• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Self defense shooter goes free, another criminal rightfully shot.

Grim_Night

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
“This has had a very damaging impact on his life,” Doucette’s attorney, Steven Thayer, said Wednesday. “He had to go to considerable expense to defend himself and to redeem himself, and essentially, he had to prove his innocence, which he has done.”
Click to expand...

This part irritates me to no end. Since when is the defendant in a criminal case required to prove their innocence? Does "innocent untill proven guilty" mean nothing anymore? Last I checked, it was the prosecution's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is not required to prove a damn thing. I have actually had judges say the same thing while I was in court for jury duty.
 
Last edited:
509rifas

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
Grim_Night said:
This part irritates me to no end. Since when is the defendant in a criminal case required to prove their innocence? Does "innocent untill proven guilty" mean nothing anymore? Last I checked, it was the prosecution's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is not required to prove a damn thing. I have actually had judges say the same thing while I was in court for jury duty.
Click to expand...

It also says he was charged because the first witness statement said they had seperated and was walking away, and when the witness changed the story, charges were dropped. Doesn't seem unreasonable, except for Murder 2 charge instead of something more fitting for the circumstance like Manslaughter 2.
 
HPmatt

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,468
Location
Dallas
So what was going on with the witness' statements?
Guess the deceased was part of gypsy heritage but not mentioned in the PC newspaper article?
 
Alpine

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
We need to get http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110 amended to include legal costs associated with defending against charges or actions against accused if they get dropped prior to trial. People can go broke prior to trial and if charges are dropped it might have cost a lot to get them dropped.

Call up and write your reps and sens to get that RCW amended!
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
Those who are complaining about the "proving his innocence" remark, did you read the article? There was absolutely no doubt that Doucette shot the man who attacked him! A party who claims self-defense (which it rightly was, in this case) necessarily implies an acknowledgement that he or she did use force against another person.

You cannot go to court and say "I did not shoot that man, and besides it was in self-defense."
 
509rifas

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
kparker said:
Those who are complaining about the "proving his innocence" remark, did you read the article? There was absolutely no doubt that Doucette shot the man who attacked him! A party who claims self-defense (which it rightly was, in this case) necessarily implies an acknowledgement that he or she did use force against another person.

You cannot go to court and say "I did not shoot that man, and besides it was in self-defense."
Click to expand...

Right, that's the thing with affirmative defenses. There still is the presumption of innocence even with an affirmative defense though. And when the witness says you shot a guy while he was walking away (I'm interested to know where the wounds were) you can expect to incur some legal costs.

I agree that the law ought be amended from just covering costs if found not guilty to include dropped charges, with the same or similar type checklist thingy.
 
Geerolla

Geerolla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
114
Location
WA, USA
Shouldn't the witness have to cover court costs since her dumb ass caused this?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top