If you kill someone should there be a mandatory trial?

I think our procedure is sufficient. Police can arrest for "probable cause" (like if you shoot someone in sight of a policeman). If the issue isn't clear, police present evidence to a District Attorney who represents the people. If the DA thinks the evidence is good enough for an arrest, a warrant is issued. I don't know whether murder is an automatic grand jury issue or whether just a hearing to determine whether there is enough evdence to hold a trial is enough.

Either way, the alleged killer has rights too which need be protected. Innocent until proven guilty is an important cornerstone of our legal system.

Let the police have some discretion. If it legitimately looks like self-defense, let it go at that. We don't need to drag everyone into court over everything.

I think under our Aussie law, where a killing has occurred the responsible person is automatically charged with manslaughter. The matter is then put before a Magistrate at a Committal Hearing http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/... in a local court, who decides whether or not the polices' preliminary evidence is sufficient to convince a jury of the persons guilt. At that preliminary hearing, the charged person is not required to enter a plea. If the Magistrate believes the police evidence is sufficiently strong, the case will then go to the Crown Prosecutor who will await a final submission from the police and then decide, on the police evidence, whether or not the matter should go to the Criminal Court.

Yes.

Yes, in order to prove one's innocence or guilt.

Since when have we been required to prove our innocence?

If it was self defence, then you should have a trial proving it was self defence. If it wasn't, you should go to jail.

Are you even reading what you're writing here?????

You are asking that people be required to prove their innocence. That may be the way things are done down under, but not here in America.

I'm not abrogating the presumption of innocence. When they are brought to trial for homicide, it is presumed they are innocent until it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that they caused the death. The onus is then on them to establish a defence, eg self defence.

This is exactly what I was communicating before, except this time I'm stating the obvious.

"I'm not abrogating the presumption of innocence.
"The onus is then on them to establish a defence, eg self defence."
100% contradiction, you are a moron.

Uh. Geez. The presumption of innocence exists until you're proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If you're proven guilty, YOU NO LONGER GET THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. However, if you can establish a defence, you will avoid a conviction. If I kill someone and it is proved that I killed them, I will go to jail unless I can establish that I only killed them in self defence.

A mandatory investigation and all the facts possible.

If someone shoots another person and kills them.....then yes, there should be a trial. No one should just get away with commiting a crime. No matter what color a person is....whites killing whites, whites killing blacks, blacks killing whites, or even blacks killing blacks........let's not forget other ethnicities as well. A crime is a crime and those that commit them should pay for their actions.......As the saying goes...you do the crime, you do the time. I don't care if it is in self defense as some people claim.

Killing is not automatically a crime. Acts of war and acts of self-defense are legitimately not classed as murder. You are an ideologue who has yet to experience the real world..........

Look....I gave my opinion......SORRY you don't like my answer. I understand that if a soldier in a war kills someone that is an enemy...that is not a crime. I'm not stupid. But when it comes to self defense, I believe that there should be substantial proof that it was self defense. Therefore, take it to trial and if there is enough proof to show that a person was just defending themselves, then they won't serve jail time.

OK, now with your clarification you no longer sound like an idiot. I do still disagree that a trial is automatically necessary. Sometimes the situation screams that it was self-defense. Give the police some credit for not being stupid. They know the difference between murder and other things.

I NEVER SAID THE POLICE WERE STUPID AND DON'T EVER CALL ME STUPID. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME. AS I SAID IF THERE IS ENOUGH PROOF TO SHOW THAT IT WAS SELF DEFENSE, THEN THE PERSON WHO SHOT AND KILLED THE OTHER PERSON WON'T SERVE PRISON TIME, BUT IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS SELF DEFENSE....THEY NEED TO GO TO PRISON. SO BACK OFF. OTHERS ON HERE HAVE ALSO SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT SELF DEFENSE AND YET YOU ONLY BITCH AT ME.

There is no need to shout. I didn't call you stupid; I said that you sounded like an idiot. There's a big difference. You could say that I said that what you wrote was stupid. I don't know you, and I was beginning to think that you were a reasonable person until you reacted with all caps and obscenities.



If the police aren't stupid, why must it always go to trial? Save the taxpayer the expense in cut-and-dried cases.

To me....having you say that I sound like an idiot is the same as calling me stupid. I am neither. I'm sorry for yelling at you but I don't appreciate anyone calling me names or accusing me of not knowing things. Like I said.....it is my opinion to go to trial, that way it can be proven that a crime was an act of self defense. Any person can kill someone else and automatically say it was self defense, but it has to be proven....therefore a trial. Or do you believe we should take everyone's word for it no matter what.

I was following this exchange out of interest to see the explanation for your "Yes" vote. Your rationale seemed fairly logical, but I need to point out one legal detail: Since our system is "innocent until proven guilty", it is not the shooter's responsibility to prove self-defense. It is the prosecution's responsibility to prove guilt against the defendent, so the prosecution must prove that the fatality was NOT self-defense (and must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury).

But you said that there should be no trial, so how would anyone prove that it was self defense. According to what you said......we just need to take a shooter's word for it and let everyone that shoots another person go free. Why not release all people that are in prison now then.......maybe they all shot others in self defense. How about I go out, get a gun, shoot someone and claim self defense.......I won't go to prison because you said that anyone who claims self defense won't even go to trial. The only way a person can be innocent until proven guilty is if there is a trial....otherwise how can anyone prove they are guilty.

Where did I say that there should be no trial in my post above (I went back and looked at my post and I couldn't see where I said that)? You must be referring to the separate post I made apart from this particular conversation with edifyguy. And you inferred that I also said "we just need to take a shooter's word for it", and I didn't say that either! What I said was that it is up to the DA's office to decide whether there is enough evidence to win a conviction in a trial, and thereby decide if they will conduct a trial. I also clearly stated that's up to the DA, and I didn't say "anyone who claims self defense won't even go to trial", as you put it. Is it possible that you are confusing statements that "edifyguy" said with statements that I made? Or are you simply assuming what is in my mind by your own train of thought (and doing it incorrectly)?

He wasn't attacking you; he was merely asking for clarification. Why was it necessary to attack him? All that did was undermine your credibility.



We clearly aren't going see eye-to-eye on the issue, as Blue pretty much picked up where I left off (and did a better job than I was doing) and you never reached that point, but can we at least all part believing that we don't hate each other? I don't hate you......

Wow. Well, Mr. Wells blocked me, and I assume he blocked you, too. I made one final attempt to reach out to him with reason, and he is apparently incapable of hearing it. It was nice to meet you, anyway. It's good to know that reasonable people are out there.........

Yep, he blocked me as well. He apparently has trouble distinguishing between words which are actually posted for him to read and those which he has running around inside his own head! He blocked me when I simply pointed out to him that he was attributing statements to me which I had never stated. I was actually agreeing with his opinion that a trial might be necessary, but it's up to the DA to decide if he has enough of a case to go to trial successfully.

Nice to meet you as well, and maybe out paths will cross in future conversations...

FYI....The word is defined as a foolish or stupid person, so in a way they are the same.

you never know.

There already is. It's called an investigation. The Cops find information, and judge whether it needs to head to a court. Wait for the investigation. Innocent until proven guilty.

Of course

NOPE!!

There's a reason for our system of "innocent until proven guilty". If the DA's office doesn't think that there's enough evidence to convict in a fair trial according to court rules of evidence and procedures, then mandatory trials are a waste of more taxpayer money! The DA represents the people in the local community, and is thereby given the responsibility to use sufficient discretion to determine whether a specific case should go to trial.

I think you need more than a police investigation in most cases especially with these new stand your ground laws that have taken self defense outside home invasions.

Even in the States that have the "Stand and Defend Law", (or some of us less tolerant of it calling it "The Legal Right to Murder"), I would think there would be a thorough investigation to make sure that all criteria was met.....if they have such a thing as criteria.

It sounds like a good idea ...It might save lives if they know for sure they will have to go to court !

But wouldn't you anyway? If someone breaks into your home, threatens your family and you defend yourselves, why would you go to jail/trial?

Of course i would kill anyone that did....Massachusettes is primarily a liberal state and would rather you and your kids die before killing a criminal

What a bunch of pure and hysterical baldardash. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in, anyway?

same as yours but in a differant state