Self defense laws

[700cdl]

I really question the self defense laws of many state's, and don't understand that right being limited to any extent. In my state we don't carry the burden of proof. We can use any weapon for any circumstance that threatens our personal safety or that of another. The perp. doesn't have to have any weapon or pose any threat beyond a physical stance, approach, or verbal. If the perp is by our perception is a threat to our physical safety to any extent, we can act as we deem necessary, without fear of being detained or having our weapon held pending an investigation. Additionally, we can carry in any manner we please without the need for a permit. We can carry into establishments that serve alcohol if we are not consuming. We can buy / sell without paper work unless doing so from an FFL. We have no waiting period or other interuptive process other than an instant background check. If for some reason a hold appears on a background check, not a refusal, the state only has 72 hrs. to make a descision before the sale is made.
This self defense law gives us the ability to avoid having taking a life in reailty, because we can draw our gun, fire a warning shot, and if all that doesn't stop the threat, shoot the perp.. But we are not forced to wait to first be physically attacked before using our weapon, it's just an open option.
I carry open into my bank, and I'm not bothered with questions from LE. LE that I've made contact with supports this self defense law and feels more citizens should take steps to defend their safety.
" When seconds count, the police are only a few minutes away"

What are the self defense laws in your state? And what do you like or dislike about those laws?

[brickeyee]

And what state are you in?

Have you reviewed both the statute law and case (common) law?

They both come into play.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 700cdl

In my state we don't carry the burden of proof.

In fact, that's very unlikely. It would help if you would post the actual text of the law so we can read it. I understand that generalizations almost always have an exception, but "in general" the laws of most states classify the use of deadly (or, in some states, "lethal") force for self defense as an exception within the statutes that prohibit the use of lethal force. If your state treats it differently, I would like to see the statute.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 700cdl

....In my state we don't carry the burden of proof. We can use any weapon for any circumstance that threatens our personal safety or that of another. The perp. doesn't have to have any weapon or pose any threat beyond a physical stance, approach, or verbal. If the perp is by our perception is a threat to our physical safety to any extent, we can act as we deem necessary, without fear of being detained or having our weapon held pending an investigation. ...

This self defense law gives us the ability to avoid having taking a life in reailty, because we can draw our gun, fire a warning shot, and if all that doesn't stop the threat, shoot the perp...

I seriously doubt it. Care to provide some proof?

[Kreyzhorse]

In my state we don't carry the burden of proof. We can use any weapon for any circumstance that threatens our personal safety or that of another. The perp. doesn't have to have any weapon or pose any threat beyond a physical stance, approach, or verbal. If the perp is by our perception is a threat to our physical safety to any extent, we can act as we deem necessary, without fear of being detained or having our weapon held pending an investigation. ...

This self defense law gives us the ability to avoid having taking a life in reailty, because we can draw our gun, fire a warning shot, and if all that doesn't stop the threat, shoot the perp...

I'd like to read your state's actual law as it's written because some of this seems a bit off.

As an example, I live in Kentucky, which is a Castle Doctrine state, and there is criteria that must be met before a SD shooting falls under the protection of the Castle Doctrine.

A sample of the law states:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Notice that even though I only "have to reasonably believe I'm in danger", I have to believe I'm in danger of death or great harm or there is a felony involving a use of force. Granted, if someone breaks into my home or vehicle, they are presumed to be committing an act of violence, but there are certainly limits to the Castle Doctrine. While I don't have to retreat and can meet force with force, a verbal threat and a stink eye doesn't allow me to shoot or even pull my firearm.

I'd guess your state is the same. I'd make sure I've read, and understood those laws if I were you. Protect yourself in all manners because a gun unto itself won't always protect you.

[Glenn Dee]

Ummm you can use deadly force on a person you know to be unarmed because you dont like his stance?... And you dont have to prove that his stance was somehow a threat to your safety?.... COW PUCKS!

Your just trying to stir the pot, and cause some confusion. You have absoloutly no credibility. Name the state, and cite the codes please.

I dee double dare you...

LOL Glenn D.

[Al Norris]

Every law on self-defense that I have ever seen, makes one of several assumptions. The first and foremost being that self-defense is an affirmative defense against the charge of homicide. This is generally true, even in States that have no "castle doctrine."

The claim of self-defense is that yes, you actually killed (or attempted to kill) the alleged assailant.... And it goes from there.

Add to all this, that not all castle doctrine laws limit your civil liability. That can be a huge headache, over and above any possible criminal charges. And in some States, you will be charged and have to prove your claim.

There is an awful lot that your opening statements, fail to acknowledge.

[Frank Ettin]

And in general, our society has long frowned on one person intentionally threatening or harming another. But our laws do recognize special circumstances in which it may be justified to intentionally threaten or harm another, i. e., when necessary to protect oneself or another innocent from wrongful harm.

Some common themes have developed in the law relating to the use of force in self defense. In general --

1. A defender may use only reasonable force commensurate with the threat. If the threat is one likely to cause death or grave bodily injury, lethal force may be threatened or used in defense. But if the threat would not be reasonably likely to cause death or grave bodily injury, lethal force would be excessive and not justified.
2. The threat must be one of immediate and actual harm.
3. Whether a threat exists and its nature is subject to an objective, reasonable person standard. A personal, subjective fear would not be sufficient.
4. Often the law would impose on a defender a duty to retreat, except in many cases in the defender's home or place of business.
5. Various "Castle Doctrine" laws have eased the defender's burden somewhat. For example, a particular law may provide that someone who has forcably entered the defender's home would be presumed to be a lethal threat. Other laws may allow the use, under some circumstances, of lethal force to prevent a violent felony. And some remove the duty to retreat in certain situations.
6. But all Castle Doctrine laws define various conditions that must be satisfied in order for the defender to come under the protection of the Castle Doctrine law.
7. Even in States in which someone claiming self defense does not have the burden of proving his claim of justification, he will have the burden of putting forth evidence sufficient to establish prima facie that his conduct satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.
8. One who has used or threatened force has, prima facie, committed acts which would constitute a crime. Unless and until it can be established that the actor's use or threat of force was justified, his acts will constitute probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by him; and the matter will be handled accordingly by law enforcement.

[IRONPONY]

, Is this state of yours in the United States of America ?

[Frank Ettin]

Now that I've thought about it for a while, I'm wondering if the OP is from Arizona. He's stating a number of common misconceptions about the Arizona use of force laws.

For example, the OP wrote

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...In my state we don't carry the burden of proof. We can use any weapon for any circumstance that threatens our personal safety or that of another....

While I've heard people say that with respect to Arizona, it's not really accurate.

Under 13-205A, Arizona Revised Statutes, "...If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification...."

Thus it is not sufficient that the defendant merely say he was defending himself or another. He has the burden of presenting evidence that his conduct was justified under the applicable provision of Chapter 4 of Arizona Revised Statutes.

For example, under 13-404, ARS, "...a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force...."

And under 13-405, "... A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force....."

Therefore, the defendant claiming justified use of deadly force has the burden of putting on competent evidence that the requirements of 13-404 and 13-405, or one of the other provisions of Chapter 4, have been satisfied.

The OP also wrote

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...If the perp is by our perception is a threat to our physical safety to any extent, we can act as we deem necessary,...

But again, this is wrong if the OP is talking about Arizona. As noted in the statutes quoted above, it's not the defender's perception that counts. It's what a reasonable person would believe.

The OP also wrote

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...we can act as we deem necessary, without fear of being detained or having our weapon held pending an investigation...

That's certainly not the case in Arizona, as illustrated by the case of Larry Hickey who was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

The OP also wrote

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...We can carry into establishments that serve alcohol if we are not consuming....

And that's not quite right in Arizona. One may carry concealed with a valid permit in an establishment that serves alcohol as long as one doesn't consume alcohol and as long as the establishment isn't posted in the manner prescribed by statute.

But maybe the OP isn't from Arizona. I wish he'd come back to this thread, clarify where he's from and provide evidence that what he says about the laws of his State is both true and accurate.

[Frank Ettin]

Well, I've managed to determine that the OP does live in Arizona. See this post (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by 700cdl

I have a Beneli pump, don't know what model but it is exactly the same action as an 870. Anyway, it is 18 1/2" barrel and will hold 6 in the tube and 1 of course in the chamber. Nothing different about the stock, nothing after market on it, all original. I live in Arizona too.

So it appears that the OP probably ought to do some studying up on the use of force laws of his home State.

[Kreyzhorse]

Well, I've managed to determine that the OP does live in Arizona.

Well done Detective Fiddletown.

[ipscchef]

At the risk of getting in trouble with the Mods, this guy is BS. Do a search of his threads. He has posted things that cannot be true. I think he is either 12 years old, or he is trolling for some negative info which with to use in a negative light.
I test out somewhere above idiot, but there a lot of BIG Brains on here.
Please do a thread search, see what this guy has posted, and decide for youselves. Let us see if he comes back on this thread.
And if any of the Mods even think I am coming close to the line hear, I will apologize profusly to all, and in particular to the OP, and keep my mouth shut on this I have proposed this to 700CDL an several occassion, and he has never responded in a rational manner. If any of the regular posters can point out how I am being out of line, same deal
Willy

[Al Norris]

I just sent a PM to the OP.... Let's see if he/she cares to respond.

ipscchef? For the record, you are close to the line. Please tone down the rhetoric.

[700cdl]

The statues are far too long and wordy to post here. However, I have an expert source who represents gun owners and laws in a professional legal forum who will gladly give you a legal refrence if anyone should ask, it's his job and he enjoys doing it for the citizens, and clients as well. He will gladly quote our Arizona state gun laws and explain them in detail.
Go to: www.armedpersonaldefense.com or
e-mail him : [email protected]
If memory serves me well, he provides legal services for the NRA.
Now regarding my statements as to our state gun laws and how I have described them. The content of what I stated is difficult for many who live in other states to believe as fact do to having so many restrictions and limitations in the state they live in. The common response is, it is too good to be true. Our Govenor Jan Brewer made it a point to explain our 2nd publicly and has done an excellent job of making it common knowledge to us in language that can be easily interpreted. I'm have spent long hours looking at these laws on our state statue and invite anyone to log onto the state web site to familarize yourselves with Arizona gun laws. I don't think there are many states like ours but New Mexico is deffinitely close. I'm not making this up, exagerating, embellishing, or other wise adding to these facts. Arizona is very different, and allows us to completely defend ourselves and is endorsed by our Govenor. She is currently working on some more laws that will further protect our 2nd and add to our freedom in this area of the constitution.
I didn't realize what a sensitive topic this was until now and have a great deal of compassion for those who have to deal with permits, gun registration and rediculous S.D. laws. You should have the freedom stop any threatby any means, prior to it evolving into a physical assault of any form, as our state has envoked. I am an elderly man and should not have to worry about being mugged or physically assaulted by someone younger and capable of hurting me with or without a weapon in their hand. Our state is clear about this, and gives me and every other law abiding citizen the freedom to use deadly force against such threats prior to them becoming an assault. Look it up, its our law. I get really worked up about this and am in near disbeliefe that most states limit ones ability to defend their safety, and only extend SD to their life. I can't endure a beating, shouldn't have to tollerate a mugging, or any form of threat to my safety or physical well being as I interpret it. It is never right to chase someone with a gun who is running away from you, because they are not a threat to you at that point. But until they have stopped being a threat to you, the law is very clear in Arizona, crystal clear.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 700cdl

The statues are far too long and wordy to post here. However, I have an expert source who represents gun owners and laws in a professional legal forum who will gladly give you a legal refrence if anyone should ask, it's his job and he enjoys doing it for the citizens, and clients as well. He will gladly quote our Arizona state gun laws and explain them in detail.
Go to: www.armedpersonaldefense.com or
e-mail him : [email protected]
If memory serves me well, he provides legal services for the NRA. ...

[1] It's not up to any of us to contact anyone and do your research for you. You made certain claims, and it's up to you to provide support for those claims.

[2] The statutes are not too wordy or long to cite and quote from. I've already quoted from several relevant statutes and demonstrated that your characterizations of certain provisions of Arizona use of force law were off base.

[3] The website you linked to is a site for a training organization. Doug Little, whose email you provided appears to be qualified as an instructor of defensive weapons craft, but I see nothing in his short bio on the site to suggest he has any special expertise in the law.

[4] Doug Little appears not to be a lawyer and is therefore unqualified to provide legal services for the NRA or anyone else.

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...I'm not making this up, exagerating, embellishing, or other wise adding to these facts. ...

Actually, you are, as I've demonstrated. I believe that you are very naive about the ways in which the law works. It's true that Arizona law is quite good, as are the laws of a number of other States, but they are certainly not as loose as you've suggested. And I've provided citations to statutes and events to support my views.

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...I didn't realize what a sensitive topic this was until now and have a great deal of compassion for those who have to deal with permits, gun registration and rediculous S.D. laws....

It's not that the subject is sensitive, it's that a lot is at stake. It's important to properly understand the applicable laws related to the use of force. Not understanding them can get one into a lot of trouble that might otherwise have been avoidable.

Intentionally injuring, or threatening injury to, another human being is frought with both legal and ethical issues. Sometimes in may be necessary and justified. But it should never be taken lightly.

Your contributing to a misunderstanding the law regarding the use of force could get someone into a lot of trouble.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 700cdl

Arizona is very different, and allows us to completely defend ourselves and is endorsed by our Govenor.

Citation?

What's the section of the state statutes to which you refer, and how does it make it so you never have to justify the use of lethal force (as you claim)?

As fiddletown points out, you have made the claim that your statute is unique. It is now up to you to supply the reference so the rest of us can read it.

[Aguila Blanca]

Arizona Statutes: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/arizona...s.asp?title=13

Use of physical force in self defense (13-404):

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

Use of deadly physical force in self defense (13-405):

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

Note especially #2 in Section 13-405 (which I have highlighted). It sets the exact same standard as that seen in in the statutes of every other state I have looked at, to wit: there must be a reasonable belief that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself.

What is different in this statute is that it does NOT include the requirement that you must be in fear of "death or grievous bodily harm" before being allowed to use deadly force, but the use is nonetheless going to be subject to what the legal beagles refer to as the "reasonable man test." Which means that you DO carry the burden of proof. You could be charged, and if you are charged you would have to prove to a jury that a hypothetical "reasonable man" would have acted the same way you acted.

[700cdl]

According to alll of the criticizing of my post what would be any different if I yet posted more that will be scrutinized and called BS? I gave all of you a reliable legal source to which gives you direct contact with, not through me, of an attorney that is expert regarding our gun laws, and yes, case laws! And case laws are not current with our recently changed S.D. laws, are not likely since our laws took a major turn for the better over the last 2 years, and most of the S.D. refrences I made are laws that were changed in 2010, some in 2009. I don't really care what you think of my person, and please, if it satisfies you, please continue to do so. I never insulted or other wise called anyone names, made insults. It is only necessary to have a permit in an establishment that serves alcohol if so requested by the owner of the establishment. And to the gentalman that quoted other statues. You contradicted the very wording of the S.D. statues, clearly not capable of interpreting the statues and need to contact the attorney here for a clear interpretation, it may leave standing corrected. Or is it ust easier to call me names and insult me rather than try to help this discussion lead in a constructive and accurate manner for the good of all.
Lastly, I'm visiting this site for serious discussions, informative purposes, and enjoyment. I'm no longer having fun or enjoying your company and wish you all a very nice day, sincerely said. If this is how you are going to treat me, I really don't feel welcome and will not further take up your time with my opinions, information, or presumed B.S., as one of you so elequently put it! If making me feel unwealcomed is your motive, than you have sucessfully accomplished your intended purpose. I am human, and being such wonder what you might be! I would never treat anyone trying to engage in a friendly discussion, as you have treated me.
Not to sure what I said to deserve being called names and have my integrity insulted, but what ever it was I apologize for having inspired it.
Have a nice day, again, I mean that sincerely.
Sleep well, I won't !

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...I gave all of you a reliable legal source to which gives you direct contact with, not through me, of an attorney that is expert regarding our gun laws, and yes, case laws! ...

But you made the claims. It not our job to go chasing after support for your claims. It your job to lay out the evidence to support your claims.

BTW, I am a lawyer myself. I have an Arizona concealed weapons permit (and have had one since 2002), so I make it my business to be very familiar with Arizona use of force law. I'm also an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home.

I visit Arizona frequently -- most recently in May of last year to help Massad Ayoob with a class he was teaching in Sierra Vista. I wrote this article about that trip.

Originally Posted by =700cdl

...It is only necessary to have a permit in an establishment that serves alcohol if so requested by the owner of the establishment...

Nope. See ARS 4-244 (emphasis added) --

It is unlawful:
.....

29. For any person other than a peace officer or a member of a sheriff's volunteer posse while on duty who has received firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board, the licensee or an employee of the licensee acting with the permission of the licensee to be in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer. This paragraph shall not be construed to include a situation in which a person is on licensed premises for a limited time in order to seek emergency aid and such person does not buy, receive, consume or possess spirituous liquor. This paragraph shall not apply to:

(a) Hotel or motel guest room accommodations.

(b) The exhibition or display of a firearm in conjunction with a meeting, show, class or similar event.

(c) A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 who carries a concealed handgun on the licensed premises of any on-sale retailer that has not posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229.

30. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit a person in possession of a firearm other than a peace officer or a member of a sheriff's volunteer posse while on duty who has received firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board, the licensee or an employee of the licensee acting with the permission of the licensee to remain on the licensed premises or to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a person in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer. It shall be a defense to action under this paragraph if the licensee or employee requested assistance of a peace officer to remove such person. This paragraph shall not apply to:

(a) Hotel or motel guest room accommodations.

(b) The exhibition or display of a firearm in conjunction with a meeting, show, class or similar event.

(c) A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 who carries a concealed handgun on the licensed premises of any on-sale retailer that has not posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229....

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...I'm visiting this site for serious discussions, informative purposes,...

And that is what we are having here -- a serious discussion of a very important subject.

Originally Posted by 700cdl

...Not to sure what I said to deserve being called names and have my integrity insulted,...

It's not about calling you names or insulting your integrity. It's about assuring that readers here have complete and accurate information about laws relating to the use of force. Someone acting on the basis of misinformation could wind up getting himself into a lot of very serious trouble.

[PIGMAN]

Here in Arizona we do have some interesting gun laws for example in is entirely legal for me to go grocery shopping with my M-1 Rifle either in full view or concealed if the latter were possible.

What I believe 700cdl is trying to explain is the change in the law controlling the burden of proof in homocide cases where the immunity of self defence is alleged. Any death that is not attributable to accident,natural causes or suicide is homocide. Shooting a criminal in the comission of a violent crime against ones self or another is justifiable homocide provided the facts of the case support the justification.

Under the old law, the shooter was required to prove to the State that according to the facts and evidance surrounding the case,a reasonable person would have been in fear of loosing life or limb and that the application of deadly force was justified in order to save said life or limb.Simply stated, anyone claiming self defence in a homocide case had to prove to the authorities what was in their mind at the time of the killing ,this can get tricky, and presumably there were citizens charged with third degree murder or worse who should not have been.

Under the new law the authorities (instead of the shooter) must prove according to the facts of the case whether or not the shooter had reason to fear for life and limb which is now equally as tricky for the authorities since who can really prove what is going through anyones mind in a situation where everything goes sideways.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 700cdl

And to the gentalman that quoted other statues. You contradicted the very wording of the S.D. statues, clearly not capable of interpreting the statues and need to contact the attorney here for a clear interpretation, it may leave standing corrected.

"Other statues"? First, it's "statutes," not "statues." I didn't quote "other" statutes," I quoted the Arizona statutes that cover when it is legal to use physical force and deadly physical force in self defense. YOU opened this discussion with the statement that

Originally Posted by 700cdl

In my state we don't carry the burden of proof. We can use any weapon for any circumstance that threatens our personal safety or that of another.

The statute does not say that. I quoted the entire body of the two pertinent statutes. Please note the 13-405 regarding the use of deadly physical force begins by referring to the preceding section, so you can't look only at 13-405, you also have to read 13-404. Read together, you simply cannot arrive at a conclusion that there is no burden of proof.

Starting with 13-404, the use of physical force is justified (under Arizona statute) only "... to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force."

So even to use physical force (we haven't even gotten to deadly physical force yet), you are subject to a "reasonable person" standard ... which means you could be arrested and charged, and you would have a burden of proof to convince a jury that the hypothetical reasonable person would have done as you did in the same situation.

Then we move on to 13-405 and the use of deadly physical force.

Originally Posted by 13-405

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

...

Paragraph 1 takes us back to Section 13-404, which imposes a "reasonable person" standard (in other words, a burden of proof) for the use of ANY force in self defense. And then Paragraph 2 of 13-405 reiterates the reasonable person criterion for the use of deadly physical force.

Any time the use of physical force or deadly physical force is predicated on a "reasonable person" standard, there IS a burden of proof. You can be arrested and charged. Your defense is that you used physical force or deadly physical force because you believed it was necessary in that situation. In invoking that defense, you will have to convince the judge or jury that the "reasonable person" mentioned in the statutes would have acted the same way you did in the same sitation.

The statute does NOT remove the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by PIGMAN

Under the old law, the shooter was required to prove to the State that according to the facts and evidance surrounding the case,a reasonable person would have been in fear of loosing life or limb and that the application of deadly force was justified in order to save said life or limb.Simply stated, anyone claiming self defence in a homocide case had to prove to the authorities what was in their mind at the time of the killing ,this can get tricky, and presumably there were citizens charged with third degree murder or worse who should not have been.

Under the new law the authorities (instead of the shooter) must prove according to the facts of the case whether or not the shooter had reason to fear for life and limb which is now equally as tricky for the authorities since who can really prove what is going through anyones mind in a situation where everything goes sideways.

Got a citation? The statutes I quoted were taken directly off the State of Arizona's web site (I provided the link), and they do NOT say what you are claiming they say. If the statute on the state's web site is out of date, where's the citation to the revised statute?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by PIGMAN

...What I believe 700cdl is trying to explain is the change in the law controlling the burden of proof in homocide cases where the immunity of self defence is alleged. ...

Under the old law, the shooter was required to prove to the State that according to the facts and evidance surrounding the case,a reasonable person would have been in fear of loosing life or limb and that the application of deadly force was justified in order to save said life or limb....

Under the new law the authorities (instead of the shooter) must prove according to the facts of the case whether or not the shooter had reason to fear for life and limb ...

I am very familiar with this change in Arizona law. And while it is a great improvement for the citizen, it is not quite as simple as you outline. It is actually a fairly technical distinction. So there are a number or errors in your outline.

[1] The change in the law applies any time one claims self defense, whether or not a homicide is involved. So if you used force to defend yourself or another, whether or not the assailant dies, your legal defense would be under that same rules.

[2] If you are charged with a crime as a result of your use of force in what you are claiming is justified self defense, you don't have to prove you were justified. But you still have the burden of putting on evidence that that you satisfied every element necessary under the legal standard for your conduct to have been justified. You still have the burden of putting on a prima facie case of self defense, i. e., sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact can infer that you satisfied the legal standard for self defense.

[3] Only after you have made a prima facie case for self defense will the State have the burden of proving that the legal requirements for justification were not satisfied.

[4] The new Arizona law is set out in ARS 13-205A, which I quoted in post 10: ""...If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification...." (emphasis added)

[5] Some of the provisions of chapter 4 of Title 13 of the ARS setting the legal standards justifying the use of force against another person were quoted by me in post 10 and by Aguila Blanca in post 18. They are apply a reasonable person standard, so it would not be sufficient for the person claiming self defense to present evidence that he was in fear; he must present sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would have been in fear.

[6] But note, if you are on trial for manslaughter or assault and are claiming self defense, you will still need to present a convincing case even if you don't have the burden of proof. You have admitted committing an act of extreme violence on another human being. This is something that most people, probably including most of the jurors, naturally find repugnant. You stand before the jury bearing the mark of Cain. The less convincing your self defense case is, the easier it will be for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof.

[ipscchef]

I apologize to all, I will not post further on this matter. Or on anything that the OP here states.
Bill Henderson