[nathanbedford]

The article is confusing because it is inconsistent.

In one breath it says:

the government must prove the defender did not believe they were threatened or that others were in imminent danger by the bear.

That places the burden of proof on the state. But in the next breath the article says:

The person making the claim does not have to show they were objectively threatened. They need to show they believed they and/or others were in imminent danger.

This places the burden on the defendant.

It is unfortunately that I do not have access to case because this is not a quibble over who has the burden of proof, this is a fundamental issue.

[marktwain]

The defendant has to make the claim they believed they were in imminent danger, in order to claim defense of self and others.

To convict the defendant, the government has to disprove the claim.

[circlecity]

No. The defendant merely has the burden of going forward with his affirmative defense to place the matter at issue. This can be him merely testifying that he was afraid for his life and safety. The ultimate burden rests with the state to disprove this. This is the same in any self defense case.

[dangus]

Huge difference between “prove” and “show.” I’m not 100% sure of legal definitions as they apply to this case, but I would suppose that “show” means to present any non-contradicted evidence, probably including mere self-testimony.

By “non-contradicted,” I mean:

DA: You had no motivation to shoot the bears other than fear, right?

Defendant: Yes.

DA: Your honor, I submit as evidence this classified ad where the defendant offers to sell bearskin rugs.