Originally Posted by starnovi
So this class is all about what happens after the shooting? That would be interesting. I taken 2 GA Gun Law classes but mainly they tell you what to say/not say after the shooting and not to talk until your lawyer is present. I can imagine that there is a lot more to come after the shooting!
Yeah. I ran across Branca (Law of Self Defense ? The indispensable guide to self defense law is finally back. Mr. Branca's book is the only MUST READ for all present and future gun owners. Ignore it at your own peril.
) during the St Trayvon of Skittles affair. Branca is also on a big legal/lawyer's blog. He was doing a day-by-day deconstruction of the day in court. (Unexpected thanks to Legal Insurrection on 2nd Anniversary of Zimmerman Acquittal
) Really smart; I bought his book from that. Read it and was VERY dismayed!! There's a HUGE amount of specific and detailed 'stuff' you need to know before LEGALLY being able to "potentially use lethal force back." Whew! Book is VERY worthwhile. (And I thought that even when I spent, like, $40 for it!!)
However, EXTREMELY useful info! His "five legal principles" are below (well, not HIS -- the ones in law across the country, except some states (with "Stand Your Ground" laws Stand Your Ground Laws | Self Defense | Zimmerman | Florida
) don't require no. XX5XX
...). OOPS! Big mistake -- number 4
And he made us 'chant them' along with him throughout the class. THESE 'rules' are just as important as the "treat all guns as if they are loaded. and etc." (Maybe moreso: you can 'get away' with putting your finger on the trigger too soon: you (probably) CANNOT get away in court with 'guessing wrong' on, say, imminence!)
Each of those five items have specific and important inclusions and exclusions.... So, you should take this class (in your own state) because each of those five has details and inclusions and exclusions and weird stuff and so on... that WILL affect your ability to "win the second fight: the legal one!"
The biggest thing to know is that the prosecutor has to 'disprove' ONLY ONE
of those; YOU must prove you meet ALL five (or four in STG states; dropping 4. Avoidance, IF you were where you were legally allowed to be!) to be ALLOWED to claim self-defense...
Y'all who have been around a while may remember me fighting with Richard (who claimed "to have gone to law school but was not a lawyer")? He kept insisting what mattered was how the law(s) was (were) written -- Branca puts legitimate (equal!) stress on, for example, jury instructions: not what the law "is" (depends on the meaning of what "is" is?!) but on what the judges in the state TELL the jury about applying the law and on (earlier) case law...
One thing that specifically still burns my butt towards Richard (I'm a girl, I hold grudges, it's my job!) was his INSISTENCE that Branca (and thus I) was wrong about this: to be ABLE to claim self-defense in court, you first must CONFESS to having committed the crime. But here's the deal: in order to claim self-defense, you MUST say: "YES I shot the guy
, but there are extenuating circumstances."
Richard claimed "the law" always
lets you claim self-defense. NO! No, it does NOT! IF the prosecutor can convince the judge (in chambers, so the jury isn't privy to it) that ANY ONE of those five is not in place? The judge can REFUSE to allow the words "self-defense" to even be SPOKEN in court! So -- you have JUST confessed to murder / manslaughter and the judge has just DENIED YOU the self-defense defense!! (You have just paddled up shit's creek baby!!
(case) law: (if you do NOT live in GA, do NOT assume this applies to you in any other state!!):
"It a defendant does not admit to committing any element of the crime charges, then he is not entitled to ... the affirmative defense." Rutland vs. State 639 S.E.2d 628 (GA Ct App. 2006)
(The "affirmative defense" is "self-defense"; where YOU ADMIT TO THE CRIME, but with extenuating circumstance, right?! YOU CONFESS that you shot the guy,but should be let off because it was self-defense!)
(And, oh yeah; "I didn't mean to do it! I didn't mean to shoot him! It was an accident!"? DENIES YOU A CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE!
Accidental =/= self-defense
Accidental = criminally negligent homocide!
Georgia IS a Stand Your Ground state: however -- does anyone know that the SYG law means ONLY that you do not have to "prove" you did not have a 100%-safe avenue and ability for escape? (It removes item 4. above; you don't have to prove you could not have escaped; only that you were where you were legally entitled to be.)
In the non-SYG states (16 of 'em left!), the prosecutor-wanting-to-be-mayor can try to hang you with: "Look judge, he COULD have climbed under that table, then scrambled over that divider, then run to the back door, then picked the lock, and THEN made it to safety WITHOUT killing the attacker!! Yes, even pulling his 95-yr-old blind granny behind him in her wheelchair!! He WANTED to kill the guy, that's why he was carrying that eeeevil scary-big gun with those super-high-powered reloaded bullets! He WANTED to kill someone! He went out LOOKING to kill someone!"
(Y'all don't think for a second that is NOT what, say, a California prosecutor will try to hang you with?! And what about the jury of MPAI liberal CA weenies? THEY will happily go for it!) (Note: I do NOT know if CA is a SYG state or not -- not my state, not my problem. If it's your state, it IS your problem to find out!!)
Anyway, Branca's class goes way way deeper into keepin' you out of jail than I will here. The book is worth the price; the CLASS is worth the price. (You get the book free with the class; I gave my 'free' copy to my friends...)