10-21-2015, 03:59 PM
(10-21-2015, 03:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Isn't it always on the prosecutor to prove the defendant's action was with proof beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of the law? If someone is charged with murder 1, the prosecution has to prove both premeditation and the intention to kill. That's true whether the defendant's defense is traditional self-defense, stand your ground, denying the intent was to kill (a crime would still have been committed, but not murder 1) or claiming the police arrested the wrong guy.
Generally the state has to put on enough evidence to prove its case (premeditation, intentional killing, whatever) then the defense has the right to raise the issue of self defense. At this point the defendant had to prove his portion of the case that his actions were reasonable and justified.
