This is a great point here. One important thing I would add to this is that when public opinion is taken into account, you'll hear people say, "He was found not guilty, but that doesn't mean he was found innocent". But it actually does! The reason is because a person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty in the court of law. So, "not guilty" means that he's still presumed to be innocent. Too bad the general public doesn't see it that way.
With all the "fake news" in print, I am confused on what old duty-to-retreat really was?
- Thread starter BigFatKen
- Start date
- Status
This is a great point here. One important thing I would add to this is that when public opinion is taken into account, you'll hear people say, "He was found not guilty, but that doesn't mean he was found innocent". But it actually does! The reason is because a person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty in the court of law. So, "not guilty" means that he's still presumed to be innocent. Too bad the general public doesn't see it that way.
Nope, that's nonsense.
The presumption of innocence, or "presumed innocent", really has nothing to do with actual innocence or guilt. It is a technical term relating to legal procedure and evidence. It describes the burden of proof on the prosecution at the trial of someone charged with a crime.
So for the purpose of a trial on a criminal charge the defendant starts out presumed innocent -- which means that to be entitled to a conviction the prosecution must rebut that presumption of innocence with evidence convincing the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If the prosecution fails to meet that burden, the defendant is entitled to a verdict of "not guilty" even if he actually committed the crime.
A person acquitted of a crime in a trial on the criminal charged can still be found responsible and liable for monetary damages at a civil trial relating to the exact same incident.
JeffG
Member
I teach CCW in Wisconsin. Here are two slides covering the Castle Doctrine in Wisconsin. There is no mention in this passage of weapon, etc., as in other parts of the statutes. "Forcibly enter" not only means breaking a door lock or window, but when you verbally challenge an intruder and they rush you, or continue their presence in your home, business or vehicle, you are justified in deadly force. You no longer have a duty to retreat. Barricading yourself and calling law enforcement, while shouting to the intruder that you are armed, and he should leave, is a good course of action. Being able to explain that you felt your safety was threatened as he kicked in the bedroom door after those warnings only bolsters your case. As always, you want to identify your target, not just a bump in the night, lest it be a family member or a neighbor desperately seeking your help.
We seem to be in agreement up to the parts of your posted I bolded. However, the person is being accused of a particular crime and is found not guilty if it is found that he did NOT commit the crime. I don't see how he could be found not guilty if they determined he actually committed the crime. At this point, doesn't the civil trial require once again that the accused actually committed the crime in order to be liable for it? I understand that the burden of proof is less in a civil trial, but it's still there.
First, a verdict of "not guilty" in a criminal trial is not being found not to have committed the crime. It's that the prosecution has not proved to the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.
First, of course a civil trial is required. That's how the actor would be found responsible.
And to be held liable at the civil trial the plaintiff must prove, to the satisfaction of the trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed the act upon which liability is based.
some states (maybe even most of them), Illinois being among them, you are exempt for civil liability for most reasonable self defense acts, even those involving use of deadly force.
even so, it seems to me that if you can safely avoid having to kill someone by running away, it is in your best interest to do so. I don't want to kill someone, even it is legal.
there is no requirement in any state I am aware of that someone be convicted of a crime to be civilly liable for their actions.
Not exactly. A number of States have laws under which someone who has justifiably used force in self defense is immune from a civil suit in connection with his use of force. But as we have seen, acquittal at a criminal trial does not establish as a fact that one's use of force was justified -- only that the prosecutor didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This has been discussed at length in this thread.
- Status
