Homicide justified by self-defense is an affirmative defense. You do NOT have the presumption of innocence.
That may be true in most locales, but here in Az, the law was changed last year. See, you do have soemthing to learn.
that doesn't mean that convincing a jury is an easy process The state has the burden of proof here as of last year, I don't have to convince the jury of anything.
Taking a late-night stroll in a park you know to be dangerous, and arming yourself with a weapon that is (to say the least) less than practical "just in case" does NOT show anyone that you were seeking to avoid any kind of conflict
Really? I'm entitled to arm myself with any instrument that is not restricted otherwise by law and be anywhere I choose to go that is lawful to do so. There's laws that state I can't go somewhere because it's dangerous? How would "dangerous" be determined to begin with? Dangerous to some people would be leaving their homes in some of the neighborhoods in this country.
arming yourself with a weapon that is (to say the least) less than practical "just in case"
It's not unusual at all to carry a field knife [ the description of which could in fact be a bowie knife as a BOWIE KNIFE describes many styles of long knives by states statutes across the US ], it makes a very practical weapon [ in fact, the bowie type long knives are considered the quintessential pure fighting knife by those who understand what they are capable of and how to use one ]. All knives of any type fall under states "dangerous weapons" or "deadly weapons" statutes, and as such are considered dangerous or deadly weapons by law with varying restrictions as to length and/or "form/style" of knife such as dirks, daggers or stilettos ].
Less than practical? Or most practical in the field? Only you can decide, but people who spend time in the outdoors are regularly seen with or known to carry a bowie type long knife [ which can by law describe about any hunting/field knife being carried ].
Imagining circumstances where this could become a defensive situation still doesn't make THIS one justifiable.
Nor did I suggest that anywhere in my posts. I simply stated potentials that could have been present based on the other parties antics prior to the touching.
"They were getting closer and almost collided with me" does not equal "I reasonably believed they were about to cause me serious bodily injury or death."
Based on their abnormal behaviour demostrated prior to closing on the OP as well as the area and time of day, one certainly could be in fear of bodily injury. You have to take the totality of the circumstances into consideration, but as a law student, you know that don't you?
You DO have to prove you were in fear for your life. If you don't understand that, you might want to have a sit down with the lawyer you have already consulted for this possibility.
In Az, I don't have the burden of proof I was in fear,
the state has to prove I was not in fear to make any case against me.
All he has to say is, "No, I did not have the intent to provoke or injure that person." and you are back to explaining why you had a bowie knife out and ready
No you are not. He said, she said, statements have nothing to do with the defendants mindset at that time. You think someones denying any intent has any bearing on the defendants thoughts at that time? Unbelievable you would even make that statement as a law student. The defendants thoughts will be judged on the reasonableness and totality of the circumstances. You think some soccer mom would not understand the fear in that same situation, in that time and place? You'd have to find a majority of jurors who would not be in fear based on the same scenraio. From what I understand, most soccer moms would be intimidated to even be placed at that location at that time of night without two adult males coming towards them howling and acting as if they were "out of their minds".
Please---more people would be in fear than would not be in fear based on the facts in evidence here as related by the OP, by the time of evening, the area this occured, the aggressors behaviour which would never be considered normal by a reasonable standard, and the fact there was disparity of force involved.
At no time have I stated
lethal SD was justified in my posts, which seems to be the flavor you are attempting to use with your suggestive remarks at times in your above post. On the other hand, given the totality of the circumstances, the OP preparing for SD of some kind was prudent based on their abnormal actions, the secluded area and the time of night.
What scares me is non-lawyers who think they already know everything. Oh, I by no means know everything, nor alluded to that thought process. What I do know comes from 28 years in criminal and civil cases and the accompanying trials in those cases. Murder, arson and rape cases [ 5 years as a Suffolk Superior court appointed investigator by the Comm of Mass in Boston and another 5 years working as an adjunct private investigator for the Comm of Mass Atty Generals Office in criminal cases under the director of the Criminal Division named Stephen Delinski] as well as working as a sworn police officer in the same Comm for just under 9 years. Consequently, I understand quite a bit more than the average layperson in these type of discussions. Not everything, but enough to get by just fine thank you.
Brownie
