Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Maricopa County Attorney to create "Self-Defense Review Committee"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Maricopa County Attorney to create "Self-Defense Review Committee"

    Definitely sounds like a step in the right direction!

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/loc...cc4c03286.html

    On Tuesday, Montgomery announced the creation of a Self-Defense Review Committee to evaluate specific cases involving the unlawful discharge of firearms, the defensive display of a weapon, and incidents of physical and deadly force where the right of self-defense has been asserted. Comprised of the same group of senior attorneys in the County Attorney's Office who currently review officer involved incidents, the committee will carefully and expeditiously review the facts presented in such cases prior to making final decisions, Montgomery said.

    "The Self-Defense Review Committee is designed to ensure that citizens legitimately exercising their Second Amendment rights do not incur significant financial and emotional costs as a result of having to defend themselves in the criminal justice system," Montgomery said. "Reviewing these cases prior to charging whenever possible will also help ensure that the resources of the county attorney's office are utilized to prosecute cases where a crime has actually been committed rather than on cases that ultimately get dismissed or result in an acquittal," he added.

    The objectives of the Self-Defense Review Committee are consistent with statutory laws (sometimes referred to as "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand-Your-Ground" laws) which recognize a citizen's right to defend his or her family and property without fear of prosecution. Arizona law also justifies the use of both physical and deadly physical force if an individual believes such use is necessary to prevent criminal acts including aggravated assault, sexual assault, armed robbery, child molestation and kidnapping.

    "Our recognition of an individual's right to self-defense will not in any way change the standards we currently follow in determining whether to charge an individual with committing a crime," Montgomery emphasized. "This office will continue to aggressively pursue cases we believe have a reasonable likelihood of resulting in conviction."

    The creation of the Self-Defense Review Committee is not anticipated to result in any additional cost to the operations of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, according to Montgomery.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    This is for a Good Cause, especially with The Enactment of Arizona Code 13-421.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    This seems to be the first time anyone has addressed the false paradox of self-defense.

    It is a crime to kill someone. It is a crime to kill someone with a gun. Often, prosecutors enjoy just leaving it at that.

    It is, however, NOT a crime to kill someone to protect yourself. They just leave the last 3 words out and prosecute. It creates a Guilty until Proven Innocent scenario when corrupt agents of the state (in this case, prosecutors) are able to circumvent the Constitution by a simple lie of omission. The burden of proof that a crime was committed is supposed to fall upon them, but instead, we are immediately guilty and are forced to produce evidence of innocence at great cost to ourselves.

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    This seems to be the first time anyone has addressed the false paradox of self-defense.

    It is a crime to kill someone. It is a crime to kill someone with a gun. Often, prosecutors enjoy just leaving it at that.

    It is, however, NOT a crime to kill someone to protect yourself. They just leave the last 3 words out and prosecute. It creates a Guilty until Proven Innocent scenario when corrupt agents of the state (in this case, prosecutors) are able to circumvent the Constitution by a simple lie of omission. The burden of proof that a crime was committed is supposed to fall upon them, but instead, we are immediately guilty and are forced to produce evidence of innocence at great cost to ourselves.
    Maybe guilty where you live - MARS. In Arizona a person acting in self defense is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nappy made the change in our favor a few years ago.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Anyone who's been here a while knows where I'm from, and where I wish I were.... And why I changed my location to what it now says.

    My point being, that killing someone is murder. You have to add on the fact that you did so in self-defense. Lots of LEOs and Prosecutors like to just leave that part out.

    It is one of very few legal behaviors that requires additional information to show that it isn't a crime. Simply leaving that information out is their game.

    1) You shot that guy
    2) You said you shot that guy

    That's murder, book 'em Dano! Conveniently leave out:

    3) You did so because he was trying to kill you first

    That 3rd piece of information is what makes it not murder anymore.

    Most crimes add up a meeting of conditions and stop there.

    If A and B and C have happened, it's a crime. Done. Prosecute, butt rape.

    Few have an exception of "If this is ALSO true, then it's not a crime anymore even thought the rest adds up."

    If A and B and C have happened, it's a crime. But, if you can prove D also, it's not a crime. Go home and be happy.

    It often occurs in self-defense events that this is the path the LEO/Prosecutor take. The fact that it was self-defense is up to you to prove after you're already indicted for murder. You have to prove that 3rd piece to prove your innocence. If you cannot afford those attorney fees, you have to plead guilty or no-contest to murder, or accept that your Public Pretender will not even try to present the case for self-defense if you plead not guilty.

    By definition, it is a guilty until proven innocent event. Which is why it shouldn't have a definition, IMNSHO.

    So, the fact that someone officially admits that it should be considered before being pushed into prison for simply not being rich, it's a good thing. You shouldn't have to spend one penny to defend yourself from the predatory State after it fails to protect you (while claiming to be your protector) and forces you to defend your life in the first place!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210
    ixtow, you really should familiarize yourself with Arizona law if you're going to be posting about legal issues in the AZ forum.

    In 2006, this bill was passed in response to the case of Harold Fish:
    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....ls/sb1145h.htm

    When you claim self defense in AZ, that's presumed to be true and it's the job of the prosecutor to prove otherwise.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    My point being, that killing someone is murder.
    No.

    Killing someone is either homicide or manslaughter.

    Murder is UNLAWFUL homicide.

    In the law, words have specific meanings. If you use the wrong word at the wrong time, it can really cause you problems, so learn the right meanings and use the words accordingly, especially if you are an armed citizen.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •