Comments by "dr1flush" (@dr1flush) on "Texas governor seeks to pardon man convicted of killing BLM protester" video.

 @thomascrown5953 lol. When you shoot someone you do have to prove it was in self defense dummy
2
@thomascrown5953 To successfully claim self-defense, the defendant must prove four elements. First, with exceptions, the defendant must prove that he or she was confronted with an unprovoked attack. Second, the defendant must prove that the threat of injury or death was imminent. Get educated
2
@thomascrown5953 Third, the defendant must prove that the degree of force used in self-defense was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Fourth, the defendant must prove that he or she had an objectively reasonable fear that he or she was going to be injured or killed unless he or she used self-defense.
2
 @Wulture there's always someone who's like. No 1+1 doesn't equal 2 . 🤣
1
 @thomascrown5953 you really think you can just say self defense and then the courts have to prove your lying? Lmfao no no no no no my boy
1
@thomascrown5953 when you shoot someone is not the same lol. Self-defense, is an affirmative defense. This means that the person charged with Simple Assault or Aggravated Assault must present some evidence to show that self-defense was used. The evidence can come from whatever source, meaning other witnesses or directly from the person. The person charged with assault does not need to actually prove that he or she acted in self-defense, but the person must present some evidence that supports the defense. If some evidence is presented, then the district attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did NOT act in self-defense.
1
@thomascrown5953 an example is Rittenhouse. He had to present evidence that supports his self defense claim.
1
@thomascrown5953 you don't get to shoot someone and just say it was self defense lmfao. There has to be evidence to support your claim lol
1
@firepower7654 A person is allowed to act in self-defense I agree. They must meet two requirements however ( in the sane states, each state is different), duty to retreat and reasonable fear for life. If evidence of self-defense is present, the court must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. If it's obviously not self defense you can't just say it was and be free. The testimony has to make sense therefore you do have to prove you acted in self defense. Like I said. Testimony isn't evidence to you? Your statement doesn't make sense. If you were correct you could plead the 5th and refuse to say anything . But you have to actually prove SDGU was justified P.s each state is different
1
@firepower7654 but if you say it was self defense then you aren't using the 5th right? You've been accused of shooting someone or admitted to it so then you have to justify your actions were in self defense. Zimmerman had scars on his face, Rittenhouse proved his actions where in self defense. It honestly depends what state and the self defense gun laws in the state. When you shoot someone you do need to prove it was justified. If the evidence supports your SDGU claim then the burden is in the state to prove guilt.
1
@thomascrown5953 self defense gun use is described as an "affirmative defense" which is a defense where the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts. So as the defendant in SDGU case you do have to provide evidence that you shot someone in self defense. Edit: the state in which the SDGU occurs matters to the process
1