Pets
Related: About this forumAdorable puppy battles dandelion - *fixed link*
Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:46 PM - Edit history (2)
http://screen.yahoo.com/adorable-puppy-battles-dandelion-113015862.html?pb_list=8efec8ab-f409-4bbb-bc43-51626423d640Squeeeeeeeee!
On edit: fixed the link. Damn "c" key is sticking again - I always do CTRL+c to copy
MuseRider
(34,111 posts)Not the puppy you promised!
elleng
(130,923 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Z has to produce evidence of self-defense (no burden of proof)
From FL case: "When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendants only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self- defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation of such evidence does not change elements of offense at issue; rather, it merely requires state to present evidence that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense); Murray, 937 So. 2d at 279 (explaining that defendant in trial for aggravated battery was not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force).
So, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and that Z did not act in self-defense.
The FL statute on self-defense:
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;...
I have not really been following the trial, but I assume this statute will apply:
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter (justification of self-defense) is not available to a person who:
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
My understanding of FL case law on initial provocation is that the initial provocation must be done by force or the threat of force. For example, one case (Gibbs v State) ruled that "provoked" could not refer to mere words or conduct without force or threat of force.
Those who practice in FL may be able to add more to the legal standards that apply. I believe the jury instruction would be as follows: "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."
Edited to add: I'm from another state, so had to check FL law on all this. Hopefully if there are any material mistakes a FL atty will chime in.
meti57b
(3,584 posts)I don't know if it's the puppy our OP promised us, but it's a cute puppy and a dandelion. (after the ad that plays up front).
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)eat it! Too cute.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)That part really made me laugh the most especially with the owner saying "eeeewww" in the background. I've never known a dog to NOT eat whatever strange thing they capture.
Yoshi was having such fun today chasing the Japanese beetles and eating them. I think he's eaten so many fireflies I'm expecting his own butt to start lighting up!
Pets always fill your days with a heck of a lot of laughter. I think they do it on purpose just to please us. Ever notice when the dog does something doofus that makes you laugh they look at you like they're thinking "you like that, huh?" And keep doing it just to make us laugh more. Like my first Akita sticking his tongue in the vacuum cleaner hose. I couldn't stop laughing so he kept doing it, and the more I tried to make his stop doing it the more I laughed so he just kept it up all thrilled that I was cracking up. I think I have a knack for always choosing the total goofball dogs. I wouldn't have it any other way though.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)(well, cat right now), and they do not enjoy when they are laughed at quite as much as a dog does. I have to sneak peeks around the computer screen to see him acting like a goofball, because he stops as soon as he is caught at it.
Dogs just have that happy, unbridled joy of life.
Phentex
(16,334 posts)This is why I love dog personalities. It starts off scared of the thing but it has to act like it's ferocious. Then it gets a paw on the dandelion and you see a little light go off like "huh. Maybe this thing isn't so scary!"