Klarinet Archive - Posting 000128.txt from 2009/02

From: "Keith" <bowenk@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] "Affirmative Defence"
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:52:24 -0500

I hate bananas. Shooting an attacker armed with a loaded banana seems fine
to me.

Keith Bowen

-----Original Message-----
From: klarinet-return-95499-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org
[mailto:klarinet-return-95499-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org] On Behalf
Of Dan Leeson
Sent: 06 February 2009 21:43
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Re: [kl] "Affirmative Defence"

Ah, but in one of the earliest of the Flying Circus routines, shooting
someone who was attacking you with a banana was both perfectly legal and
part of the training program of the British Army.

However, the response after being attacked someone with a mango was an
entirely different affair.

Dan Leeson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Lloyd" <matthew@-----.uk>
To: <klarinet@-----.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:29 PM
Subject: [kl] "Affirmative Defence"

> What a strange way of behaving.
>
> Over here, we do this rather differently.
>
> The Crown is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the violence
> was
> unlawful. As violence in the furtherance of self defence is (normally)
> lawful, then the Crown is required to prove that the violence was NOT self
> defence. And it must prove this to the criminal standard - namely beyond
> reasonable doubt.
>
> All the defendant has to do is to raise the issue.
>
> Seems a lot fairer to me.
>
> Incidentally, and before someone asks, the only time when self defence is
> not lawful is when it goes far beyond the level of violence required in
> the
> circumstances. Such as shooting someone who attacks you with a banana.
>
> Matthew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Nichols [mailto:mrn.clarinet@-----.com]
> Sent: 06 February 2009 16:51
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Derivative Works
>
> An example of this in the criminal sphere would be self-defense--that's an
> affirmative defense..
> Let's say the charge is assault. The prosecution, to make its case, would
> have to prove that the defendant intentionally inflicted (or
> attempted to inflict) bodily harm on another. If the act of bodily harm
> was
> performed in self-defense, though, the defendant has to raise
> this as an affirmative defense, and it is the defendant's burden to prove
> that it *was* self-defense. If the prosecution proves
> intentional bodily harm, but the defendant doesn't successfully prove that
> the act was in self-defense or doesn't assert this defense at
> all, the court will have to conclude that it was not in self-defense.
> Another way of saying this is that the presumption (that must be
> overcome by the defendant) is that the act was not made in self-defense.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
> https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3834 (20090206) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3834 (20090206) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org