Thats some great news.
Printable View
Thats some great news.
Captain Crunch,
The Federal Government is likewise constrained by Article 1, section 9.Quote:
Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Ryan
Socal2310,
Yes, I'm aware of Section 10, Clause 1.
Apparently the Arizona Legislature thinks differently.
I wish Arizona citizens well, in this fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by gasmitty
Here in Oregon, a person is presumed guilty if charged and has the burden of proof to show the defensive actions were justifiable. :mad: It should be the other way around, that guilt must be proved if claim is made that the actions could not have been defensive in nature.
Quote:
Oregon Revised Statutes 161.055
Burden of Proof as to Defenses.
- When a “defense,” other than an “affirmative defense” as defined in subsection (2) of this section, is raised at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When a defense, declared to be an “affirmative defense” by chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The state is not required to negate a defense as defined in subsection (1) of this section unless it is raised by the defendant. “Raised by the defendant” means either notice in writing to the state before commencement of trial or affirmative evidence by a defense witness in the defendant’s case in chief. [1971 c.743 §4]
I have some difficulty thinking that "fear of my life" is not a defense in AZ.
In fact the only reason to use deadly force anywhere that I know of is fear of death or great bodily harm.
If that has no legal standing, then what is justification for using deadly force?
Are you just nit picking with specific terms?
Regards,
Jerry
Once again, self defense was a legitimate legal defense for a long time in AZ, dating back to the territorial days. In 1997, AZ law was changed and then "people involved in self defense had to admit guilt before proving their own innocence by 'justification'" (per Alan Korwin).Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryM
This was recognized as an abomination which ran counter to the laws of nearly every other state in the Union, and in 2006 the law was changed so that self defense had to be disproved by the prosecution.
Harold Fish's trial had just begun when the AZ legislature changed the law in 2006, but the existing standard of proving self defense remained on Fish. The legislation just approved by both houses of the Arizona legislature (which will become law as long as Gov. Brewer does not veto it) changes the date of effectivity of the self-defense burden of proof back to 1997.
The 2006 legislation also re-stated the "Castle Doctrine:" "there is no duty to retreat before threatening or using force and a person is presumed to be acting reasonably if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the enumerated offenses." [The enumerated offenses pretty much cover all threats of grievous bodily harm to yourself and your family and those in your care.]
Note to socal2310 and Captain Crunch, this legislation does not constitute an ex post facto law as it only addresses the burden of proof; Harold Fish will remain charged with homicide unless the State declines to re-try the case. Hopefully, the State will recognize that their case is weak now they they have to prove that Fish did not act out of a reasonable fear of his life.
That's good to know. My earlier post about ex post factoQuote:
Originally Posted by gasmitty
laws was just playing devil's advocate.
I think this bodes well for Mr. Fish.
Montana passed this similar law this year:
Quote:
Justifiable use of force -- burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when the defendant has offered evidence of justifiable use of force, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justified.
I honestly don't know enough about this case or it's history, nor more about the incident than I read in the two OP's links. However, seems this one could be debated from both directions pretty strongly. I would have to hear more of the facts and evidence to say he should or shouldn't be found quilty.
But if a man is charging someone obviously holding a gun, they are either the stupidest person allive, are surely not thinking clearly, or mean harm ... and believe the other person won't shoot.
As a Distinguished Member of this forum, you owe it to yourself to go to Harold Fish Defense and spend a good hour reading about the case. If you start with the original appeal, you'll get a good flavor for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleks
This case is very important to the defendant and the rest of Arizona citizens. Not only was this a true miscarriage of justice, it demonstrates corruption in the prosecutor’s office and the law enforcement community. In the eyes of the prosecutor, the only option the defendant had was to be legally right and dead. The prosecutor wanted everyone to go to jail that survived and I’m actually surprised the dogs were not charged with aggravated assault.
The only solitude we’ll have is that the defendant goes free and the prosecutor chases ambulances or files bankruptcies for the rest of his career.
Regards,
He's going home!!:35::35:
Man in fatal hiking-trail shooting released from Buckeye prison
:congrats:
That's GREAT news!
It's good that this story ends well. It's not good that nowadays, it seems like everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Hope that the state supreme court does uphold the appeal!
i read about Mr.Fishs case.im glad this passed. some of these prosecutors really turn my stomach.justice doesn't matter as long as i win the case.i also did not think much of this weak so called judge either.AZ. get rid of these two.