Uncensored Justice System Discussion

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

We hear all kinds of arguments for what the law considers to be self defense, but how do YOU interpret it?

I'd say each of us, as individuals, views self-defense differently from what a prosecutor or a judge would. What if any of us was on trial for shooting someone purely in self-defense, with NO intent to deliberately kill someone, but the state was determined to "prove" otherwise?

Here is a post I put in the "Old Cases" discussion area a few months ago, which to me illustrates how a person can act in real fear for his life, shoot purely in self-defense, yet be tried and wrongly convicted of 2nd degree murder, and sentenced to 10 years in prison for doing so. (The "I strongly believe" italicized part was just added today, but I should have inserted it originally.) Personally, I find it an outrage, but I'll let you be the judges on this one. Mad

J

************************

HAROLD FISH CASE, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA

This is yet another case where [I strongly believe] the defendant, Mr. Harold Fish, was wrongfully convicted because crucial information was purposely withheld from the jury by the prosecution; that the decedent (I don't consider this person a victim) was in fact armed with a screwdriver in his back pocket.

After viewing this story on DATELINE back in 2006, and reading the printed version of the program transcript, I think this case was another terrible example of a gross miscarriage of justice. Below are two links; the first to the DATELINE story, the second detailing Mr. Fish's biography and the legal issues that surround the case.

TRAIL OF EVIDENCE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

Harold Fish Defense
http://www.haroldfishdefense.org

If I as a juror had heard the decedant was in fact armed with a screwdriver when his dogs tried to attack Mr. Fish, and had threatened Mr. Fish personally, my vote would have been a resounding NOT GUILTY. Which is probably why the prosecution purposely withheld that crucial information from the jury.

If that isn't an act of deliberate misconduct, I don't know what is.

J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

I really messed up here. I should originally have included Steve Gilmore's case to this discussion as well, as he also shot in self-defense when an intruder broke into his home. Steve's case is the tenth discussion thread on the "Legal Cases" area.

My humblest apologies to Steve Gilmore for my failure to include his case in the first post. Embarassed

J

_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954

Pia · Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:46 am Post subject:

I may be wrong but it seems like I remember hearing a judge say one time that if you feel that you are in immediate danger then that warrants self-defense. If so it was probably from A&E Justice Files or something like that..
_________________
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

JUSTICE1st · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 715 Location: USA

fortherecord · Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 22 Location: The Twilight Zone

Justice 1st,
think nothing of it, THANK YOU for thinking of me AT ALL

pg 929 final jury instructions:
"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstance."

Indiana State LAW: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

One question w/o hard fact tangible evidence that refutes my FACTUAL account how does the state file anything against me?
_________________
For the Good of All