PA SB-1093, burden of proof in self defense cases?

[vinlander]

I came across this:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=1093&pn=1365

Which says:

(2)(ii), (relating to use of force in self-protection), the use of deadly force as justification for conduct resulting in the death of or serious bodily injury to another shall only be a defense to the conduct charged when the actor proves by a preponderance of evidence that the actor was justified in the use of such deadly force at the time of the commission of the offense.

Is this legal according to United States law?

[donm]

I'm not an attorney, but this is how I understand it:

Self defense in as "affirmative defense." You admit that you committed a crime (shooting someone is always a crime -- let's not go down that rat-hole again). In effect you've handed the prosecution a conviction, since it's now "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you are guilty. You then assert that you were justified in doing so, by a "preponderance of the evidence" (50.001% -- a much lower standard). That's what the statute that you cited here is all about.

[WillD]

Is this legal according to United States law?

United States law according to who??? I mean its not like the 2a applies to ak-47s...or is that just in the socialist state of california?

[Gun]

This seems similar to Ohio's law on the burden of proof concerning self defense.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07...fense-kind-of/

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05

[knight0334]

Homicide is a crime unless it is an execution by the state as ordered by a court.. Requiring the accused to justify his/her taking of anothers life would be legal and constitutional - that is how it was prior to relatively recent changes in law.

Recent "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" provisions have shifted the burden more upon the prosecution to prove you were not legal. But asserting an Affirmative Defense still helps keeping the prosecution from moving forward.

[MDJschool]

If a police officer has probable cause that you killed in self-defense, has has no power to arrest.
If a DA cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt a prima facie case, he should not move forward.
If a DA cannot prove that any jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt the homicide occurred, it cannot have the case held for court. However, affirmative defenses to homicides where malice is an element of the offense require the DA to disprove beyond reasonable doubt the raised argument of self defense or no prima facie case can be found. Where malice is not an element, it is questionable whether self-defense can tank a prima facie case if raised, it may or may not be able to be.
If a DA cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense after a cognizable claim of self-defense has been presented, then it cannot prevail.

Historically, a 'scintilla of evidence' standard was sometimes used for some affirmative defenses after which a DA must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that so was not the case. I suspect that a judge would be hard to find that requirement of preponderance violated anything as long as the DA still had to prove BaRD afterward. However, to simply raise an issue and have to prove it BaRD might be another question, the answer to which I'm not certain at the moment.

It's a very interesting thing that a police officer could have probable cause that the accused was not guilty by self defense and be unable to arrest, yet a DA could prove to a judge that a jury could find BaRD on a prima facie case anyway. Checks and balances, I suppose, as there is no necessity that one act builds upon another, although to file a criminal complaint containing probable cause even though the arrest could not be made means that two reasonable people could be very closely divided as to the probability of criminal homicide vs. self-defense and if that be the case, it may go to a jury.

[vinlander]

If a police officer has probable cause that you killed in self-defense, has has no power to arrest.

..

Thank you for your detailed response. So you will not have to provide proof that you were justified in all cases where you shoot in self defense?

Also, will "the probably cause" you mention not be changed with this bill, since it introduces a duty to retreat as well?

[GunLawyer001]

The bill will go nowhere, it's a brain-dead bit of demagoguery intended to prevent the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I'm assuming the sponsors are from Philly (that being where most of the really stupid bills come from)?

I'd have more problems with the notion that you may not claim self-defense after you disobey the random instruction of anyone working in any capacity for the government, than with a return to placing the burden of proof in all cases on the shooter. So some crossing guard tells you that the road to your house is closed (when it isn't, and you know it isn't), you go around him and bandits attack you. Then you can't claim self-defense?

Stupidity, as usual with all the anti-gun, anti-freedom, pro-subservience bills shoveled out from the City of Brotherly Love. Punishing any of the sheep who dare to raise their heads.

[MDJschool]

Thank you for your detailed response. So you will not have to provide proof that you were justified in all cases where you shoot in self defense?

Also, will "the probably cause" you mention not be changed with this bill, since it introduces a duty to retreat as well?

You have to understand that in any given point of time, a officer has a single set of facts under which they are aware, and this changes given time, the person, and his state of mind at the point in time. The duty of the official changes when he is a police/peace officer (or citizen making arrest), DA, judge.

A police officer is not free to ignore facts when making the probable cause assessment. Probable cause is a nontechnical belief under which a reasonable person would believe that the accused is guilty. The addition or correction of a fact can change the power to arrest at any time.

The point is that the police officer is not free to ignore facts which make it more probable than not that the person acted in self defense (however the law may require it, but for evidentiary requirements), then he cannot be thought by a reasonable person to be guilty. Therefore no power to arrest under probable cause of the offense exists. An officer may learn a fact that makes it more probable than not that the person did not act in self defense, making it probable he is guilty. He may have actually acted in self-defense, and may prevail at preliminary hearing or trial. The arrest can occur at any time of probable cause and must cease at any time without, so if in one second an officer arrests but the cause becomes improbable, he must release. A DA or officer may later find probable cause and file a criminal complaint even if he did not earlier, in his interaction with a suspect, have probable cause of an offense at that time, after which an arrest warrant may issue.

[jerkin]

The bill will go nowhere, it's a brain-dead bit of demagoguery intended to prevent the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I'm assuming the sponsors are from Philly (that being where most of the really stupid bills come from)?

INTRODUCED BY FARNESE, KITCHEN AND HUGHES

Democrats, check
Philadelphia, check
Antis, check

Yup, all the ingredients for another stupid ass anti-gun bill.