The importance of Pre-existing Knowledge for SD

[Paladin]

The opening testimony sounds like something right out of Harold Fish's Story

[KC5AV]

Very good read. Thanks.

[oljames3]

Attorney Andrew Branca's blog covers the law of self defense in detail. It is worth the time.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/blog/

[bblhd672]

I know that Charles is very familiar with this concept but I'm not sure that a lot of folks here are, so here's an overview from Marc McYoung explaining why it's important:

Claiming self-defense is more than “I was afraid of being attacked.” You will have to explain and provide evidence about why there was a credible threat. That’s normally where the prosecutor will nail you, because most people can’t — even with self-defense training.

https://conflictmanagermagazine.com/the ... -macyoung/

The author is correct, however.....
The basis of the article assumes your attorney allows you to take the stand to be trapped by the prosecutor.
If my defense attorney cannot get expert witnesses to testify as to the necessity of my actions without putting me on the stand to be cut to pieces by a prosecutor then I’m getting a new attorney.

[ELB]

Had I been smarter when I started out training seriously for SD I would have started a book where I put the various SD articles I've read, training certificates, etc. for exactly this purpose.

[K.Mooneyham]

And, yet again, just something else to make me even more cynical about our so-called "justice" system, which is biased toward violent criminals. DAs and ADAs who consider good people with clean records to be guilty until they can prove they are innocent, while bending over backwards to let violent felons back out on the streets. I bet they all get a good laugh at all the lives of decent people they've ruined.

[DynamicDan]

Let your attorney do your talking for you.

[montgomery]

I know that Charles is very familiar with this concept but I'm not sure that a lot of folks here are, so here's an overview from Marc McYoung explaining why it's important:

Claiming self-defense is more than “I was afraid of being attacked.” You will have to explain and provide evidence about why there was a credible threat. That’s normally where the prosecutor will nail you, because most people can’t — even with self-defense training.

https://conflictmanagermagazine.com/the ... -macyoung/

credible threat that is immediate and imminent of causing crippling bodily injury or death. Bare fear is not an essential element to justifiable deadly force. Highly recommend taking Massad Ayoob's MAG-20 classroom course.

[Pawpaw]

Let your attorney do your talking for you.

That's the thought I've had since the first post. If you're the defendant in a criminal trial and you're on the stand, you've proven two points.

1. You're a fool.
2. You hired a fool for an attorney.

[O.F.Fascist]

In our legal system the burden of proof is not supposed to be on the accused, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove every element of the crime.

[O.F.Fascist]

And, yet again, just something else to make me even more cynical about our so-called "justice" system, which is biased toward violent criminals. DAs and ADAs who consider good people with clean records to be guilty until they can prove they are innocent, while bending over backwards to let violent felons back out on the streets. I bet they all get a good laugh at all the lives of decent people they've ruined.

Your mistake is referring to it as a "justice" system. If you don't have money any actual justice that happens is almost coincidental. What we have is merely a legal system.