The 'justice system' is a three-headed bear and Joe Citizen is a wounded moose. Not totally defenseless, but without a >herd around him it ain't looking good
Liam Jackson
In an earlier post, I mentioned five fronts of defense. Two of these were to be able to win in criminal and civil court. Doing this, according to MacYoung and Meek's What you Don't Know Can Kill You, brings up a problem with self-defense. There needs to be an understanding of how the system works.
Arguing if the system, especially now, is fair to activists and dissenters is a separate matter. A basic and excessively brief overview of the American legal system is what I'll be providing.
First, we do not have, according to MacYoung and Meek, a "Justice System". We have a legal system, based on what laws say and how they are interpreted. Our system is an adversarial one as well; we have two sides trying to sell a judge and jury their version of events. One side is trying to prove guilt, while the other is trying to introduce factors to clear their client or clients.
The legal system is also like any other business. It is driven by money and metrics. A District Attorney or judge wants to get convictions to improve their chances for election, while a defense attorney may be looking to make a name and get more clients. There's an element of opinion here as well, many Americans are convinced that there are good and bad people on both sides of a conflict between fascists and the bloc for example.
Police officers, judges and lawyers are also professionals. They have training, knowledge and skills that you and I most likely lack, and you're going to need help. One piece of knowledge an attorney has is that the focus is on rights and that both parties have them. You and your attorney will have to prove that there was enough of a threat to you to warrant self-defense.
There's a concern with proving this. Most attorneys have little experience with self-defense cases. Self-defense, according MacYoung and Meek, is an "affirmative defense". You are admitting you committed a crime, but had a reason to. This also shifts the burden of proof to your side, you will have to prove to a jury that; you were in immediate danger, you were not involved in the creation, and escalation, of the situation, and that you acted appropriately. One term that bears looking into is "imperfect self-defense", this is where you think you acted in self defense, but there is a detail that you overlooked. An attorney should know this. You may find yourself being prepped to testify on your own behalf and then be cross-examined.
Your being on the stand is part of another component of the legal system, especially as it applies to self-defense. The law doesn't care about danger, it cares about belief. The judge and jury want to know what was happening from your point of view, and how you knew you were in danger. A fascist yelling at you, and you breaking through a police line to confront them, makes you the aggressor.
So far, we've looked at criminal court. The other party also has civil court as a means of recourse. One main difference between the two is the degree of proof. In criminal court, guilt must be proved beyond doubt. In a civil suit, one side needs to be more convincing than the other. Also, you may be not seen as worth suing, the legal term for this is "judgment proof".
There's a way to avoid criminal court, and it's a common tactic. The plea bargain, where you agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a lower sentence. Fans of programs like Law and Order will be familiar with a person accused of 2nd degree murder being offered a lesser sentence of 1st degree manslaughter, etc. There may also be additional sentencing options; probation, house arrest, counseling, etc. Whether or not to take the plea is a question that your attorney would be best qualified to answer.