Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Nope. Sorry. I don't want to make it easier for the state when it comes to criminal prosecution [View all]hack89
(39,181 posts)237. Use of force in self defense is not an affirmative defense in Delaware - it is a justification
§ 461. Justification -- A defense.
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in §§ 462-471 of this title, is a defense.
11 Del. C. 1953, § 461; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1.;
§ 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.
(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and
b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and
c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in §§ 462-471 of this title, is a defense.
11 Del. C. 1953, § 461; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, § 1.;
§ 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.
(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's dwelling; and
b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant's place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and
c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer's duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c004/index.shtml
from a Delaware Trial Handbook
Under the criminal code, there are several defined circumstances where the use of force by an individual will be deemed justified and so constitute a defense to a criminal prosecution.70 For example, use of force is justified when it is required by law.71 Presumably, this is limited to the degree of force necessary to perform the act required by law. Further, individuals with special responsibilities for the care, discipline or safety of others, such as children and incompetent people, may use a limited amount of force to safeguard and promote the welfare of such persons.72
Justification is not an affirmative defense placing the burden of proof on the defendant. Instead, the defendant must only come forward with some credible evidence of the existence of facts making the act justifiable. If the defendant does so, he or she is entitled to have the matter considered by the jury on the basis that the burden is on the prosecution to prove absence of justification, and if the defendants evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to justification, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal.
Self-Defense. Perhaps the most common justification is self-defense. Use of force in self-defense is justified where the defendant honestly believes that force is immediately necessary for self-protection against the use of unlawful force by another person on the present occasion.77 The defendant must show that he or she believed that force was necessary and that his or her response was an immediate reaction to a present necessity.78 This is a subjective test.79 Since the time available for deliberation in these circumstances is generally limited, the defendant may estimate the need for employing force in self-defense under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be at the time, without retreating, surrendering possession or doing any other act that the defendant has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.80
The use of deadly force in self-defense is justifiable only if the defendant believed that such force was necessary for self-protection from death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.81 Deadly force is not justified, however, if the defendant was the initial aggressor and had the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury.82 Nor may a defendant use deadly force if the defendant can retreat to a place of complete safety.83 A defendant, however, is not obligated to retreat from his or her home or place of lodging, whether or not the defendant was the initial aggressor.84 A defendant is also not obligated to retreat from his or her place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor.85
Justification is not an affirmative defense placing the burden of proof on the defendant. Instead, the defendant must only come forward with some credible evidence of the existence of facts making the act justifiable. If the defendant does so, he or she is entitled to have the matter considered by the jury on the basis that the burden is on the prosecution to prove absence of justification, and if the defendants evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to justification, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal.
Self-Defense. Perhaps the most common justification is self-defense. Use of force in self-defense is justified where the defendant honestly believes that force is immediately necessary for self-protection against the use of unlawful force by another person on the present occasion.77 The defendant must show that he or she believed that force was necessary and that his or her response was an immediate reaction to a present necessity.78 This is a subjective test.79 Since the time available for deliberation in these circumstances is generally limited, the defendant may estimate the need for employing force in self-defense under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be at the time, without retreating, surrendering possession or doing any other act that the defendant has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.80
The use of deadly force in self-defense is justifiable only if the defendant believed that such force was necessary for self-protection from death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.81 Deadly force is not justified, however, if the defendant was the initial aggressor and had the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury.82 Nor may a defendant use deadly force if the defendant can retreat to a place of complete safety.83 A defendant, however, is not obligated to retreat from his or her home or place of lodging, whether or not the defendant was the initial aggressor.84 A defendant is also not obligated to retreat from his or her place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor.85
http://www.delawgroup.com/dth/?page_id=155
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
238 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Nope. Sorry. I don't want to make it easier for the state when it comes to criminal prosecution [View all]
cali
Jul 2013
OP
I believe the immunity hearing would occur if someone now files a civil suit against Zimmerman
Lasher
Jul 2013
#178
But the state is not specifically looking for evidence that will exonerate the accused
hack89
Jul 2013
#23
A defense team can't establish reasonable doubt if they don't know it is there..
pipoman
Jul 2013
#44
That was certainly my experience with the jury that I served on earlier this year.
Arkansas Granny
Jul 2013
#92
I'd start with the money and resources available to the state for prosecution
rpannier
Jul 2013
#119
That certainly seems to be the case. In the legal system and pretty much everywhere else.
EOTE
Jul 2013
#150
The unserious nature of his 'injuries' seems to indicate he didn't try but rather
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#85
No, I'm advocating not letting them start fights and end them by shooting the other person. nt
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#140
Since he broke into her home with the intent of killing her, I would presume
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#145
We can do this dance all day. If he initiates the conflict, she can shoot him
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#157
So, in this completely hypothetical example one person goes to the other's
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#162
You're asking me to serve as the jury without seeing actual forensics or testimony.
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#166
To me, if you need to carry a gun into a place for self-protection, you ought
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#171
There would be forensic evidence available, there would be fingerprints on the gun
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#84
Use of force in self defense is not an affirmative defense in Delaware - it is a justification
hack89
Jul 2013
#237
Defending our crappy laws is still not a good argument when people get away with murder.
Dawgs
Jul 2013
#68
Dispatchers aren't cops, and even cops don't have the right to just order others...
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#136
I don't see a problem with going back to the traditional burden of proof on self defense
treestar
Jul 2013
#64
Correct. Relaxed gun laws are more to blame for this than the court system.
AllINeedIsCoffee
Jul 2013
#126
I'd just be happy if states heavily revised the so-called "self-defense" laws
Blue_Tires
Jul 2013
#134
There are actually some things the prosecution did in the zimmerman case that are troubling
anomiep
Jul 2013
#146
been on jury duty and in my county in wisconsin if the cop says you did it you are guilty
dembotoz
Jul 2013
#159