Man Shoots At Intruders, Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty

[QuickHitCurepon]

Climbing in the window also looks far more suspicious than breaking down the door. At least there is a popular history of police doing that and is far more readily recognized.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm sure that someone had the door covered

You're making too much of this.

IF the police identified themselves as per procedure, this guy is fucked.
IF they did not follow procedure and didn't identify themselves then he's in the clear.

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

on that I differ with you...they are totally different cases and also totally different states with their own laws, Texas with a liberal Stand your Ground law...

On top of this, someone KNOCKING ON YOUR Door, is NOT IN ANY WAY the same thing as BREAKING THROUGH your window....

there is no good reason for anyone to NOT reasonably think the people breaking through their window, at 5:30am, are anything other than burglars or robbers and or murderers......unless the police identified themselves clearly before he began shooting...this man should not be charged in this case, in my humble opinion, from what little facts I do know on it.

UNLESS those people are screaming "police police police" as they do so. That changes things.

Although

Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is also true to, because the key is a jury . They are the ones you must convince that you had a reasonable fear. But that was my point, you have to PROVE you had a reasonable fear, which means you have to PROVE you didn't think it was the cops. Retired is WRONG, the state doesn't have to prove they were identifying themselves. Now, most of the time they WILL do so , just to go ahead and hammer that last nail in place, but they don't have to.

If they don't prove the police announced and the defense just remains silent on the matter any reasonable jury is going to assume that they announced. Wouldn't you? That's why self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to PROVE self defense, which in this case means proving you didn't know you were shooting at police.

No I wouldn't assume that at all.

The fact that the house was searched and no drugs or drug dealing found, shows that the owner of that house had no reason to be afraid of the police and shoot them.

Since there was nothing illegal going on at that house, there is no reason for the homeowner to be afraid of the police coming into their home.

If I was on that jury I wouldn't find that homeowner guilty.

When some stranger is coming through your window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning, that person isn't there for a friendly visit. Plus I don't know about you, but I've never heard of police going through a window.

They go through doors.

They cover all the exits including windows but I've never heard of the police raiding a house by going through a window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning.

When the police serve these warrants at the wrong address, as in this case, it is usually because of a clerical error , and as long as the officers serving the warrant believe in good faith that they are at the right address, they have a legal right to be there.

Therefor, once they make entry as long as they announce themselves it doesn't matter if you think "well they got no reason to be here, so fuck them"

The fact that yo don't know that bespeaks of the fact that you would make a terrible juror. But I'm sure the Judge explained it, however I'm explaining it to you now, but as usual instead of saying "oh here's someone who knows what he's talking about, perhaps I'll listen" you just have your ears shut.

As long as the cops thought they were at the right address and identified themselves as making entry, the shooter is in the wrong. End of discussion.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm sure that someone had the door covered

You're making too much of this.

IF the police identified themselves as per procedure, this guy is fucked.
IF they did not follow procedure and didn't identify themselves then he's in the clear.

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

on that I differ with you...they are totally different cases and also totally different states with their own laws, Texas with a liberal Stand your Ground law...

On top of this, someone KNOCKING ON YOUR Door, is NOT IN ANY WAY the same thing as BREAKING THROUGH your window....

there is no good reason for anyone to NOT reasonably think the people breaking through their window, at 5:30am, are anything other than burglars or robbers and or murderers......unless the police identified themselves clearly before he began shooting...this man should not be charged in this case, in my humble opinion, from what little facts I do know on it.

UNLESS those people are screaming "police police police" as they do so. That changes things.

Although

Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is also true to, because the key is a jury . They are the ones you must convince that you had a reasonable fear. But that was my point, you have to PROVE you had a reasonable fear, which means you have to PROVE you didn't think it was the cops. Retired is WRONG, the state doesn't have to prove they were identifying themselves. Now, most of the time they WILL do so , just to go ahead and hammer that last nail in place, but they don't have to.

If they don't prove the police announced and the defense just remains silent on the matter any reasonable jury is going to assume that they announced. Wouldn't you? That's why self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to PROVE self defense, which in this case means proving you didn't know you were shooting at police.

No I wouldn't assume that at all.

The fact that the house was searched and no drugs or drug dealing found, shows that the owner of that house had no reason to be afraid of the police and shoot them.

Since there was nothing illegal going on at that house, there is no reason for the homeowner to be afraid of the police coming into their home.

If I was on that jury I wouldn't find that homeowner guilty.

When some stranger is coming through your window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning, that person isn't there for a friendly visit. Plus I don't know about you, but I've never heard of police going through a window.

They go through doors.

They cover all the exits including windows but I've never heard of the police raiding a house by going through a window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning.

Actually, its' quite common to go through the windows of a building when assaulting said building. These guns tend to reinforce the doors making entry impossible, windows not so much.

See, you just don't know what you're talking about here.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Therefor, once they make entry as long as they announce themselves it doesn't matter if you think "well they got no reason to be here, so fuck them"

Where did you read they actually made entry?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

on that I differ with you...they are totally different cases and also totally different states with their own laws, Texas with a liberal Stand your Ground law...

On top of this, someone KNOCKING ON YOUR Door, is NOT IN ANY WAY the same thing as BREAKING THROUGH your window....

there is no good reason for anyone to NOT reasonably think the people breaking through their window, at 5:30am, are anything other than burglars or robbers and or murderers......unless the police identified themselves clearly before he began shooting...this man should not be charged in this case, in my humble opinion, from what little facts I do know on it.

UNLESS those people are screaming "police police police" as they do so. That changes things.

Although

Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is also true to, because the key is a jury . They are the ones you must convince that you had a reasonable fear. But that was my point, you have to PROVE you had a reasonable fear, which means you have to PROVE you didn't think it was the cops. Retired is WRONG, the state doesn't have to prove they were identifying themselves. Now, most of the time they WILL do so , just to go ahead and hammer that last nail in place, but they don't have to.

If they don't prove the police announced and the defense just remains silent on the matter any reasonable jury is going to assume that they announced. Wouldn't you? That's why self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to PROVE self defense, which in this case means proving you didn't know you were shooting at police.

No I wouldn't assume that at all.

The fact that the house was searched and no drugs or drug dealing found, shows that the owner of that house had no reason to be afraid of the police and shoot them.

Since there was nothing illegal going on at that house, there is no reason for the homeowner to be afraid of the police coming into their home.

If I was on that jury I wouldn't find that homeowner guilty.

When some stranger is coming through your window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning, that person isn't there for a friendly visit. Plus I don't know about you, but I've never heard of police going through a window.

They go through doors.

They cover all the exits including windows but I've never heard of the police raiding a house by going through a window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning.

Actually, its' quite common to go through the windows of a building when assaulting said building. These guns tend to reinforce the doors making entry impossible, windows not so much.

See, you just don't know what you're talking about here.

A raid is not an assault. Two different things entirely.

If a crime was in progress, only then could you call it an assault.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you are shooting at suspected home invaders climbing in your window, that makes the others outside "guilty" by association.

Yup if a group of people are outside your window while one is attempting to climb in they are all criminals unless they identified themselves. Further why didn't the dumb ass cops go through the door?

I'm sure that someone had the door covered

You're making too much of this.

IF the police identified themselves as per procedure, this guy is fucked.
IF they did not follow procedure and didn't identify themselves then he's in the clear.

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

How does one prove they were afraid?

All one need do in a stand your ground State is provide the information and what a reasonable person would believe to be a fearful event. I submit that at 530 AM as unknown people break into your home a reasonable person would believe that would cause fear, fear for self and fear for family. A proper response would include firing on those people inside and outside your home. The only defense the cops can give to defeat that is to prove they identified themselves in a manner that would have allowed the homeowner to realize they were police.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Therefor, once they make entry as long as they announce themselves it doesn't matter if you think "well they got no reason to be here, so fuck them"

Where did you read they actually made entry?

I thought we were talking in the hypothetical since she was talking about people coming in windows and such

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yup if a group of people are outside your window while one is attempting to climb in they are all criminals unless they identified themselves. Further why didn't the dumb ass cops go through the door?

I'm sure that someone had the door covered

You're making too much of this.

IF the police identified themselves as per procedure, this guy is fucked.
IF they did not follow procedure and didn't identify themselves then he's in the clear.

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

How does one prove they were afraid?

All one need do in a stand your ground State is provide the information and what a reasonable person would believe to be a fearful event. I submit that at 530 AM as unknown people break into your home a reasonable person would believe that would cause fear, fear for self and fear for family. A proper response would include firing on those people inside and outside your home. The only defense the cops can give to defeat that is to prove they identified themselves in a manner that would have allowed the homeowner to realize they were police.

Correct , which means you have to prove they were unknown to you.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seriously people, educate yourself about your rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sure that someone had the door covered

You're making too much of this.

IF the police identified themselves as per procedure, this guy is fucked.
IF they did not follow procedure and didn't identify themselves then he's in the clear.

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

How does one prove they were afraid?

All one need do in a stand your ground State is provide the information and what a reasonable person would believe to be a fearful event. I submit that at 530 AM as unknown people break into your home a reasonable person would believe that would cause fear, fear for self and fear for family. A proper response would include firing on those people inside and outside your home. The only defense the cops can give to defeat that is to prove they identified themselves in a manner that would have allowed the homeowner to realize they were police.

Correct , which means you have to prove they were unknown to you.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seriously people, educate yourself about your rights.

Look you are wrong. One is not required to flee or leave in a stand your ground State. ll one must do is show that they feared for their life or their loved ones. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man knew they were cops. Or should have known.

 

[Dana7360]

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

on that I differ with you...they are totally different cases and also totally different states with their own laws, Texas with a liberal Stand your Ground law...

On top of this, someone KNOCKING ON YOUR Door, is NOT IN ANY WAY the same thing as BREAKING THROUGH your window....

there is no good reason for anyone to NOT reasonably think the people breaking through their window, at 5:30am, are anything other than burglars or robbers and or murderers......unless the police identified themselves clearly before he began shooting...this man should not be charged in this case, in my humble opinion, from what little facts I do know on it.

UNLESS those people are screaming "police police police" as they do so. That changes things.

Although

Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is also true to, because the key is a jury . They are the ones you must convince that you had a reasonable fear. But that was my point, you have to PROVE you had a reasonable fear, which means you have to PROVE you didn't think it was the cops. Retired is WRONG, the state doesn't have to prove they were identifying themselves. Now, most of the time they WILL do so , just to go ahead and hammer that last nail in place, but they don't have to.

If they don't prove the police announced and the defense just remains silent on the matter any reasonable jury is going to assume that they announced. Wouldn't you? That's why self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to PROVE self defense, which in this case means proving you didn't know you were shooting at police.

No I wouldn't assume that at all.

The fact that the house was searched and no drugs or drug dealing found, shows that the owner of that house had no reason to be afraid of the police and shoot them.

Since there was nothing illegal going on at that house, there is no reason for the homeowner to be afraid of the police coming into their home.

If I was on that jury I wouldn't find that homeowner guilty.

When some stranger is coming through your window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning, that person isn't there for a friendly visit. Plus I don't know about you, but I've never heard of police going through a window.

They go through doors.

They cover all the exits including windows but I've never heard of the police raiding a house by going through a window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning.

When the police serve these warrants at the wrong address, as in this case, it is usually because of a clerical error , and as long as the officers serving the warrant believe in good faith that they are at the right address, they have a legal right to be there.

Therefor, once they make entry as long as they announce themselves it doesn't matter if you think "well they got no reason to be here, so fuck them"

The fact that yo don't know that bespeaks of the fact that you would make a terrible juror. But I'm sure the Judge explained it, however I'm explaining it to you now, but as usual instead of saying "oh here's someone who knows what he's talking about, perhaps I'll listen" you just have your ears shut.

As long as the cops thought they were at the right address and identified themselves as making entry, the shooter is in the wrong. End of discussion.

You're saying I said things I didn't say.

I said there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to fear the police coming into his house.

I didn't say the police didn't have any right to be there.

I stated why I didn't believe the police announced themselves.

If I was on that jury and I was told there was nothing illegal going on in that house I would believe that homeowner had no reason to fear the police entering his home.

Concrete honest facts are what I would base my opinion on. The concrete honest facts are that there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to pick up that gun and fire it if he knew that was the police.

My opinion isn't based on any gut feeling it's based on facts.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

How does one prove they were afraid?

All one need do in a stand your ground State is provide the information and what a reasonable person would believe to be a fearful event. I submit that at 530 AM as unknown people break into your home a reasonable person would believe that would cause fear, fear for self and fear for family. A proper response would include firing on those people inside and outside your home. The only defense the cops can give to defeat that is to prove they identified themselves in a manner that would have allowed the homeowner to realize they were police.

Correct , which means you have to prove they were unknown to you.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seriously people, educate yourself about your rights.

Look you are wrong. One is not required to flee or leave in a stand your ground State. ll one must do is show that they feared for their life or their loved ones. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man knew they were cops. Or should have known.

Just shut the fuck up you dumb son of a bitch

Stand your ground is a self defense claim in ALL states and as such is an AFFIRMATIVE defense which means you must PROVE all mitigating factors that led you to defending yourself.

You are a moron. I've provided you with links to the actual legal definitions and yet you persist, are you a fucking child who can't just say "oh I was wrong there?"

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.

God, no wonder this country is in the shitter, morons can't even educate themselves and then admit when they made a mistake.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

on that I differ with you...they are totally different cases and also totally different states with their own laws, Texas with a liberal Stand your Ground law...

On top of this, someone KNOCKING ON YOUR Door, is NOT IN ANY WAY the same thing as BREAKING THROUGH your window....

there is no good reason for anyone to NOT reasonably think the people breaking through their window, at 5:30am, are anything other than burglars or robbers and or murderers......unless the police identified themselves clearly before he began shooting...this man should not be charged in this case, in my humble opinion, from what little facts I do know on it.

UNLESS those people are screaming "police police police" as they do so. That changes things.

Although

Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is also true to, because the key is a jury . They are the ones you must convince that you had a reasonable fear. But that was my point, you have to PROVE you had a reasonable fear, which means you have to PROVE you didn't think it was the cops. Retired is WRONG, the state doesn't have to prove they were identifying themselves. Now, most of the time they WILL do so , just to go ahead and hammer that last nail in place, but they don't have to.

If they don't prove the police announced and the defense just remains silent on the matter any reasonable jury is going to assume that they announced. Wouldn't you? That's why self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to PROVE self defense, which in this case means proving you didn't know you were shooting at police.

No I wouldn't assume that at all.

The fact that the house was searched and no drugs or drug dealing found, shows that the owner of that house had no reason to be afraid of the police and shoot them.

Since there was nothing illegal going on at that house, there is no reason for the homeowner to be afraid of the police coming into their home.

If I was on that jury I wouldn't find that homeowner guilty.

When some stranger is coming through your window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning, that person isn't there for a friendly visit. Plus I don't know about you, but I've never heard of police going through a window.

They go through doors.

They cover all the exits including windows but I've never heard of the police raiding a house by going through a window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning.

When the police serve these warrants at the wrong address, as in this case, it is usually because of a clerical error , and as long as the officers serving the warrant believe in good faith that they are at the right address, they have a legal right to be there.

Therefor, once they make entry as long as they announce themselves it doesn't matter if you think "well they got no reason to be here, so fuck them"

The fact that yo don't know that bespeaks of the fact that you would make a terrible juror. But I'm sure the Judge explained it, however I'm explaining it to you now, but as usual instead of saying "oh here's someone who knows what he's talking about, perhaps I'll listen" you just have your ears shut.

As long as the cops thought they were at the right address and identified themselves as making entry, the shooter is in the wrong. End of discussion.

You're saying I said things I didn't say.

I said there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to fear the police coming into his house.

I didn't say the police didn't have any right to be there.

I stated why I didn't believe the police announced themselves.

If I was on that jury and I was told there was nothing illegal going on in that house I would believe that homeowner had no reason to fear the police entering his home.

Concrete honest facts are what I would base my opinion on. The concrete honest facts are that there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to pick up that gun and fire it if he knew that was the police.

My opinion isn't based on any gut feeling it's based on facts.

And the fact is ma'am under the law this guy will be required to PROVE that he didn't know it was the police. They don't have to prove that they identified themselves to him, the burden is on him, because stand your ground is an affirmative defense, meaning you admit you did but for legal reasons.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

When police have a no knock warrant they have a legal right to be in your home (or wherever the warrant is for) and so it is up to you to PROVE they didn't announce.

How could anybody ever prove the police did not announce themselves at 5:30 in the morning before entering? Even if a home has cameras, there is no audio. You don't make any sense, and when there is a jury, that is important.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

How does one prove they were afraid?

All one need do in a stand your ground State is provide the information and what a reasonable person would believe to be a fearful event. I submit that at 530 AM as unknown people break into your home a reasonable person would believe that would cause fear, fear for self and fear for family. A proper response would include firing on those people inside and outside your home. The only defense the cops can give to defeat that is to prove they identified themselves in a manner that would have allowed the homeowner to realize they were police.

Correct , which means you have to prove they were unknown to you.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seriously people, educate yourself about your rights.

Look you are wrong. One is not required to flee or leave in a stand your ground State. ll one must do is show that they feared for their life or their loved ones. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man knew they were cops. Or should have known.

Just shut the fuck up you dumb son of a bitch

Stand your ground is a self defense claim in ALL states and as such is an AFFIRMATIVE defense which means you must PROVE all mitigating factors that led you to defending yourself.

You are a moron. I've provided you with links to the actual legal definitions and yet you persist, are you a fucking child who can't just say "oh I was wrong there?"

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.

God, no wonder this country is in the shitter, morons can't even educate themselves and then admit when they made a mistake.

Your definition requires that the defense do what I said, provide evidence that a reasonable man would fear. If the cops did NOT identify themselves then a REASONABLE man would fear intruder entering his home through the window at 530 am. Meaning the prosecution has to provide evidence the cops IDENTIFIED themselves. The defense can not prove the cops did or did not identify themselves or then to say so as the reason for the shootings. At which point the prosecution must present evidence that in fact the cops identified themselves. I realize you can not read and understand the written word well but that is no excuse for name calling.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How does one prove they were afraid?

All one need do in a stand your ground State is provide the information and what a reasonable person would believe to be a fearful event. I submit that at 530 AM as unknown people break into your home a reasonable person would believe that would cause fear, fear for self and fear for family. A proper response would include firing on those people inside and outside your home. The only defense the cops can give to defeat that is to prove they identified themselves in a manner that would have allowed the homeowner to realize they were police.

Correct , which means you have to prove they were unknown to you.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seriously people, educate yourself about your rights.

Look you are wrong. One is not required to flee or leave in a stand your ground State. ll one must do is show that they feared for their life or their loved ones. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man knew they were cops. Or should have known.

Just shut the fuck up you dumb son of a bitch

Stand your ground is a self defense claim in ALL states and as such is an AFFIRMATIVE defense which means you must PROVE all mitigating factors that led you to defending yourself.

You are a moron. I've provided you with links to the actual legal definitions and yet you persist, are you a fucking child who can't just say "oh I was wrong there?"

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.

God, no wonder this country is in the shitter, morons can't even educate themselves and then admit when they made a mistake.

Your definition requires that the defense do what I said, provide evidence that a reasonable man would fear. If the cops did NOT identify themselves then a REASONABLE man would fear intruder entering his home through the window at 530 am. Meaning the prosecution has to provide evidence the cops IDENTIFIED themselves. The defense can not prove the cops did or did not identify themselves or then to say so as the reason for the shootings. At which point the prosecution must present evidence that in fact the cops identified themselves. I realize you can not read and understand the written word well but that is no excuse for name calling.

Oh my God. Are you serious here? You are ADMITTING that the defense would have to prove the man didn't know it was the police and then claiming the police would have to prove they announced themselves.

Are you seriously saying that the defense could just say "nah man the cops didn't identify themselves so i was scared" and the jury should take their word for it? No, the defense would have to make a claim then prove that claim.

contact an attorney.

you are mistaken, big time.

 

[Care4all]

Yup if a group of people are outside your window while one is attempting to climb in they are all criminals unless they identified themselves. Further why didn't the dumb ass cops go through the door?

I'm sure that someone had the door covered

You're making too much of this.

IF the police identified themselves as per procedure, this guy is fucked.
IF they did not follow procedure and didn't identify themselves then he's in the clear.

And if not recorded what is the chance the cops would admit they did not identify themselves?

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

Because there is no reason to be that afraid of someone who is staying outside and only banging and only an unarmed young girl. However, why wouldn't you be afraid for your life when an unknown intruder is breaking in your window at 5:30AM?

Not to argue with the verdict passed, but how would the guy have known she was unarmed?

If he thought she was armed, why would he have opened the front door in the first place?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All one need do in a stand your ground State is provide the information and what a reasonable person would believe to be a fearful event. I submit that at 530 AM as unknown people break into your home a reasonable person would believe that would cause fear, fear for self and fear for family. A proper response would include firing on those people inside and outside your home. The only defense the cops can give to defeat that is to prove they identified themselves in a manner that would have allowed the homeowner to realize they were police.

Correct , which means you have to prove they were unknown to you.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seriously people, educate yourself about your rights.

Look you are wrong. One is not required to flee or leave in a stand your ground State. ll one must do is show that they feared for their life or their loved ones. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man knew they were cops. Or should have known.

Just shut the fuck up you dumb son of a bitch

Stand your ground is a self defense claim in ALL states and as such is an AFFIRMATIVE defense which means you must PROVE all mitigating factors that led you to defending yourself.

You are a moron. I've provided you with links to the actual legal definitions and yet you persist, are you a fucking child who can't just say "oh I was wrong there?"

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.

God, no wonder this country is in the shitter, morons can't even educate themselves and then admit when they made a mistake.

Your definition requires that the defense do what I said, provide evidence that a reasonable man would fear. If the cops did NOT identify themselves then a REASONABLE man would fear intruder entering his home through the window at 530 am. Meaning the prosecution has to provide evidence the cops IDENTIFIED themselves. The defense can not prove the cops did or did not identify themselves or then to say so as the reason for the shootings. At which point the prosecution must present evidence that in fact the cops identified themselves. I realize you can not read and understand the written word well but that is no excuse for name calling.

Oh my God. Are you serious here? You are ADMITTING that the defense would have to prove the man didn't know it was the police and then claiming the police would have to prove they announced themselves.

Are you seriously saying that the defense could just say "nah man the cops didn't identify themselves so i was scared" and the jury should take their word for it? No, the defense would have to make a claim then prove that claim.

contact an attorney.

you are mistaken, big time.

You are wrong. Once the defense states the cops never identified themselves it becomes the Prosecutions job to establish they did.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

When police have a no knock warrant they have a legal right to be in your home (or wherever the warrant is for) and so it is up to you to PROVE they didn't announce.

How could anybody ever prove the police did not announce themselves at 5:30 in the morning before entering? Even if a home has cameras, there is no audio. You don't make any sense, and when there is a jury, that is important.

How can you prove it? Depositions and evidence. THat evidence being any radio logs, personal cameras, etc etc. I don't know about in the civilian world but we recorded every incident start to finish. And believe me, if there are 8 police officers involved here, you will know if lies are happening. 9 out of 10 times when a group like that lies, no matter who they are, there stories will all be identical. you see 8 identical stories, someones lying.

Oh, and as I said earlier, you don't actually have to PROVE it, you merely have to convince a jury that the police didn't announce their presence. The police on the other hand are not required to prove they did to negate your claim of self defense. It is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning ALL the burden is on you to convince a jury that you did what you did for a reason. In this case that reason would be "I didn't know it was the police" well then logically you must reasonably show that you didn't know it was the police.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Correct , which means you have to prove they were unknown to you.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Seriously people, educate yourself about your rights.

Look you are wrong. One is not required to flee or leave in a stand your ground State. ll one must do is show that they feared for their life or their loved ones. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man knew they were cops. Or should have known.

Just shut the fuck up you dumb son of a bitch

Stand your ground is a self defense claim in ALL states and as such is an AFFIRMATIVE defense which means you must PROVE all mitigating factors that led you to defending yourself.

You are a moron. I've provided you with links to the actual legal definitions and yet you persist, are you a fucking child who can't just say "oh I was wrong there?"

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.

God, no wonder this country is in the shitter, morons can't even educate themselves and then admit when they made a mistake.

Your definition requires that the defense do what I said, provide evidence that a reasonable man would fear. If the cops did NOT identify themselves then a REASONABLE man would fear intruder entering his home through the window at 530 am. Meaning the prosecution has to provide evidence the cops IDENTIFIED themselves. The defense can not prove the cops did or did not identify themselves or then to say so as the reason for the shootings. At which point the prosecution must present evidence that in fact the cops identified themselves. I realize you can not read and understand the written word well but that is no excuse for name calling.

Oh my God. Are you serious here? You are ADMITTING that the defense would have to prove the man didn't know it was the police and then claiming the police would have to prove they announced themselves.

Are you seriously saying that the defense could just say "nah man the cops didn't identify themselves so i was scared" and the jury should take their word for it? No, the defense would have to make a claim then prove that claim.

contact an attorney.

you are mistaken, big time.

You are wrong. Once the defense states the cops never identified themselves it becomes the Prosecutions job to establish they did.

Mother of God educate yourself or shut up. Seriously

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.[4]

He must demonstrate that the intruders were there illegally, if they were police serving a warrant, they were there legally, so he must prove that he didn't know they were police.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When police have a no knock warrant they have a legal right to be in your home (or wherever the warrant is for) and so it is up to you to PROVE they didn't announce.

How could anybody ever prove the police did not announce themselves at 5:30 in the morning before entering? Even if a home has cameras, there is no audio. You don't make any sense, and when there is a jury, that is important.

How can you prove it? Depositions and evidence. THat evidence being any radio logs, personal cameras, etc etc. I don't know about in the civilian world but we recorded every incident start to finish. And believe me, if there are 8 police officers involved here, you will know if lies are happening. 9 out of 10 times when a group like that lies, no matter who they are, there stories will all be identical. you see 8 identical stories, someones lying.

Oh, and as I said earlier, you don't actually have to PROVE it, you merely have to convince a jury that the police didn't announce their presence. The police on the other hand are not required to prove they did to negate your claim of self defense. It is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning ALL the burden is on you to convince a jury that you did what you did for a reason. In this case that reason would be "I didn't know it was the police" well then logically you must reasonably show that you didn't know it was the police.

So according to you, if he says he did not know it was the police, the cops don't have to do anything? That is not how the law works. The prosecution must affirm the cops identified themselves or end of case.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia