The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

Originally posted by Raptor22
from your own link

"Generally, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But while a defendant isn’t required to prove innocence in order to avoid conviction, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove guilt to the point of absolute certainty. And despite the general rule that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, there are instances when the burden shifts to the defendant."

"When the prosecution establishes a fact that tends to prove an element of a crime, the burden essentially switches to the accused, not necessarily to disprove the fact, but to raise a doubt about it. The defendant need not raise a doubt about every fact that the prosecution tries to prove—creating enough doubt about any point that’s crucial to a guilty verdict will suffice. Of course, the more convincing the fact is, the tougher the defendant’s burden is.

For instance, suppose the prosecution shows that, when searching the defendant, the police found a watch that store records reflect as stolen. In defense of a burglary charge, the defendant would probably have to give a plausible explanation for possessing the watch legally. By producing a receipt or testimony that the watch was a gift, the defendant would essentially shift the burden back to the prosecution."

To draw parallels switch stolen watch for killing Ahmaud. The prosecution doesn't have to prove they shot Ahmaud which caused his death. They admitted it already. In defense they will have to prove they did it legally much like the suspect in the example had to prove they acquired the watch legally. The burden had shifted.

No, the state has to prove they did it illegally. that's how our court system works.

The watch example proves me right, the state had to provide hard evidence that the watch was stolen. IOW. they had to meet their burden, before the burden shifted to the defendant.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, the state has to prove they did it illegally. that's how our court system works.

"When the prosecution establishes a fact that tends to prove an element of a crime, the burden essentially switches to the accused"

Killing Ahmaud is the element of murder that the prosecution has established as a fact thru the Mcmichaels own admission. Now the burden is on them to prove they did it legally.

No it isn't, the crime they are being charged with is murder, merely establishing they killed him doesn't prove any element of murder. the state would have to establish a fact that tends to prove that the killing was illegal.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No it isn't, the crime they are being charged with is murder, merely establishing they killed him doesn't prove any element of murder. the state would have to establish a fact that tends to prove that the killing was illegal.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/9-2-murder/

"Murder is a crime that has the elements of criminal act, criminal intent, causation, and harm. In this section, you learn the elements of murder. In upcoming sections, you learn the factors that classify murder as first degree, felony, and second degree.

Murder Act

Most jurisdictions define the criminal act element of murder as conduct that causes the victim’s death (N.Y. Penal Law, 2011). The criminal act could be carried out with a weapon, a vehicle, poison, or the defendant’s bare hands. Like all criminal acts, the conduct must be undertaken voluntarily and cannot be the result of a failure to act unless a duty to act is created by common law or statute."

The criminal act element of murder was that their conduct caused the victims death, it was carried out by their weapons, and they acted voluntarily.

U just saying them killing him isnt an element of murder doesn't magically make it true.

Again, the state has to do more than merely establish that you killed someone in order to convict you of murder. if this ever goes to trial, their defense will be that it was justified. the state will then have to provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't justified.

Yeah, killing someone doesn't always equate to it being murder. I thought that was commonly known. Murder is when someone is killed unjustifiably. The state has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his killing was unjustified. The burden of proof is on them. The accused in a criminal trial is always entitled to a presumption of innocence regardless of how much the media has made said person out to be in the wrong. The burden of proof is never on the accused.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, the state has to do more than merely establish that you killed someone in order to convict you of murder. if this ever goes to trial, their defense will be that it was justified. the state will then have to provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't justified.

The only difference between what ive been saying and what ur saying now is that their defense will be that it is justified.

Im saying that their defense will be that its justified and they will have to offer proof that it was in order to win the case and not got 2 jail.

"The father and son on the other hand have to prove these things in real life to avoid actual consequences" -me

2 which u responded

"That isn't how the courts work, the burden is on the state"

Sure technically they do not have to provide evidence or proof of their defense.

But if they dont they will almost certainly lose and go 2 jail or in other words face actual consequences just like i said.

But hey if u think their entire strategy will be to have their lawyer stand up and say nothing more than it was self defense and then resting their case without providing any proof or evidence to back it up then i guess we will see which one of is right when it goes 2 trial.

Wrong, they don't have to prove it was justified, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't

To be clear, the defense doesn't legally have to prove anything, at most they just have to keep the state from reaching their burden.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong, they don't have to prove it was justified, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't

Like the stolen wacth they didnt have to prove he stole it beyond a reasonable doubt to shift the burden, just certain aspects ie the watch was stolen and he was in possession of it. He then had to prove with a receipt that he legally obtained it.

Ahmaud was killed and they killed him. The state already proved this thru the Mcmichaels own statements. the state will offer evidence and a narrative that most closely reflects the evidence and is most likely to convict in their eyes. The burden will then shift to the defense to provide evidence to disprove the prosecutions evidence and theory.

Killing and murder are two different things, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't justified.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Killing and murder are two different things, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't justified.

"i dont think accusing a killer of having racial motives is against the law."- me

"However conflating the levels of proof one would need to accuse a killer of having racial motivations "- me

"if them killing ahmaud was in question then yes, its not"- me

"Wrong, they never admitted to murder" -silent

Weird because i never said they did. I specifically said killing. I even explained this to u my very next post.

"I never said they admitted to murder. Murder is the illegal killing of someone. I said they admitted to killing him. Their defense is they killed him legally, which is based on them legally detaining him which is based on him committing a felony which they have to prove in order to prove their defense."- me

"To draw parallels switch stolen watch for killing Ahmaud. The prosecution doesn't have to prove they shot Ahmaud which caused his death. They admitted it already. In defense they will have to prove they did it legally much like the suspect in the example had to prove they acquired the watch legally. The burden had shifted."- me

I just keep exaining it over and over

"Killing Ahmaud is the element of murder" me

"Killing and murder are two different things" silent

Lol no shit

Now ur here spouting the things ive been saying like they've been ur thoughts this whole time. Lol

Next ur going to be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood.

I'm glad that you finally acknowledge that I'm right that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty in order to convict them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm glad that you finally acknowledge that I'm right that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty in order to convict them.

I always love seeing u tap dance around the truth tho.

Tap tap tap, tap tap tap

Look at u go

The reality is that I was right, the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty in order to convict them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The reality is that I was right, the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty in order to convict them.

"Generally, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But while a defendant isn’t required to prove innocence in order to avoid conviction, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove guilt to the point of absolute certainty. And despite the general rule that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, there are instances when the burden shifts to the defendant."

Why in this instance shouldn't the prosecution bear the burden of proving murder?

Originally posted by Surtur
Why in this instance shouldn't the prosecution bear the burden of proving murder?

And in return if the Mcmichaels dont want to go to jail for a very long time they will have to offer evidence that refutes the prosecutions case.

Silent apparently thinks all they will have 2 do is stand up and say nope it was a legal killing, defense rests. And then everyone will just go home.

Is that what u think will happen surt?

I guess we'll see when/if it goes 2 trial.

Originally posted by Raptor22
they do.

And in return if the Mcmichaels dont want to go to jail for a very long time they will have to offer evidence that refutes the prosecutions case.

Silent apparently thinks all they will have 2 do is stand up and say nope it was a legal killing, defense rests. And then everyone will just go home.

Is that what u think will happen surt?

I guess we'll see when/if it goes 2 trial.

In my own personal opinion I think they'd have a better shot getting them on manslaughter.