-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
When trial courts go stupid on self defense law (aka, know the law)
- Thread starter Law of Self Defense
- Start date
OC for ME
Regular Member
The burden must be on the state to be sure that the law is applied as written, this includes jury instructions. Anyone who places the burden onto the citizen is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
The law cited by Nightmare: "895.62 Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity."
Civil liability not criminal liability. The KY Supreme Court even cites the correct law for us http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/503-00/060.pdf
Incidentally: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/503-00/080.PDF
OC for ME
Regular Member
Are you disputing that the law you cited is a civil penalties law?
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
Of course the LEGAL burden is on the state. Nobody is contesting that. But if they screw it up, who pays the price? Not the state. Not the judge. Not the lawyers.
Just you.
I'll accept personal responsibility for making sure some idiotic court doesn't mistakenly hang me with a 10-year-manslaughter charge.
You're free to trust them not to make the same kind of mistake they made in the KY case.
Each to his own, I guess.
Andrew
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
What mechanism is available to the citizenry to be sure that judges do not make this mistake in the future? There are only two answers. All other conditions are post getting screwed, then only one answer remains. The cited court case apparently worked out for the wronged citizen if I read the article correctly and the question answered was not even asked.
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
If you define "worked out" as meaning being convicted of manslaughter and spending months appealing to the state Supreme Court before finally getting the verdict reversed, I guess you're right.
Personally, I'd rather have had a shot at an outright acquittal at trial. But that's just me.
Andrew
OC for ME
Regular Member
I agree. Mitigating is the best course of course. But, it did not go down that way. The legal system worked. Now, can the citizen gain redress is the question. If not, how does this result assist others in the future.
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
You mean it worked (reversed a wrongful conviction), after it didn't work (wrongfully convicted the defendant in the first place, because apparently nobody in the court room could properly read a simple statute)?
Clearly, we have very different ideas of what constitutes a properly working legal system. But that's fine, we can agree to disagree. :lol:
Andrew
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
You mean it worked (reversed a wrongful conviction), after it didn't work (wrongfully convicted the defendant in the first place, because apparently nobody in the court room could properly read a simple statute)?
Clearly, we have very different ideas of what constitutes a properly working legal system. But that's fine, we can agree to disagree. :lol:
Andrew
If you are looking for a perfect system that works perfectly all the time you are in the wrong universe. If the system was completely perfect we would not need appeals courts.
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
I would suggest that there's considerable space between an unachievable "perfect system", on the one hand, and an entire court room of legal professionals reading a statute backwards, on the other hand.
Finding legal incompetence unacceptable is hardly "looking for a perfect system that works perfectly all the time." :lol:
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
You claimed the system does not work, but the system does, it just does not work perfectly. That is why there is tiered court system to operate as a safety valve for mistakes. In that sense the system works, but is not perfect, nor does it work perfectly, as nothing in life does.
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
eye95
Well-known member
*in his best Claude Rains voice* I am shocked, shocked to find that a certain someone has put words in your mouth.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
You mean like the above?You mean it worked (reversed a wrongful conviction), after it didn't work (wrongfully convicted the defendant in the first place, because apparently nobody in the court room could properly read a simple statute)?
Clearly, we have very different ideas of what constitutes a properly working legal system. But that's fine, we can agree to disagree. :lol:
Andrew
Ya know if you are going to do the ape dance, at least let a little dust settle between saying one thing and then denying it. Not surprised that the Eye managed jump on board of the fool train.
Last edited:
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
eye95
Well-known member
Ah, so it's a "thing" with him, then, is it? It seemed likely from the tone.
Andrew
He will no doubt find something you said, twist it to sound like the words he put in your mouth, and claim you said what he said you said.
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
Really? The specific part of that process that I described as not working--the wrongful conviction of the defendant--that's the part of the process that you think worked? :banghead:
If wrongfully convicting people is a "working" function of the judicial system, you're welcome to it.
By the way, where's my latte?
Andrew
Last edited:
Law of Self Defense
Regular Member
And eye95 wins the prize.
Well, that's easy to fix . . . must be an ignore button around here somewhere . . . ah, yes, here it is.
Thanks for the heads-up, eye95. Much appreciated.
Andrew
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Ah, so it's a "thing" with him, then, is it? It seemed likely from the tone.
Andrew
Actually you are the one who claimed one thing then said another, we all know Eye persona, the fact that he stuck his nose in was expected. But I was a little surprised that he ignored or did not even bother to look at your recent post. If you are going to claim a thing with a member, you should have your ducks in a row first. You might want to work on some memory exercises or some salt before putting your foot in your orifice.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
And eye95 wins the prize.
Andrew
Are you denying your own words? "after it didn't work"