Originally Posted by curdog4570
If I kill someone, I AM "guilty" of a homicide. There is no presumption that it was justifiable..... I have to offer proof of that, or be prosecuted under the laws of my state.


Originally Posted by curdog4570
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
You don't understand how proof of guilt and innocence works.


I think I do. And you haven't shown where I'm wrong.


Here's a link to the Texas Penal Code Chapter 2 (Burden Of Proof).... http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
Quote
Sec. 2.01. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial.


The prosecution has to prove your guilt. That would be rather easy to do in many cases, especially self defense cases. This is what they'd have to prove for murder. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
Quote
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;


But as they're trying to throw you in prison you can say, "Hey, y'all....This is why I killed that guy." http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Quote
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Quote
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.


So no, you DO NOT have to prove your innocence. Being asked, "Why did you shoot that guy?" is not shifting the burden of proof to you.

And by offering an explanation of what happened you don't have to prove your innocence anyway, but it's an opportunity for the jury to evaluation your explanation and have reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

The justifications in Chapter9 aren't a list of things you have to prove. They're a list of reasons you can shoot someone. You don't have to prove that you're innocent. But if you are, it would make sense to explain to someone why you killed the bad guy.

Originally Posted by SBTCO
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling