Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.
If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.
The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.
If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.
How about the court and jury sending a message to SWAT teams and controllers that they are out-of-control and need to be far more careful...by finding this man not guilty.
If the jury finds the police were reckless and negligent, even if they did announce themselves (not that it probably matters at 5:30 in the morning), the man may not have to prove much at all.
The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.
If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.
How about the court and jury sending a message to SWAT teams and controllers that they are out-of-control and need to be far more careful...by finding this man not guilty.
If the jury finds the police were reckless and negligent, even if they did announce themselves (not that it probably matters at 5:30 in the morning), the man may not have to prove much at all.
So let me get this straight, you think this man should be found no guilty of murder because you think SWAT teams are out of control. Not because of the facts of this case?
The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.
If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.
How about the court and jury sending a message to SWAT teams and controllers that they are out-of-control and need to be far more careful...by finding this man not guilty.
If the jury finds the police were reckless and negligent, even if they did announce themselves (not that it probably matters at 5:30 in the morning), the man may not have to prove much at all.
So let me get this straight, you think this man should be found no guilty of murder because you think SWAT teams are out of control. Not because of the facts of this case?
The facts of the case show they were out-of-control, but I said a not guilty verdict would send that message. I guess you did not understand what I wrote. Are you straight now?
The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.
If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.
How about the court and jury sending a message to SWAT teams and controllers that they are out-of-control and need to be far more careful...by finding this man not guilty.
If the jury finds the police were reckless and negligent, even if they did announce themselves (not that it probably matters at 5:30 in the morning), the man may not have to prove much at all.
So let me get this straight, you think this man should be found no guilty of murder because you think SWAT teams are out of control. Not because of the facts of this case?
The facts of the case show they were out-of-control, but I said a not guilty verdict would send that message. I guess you did not understand what I wrote. Are you straight now?
.
The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.
If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.
How about the court and jury sending a message to SWAT teams and controllers that they are out-of-control and need to be far more careful...by finding this man not guilty.
If the jury finds the police were reckless and negligent, even if they did announce themselves (not that it probably matters at 5:30 in the morning), the man may not have to prove much at all.
So let me get this straight, you think this man should be found no guilty of murder because you think SWAT teams are out of control. Not because of the facts of this case?
The facts of the case show they were out-of-control, but I said a not guilty verdict would send that message. I guess you did not understand what I wrote. Are you straight now?
The facts show no such thing.
You don't even know the facts.
You don't even know that if the defendant uses an affirmative defense he has the burden of proving the facts.
You don't know shit.
The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.
If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.
How about the court and jury sending a message to SWAT teams and controllers that they are out-of-control and need to be far more careful...by finding this man not guilty.
If the jury finds the police were reckless and negligent, even if they did announce themselves (not that it probably matters at 5:30 in the morning), the man may not have to prove much at all.
So let me get this straight, you think this man should be found no guilty of murder because you think SWAT teams are out of control. Not because of the facts of this case?
The facts of the case show they were out-of-control, but I said a not guilty verdict would send that message. I guess you did not understand what I wrote. Are you straight now?
Nah, he's still "gay".
BTW, one doesn't use the term "murder" until a death is determined to be so. I won't waste my time explaining the different levels of charges a prosecutor could bring in this case. In my opinion, a law-abiding citizen, being it this guy or the Detroit guy who shot the drunk woman on his porch, are entitled to the presumption of innocence in our system. The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the state, not the defendant.
And it IS REASONABLE to think this was self defense...
There is no article and no police report release that states the police officers announced themselves.....not ONE mention of it that I have read.
In the case with the white guy that I linked above, who also killed a cop in the no knock raid on his home....police supposedly announced they were cops but he was not prosecuted because the grand jury felt it was reasonable for this white guy to believe his home was being invaded by someone that was going to harm him....
AND HE DID have the illegal drugs that they had the warrant for....
The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the state, not the defendant..
Come on, educate yourselves. The bolded statement simply is not true.
If you use an affirmative defense, the burden of proof rests with YOU. If you claim self defense you have to PROVE you were defending yourself, the state doesn't have to prove you were not defending yourself
Not with an affirmative defense.The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the state, not the defendant..
Come on, educate yourselves. The bolded statement simply is not true.
If you use an affirmative defense, the burden of proof rests with YOU. If you claim self defense you have to PROVE you were defending yourself, the state doesn't have to prove you were not defending yourself
That's absurd...there's no such stipulation in an affirmative defense....the burden of PROOF rests with the state to prove their case, not disprove the defendant's case. The facts in evidence are uncontested here ie the defendant killed the cop...he had the means and the opportunity. The case swings to MOTIVE...did he have a reasonable belief his home was being invaded by criminals? Yes he did given the circumstances. The onus of PROOF is on the state to disprove that was an assumption most people would have.
Not with an affirmative defense.The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the state, not the defendant..
Come on, educate yourselves. The bolded statement simply is not true.
If you use an affirmative defense, the burden of proof rests with YOU. If you claim self defense you have to PROVE you were defending yourself, the state doesn't have to prove you were not defending yourself
That's absurd...there's no such stipulation in an affirmative defense....the burden of PROOF rests with the state to prove their case, not disprove the defendant's case. The facts in evidence are uncontested here ie the defendant killed the cop...he had the means and the opportunity. The case swings to MOTIVE...did he have a reasonable belief his home was being invaded by criminals? Yes he did given the circumstances. The onus of PROOF is on the state to disprove that was an assumption most people would have.
Affirmative defense Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
The guy is probably better off pleading not guilty than self-defense.
Now, if they had found drugs or some other evidence of criminal activity, they could show he had a reason to fire on the law enforcement officers. But since, by all accounts, the man was a law abiding citizen, he would have absolutely nothing to gain by shooting cops. That is, for lack of any other extenuating circumstances, would show a lack of motive and thereby give credibility to his statement that he was unaware that the people breaking in were cops.
you're not listening.
It matters not that they didn't find anything illegal. They were there on good faith, they believed they were at the right house.
The guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine in his house and if a cop kicked in the window without announcing police and he shot them, he'd claim stand your ground, prove the cop didn't announce his presence and walk.
Wtf? Isn't that what he was saying?Not with an affirmative defense.The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the state, not the defendant..
Come on, educate yourselves. The bolded statement simply is not true.
If you use an affirmative defense, the burden of proof rests with YOU. If you claim self defense you have to PROVE you were defending yourself, the state doesn't have to prove you were not defending yourself
That's absurd...there's no such stipulation in an affirmative defense....the burden of PROOF rests with the state to prove their case, not disprove the defendant's case. The facts in evidence are uncontested here ie the defendant killed the cop...he had the means and the opportunity. The case swings to MOTIVE...did he have a reasonable belief his home was being invaded by criminals? Yes he did given the circumstances. The onus of PROOF is on the state to disprove that was an assumption most people would have.
Affirmative defense Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
The guy is probably better off pleading not guilty than self-defense.
YES WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE....stop pretending you are fucking lawyers!
My thoughts are he's screwed. Your pathetic plea notwithstanding, if they are not IN your home you cannot claim self defense. Your clue that it's more of an op-ed piece is the broad brushing and trying to blur the issue with multiple accounts. It all has to be looked at on a case by case basis. I also have a hard time believing they didn't identify themselves.
Yep, even if they are running away. The law is screwy but this perp should walk.My thoughts are he's screwed. Your pathetic plea notwithstanding, if they are not IN your home you cannot claim self defense. Your clue that it's more of an op-ed piece is the broad brushing and trying to blur the issue with multiple accounts. It all has to be looked at on a case by case basis. I also have a hard time believing they didn't identify themselves.
You don't know much about the law, do you? In Texas you can legally shoot a person who is breaking into your parked car while you are standing on the porch of your house.
All states have self defense statutes. Whether you can legally shoot someone depends on the circumstances. I'm guessing the prosecutor is more familiar with state law than the lopsided boraod brushed agenda driven op-ed piece.
Yep, even if they are running away. The law is screwy but this perp should walk.
So you're a lawyer familiar with Texas law then. Good, please explain:You don't know much about the law, do you? In Texas you can legally shoot a person who is breaking into your parked car while you are standing on the porch of your house.
