close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Self defense is inherently a weak defense in court

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by glock4ever!, May 22, 2010.

  1. glock4ever!

    glock4ever!

    96
    0
    Oct 9, 2008
    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:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><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>
     
  2. bikethief

    bikethief itchy trigger

    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?
     


  3. liveandletlive

    liveandletlive

    155
    0
    Oct 9, 2008
    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:

    None, pero mas lugi si Delas Alas :faint:
     
  4. De Angelo

    De Angelo

    170
    0
    Jan 6, 2009
    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.
     
  5. isuzu

    isuzu

    4,072
    0
    Jul 3, 2005
    North America
    You can do that before. But with forensic tools the PNP has, mahirap.
     
  6. De Angelo

    De Angelo

    170
    0
    Jan 6, 2009
    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
     
  7. saki1611

    saki1611 BOG's #1611

    1,284
    0
    Sep 16, 2006
    Philippines
    "...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.
     
  8. bikethief

    bikethief itchy trigger

    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."
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  9. PMMA97

    PMMA97 MNSAmessdetail

    1,743
    0
    Nov 25, 2003
    Subic Bay, Philippines
    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.
     
  10. De Angelo

    De Angelo

    170
    0
    Jan 6, 2009

    I agree..
     
  11. choi_tan2000

    choi_tan2000 BoG # 55555

    1,695
    5
    Mar 14, 2006
    pasig

    like this one
     
  12. BrassKnuckle

    BrassKnuckle

    345
    0
    Mar 2, 2008
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  13. bikethief

    bikethief itchy trigger

    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.
     
  14. saki1611

    saki1611 BOG's #1611

    1,284
    0
    Sep 16, 2006
    Philippines
    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.
     
  15. Around here, at night, you can shoot a guy in the back as he runs out the door with your TV.:tongueout:
     
  16. BrassKnuckle

    BrassKnuckle

    345
    0
    Mar 2, 2008
    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.
     
  17. Allegra

    Allegra

    6,359
    3
    Mar 16, 2003
    Philippines
    run away? di ba flight is equal to guilt?
     
  18. BrassKnuckle

    BrassKnuckle

    345
    0
    Mar 2, 2008
    That only applies when you are running away from policemen who have a valid reason to go after you.
     
  19. bikethief

    bikethief itchy trigger

    Flight=guilt. Hehe. Pa explain mo kay Ping.