Self defense is inherently a weak defense in court [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Self defense is inherently a weak defense in court


glock4ever!
05-22-2010, 02:36
If confronted with a life threatening situation, better run away first before drawing your gun to defend yourself or your love ones because self defense is inherently a weak defense in court.

CA affirms Leviste homicide conviction<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
abs-cbnNEWS.com<o:p></o:p>
Posted at 05/20/2010 9:21 PM | Updated as of 05/21/2010 1:08 PM<o:p></o:p>
MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City that found former Batangas Gov. Jose Antonio Leviste guilty of killing his long-time associate Rafael de las Alas back in 2007.<o:p></o:p>
Leviste was convicted of homicide and was sentenced to a maximum of 12 years of imprisonment for killing de Las Alas in January 12, 2007.<o:p></o:p>
However, the appellate court also ordered Leviste to pay the heirs of de las Alas an additional P50,000 on top of the P100,000 that the Makati RTC earlier ordered him to pay representing death indemnity, moral and temperate damages.<o:p></o:p>
De las Alas was shot dead by Leviste last January 12, 2007 inside the latter’s office at the 9th floor of the LPL Tower inside the Legaspi Village in Makati City.<o:p></o:p>
In a 30-page decision penned by Associate Justice Juan Enriquez Jr., the CA’s Seventh Division did not give merit to Leviste’s claim of self-defense in seeking the reversal of his conviction by the trial court.<o:p></o:p>
Leviste, in his appeal, claimed that he shot de las Alas as his life was in danger when the later pulled out his gun and attempted to shoot him.<o:p></o:p>
He noted that he was forced to shoot the victim several times as the latter was still pointing his gun towards him after he fired his first shot.<o:p></o:p>
But, the appellate court held that Leviste failed to show proof that de las Alas was about to shoot him, as the evidence only showed that the victim merely had drawn out his gun.<o:p></o:p>
It noted that spent shells from de las Alas gun was recovered from the scene of the incident and in fact, the gun’s safety lever was still on when recovered by police authorities.<o:p></o:p>
“The successive shots directed against the face and head of Rafael [de las Alas] reveal that accused-appellant was already the aggressor and not the defender. As such, there was no longer any unlawful aggression to speak of. When an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor,” the CA explained.<o:p></o:p>
The CA held that the repeated shooting of the victim was intended to ensure his death and not to repel his aggression.<o:p></o:p>
Based on the medico-legal report, de las Alas sustained 5 gunshot wounds in different parts of the body, 2 of which were found to have been fatal.<o:p></o:p>
In its ruling issued on January 14, 2009, the Makati RTC held that the shooting was done with premeditation as it happened a day after Leviste and the victim had a heated argument regarding some transactions.<o:p></o:p>
Leviste, according to the CA, also failed to present evidence to corroborate his claim of self-defense.<o:p></o:p>
It noted that self-defense is “inherently a weak defense” as it is easy to fabricate and difficult to prove.<o:p></o:p>
“For all the foregoing. We find accused-appellant’s plea of self-defense unworthy of credence, being uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, or being extremely doubtful by itself. This Court, therefore, finds no reversible error on the part of the trial court in rejecting the claim of self defense,” the CA said.<o:p></o:p>
The CA had earlier denied Leviste’s petition to post bail as he failed to substantiate his claim that he is suffering from an illness and that his continued imprisonment would further impair his health.<o:p></o:p>
The CA said the prosecution, led by now Cavite Provincial Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco, was able to demonstrate that the former governor’s guilt is strong after he failed to meet the requirements of self-defense to justify the shooting of de las Alas.<o:p></o:p>

bikethief
05-22-2010, 08:05
Where in this article did it say that "self-defense is inherently a weak defense in court?"

It was weak for this particular case because of the circumstances surrounding the shooting. This should not encourage anyone to just "run away first before drawing your gun to defend yourself or your love ones.

Madaming factors in a life threatening situation. Mahirap to say that one particular response will be more beneficial than the next.

Ganito nalang: Giving both parties the benefit of the doubt, who do you think came out the winner? Leviste with the jail sentence, or De Las-Alas with the coffin?

liveandletlive
05-22-2010, 09:33
SO i think that if you need to shoot somebody you hate and want to use self defense as a defense in court, use a shotgun with slug or 00 buck so you'll only need to shoot once :wow:


... who do you think came out the winner?

None, pero mas lugi si Delas Alas :faint:

De Angelo
05-22-2010, 10:34
Well you can always plant evidence...or pay off investigating Cops IMO

What Leviste did was based on clouded Judgement..If he wanted this guy dead he should have just hired people, not do it himself in his own room of all places.

isuzu
05-22-2010, 10:45
It depends on the circumstances.

isuzu
05-22-2010, 10:47
Well you can always plant evidence

You can do that before. But with forensic tools the PNP has, mahirap.

De Angelo
05-22-2010, 11:24
You can do that before. But with forensic tools the PNP has, mahirap.

May forensic ba sila? I have observed na palagi nga contaminated ang scene of the crime dito sa pilipinas..

IMO if your gonna carry a gun..I suggest you ask questions from your lawyer or Police friends, how best Malusutan ang Kaso pag naka digrasya so you can be always prepared for the worst..

A little knowledge never hurt..Who in his right mind wants to go to jail guilty or not

saki1611
05-22-2010, 12:23
"...Leviste, in his appeal, claimed that he shot de las Alas as his life was in danger when the later pulled out his gun and attempted to shoot him.
He noted that he was forced to shoot the victim several times as the latter was still pointing his gun towards him after he fired his first shot.
But, the appellate court held that Leviste failed to show proof that de las Alas was about to shoot him, as the evidence only showed that the victim merely had drawn out his gun.
It noted that spent shells from de las Alas gun was recovered from the scene of the incident and in fact, the gun’s safety lever was still on when recovered by police authorities."

i think this is the circumstances that the defense failed to establish the act of self-defense.

bikethief
05-22-2010, 19:57
Exactly. There were circumstances and facts that weakened the proposed defense. This does not mean that, in general, self-defense is "inherently" a weak defense in court as the thread starter is proposing.

Self-defense is a God-given right and is upheld by our constitution. A court case should be last in your mind when faced by a LEGITIMATE threat to your life.

Simple guidelines lang naman eh:
- Unlawful aggression
- imminent threat (proximity to you or loved ones)
- means to hurt, maim, kill (visible weapon)
- disparity of force (large groups, physical advantage)

Disclaimer: I'm not, in any way, defending Leviste. I'm defending the concept of "self-defense."

PMMA97
05-22-2010, 21:47
Just neutralize the threat. It is as simple as that. Let the lawyers do the rest.

Oh and one more thing, don't get detained.

De Angelo
05-23-2010, 02:06
Just neutralize the threat. It is as simple as that. Let the lawyers do the rest.

Oh and one more thing, don't get detained.


I agree..

choi_tan2000
05-23-2010, 07:50
Just neutralize the threat. It is as simple as that. Let the lawyers do the rest.

Oh and one more thing, don't get detained.


like this one

BrassKnuckle
05-23-2010, 08:26
If confronted with a life threatening situation, better run away first before drawing your gun to defend yourself...

I agree. Actually, it's a person's ego that gets him into trouble. He fights to show that he can, even when it is possible to avoid it.

In self defense the main objective is self preservation, and it is best to be somewhere else when trouble starts.

When my son was much younger he used to ask me if I was brave. I always replied by saying: "Only when I have to be." Then again, if someone draws a gun on me, I won't ask him if he intends to shoot me. I'll try my best to shoot him first and worry about the consequences when I'm sure that he's no longer a threat.

bikethief
05-23-2010, 08:43
Wait. What do you define as a "life threatening situation?" If there is an option to be somewhere else to avoid a situation then I cannot classify it as "life threatening." What we are talking about here is a situation where the threat has already presented itself and contact is imminent. It is when the ball is in the bad guys court.

How can you definitively say that ego is the motivation to engage a threat? If someone pulls a knife on me for whatever reason and is within 20ft, I think it will be reasonable for me to draw my gun. There is no ego involved. If you try to run away you just might get stabbed in the back. And if you're with your family, do you think running away is an option?

Again, not ALL self-defense scenarios are the same. Being prepared for only one response is dangerous. Fight or flight is a split second decision. Train for both and don't favor one over the other.

saki1611
05-23-2010, 09:12
for me "life threatening situation", is the moment when your life or love one's life is in danger and have no way to think of anything but to react on it instinctively to survive. based on court decision on leviste's case is far from what we think the real meaning of self-defense.

Glock-it-to-me
05-23-2010, 09:18
Around here, at night, you can shoot a guy in the back as he runs out the door with your TV.:tongueout:

BrassKnuckle
05-23-2010, 09:20
What I mean by ego is that some people decide to fight (even when they can avoid it) because they are afraid/ashamed of being called a coward, or because they want to show/prove they're tough. I didn't say it applies to everyone, but it happens to some.

It's best to be somewhere else when trouble starts, and walking or running away (when viable) will get you "somewhere else" faster than just standing there.

Then again there are times that fighting is the only option. Sometimes that means fighting just long enough to create an opening to safely run away, and sometimes it means fighting longer.

Like you said, it really depends on the scenario and on one's interpretation of that scenario.

Allegra
05-23-2010, 09:21
Just neutralize the threat. It is as simple as that. Let the lawyers do the rest.

Oh and one more thing, don't get detained.

run away? di ba flight is equal to guilt?

BrassKnuckle
05-23-2010, 09:29
di ba flight is equal to guilt?

That only applies when you are running away from policemen who have a valid reason to go after you.

bikethief
05-23-2010, 09:33
Flight=guilt. Hehe. Pa explain mo kay Ping.

Allegra
05-23-2010, 09:40
That only applies when you are running away from policemen who have a valid reason to go after you.


so if I shoot a perp in self defense , I'll just hide and that action cannot held against me?
ayoko rin makulaong and have my gun confiscated pero wont the act of running away be used agaist me?

BrassKnuckle
05-23-2010, 10:11
so if I shoot a perp in self defense , I'll just hide and that action cannot held against me?
ayoko rin makulaong and have my gun confiscated pero wont the act of running away be used agaist me?

Shooting the perp is one thing, hiding from the police is something else.

IF you want to do it "by the book", you are supposed to report the incident to the police and subject yourself to investigation ideally with your lawyer present.

If the perp is still alive after the shooting (and you intend to report the shooting as above), it is also advised that you call an ambulance to the scene. This will bolster what your lawyer will say in court that you did not intend to kill the perp even if he eventually dies from his wounds.

Also be VERY CAREFUL with what you say to media if/when they interview you about the incident. Your words can be used against you in court. Just say something like "I am under a lot of stress and trauma right now so please direct your questions to my lawyer."

De Angelo
05-23-2010, 10:14
so if I shoot a perp in self defense , I'll just hide and that action cannot held against me?
ayoko rin makulaong and have my gun confiscated pero wont the act of running away be used agaist me?


IMO mas madali mag areglo nang malaya ka kesa nakakulong..this is my opinion guilt has nothing to do with it for me..

thats why bro said let the Lawyers take care of the problem

Allegra
05-23-2010, 10:28
IMO mas madali mag areglo nang malaya ka kesa nakakulong..this is my opinion guilt has nothing to do with it for me..

thats why bro said let the Lawyers take care of the problem

aba oo nga naman
nakuha ko na point hehe ang slow ko yata ngayon
mas makaka mura

PMMA97
05-23-2010, 14:30
run away? di ba flight is equal to guilt?

Basing on a personal experience, in the Philippine judicial setting, it is better for the lawyer/s to confront the investigators after the fact. Mas magaling silang magpaliwanag ei.
Exercise your Mirandas.

I did not state to leave the crime scene. I said do not get yourself detained.

PMMA97
05-23-2010, 14:36
aba oo nga naman
nakuha ko na point hehe ang slow ko yata ngayon
mas makaka mura


Again, basing on personal experience the "areglo" route is full of twists and turns. May mga tao na akala mo areglado na pero hindi pa pala. Maski kumpleto ka na sa papel sa piskal biglang nagkakaproblema.
If you truly believe that you have acted in self defense better fight it out in court with a very competent defense team.
Dito naman papasok yung rule na "huwag kang papatay ng mas mayaman sa iyo":supergrin:Kasi siguradong ubusan kayo ng salapi sa korte.

CatsMeow
05-23-2010, 18:45
Self-defense is inherently a weak defense in court? Well, that's because it is also well-settled that one who pleads self-defense has the burden of proving that his actions are justified. This is because by pleading the same, you already admit killing/wounding the other guy, now you, not the prosecutor, have to prove that you were in the right in doing so. Kinda hard to do so if you have no witnesses... And in our jurisdiction, multiple wounds are prima facie evidence that you, not the other guy, was the aggressor.

So what would happen if the other guy does not fall down at the first hit and continues his homicidal tendencies, forcing you to do a Mozambique drill on him, or in your excitement, empty the mag at him?:dunno:

Allegra
05-23-2010, 18:57
Mahirap isipin mga detalyeng yan in the middle of a fight, baka mag hesitate ka pa
Mas mabuti pa siguro, I'll just shoot the gun from his hand
Problema ko lang kung tatlo sila

choi_tan2000
05-23-2010, 19:14
Mahirap isipin mga detalyeng yan in the middle of a fight, baka mag hesitate ka pa
Mas mabuti pa siguro, I'll just shoot the gun from his hand
Problema ko lang kung tatlo sila

tama bro in real gunfight baka di na natin maisip yun, but what sir cats says is true, sabi nga ng mga batangueno buti nang ikaw ang umaareglo kesa ikaw ang inaareglo.

fafa A if you shoot the guys hand with a gun malamang sa ulo tama nun kasi for sure naka aim sayo un eh hehehe. for me i always pray we dont have to be in this kind of situation