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: All of the calls for a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" [View all]hack89
(39,181 posts)35. You are wrong about Delaware.
§ 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):
136 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
All of the calls for a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" [View all]
pipoman
Jul 2013
OP
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe Zimmerman's account beyond a reasonable doubt.
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2013
#1
bet would have been manslaughter or even 2nd degree if Z had murdered by beating to death T.
Sunlei
Jul 2013
#96
Of course - unless it only takes one blow it is hard to argue a thorough beating is self defense.
hack89
Jul 2013
#97
In the majority of states, the law is written so that if one claims 'self-defense' the
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2013
#14
"The laws in FL and elsewhere give too much weight to a defendant's version of events."
JVS
Jul 2013
#22
In cases of "self defense" the "crime" has already been determined proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
DCBob
Jul 2013
#16
If her story is consistent and the evidence backs it up, then most likely she walks..
DCBob
Jul 2013
#39
"There is always evidence of some sort." -- this is a result of CSI / NCIS / Law & Order..
X_Digger
Jul 2013
#56
Well in your attempted rape case described above there would have to be some evidence.
DCBob
Jul 2013
#62
No... of course not.. and I doubt anyone would think that far ahead in situation like that.
DCBob
Jul 2013
#76
The concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" is not murky at all in normal crimnal cases.
DCBob
Jul 2013
#102
That's a bit tinfoil-ish when we're talking laws anywhere from 40-120 years old.
X_Digger
Jul 2013
#123
You need to read more if you think the NRA hasnt affected self defense laws in this country..
DCBob
Jul 2013
#124
That's a good argument against it. The other side of that is, date rape happens so often that
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#41
I'm not advocating that standard. We're discussing 'better possible solutions'
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#50
No.. thats why I put it in quotes.. of course its not a crime until the case is determined..
DCBob
Jul 2013
#117
I don't think the standards should be lower. I think there was no reasonable doubt in this case.
redgreenandblue
Jul 2013
#24
"Democrats and liberals have historically held civil libertarian views."
kenny blankenship
Jul 2013
#26
A miscarraige of justice is a poor reason to place the burden of proof on the defender.
rrneck
Jul 2013
#30
Agree in general, but am open to the idea that in an affirmative defense, you have to prove what you
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#37
I think we are on the same page. I dont think the person trying to assert an affirmative defense has
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#44
I don't think should be the same level of 'proof' the prosecution needs to meet to prove guilt.
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#45
I don't think that it is. I think the system doesn't deal with affirmative defenses well and not
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#51
Motive helps that a lot. In Zimmerman's case, he clearly had it in for these 'others' who were
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#112
Unless the individual is part of the jury, what a person may or may not believe is hardly "scary"
LanternWaste
Jul 2013
#75
The state should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed someone
gollygee
Jul 2013
#92
Evidence has proved conclusively that people are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes
Yo_Mama
Jul 2013
#134