Originally posted by Silent Master
Rap doesn't understand the difference between offering a defense and being required to prove innocence.
No, you argued yourself into a corner, and have been trying to tap dance your way out of it for pages. You would do better to let your friend flip the page for you, so you can move on like this did not happen.
Originally posted by Raptor22
wait when i asked thisdo u think the Mcmichaels will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?
Did u think i was referring the just the father and son?
Maybe the problem was my wording when i said Mcmichaels. Since silent and i have been talking about the Mcmichaels lawyers and their defense i thought it was implied.
Lets try this
do u think the Mcmichaels (them or their lawyers/defense team) will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?
I know its a tough spot im putting u in.
If u say yes then in essence u disagree with basically everything silent has said for the last 3-4 pgs.
But if u say no u will sound kind of retarded.
No I don't feel they will need to offer proof of innocence. That isn't how it works.
Originally posted by Surtur
No I don't feel they will need to offer proof of innocence. That isn't how it works.
Prosecutor: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you have seen from the video evidence, and heard from the sworn testimony of the defendants, the defendants did, indeed, murder the victim.
Defense Attorney: The defense rests.
You and Silent Master are clearly brilliant legal minds. The McMichaels are sure to be acquitted with that stellar defense.
Originally posted by Robtard
Have we already moved on to blaming the murder-victim? Joy.
Using loaded language like this despite all the evidence in the case, reveals your bias. It's definitely up for debate. There is a third, private, video which is not being released to the public that the courts and prosecutors have already seen - it captures in better detail what happened during the confrontation. It was so definitive in "what happened" that the first prosecutor wanted to drop the case.
I don't think this case is a "yes, he's definitely a murder victim."
Originally posted by Robtard
Here's an idea, if you suspect someone tried to rob a place and then ran away, call the police instead of chasing them down in a truck and murdering them. Handling a suspected thief is part of what the police do and what we pay them for.
They were called. Twice.
He tried to run away and they tried to detain him.
Why do you think the police arrived so quickly after he was shot?
Originally posted by Surturwow that sounds like the sort of unprovable, unfounded allegation that u so vehemently oppose.
I can understand what Raptor is doing: he saw where the tide was taking this thread. The race baiters were looking really bad.
I assume u have 100% proof of this outside of ur own opinion. U wouldn't want to be the same kind of hypocrite that u hate so much. Would u?
Wait let me guess. U were just kidding right?
Originally posted by Raptor22
wow that sounds like the sort of unprovable, unfounded allegation that u so vehemently oppose.I assume u have 100% proof of this outside of ur own opinion. U wouldn't want to be the same kind of hypocrite that u hate so much. Would u?
Wait let me guess. U were just kidding right?
Swing and a miss. One of the usual suspects will be along shortly to pretend a valid point was made.
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
This is the correct interpretation of how this works.
The prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the jury that the homicide victim, Arbery, was killed illegally.
The McMichael's must defend against the prosecutions evidence such that the jury is not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the McMichael's acted in an illegal way that resulted in Arbery's life being taken under the murder charges brought against them.
The Prosecutor will hold that the justification for the homicide was not lawful and has to build a case against them.
The defendants will hold that the homicide was lawful and builds a defense case for why they did not commit a crime.
There are 2 charges.
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.
Not necessarily evidence (as both parties will have the same evidence).
But a defense using the same set of evidence.
Originally posted by Surtur
I can understand what Raptor is doing: he saw where the tide was taking this thread. The race baiters were looking really bad.
This is how it would go if rap was in charge
Rap: Ladies and gentlemen, they admitted to killing the victim thus he is guilty of murder.
Defense: Your honor, the state didn't meet their burden of proof that this wasn't a case of justifiable homicide and thus I request the charges be dropped.
Judge: Agreed, case dismissed. Rap, next time you come to my court you better be prepared to actually prove your case.
Originally posted by Raptor22
do u think the Mcmichaels will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?
Most likely not. As the proof is already in the state's hands. They must offer a defense using the same body of evidence that the prosecutors will have access to, to create a reasonable doubt in the Jury to get an acquittal.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Using loaded language like this despite all the evidence in the case, reveals your bias. It's definitely up for debate. There is a third, private, video which is not being released to the public that the courts and prosecutors have already seen - it captures in better detail what happened during the confrontation. It was so definitive in "what happened" that the first prosecutor wanted to drop the case.I don't think this case is a "yes, he's definitely a murder victim."
I don't get why people are so adamant about this being racially motivated and it being such a clear cut case.
They were called. Twice.He tried to run away and they tried to detain him.
Why do you think the police arrived so quickly after he was shot?
Get these facts out of here and start behaving emotionally. Now.
Originally posted by Surturso why do u think it wouldn't apply to this case.
Generally that isn't how it works, per that quote.
Before u ask me why i think it does, keep in mind over the last several i have posted several links and quotes from legal sources and experts. Keeping up with silent every time he moved the goal post. From it explaining the difference between killing and murder, to showing the state only has to prove a certain element of a crime to shift the burden, to proving that the actual act of killing is indeed an element of the crime of murder and thru the Mcmichaels own admission proved it for the state etc...
So since my logic is on record as to why i think it would apply in this case, perhaps u could let us know why u think it wouldn't.
Originally posted by Silent Masterits like u ignored me saying how the prosecution will have to provide evidence and a narrative that both fits the evidence and is likely to lead to a conviction.
This is how it would go if rap was in chargeRap: Ladies and gentlemen, they admitted to killing the victim thus he is guilty of murder.
Defense: Your honor, the state didn't meet their burden of proof that this wasn't a case of justifiable homicide and thus I request the charges be dropped.
Judge: Agreed, case dismissed. Rap, next time you come to my court you better be prepared to actually prove your case.
Maybe u didnt ignore it and just hoped it would magically go away
Originally posted by Raptor22
so why do u think it wouldn't apply to this case.Before u ask me why i think it does, keep in mind over the last several i have posted several links and quotes from legal sources and experts. Keeping up with silent every time he moved the goal post. From it explaining the difference between killing and murder, to showing the state only has to prove a certain element of a crime to shift the burden, to proving that the actual act of killing is indeed an element of the crime of murder and thru the Mcmichaels own admission proved it for the state etc...
So since my logic is on record as to why i think it would apply in this case, perhaps u could let us know why u think it wouldn't.
I really don't understand what your two's argument is about.
Here's how it works in all 50 states and territories because that's how it's outlined in the 5th amendment:
Once it gets beyond a grand jury, and the accused are formally indicted, then it shifts the conversation from "burden of proof" to a jury trial (if the accused maintain innocence).
When you move the conversation from a Grand Jury, both parties must offer arguments to persuade the Jury as I explained previously.
The burden of proof arguments are handled at the Grand Jury level. Like SM was talking about. The accused have no burden of proof at that point. The burden is on the state to prove to a grand jury that the evidence is high enough that the accused needs to be formally charged and/or plead to the charges.
The state still has the burden of proof to demonstrate to the jury that the accused (defendants) are guilty of the charges brought up against them by the state AFTER a Grand Jury has indicted the defendants.
Is it possible that the conversation switches to one of a "burden of argument"? That's really what trials are about.
Originally posted by Raptor22
so why do u think it wouldn't apply to this case.Before u ask me why i think it does, keep in mind over the last several i have posted several links and quotes from legal sources and experts. Keeping up with silent every time he moved the goal post. From it explaining the difference between killing and murder, to showing the state only has to prove a certain element of a crime to shift the burden, to proving that the actual act of killing is indeed an element of the crime of murder and thru the Mcmichaels own admission proved it for the state etc...
So since my logic is on record as to why i think it would apply in this case, perhaps u could let us know why u think it wouldn't.
Do your links mention any specific cases where the burden was shifted to the defense in an instance where someone was being charged with murder and claimed self defense?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I really don't understand what your two's argument is about.Here's how it works in all 50 states and territories because that's how it's outlined in the 5th amendment:
Once it gets beyond a grand jury, and the accused are formally indicted, then it shifts the conversation from "burden of proof" to a jury trial (if the accused maintain innocence).
When you move the conversation from a Grand Jury, both parties must offer arguments to persuade the Jury as I explained previously.
The burden of proof arguments are handled at the Grand Jury level. Like SM was talking about. The accused have no burden of proof at that point. The burden is on the state to prove to a grand jury that the evidence is high enough that the accused needs to be formally charged and/or plead to the charges.
The state still has the burden of proof to demonstrate to the jury that the accused (defendants) are guilty of the charges brought up against them by the state AFTER a Grand Jury has indicted the defendants.
Is it possible that the conversation switches to one of a "burden of argument"? That's really what trials are about.
I just think if one is accused of murder it should be up to the prosecution to prove it.
If it was up to the defense isn't that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty? It sounds insane there would be any circumstance where that is okay.