Sorry Bear, but history has shown that in many situations, it takes a trial to prove a person's innocence in a SD shooting. Shouldn't be that way, but it is, far too often.
Not in recent history it hasn't. I know of two SD shootings with no charges ever filed. This is since the Washington State Supreme Courts "stand your ground" decision.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree that it is a waste of time and effort, Bear and here's why. Self-defense is, AFAIK and have been able to determine, even in castle doctrine states, an affirmative defense rather than an absolute defense. In other words, the burden of proving self-defense is on the defendant if an over zealous prosecutor decides to prosecute the case. Having a restraining order, while in and of itself will not, as we know and you pointed out stop the BG from coming after you, it does lay part of the foundation for an affirmative self-defense legal defense. It lays proof that you were concerned about being harmed by the BG and that such concern rose to the level that a judge agreed that there was potential for harm and therefore granted a restraining order. The very fact that you would go through the time and effort to obtain it is evidence that you needed it. The very fact that the BG violated it to get close enough for you to need lethal force shows mal-intent and an illegal act on the BG's part.
Gee, somewhere along the line YOUR Constitution must have been changed from "Innocent until proven guilty" to "Guilty until you prove yourself Innocent". At least with your contention. But mine hasn't.
Yes it has, you just haven't admitted it yet. There are cases upon cases of innocent homeowners who were unable to prove themselves innocent in a self-defense situation and went to jail. In so many cases, the police and the prosecutors have taken a stance of, "It's us against the people," as if we're all criminals that need a little state discipline.
I'm getting worked up over a system that no longer works because the lawyers, judges and politicians have perverted it to their purpose, rather than playing the game as the rules are written. And it seems it is OK by you guys because you will play along with their crap. Restraining orders don't work. So why do they even exist?
You shouldn't have to bolster your legal case, there shouldn't be a case to start with. Your agreeing with this moronic ideais getting people killed on a regular basis.
I think we are getting sideways here for no reason, Bear. Most of us are coming at this issue, as I did above, from a purely practical, realistic perspective. You, on the other hand, are coming at it from a philosophical and theoretical perspective. I agree with you philosophically and in theory. It should not be that way. Less than 100 years ago in many parts of this country simply having witnesses that someone threatened your life was sufficient for an affirmative defense in court against a premeditated, proactive killing of the person making the threat. Frankly I don't have a problem with that. If the law still worked that way we wouldn't have all these nutballs out there posturing and threatening people because they would know that their posturing and threats would be met with justifiable, proactive deadly force.
I agree with you Bear, you shouldn't have to bolster your case, but in this real gray world we are living with it is a reality of the need and fore site to help yourself when in this situation. I know you already know this, you ( and many more ) don't like it. In a Black and white, Law vs Unlawful world, your way would be right. It just isn't.
My way was the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. Lawyers have destroyed it in the name of making themselves money.