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

hack89

(39,181 posts)
35. You are wrong about Delaware.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:01 AM
Jul 2013
§ 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.


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 defendant’s 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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe Zimmerman's account beyond a reasonable doubt. sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #1
Zimmerman didn't have to prove his account beyond a reasonable doubt, premium Jul 2013 #5
Its beyond a doubt that Zimmerman murdered the boy. Both sides admit it NoOneMan Jul 2013 #9
Believe it or not, the burden of proof is on the prosecution onenote Jul 2013 #11
That is, of course, bullshit cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #60
Except that killing someone is not always a crime hack89 Jul 2013 #71
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
That knife cuts both ways XemaSab Jul 2013 #133
Exactly the type of standard change which pipoman Jul 2013 #6
In the majority of states, the law is written so that if one claims 'self-defense' the sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #14
The D only has to prove enough facts to get it COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #17
That's the point.. low standard to claim 'self defense'. Then the P has sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #19
It's not proving a negative. It is up to the State COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #54
Don't always believe Wikipedia Morganfleeman Jul 2013 #31
That is no longer the case in America hack89 Jul 2013 #34
I assume this is a joke. cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #58
Sure, but it doesn't make Zimmerman's story any more believable. sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #61
Ohio's self defense law is the model. Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #2
+1 Just Saying Jul 2013 #8
The problem with putting the burden on the defendant by a preponderance onenote Jul 2013 #13
You're missing the point Just Saying Jul 2013 #42
You are misunderstanding how the law works onenote Jul 2013 #64
"The laws in FL and elsewhere give too much weight to a defendant's version of events." JVS Jul 2013 #22
If there's no weight on Z's version then he's guilty of murder. Just Saying Jul 2013 #47
You are wrong about Delaware. hack89 Jul 2013 #35
Someone posted about DE yesterday Just Saying Jul 2013 #38
Great thread, premium Jul 2013 #3
When a black man is dead, its easy to subjectively find fantasy as reasonable NoOneMan Jul 2013 #4
I believe in the constitution!!!!! Except when I don't. Nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #7
"scarier", "scarier", "frightening", and "nightmarish" Quantess Jul 2013 #10
Just a discussion pipoman Jul 2013 #136
Well said! Frytruk33 Jul 2013 #12
Self-defense should have a greater burden of proof Bettie Jul 2013 #15
agreed. DCBob Jul 2013 #23
In cases of "self defense" the "crime" has already been determined proven "beyond reasonable doubt". DCBob Jul 2013 #16
The burden of the State proving beyond a reasonable COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #20
yeah, and I think its wrong. DCBob Jul 2013 #21
If a woman has someone attempting Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #27
If her story is consistent and the evidence backs it up, then most likely she walks.. DCBob Jul 2013 #39
Not if you flip the burden, no. X_Digger Jul 2013 #48
I would say the victim wins.. DCBob Jul 2013 #55
"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
"There would always be something" -- not true. X_Digger Jul 2013 #65
As I said I would rather just drop the burden of proof entirely.. DCBob Jul 2013 #67
That *is* a burden of proof (aka, "50%", "more likely than not", etc.) n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #68
Drop the "beyond reasonble doubt" burden of proof. DCBob Jul 2013 #69
Even for a person who honestly defends themselves? X_Digger Jul 2013 #70
No... of course not.. and I doubt anyone would think that far ahead in situation like that. DCBob Jul 2013 #76
That's how our justice system works, generally. X_Digger Jul 2013 #80
I dont question that at all in a standard criminal case. DCBob Jul 2013 #82
Most cases are murky, that's what folks seem to not realize. X_Digger Jul 2013 #95
The concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" is not murky at all in normal crimnal cases. DCBob Jul 2013 #102
As a standard for *prosecution*? All good. For *defense*? Nope. X_Digger Jul 2013 #105
I think the Ohio model in cases of self defense make the most sense. DCBob Jul 2013 #116
And I don't. (and 49 other states agree) n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #118
You forgot to mention the gun lobby also agrees with you. DCBob Jul 2013 #119
Okaaay... X_Digger Jul 2013 #121
Unfortunately alot of Democrats have been taken hostage by the gun lobby. DCBob Jul 2013 #122
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
Did you lose our train of thought? Re burden in proving self-defense? X_Digger Jul 2013 #125
I thought we were talking about how the NRA has affected self defense laws. DCBob Jul 2013 #127
Feel free to review this thread, from the OP down. X_Digger Jul 2013 #128
Not really interested in rehashing all that. DCBob Jul 2013 #131
That's a good argument against it. The other side of that is, date rape happens so often that stevenleser Jul 2013 #41
Her story doesn't have to be just plausible Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #46
I'm not advocating that standard. We're discussing 'better possible solutions' stevenleser Jul 2013 #50
In Ohio the standard for a defendant Just Saying Jul 2013 #52
I think Ohio has it right. DCBob Jul 2013 #63
You are mistaken about what the word "crime" means cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #114
No.. thats why I put it in quotes.. of course its not a crime until the case is determined.. DCBob Jul 2013 #117
Z got out of his truck and pursued... Punkingal Jul 2013 #18
I don't think the standards should be lower. I think there was no reasonable doubt in this case. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #24
The problem is that people can be persecuted with the legal system NoOneMan Jul 2013 #28
Zimmerman killed Martin. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #25
He killed him. By the law, he didn't murder him. Dreamer Tatum Jul 2013 #57
Corey should have worked up, and then through, Manslaughter. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #81
As much crap as I may take for this, it was manslaughter, not murder. nt Dreamer Tatum Jul 2013 #87
"Democrats and liberals have historically held civil libertarian views." kenny blankenship Jul 2013 #26
This entire argument is a false dichotomy NoOneMan Jul 2013 #33
Who is making such a call? WinkyDink Jul 2013 #29
A miscarraige of justice is a poor reason to place the burden of proof on the defender. rrneck Jul 2013 #30
I agree pipoman Jul 2013 #113
tHis jury chose to ignore DNA evidence. displacedtexan Jul 2013 #32
Ignored what DNA evidence? ksoze Jul 2013 #36
Link? pipoman Jul 2013 #111
Here you go. displacedtexan Jul 2013 #120
As I read that I was thinking back 25 years pipoman Jul 2013 #130
Agree in general, but am open to the idea that in an affirmative defense, you have to prove what you stevenleser Jul 2013 #37
The problem, as noted above, is that if the burden is on the defendant onenote Jul 2013 #40
I think we are on the same page. I dont think the person trying to assert an affirmative defense has stevenleser Jul 2013 #44
What if it really was self defense but there are no witnesses? hack89 Jul 2013 #43
I don't think should be the same level of 'proof' the prosecution needs to meet to prove guilt. stevenleser Jul 2013 #45
I think the present standard is adequate hack89 Jul 2013 #49
I don't think that it is. I think the system doesn't deal with affirmative defenses well and not stevenleser Jul 2013 #51
In the absence of any evidence, the doubt needs to go to the accused. hack89 Jul 2013 #53
The "absence of evidence" is evidence in of itself. DCBob Jul 2013 #72
That makes no sense hack89 Jul 2013 #74
I didnt say it proved anything.. but its "evidence" to be considered. DCBob Jul 2013 #77
But then lack of evidence means automatic conviction hack89 Jul 2013 #78
Not necessarily.. its up to the jury to decide if it suggests guilt or not. DCBob Jul 2013 #79
The lack of any of George's DNA on Tray's hands is evidence that refutes DevonRex Jul 2013 #91
Lack of DNA is nowhere near the same as having DNA ksoze Jul 2013 #98
No. The pictures at the crime scene showed nothing on Trayvon's hands. DevonRex Jul 2013 #99
That's the problem. Those pictures should have shown bags on his hands ksoze Jul 2013 #100
Good grief. They take pictures before they put the bags on. I was in LE. DevonRex Jul 2013 #108
Easier said than done.. pipoman Jul 2013 #110
Motive helps that a lot. In Zimmerman's case, he clearly had it in for these 'others' who were stevenleser Jul 2013 #112
Maybe with a supporting witness or two.. pipoman Jul 2013 #132
He was his own worst witness with what he said to the 9/11 folks IMHO... stevenleser Jul 2013 #135
Not a lower standard mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #59
^^^ Best response ^^^^ etherealtruth Jul 2013 #66
thank mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #84
What exactly do you mean? onenote Jul 2013 #73
just what I said. mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #83
If you mean the prosecutions bar should be lower ksoze Jul 2013 #85
it is what mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #86
They are having a hard time with peoples opinions. Rex Jul 2013 #88
you get it. mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #90
Yeah and also, it is always just a handful of people. Rex Jul 2013 #109
probably mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #115
I read you are very confused, so you post anything vague ksoze Jul 2013 #94
I see you are pretending pipoman Jul 2013 #106
Unless the individual is part of the jury, what a person may or may not believe is hardly "scary" LanternWaste Jul 2013 #75
Great post. Rex Jul 2013 #89
So pointing out a fallacious opinion is rude? What's that make DU then? pipoman Jul 2013 #103
It is only a handful of people, nice try. Rex Jul 2013 #107
There was a time in the not too distant past that people pipoman Jul 2013 #104
The state should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed someone gollygee Jul 2013 #92
a civil case will have a much lower burden of proof. Sunlei Jul 2013 #93
reasonable doubt should not include believing ridiculous stories Skittles Jul 2013 #101
I haven't seen any H2O Man Jul 2013 #126
Absolutely right! markpkessinger Jul 2013 #129
Evidence has proved conclusively that people are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #134
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»All of the calls for a lo...»Reply #35