked. There are all sorts of proof standards under law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the absolute highest. It is as if you have to show there really is no other explanation someone could reasonably believe. That's a high bar. The prosecutor in the Yanez case had to get a jury over that standard for manslaughter and also get them to reject a lower self defense standard that is essentially a more likely than not standard.
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
He'll need at least 6L if he thinks there are not different standards for a defendant to assert a defense than for a prosecutor to prove his case.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing this, you're fighting a straw man. There are different standards. I've just been trying to fix all the other things you said that are wrong given how condescending you were to PH in saying them
 
jhmd2000 said:
5L is no doubt the toughest.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see bios and experience levels for MysteryMen and DeacMan.

There is no doubt in my mind as to which one I would hire if I was looking for an attorney.....assuming, of course, that MysteryMen is also an attorney.

There is also no doubt in my mind as to which of the two has the most experience and has been the most successful in his profession.

ETA: If this debate between these two guys had been a prize fight the referee would have stopped it a long time ago to prevent MysteryMen from suffering further permanent damage.
 
Last edited:
Has MM ever represented anyone who may or may not have killed an in-law? That could be the deciding factor.
 
MysteryMen said:
I'm not arguing this, you're fighting a straw man. There are different standards. I've just been trying to fix all the other things you said that are wrong given how condescending you were to PH in saying them
Click to expand...

Right back at you Mr there is no lower burden of proof. It is obvious when the defense asserts a defense the jury has to accept it. So you drone on for pages bc that isn't made clear. It would appear you too can fail to be clear about the obvious and get called on it. There's been plenty of condescension to go around in this thread. Like Ph proclaiming only certain people are capable of having compassion. Newsflash, I'm not unique to being snarky.

Since there are different standards who, generally, is advantaged in a case? I presume you won't argue the prosecution.
 
I think the major point MM was making was the objective v. Subjective standard for the defense. I didn't read everything both of you wrote though
 
DeacMan said:
Right back at you Mr there is no lower burden of proof. It is obvious when the defense asserts a defense the jury has to accept it. So you drone on for pages bc that isn't made clear. It would appear you too can fail to be clear about the obvious and get called on it. There's been plenty of condescension to go around in this thread. Like Ph proclaiming only certain people are capable of having compassion. Newsflash, I'm not unique to being snarky.

Since there are different standards who, generally, is advantaged in a case? I presume you won't argue the prosecution.
Click to expand...

You can talk all you want about the standard being tougher for the prosecution but self-defense defenses almost never work when the defendant isn't a cop.

This is the heart of the problem: that jurors treat cops differently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top