Law Ohio Legislature Overrides Gov. Kasich’s Veto of Gun Owners Rights Bill

[Greoric]

They only care that you killed him. That's their burden. Your burden by making the self defense argument is to prove it was justified. You're effectively admitting to the crime but saying that you were justified, hence why the burden of proof is on you. The jury can't reasonably acertain your state of mind, so you have to make that case to them.

Sure you can make that argument, but then you're also arguing against the system that's in place. You're obligating the accused to prove their innocence. That isn't commensurate with what we have now.

 

[Falsedawn]

Sure you can make that argument, but then you're also arguing against the system that's in place. You're obligating the accused to prove their innocence. That isn't commensurate with how are system operates.

That's not really an "argument", that's how affirmative defenses work. You admit to the crime, but your circumstances provide context that invalidate the illegality of the act.

-Self defense (I killed him, but I had to because my life was in danger.)

-Insanity (I did it, but i'm crazy and can't be held accountable for my actions.)

-Fair Use (I infringed your copyright, but I abided by Fair Use regulations and am therefore not culpable for any damages.)

All are affirmative defenses.

 

[Greoric]

That's not really an "argument", that's how affirmative defenses work. You admit to the crime, but your circumstances provide context that invalidate the illegality of the act.

-Self defense (I killed him, but I had to because my life was in danger.)

-Insanity (I did it, but i'm crazy and can't be held accountable for my actions.)

-Fair Use (I infringed your copyright, but I abided by Fair Use regulations and am therefore not culpable for any damages.)

All are affirmative defenses.

Admitting to a homicide isn't admitting to a crime, guy. Its the state's obligation to prove it was a murder...

 

[Rational Poster]

Admitting to a homicide isn't admitting to a crime, guy. Its the state's obligation to prove it was a murder...

If you take a position of self defense you are de facto admitting to killing another person.

 

[Falsedawn]

Admitting to a homicide isn't admitting to a crime, guy.

Sure it is if you can't provide mitigating circumstances.

This is why negligent homicide exists.

 

[Greoric]

If you take a position of self defense you are de facto admitting to killing another person.

You're not understanding that the state is still under the obligation of proving there was a crime in the act.

 

[tinker_190]

“Take the guns first, go through due process second."

-Current President of the United States Donald J. Trump

How is this relevant? I am confused

 

[Greoric]

Sure it is if you can't provide mitigating circumstances.

This is why negligent homicide exists.

Negligent homicide, a crime which the state is obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed.

 

[Greoric]

Amazing how the left has so much advocacy for civil rights ITT that they prefer for people to be guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Falsedawn]

Negligent homicide, a crime which the state is obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed.

Uh yeah, which if you come in and admit to a homicide would be pitifully easy.

Greoric, if you go to the police and say "I killed someone" and nothing else, and they find reason to tie you to the crime, you're going to jail. Killing someone is a crime, bar none. You providing evidence (even "It was an accident") is context that mitigates the criminality of the action.

They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed someone, that's the crime. You have to prove that it was justified. That's just how things work.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Amazing how the left has so much advocacy for civil rights ITT that they prefer for people to be guilty until proven innocent.

Even worse is not recognizing that that's what they're advocating.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Reminds me of an episode of COPS where these two fat hillbillies tried to claim stand your grand after firing at their neighbors trailer because she yelled at them

 

[Greoric]

Uh yeah, which if you come in and admit to a homicide would be pitifully easy.

Greoric, if you go to the police and say "I killed someone" and nothing else, and they find reason to tie you to the crime, you're going to jail. Killing someone is a crime, bar none. You providing evidence (even "It was an accident") is context that mitigates the criminality of the action.

They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed someone, that's the crime. You have to prove that it was justified. That's just how things work.

Look dude. I get the argument you're making, and I respect that you want to live in a society that forces people to prove their innocence in the event they had to defend their life with lethal force. I do not, and it is completely at odds with how the judicial system currently operates.

Case in point with your example. Every step after you make the statement "I killed someone" the state still goes through the process as the obligated party of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime and what the crime was from involuntary manslaughter all the way up to murder 1. The "I killed someone" may very well be sufficient probably cause to investigate further, but as the defendant you are not and should not have the burden of proof that a crime was committed after that.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Uh yeah, which if you come in and admit to a homicide would be pitifully easy.

Greoric, if you go to the police and say "I killed someone" and nothing else, and they find reason to tie you to the crime, you're going to jail. Killing someone is a crime, bar none. You providing evidence (even "It was an accident") is context that mitigates the criminality of the action.

They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed someone, that's the crime. You have to prove that it was justified. That's just how things work.

But we allow people to kill someone in self defense.

So assuming it is a crime, doesn't make sense.

 

[Falsedawn]

Look dude. I get the argument you're making, and I respect that you want to live in a society that forces people to prove their innocence in the event they had to defend their life with lethal force. I do not, and that is completely at odds with how system operates.

Case in point with your example. Every step after you make the statement "I killed someone" the state still goes through the process as the obligated of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime and what the crime was from involuntary manslaughter all the way up to murder 1. The "I killed someone" may very well be sufficient probably cause, but you are not and should not have the burden of proof that a crime was committed after that.

Dude, you're telling me "That's not the way the system works" when i'm literally telling you how the system works. Like, I get that you think it's unjust, but that's the way the law works. If you didn't want to make an affirmative defense, then don't. Then the state has to prove that you killed them beyond a reasonable doubt. If you didn't, then don't make that argument.

But we allow people to kill someone in self defense.

So assuming it is a crime, doesn't make sense.

Sure it does, when we make explicit exceptions in the code of law that allow it. I'm a gun owner, I know the Texas self defense laws. Here they are as a matter of fact. If I kill someone, and I go to court, I have no problem making the case that my actions were justified in the eyes of the law because they're written right there. If you guys are going to cry as "gun owners" who are unjustly being persecuted by the state, you might want to learn the circumstances in which you can use your piece legally.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Dude, you're telling me "That's not the way the system works" when i'm literally telling you how the system works. Like, I get that you think it's unjust, but that's the way the law works. If you didn't want to make an affirmative defense, then don't. Then the state has to prove that you killed them beyond a reasonable doubt. If you didn't, then don't make that argument.



Sure it does, when we make explicit exceptions in the code of law that allow it. I'm a gun owner, I know the Texas self defense laws. Here they are as a matter of fact. If I kill someone, and I go to court, I have no problem making the case that my actions were justified in the eyes of the law because they're written right there. If you guys are going to cry as "gun owners" who are unjustly being persecuted by the state, you might want to learn the circumstances in which you can use your piece legally.

Yeah, and courts haven't challenged the NSA on the violation of the US Constitution, showing they are corrupt.

Might want to be careful passing laws that you can only defend with legal bullshit arguments. You strip your own legitimacy more everyday.

 

[Falsedawn]

Yeah, and courts haven't challenged the NSA on the violation of the US Constitution, showing they are corrupt.

Might want to be careful passing laws that you can only defend with legal bullshit arguments. You strip your own legitimacy more everyday.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The law is the law was your argument.

My counter argument was that the law needs legitimacy, and if the courts in this country boy longer uphold the supreme law of the land, they have no legitimacy, and the laws mean nothing.

 

[Greoric]

Dude, you're telling me "That's not the way the system works" when i'm literally telling you how the system works. Like, I get that you think it's unjust, but that's the way the law works. If you didn't want to make an affirmative defense, then don't. Then the state has to prove that you killed them beyond a reasonable doubt. If you didn't, then don't make that argument.

Where the fuck are we, in opposite land? Look, my guy. After you make the statement "I killed someone", and even presuming you go to court because of it who has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it the accused defendant, or is it the prosecuting state?

Anecdotally, my neighbor made similar comments last week in a gun fight with some home boys and funny enough he never had the burden of proof in court or the presence in any court to prove it was a wrongful death.

 

[Greoric]

The law is the law was your argument.

My counter argument was that the law needs legitimacy, and if the courts in this country boy longer uphold the supreme law of the land, they have no legitimacy, and the laws mean nothing.

That's the silly part. The law isn't the law in his argument. It's this is how the law should be, with an advocacy that's exceptionally dangerous if you want to maintain a free society.