Raymond Davis Case: Developing Story

[Developereo]

Asim: That is absolutely WRONG. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The accused is PRESUMED INNOCENT until and unless proven guilty after DUE PROCESS.

Actually, that's not true.

The prosecution only has to prove that the bullets lodged in the victims' bodies were fired by Davis.

Then it's up to Davis to prove that his life was in imminent danger and he acted in self-defence. Just because the victims were alleged robbers is not sufficient. Davis has to show that the victims intended to harm him. This is where it gets confusing because there are conflicting reports about whether the victims brandished a gun at Davis.

But confusion is good enough. As long as there is one person supporting Davis' story, it creates reasonable doubt, and Davis will probably walk free.

 

[Awesome]

Asim: That is absolutely WRONG. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The accused is PRESUMED INNOCENT until and unless proven guilty after DUE PROCESS.

The prosecution has proved (or will prove) that he did kill two people. He has confessed to that part too. The prosecution does not have to prove that it wasn't pre-meditated, he needs to prove that. The prosecution can just go to the point where it proves murder, whether or not its premeditated becomes a part of the defence.

For that matter, the investigation team has punctured enough holes into the self-defence argument as well. Namely the witnesses stating that he shot at them, not the other way round. He shot them from the back. That they pointed a gun at him has only Davis's word. That Davis shot at them first and shot at them from the back, has witnesses.

Which is why the American defence has been to not to let it go to court.

 

[RescueRanger]

Asim: That is absolutely WRONG. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The accused is PRESUMED INNOCENT until and unless proven guilty after DUE PROCESS.

Totally wrong VCheng.

The Prosecution builds the case, The onus of proving their innocence lies with the defendant.

mens rea and the actus reus.

 

[VCheng]

Totally wrong VCheng.

The Prosecution builds the case, The onus of proving their innocence lies with the defendant.

mens rea and the actus reus.

Whatever happened to:

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

(the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

The prosecution builds the case to prove guilt. It is NOT the defendant who has to prove his/her innocence.

 

[DV RULES]

Hi,

why don't you tell it to the families of the innocent children and the families of the rape and sodomy victims----.

SAAD---I am talking about the character of a nation and its people----regardless of the national iassues or local issues----a nation has a character that it shows under duress----either from inside or from outside.

The people and the world judges us and our character from what we do to our own and dear ones---that is what the world knows us by---and when an international issue comes up----all this dirt and that we have burried in our backyard---comes to the surface.

Nations look at us us and look at the legal precedence that we have setup in the past---the analysts will dig out all the dirt that they have about our legal system and throw it at our faces and let the world see it for itslef.

Social issues and geo-political issues sometimes are extremely close to each other than what one may want to admit.

Character of people in particular region can't be change and it remains same even after hundreds of years but a little/minor change, we have our own history & style of living and others have their own. you have to put them in their own places. Nobody has right to judge second nation, its totally unfair and without logic.

It is common practice that character of nation get change in different scenario over internal and external issues. Not only in Pakistan but almost in every country.
Legal systems are designed according to constitution & base on ground facts, who will dig it but only as it requires. Other nations have also same problem but may be we could dig out better in their legal system then they will dig in our. Leave it just think a general phenomena that nobody can stop people to criticize. Let them criticize. We have to do what we want.
No any law or constitution present in the world without defects or black holes. So which world and which nations?

Just open world crime statistics, evaluate where you got rank and what rank got about whom we are talking about.
A domestic pistol is useless on border fight, so for border fight there is Machine gun.

Davis case can't link with internal legal situations.

 

[RescueRanger]

Whatever happened to:

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

(the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

And yet you have to consider the fact the was there Mens Rea and Actus Reus? The facts in the case can not be just overruled by mere dictum. What about the Chain of Causation?

At the time of death, the defendant's acts or omissions must be the operating and most substantial cause of death with no novus actus interveniens (Latin for "new act breaking in") to break the chain of causation. Thus, the defendant cannot choose how the victim is to act, nor what personality to have. No matter whether brave or foolish, the defendant must expect the victim to:

try to escape and if he or she dies in that attempt, the chain of causation is not broken; or
try to fight back and so escalate the extent of the violence between them; or
seek medical treatment for the injuries sustained and, even if mistakes are made by the medical staff, this will not break the chain of causation unless the mistakes become the more substantial cause of death.

House of Lords - Regina v. Smith (On Appeal From The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

 

[VCheng]

And yet you have to consider the fact the was there Mens Rea and Actus Reus? The facts in the case can not be just overruled by mere dictum. What about the Chain of Causation?



House of Lords - Regina v. Smith (On Appeal From The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

But Sir, even before we get to that, please consider the following:

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies)."


Further, from your reference:

"The respondent was charged with murdering James McCullagh on the 16 November 1996. He put forward three defences: (a) lack of intention to cause death or really serious harm; (b) provocation; (c) diminished responsibility. The jury by a majority of ten to two convicted him of murder."

None of these conditons apply to RD's situation.

 

[JayAtl]

Actually, that's not true.

The prosecution only has to prove that the bullets lodged in the victims' bodies were fired by Davis.

Then it's up to Davis to prove that his life was in imminent danger and he acted in self-defence. Just because the victims were alleged robbers is not sufficient. Davis has to show that the victims intended to harm him. This is where it gets confusing because there are conflicting reports about whether the victims brandished a gun at Davis.

But confusion is good enough. As long as there is one person supporting Davis' story, it creates reasonable doubt, and Davis will probably walk free.

The prosecution has proved (or will prove) that he did kill two people. He has confessed to that part too. The prosecution does not have to prove that it wasn't pre-meditated, he needs to prove that. The prosecution can just go to the point where it proves murder, whether or not its premeditated becomes a part of the defence.

For that matter, the investigation team has punctured enough holes into the self-defence argument as well. Namely the witnesses stating that he shot at them, not the other way round. He shot them from the back. That they pointed a gun at him has only Davis's word. That Davis shot at them first and shot at them from the back, has witnesses.

Which is why the American defence has been to not to let it go to court.

Totally wrong VCheng.

The Prosecution builds the case, The onus of proving their innocence lies with the defendant.

mens rea and the actus reus.

Question to each of you 3 . Is that the rule of law in your respective countries of residence? i.e. your guilty before being proved innocent vs innocent till proved guilty. What Vcheng is citing is American law and what even I think is law in any civilized country.

let me explain; yes there is no doubt davis is the shooter, but the prosecution still has to show that it was his intent to commit premeditated murder and not self defense as davis defense will present( if this ever goes to trail). The burden of proof to prove a man is guilty OF A CRIME lies with the prosecution. ( self defense is not a crime)

 

[RescueRanger]

Question to each of you 3 . Is that the rule of law in your respective countries of residence? i.e. your guilty before being proved innocent vs innocent till proved guilty. What Vcheng is citing is American law and what even I think is law in any civilized country.

let me explain; yes there is no doubt davis is the shooter, but the prosecution still has to show that it was his intent to commit premeditated murder and not self defense as davis defense will present( if this ever goes to trail). The burden of proof to prove a man is guilty OF A CRIME lies with the prosecution. ( self defense is not a crime)

I am talking about Actus reus, and we follow English Common Law here in Pakistan. Which predates US laws.

 

[VCheng]

I am talking about Actus reus, and we follow English Common Law here in Pakistan. Which predates US laws.

Sir, please consider that: Firstly, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat is a dictum of English Common Law that also comes into US law, just as it does in PPC, and secondly, RD is a US citizen with diplomatic immunity and thus subject to US law as a matter of jursidiction.

 

[JayAtl]

I am talking about Actus reus, and we follow English Common Law here in Pakistan. Which predates US laws.

with due respect , if you follow English common law- then your interpretation of your own laws is faulty. Let me ask you - does your prosecutor like under English law have to prove a crime took place? or does he hope the judge read media reports and watched in on TV?

that very act of proving crime took place= burden on the prosecution.

next question; In English law : You have to prove crime took place beyond reasonable doubt

I understand in PAK courts people are put to death over blasphemy laws, with just hear say. so maybe it's the way things are in the PAK judicial system- but you sir are no English based judicial system anymore

 

[RescueRanger]

But Sir, even before we get to that, please consider the following:

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies)."


Further, from your reference:

"The respondent was charged with murdering James McCullagh on the 16 November 1996. He put forward three defences: (a) lack of intention to cause death or really serious harm; (b) provocation; (c) diminished responsibility. The jury by a majority of ten to two convicted him of murder."

None of these conditons apply to RD's situation.

Agreed, yet:

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. However the incidence of burden of proof is affected by common law, statute and procedure.

And don't confuse:

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

With
Evidential burden:

Evidential burden can rest on either party, although it usually relates to matters of defence raised by the accused. Some defences impose an evidential burden on the defendant which, if met, imposes a legal burden on the prosecution. For example, if a person charged with murder pleads self-defense, the defendant must satisfy the evidential burden that there are some evidence suggesting self-defence. The legal burden will then fall on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

As we know that in House of Lords - Regina v. Acott the same issue of evidence cropped up and this case sets an interesting precedent. It will be very interesting to see how the RD case develops in the coming days.

 

[RescueRanger]

err then , you interpretation of your won laws is faulty. Let me ask you - does your prosecutor like under English law have to prove a crime took place? or does he hope the judge read media reports and watched in on TV?

that very act of proving crime took place= burden on the prosecution.

next question; In English law : You have to prove crime took place beyond reasonable doubt?

I understand in PAK courts people are put to death over blasphemy laws, with just hear say. so maybe it's the way things are in the PAK judicial system- but you sire are no English based judicial system anymore

Please read my posts. And don't confuse the Sharia court with the Civil/Criminal courts in Pakistan. Please leave your pathetic mindset out of this thread.

 

[VCheng]

RR: Agreed. Let's see the legal bases for the case if and when it proceeds before discussing this interesting aspect further.

I found this bolded part interesting in your own quote, which, I think, supports my contention rather than yours:

Evidential burden can rest on either party, although it usually relates to matters of defence raised by the accused. Some defences impose an evidential burden on the defendant which, if met, imposes a legal burden on the prosecution. For example, if a person charged with murder pleads self-defense, the defendant must satisfy the evidential burden that there are some evidence suggesting self-defence. The legal burden will then fall on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

 

[RescueRanger]

Sir, please consider that: Firstly, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat is a dictum of English Common Law that also comes into US law, just as it does in PPC, and secondly, RD is a US citizen with diplomatic immunity and thus subject to US law as a matter of jursidiction.

VCheng there is no argument on this, the argument is stemming from the various precedents in previous cases i.e RvAlcott (regrding the onus of proof on the prosecution)

Or we can consider R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349 (for reasonable force):

the defendant who picked up a sword in self-defense when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defense, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 AM ----------

RR: Agreed. Let's see the legal bases for the case if and when it proceeds before discussing this interesting aspect further.

I found this bolded part interesting in your own quote:

Agree good sir, as always it is a pleasure to talk with you.