Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Idaho rancher killed by deputies over a wounded bull.

OK.... but, assume that there is no "reasonable doubt" that I killed a guy.

What then?

It seems to me that if you leave it in the hands of the prosecuting attorney and the jury, only, you will be in jail. The Prosecuting attorney has already determined that you are guilty, and is trying to convince the jury, and you simply getting on the stand and saying that you are not guilty will not be enough. You, through your defense attorney has to prove your innocence or at least reasonable doubt. That varies on the type of trial is going on. miles

There'll probably be no doubt that you killed a guy.

But if you introduce reasonable doubt that you murdered him EVEN WITHOUT PROVING YOUR INNOCENCE, you'll be found not-guilty.

Good grief.

That's what some of us have been saying for three pages.....

If you can introduce reasonable doubt YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.

And what we have been saying is that it is up to you, not the law to do so. The law wants you to be guilty. It has not always been that way, but it seems to be so now. miles

Oh my goodness.

Saying "This is why I killed him" IS NOT "proving your innocence".

No wonder this country is so jacked up if yall are representative of reading comprehension and critical thinking.

You are hung up on semantics, Blue. It's similar to; " A Not guilty verdict doesn't mean you are innocent".

Technically, that's right. In the real world, they have the same meaning.

You may say that "reasonable doubt" is the objective, and an "affirmative defense" is the vehicle to reach it.

But... back to the original point..... "actions being within policy guidelines" is an affirmative defense commonly used by cops that is not available to the rest of us. And they still get to use the same self defense standard that we do in addition to that.

So it is much harder to prosecute a cop for wrongful death than it is for the rest of us.

If you introduce reasonable doubt, you *have* proven your innocence.

Your stupid is showing again.

You post stupid shat.

Then post more stupid shat, in order to explain that the stupid shat you posted before isn't as stupid as it looks.

Normally, it's harmless.

But in this case, people need to be advised to keep both hands over their a$$ and get legal advice in the event they have to shoot someone, not that they can just not worry about evidence and have nothing to worry about.

So OJ PROVED that he was INNOCENT?

Since the jury didn't witness the alleged "crime" one is being charged with, the defendant and his lawyer have to try to convince the jury of his innocence, or reasonable doubt of his guilt, to win his freedom. This takes action and effort.

Assuming that the prosecution can't overcome the burden of "reasonable doubt", and to do little to fight for ones acquittal, would certainly suggest to the jury that there is "reasonable doubt" about the defendants innocence.

Jurors are human. Logic and emotion will both play into their decisions during deliberation.

O J walked. Just like the cop who shot the guy crawling out of his overturned vehicle.

But O J had to hire a Dream Team of lawyers in order to walk.

It didn't cost the cop a dime........... and, unlike O J..... there was video showing the cop walking up, pulling his pistol, shooting the guy once, holstering his pistol and searching for the spent cartridge case.

If a defendant is guilty, he may fight hard to try to create reasonable doubt (e.g. OJ Simpson).

If a defendant is innocent, he had better fight like heck to "prove his innocence". In the absence of very hard facts to prove his innocence, (in which case he probably wouldn't be charged in the first place), the best he can do is build a good case of reasonable doubt for the jury to base their decision on.

I wish some of you folks would stop getting into such stupid arguments over semantics, just for the sake of arguing.

LOL.....climb down off your high-horse there turbo......Clearly....your intentions are no more pure than the "cops are evil" (your derogatory term, not mine) crowd....

Let me butt in there, a second, Blue.

I know what you mean, but for the benefit of the audience, let me point out that a defendant doesn't have to introduce reasonable doubt.

The prosecution can put on its evidence ...

The defendant and his lawyer can both sit there, mute as stumps, and not even move to scratch themselves, and ...

The jury can say to themselves, "The prosecution's case doesn't seem to make sense to me. I've got a lot of doubt about this."

Theoretically, anyway. In actual practice, the defendant's lawyer is going to stand up and argue that the prosecution's case doesn't make much sense and the jury should have a lot of doubt about this. But even then, the defendant's lawyer doesn't have to introduce anything by way of evidence.

Reasonable doubt does not prove innocence nor does a guilty verdict prove guilt. People have been wrongly convicted, just as reasonable doubt have allowed guilt to go free. It works both ways

No, he isn't. He's just deflecting attention away from the lack of justice.

Just a note, in our legal system, neither side is concerned with uncovering the truth, only with convincing the jury of the truth as they wish it to be.

Maybe in a perfect world, but juries don't always work that way. Juries a lot of times, weigh the preponderance of evidence in determining guilt or innocence...hiring the best defense attorney you can, merely increases your chances at a favorable outcome, unless of course you can PROVE your innocence...

Over 2600 post and this thread hasn't devolved into a display of naked women?


You guys are slipping.