The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Do u think the prosecution will provide these things for them and/or do u think the defense will not want to offer anything of the like throughout the trial?

Originally posted by Surtur
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?

Just answer the question, Claire.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Just answer the question, Claire.

Need more information first. Curious if his logic is based on actual precedent on a similar case or just "a legal expert said".

Originally posted by Surtur
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?

I think i have offered enough to get at least some reasoning as to ur stance in return.

Originally posted by Surtur
Need more information first. Curious if his logic is based on actual precedent on a similar case or just "a legal expert said".

Originally posted by Raptor22
they had examples whose parallels were both obvious and explained by me pgs back.

I think i have offered enough to get at least some reasoning as to ur stance in return.

So there is no actual precedent for the burden of proof shifting to someone being accused of murder?

Cuz if it's never happened before I'm at a loss for the logic of why it should occur now?

Originally posted by Surtur
So there is no actual precedent for the burden of proof shifting to someone being accused of murder?

Cuz if it's never happened before I'm at a loss for the logic of why it should occur now?

Yep much better than the actual legal definitions of laws accompanied by experts explaining the details and giving examples.

Originally posted by Raptor22
so no actual reason for why it wouldn't apply to this case beyond ur feelings.

Yep much better than the actual legal definitions of laws accompanied by experts explaining the details and giving examples.

It's not my feelings, it's a fact you haven't provided any precedent for this happening.

If you can't do so, can you explain why this case should be the case where the law is applied like this?

I just wanna add that I'm glad, so far, Raptor has not provided any actual precedence. It'd be disturbing to hear of actual cases where "innocent until proven guilty" was flipped.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just wanna add that I'm glad, so far, Raptor has not provided any actual precedence. It'd be disturbing to hear of actual cases where "innocent until proven guilty" was flipped.

burden of proof shifted to defense in justified homocide cases

U dont have to copy or paste or type out a huge response. Just google it, click, scroll and read for a cpl min. The come back a let me know if u want 2 continue down this road.

Originally posted by Raptor22
so no actual reason for why it wouldn't apply to this case beyond ur feelings.

Yep much better than the actual legal definitions of laws accompanied by experts explaining the details and giving examples.

Originally posted by Raptor22
hey surt do me a favor. Google

burden of proof shifted to defense in justified homocide cases

U dont have to copy or paste or type out a huge response. Just google it, click, scroll and read for a cpl min. The come back a let me know if u want 2 continue down this road.

Not googling that but yes I do wanna continue asking if there is precedence for this. I mean if there is there is. It would be disturbing, but the fact you proved precedence wouldn't bother me.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]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. [/B]

😂

You got some bingo's to dish out Rob, get to it.

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."

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?

Well then, let us see this other video which paints a clear picture. Why didn't the prosecutor drop the case if it's so definitive that the McMichaels are innocent.

They detained what they assumed was a thief, an unarmed thief no less and it resulted in death. Last I checked, we don't kill thieves or presumed thieves.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not googling that but yes I do wanna continue asking if there is precedence for this. I mean if there is there is. It would be disturbing, but the fact you proved precedence wouldn't bother me.

Originally posted by Surtur
You got some bingo's to dish out Rob, get to it.

You're very triggered today. Rough weekend?

Originally posted by Raptor22
Do u think the prosecution will provide these things for them and/or do u think the defense will not want to offer anything of the like throughout the trial?

That is the wrong question to ask. The correct question is "Will the courts, the defense, and the prosecution accept the entry of new evidence after a trial has started?" Both the defense and the prosecution can reject new evidence that is submitted once a trial is underway. The court can accept or reject the evidence, as well. The court can also agree with an objection and reject the evidence.

But the prosecution and the defense both use this "proof." There's procedure to criminal court cases. You cannot just randomly and arbitrarily enter in new evidence into a trial.

So, no, the defense does not submit proof for their defense like you're outlining. The proof can and will be equally used by the prosecution. The trial is about arguments and persuading the jury. Evidence is one of those tools. Evidence, arguments, material witnesses, expert witnesses, etc. Those are are elements used in a trial.

"Burden of proof" is not what a trial is about. There is a burden of argument required of both sides. And that's what I'm going to call it.

Originally posted by Raptor22
going with the ignorance is bliss approach i see. Probably a good idea with this 1

So I take it there is not any precedence you can name. Gotcha. Moving on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well then, let us see this other video which paints a clear picture. Why didn't the prosecutor drop the case if it's so definitive that the McMichaels are innocent.

Incredibly easy to answer:

Public outrage and public outcry. They need to make a show of a trial.