Loosedhorse
member
I am asking for help understanding the burden of proof placed on someone shooting an attacker in self-defense, but subsequently charged with a crime.
I remember one of the larger issues in the Harold Fish case in AZ was that, once he decided on an affirmative defense, he had to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the shooting was justified. He had to, in effect, prove he was innocent.
While the case proceeded, the state law was changed so that the prosecutor must prove the shooting was NOT justifed, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is there an easy place to find which proof standard applies to self-defense cases in each state? Do you which standard applies in your state?
Secondarily, are there loopholes/exceptions? I remember some discussion regarding the AZ law change that it would allow a cop-killer to go free by claiming "it was self-defense," assuming no other witnesses of video of the shooting were available. So, is there a different proof standard for shootings involving police?
I remember one of the larger issues in the Harold Fish case in AZ was that, once he decided on an affirmative defense, he had to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the shooting was justified. He had to, in effect, prove he was innocent.
While the case proceeded, the state law was changed so that the prosecutor must prove the shooting was NOT justifed, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is there an easy place to find which proof standard applies to self-defense cases in each state? Do you which standard applies in your state?
Secondarily, are there loopholes/exceptions? I remember some discussion regarding the AZ law change that it would allow a cop-killer to go free by claiming "it was self-defense," assuming no other witnesses of video of the shooting were available. So, is there a different proof standard for shootings involving police?