I want to create a large private city in middle america that can outright ban guns.

Thankfully in FL, the law considers anybody burglarizing an occupied dwelling to be committing a forcible felony. People are allowed to use force (including deadly force) to stop the commission of a forcible felony in Florida.

 

Ultimately for what, legitimate purpose? In any other example, if a prosecutor wishes to earn a conviction on their record, they must invest the time and effort to demonstrate that the accused did actually commit the actions in the charge being leveled against them, and must shoulder the burden of proof to demonstrate the charges are legitimate. There is no reason such a standard should not apply in a matter pertaining to lethal force for the purpose of self defense.

Feeling safe is not actually the same thing as being safe. Those who flew on september eleventh felt safe until they realized something was wrong.

 

Wrong. There are plenty of circumstances where people have fired and struck their assailants in the back and had their actions exonerated as justifiable. Just because someone has their back turned in your direction doesn't mean they're not a threat.

 

There are 2 types of legal defenses.
1. I did not due the crime
2. I did the crime, but am immunied because of X

In type 1, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant did the action. Since the defendant is saying they didn't do it. In type 2 the defendant must prove that they did X because they have admitted to doing an illegal action, just in a legal way.

In what way does it make sense to allow the defendant to say, I killed X because X threatened me with Y but then when asked for evidence of Y they say, I need not show evidence, it is up to the state to prove they didn't do Y.

I can say no one will have to worry about being shot for getting into the wrong car or house accidentally in those states.

 

Give me an example of when your life can be in direct danger by someone facing away from you. Its logic like this why police never get convicted in the US.

 

Wrong. What, you've never looked back over your shoulder and pointed at something behind you? A guy with his back to you can still be looking over his shoulder and pointing a gun at you. You see a guy glaring at you and his weapon pointed at you, so you shoot and the bullet hits him in the back, you're still justified in defending yourself.

You also clearly understand nothing about the dynamics of interpersonal combat. A guy with a gun in his hand can turn and fire faster than a person can react. As an instructor, at times we used simulated firearms that fire marking pellets. I loved giving the demonstration of having someone pointing their weapon at me, with their fingers on the trigger and orders to shoot me the moment they saw me start to turn, and I could shoot them before they could react every time. If a person is in your home with his back to you, and a gun in his hand, and you plug him in the back that's justifiable.

 

With the first legal defense being the one in this particular case. Killing someone in self defense is neither murder, nor manslaughter, and should not be considered as a crime simply because someone finds the act distasteful.

In the way that the united states was founded on the premise of the accused being innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor wants a conviction, they must invest the time, work, and effort to demonstrate that the accusations are legitimate, and that a crime was indeed committed by the accused. It is not the place for the accused to prove their own innocence, as such is assumed until actually proven otherwise in a court of law, in full compliance with due process of law.

Except for when it actually does happen, and demonstrates that real life does not care about what rules may or may not be in place in a given location.

 

Its type 2 because you are using a legal defense against a crime, not denying it. Its a homicide, just a justifiable one, so you are trying to prove it was justifiable,

Once someone engages in an act, that is illegal except in specific instances, then you should have to prove you did it the legal way. Due process protects the accused, once you confess to an act its not an accusation its an attempt to use a legal exemption.

It is still less likely for someone to do something equal to murder if its illegal in the area

 

Sackeshi has to be the greatest troll in the PF. 1183 posts, wow. Stop feeding him.

 

Such is not how the legal system in the united states works. It is the prosecutor who has the burden of proof, not the defendant.

Once again, it is the prosecutor who has the burden of proof, not the defendant. Such is how it has been since the founding of the nation, and it is not a standard that is going to change in the foreseeable future. Stop the incessant whining and complaining about how your country should be, and simply accept how it is.

Except for the simple fact that it is not.

 

In Florida as with many states, if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they have committed a forcible felony and the use of deadly force is justified regardless.

There is no requirement to warn the person or to have them face the home defender, that person can shoot them anywhere in the body at anytime.

The evidence that is was a justified shooting is the armed or unarmed dead body within the residence, period.

 

In the case of a forcible felony there is no need to demonstrate a direct danger, the criminals presence within the residence, justifies the shooting.

 

But...but... he's embarrassing himself !?!?!

 

nope. no matter what type of crime you commit, or are accused of, the burden ALWAYS lies with the prosecution, to prove you committed said crime. The accused is under no obligation to prove they DIDN'T do it.

 

Not just proved, but proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Yes he is, and everyone else as well.

 

My proposal to change the MI self defense law if I get into the state house or senate.

Safety & self defense act of 2020

5 degrees of murder under law

1. First degree shall be any pre-planned killing of a person when not under the threat of death. Minimum sentence life.
2. Second degree shall be any non planned intentional killing of another person not in self defense. Minimum sentence 30 years.
3. Third degree shall be the intentional killing of a person while under emotional distress. minimum sentence 15 years.
4. Fourth degree shall be the unintentional killing of a person directly caused by the defendant that could have been avoided. minimum sentence 10 years.
5. Fifth degree shall be any non action that results in the death of another person under the care or protection of the defendant. Minimum sentence 5 years.

When outside the home and confronted by an assailant

• All persons in Michigan shall have a duty to retreat, whenever able without direct risk of death, and when being directly attacked, said person shall only be permitted to use a weapon in defense if the assailant is using a weapon in the attack. The aggressor shall lose all legal rights to self defense. Only in the case of imitate protection from certain death shall the use of lethal force be justified. The burden of proof shall be on the defendant to prove the killing was legal if such defense is used in the court of law.

Statute for actions

• The killing of a person in an encounter where the defendant was the aggressor shall be equal to first degree murder in Michigan Law
• The killing of a person without retreating when able shall equal second degree murder in Michigan Law
• The killing of a person in retreat shall be equal to second degree murder under Michigan law
• The killing of a person with a weapon who is unarmed when attacking shall be equal to third degree murder under Michigan Law.

​

When inside ones home and confronted by an assailant

• The use of lethal force shall be permitted against any armed assailant with a weapon in their hand, in all other situations no lethal shall be permissible unless in the direct defense of a minor who is in imitate threat of death or grave bodily harm. The burden of proof shall be on the defendant to prove the killing was legal if such defense is used in the court of law.

Statute for actions

• The killing of an unarmed person no longer on the property of the defendant shall be equal to second degree murder under Michigan Law.
• The killing of an unarmed person shall be equal to third degree murder under Michigan law.
• The killing of an armed person not holding their weapon shall be equal to fourth degree murder under Michigan Law
• The killing of an armed person who is no longer on the defendants property shall be equal to fourth degree murder under Michigan Law

​

 

Support for such changes will be, at best quite low, bordering on nonexistent.

 

Michigan is a blue state worker state, they would love to see common sense back into gun laws.

 

The only problem with such an evaluation is the fact that none of what is being presented on the part of yourself actually amounts to the standard of "common sense" whatever that may ultimately be.

 

And if you understood people you would understand the working class doesn't support any form of firearm controls.

 

unconstitutional. sorry. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the prosecution. The right to self defense can not be limited to an assailant using a weapon. Also unconstitutional.

 

Neither is unconstitutional. Such were the laws in a few state prior to this election. The second point, the right to self defense using a weapon is limited to people being attacked with a weapon. They can defend themselves with their hands. They need not use a gun.

 

both are.

no they weren't.

no it isn't. that would be unconstitutional.
.

your opinion is meaningless. The law you propose, is unconstitutional.

 

This proposed law is the standard in the rest of the western world