The FLORIDA Supreme Court Is Hearing A Case That Could MAKE STAND YOUR GROUND EVEN WORSE

[Segami]

~snip~

Now, the Florida Supreme Court is hearing a case that could facilitate another major court-made expansion of National Rifle Association and ALEC-backed law. If Florida’s highest court sides with the defendant in this case, it would make it dramatically easier to achieve immunity from criminal charges for firing or pointing a gun under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. The case hinges on which party has to prove the Stand Your Ground case. Under Florida’s law, defendants who deploy their guns can seek immunity from criminal and civil charges by showing that they used force in self-defense anywhere they had a legal right to be. The expansive law eliminates the duty to first attempt retreat when an individual is in a public place. Instead, the individual merely has to show that they reasonably feared imminent death or grave bodily harm.


When Florida’s Stand Your Ground law passed, it didn’t include any specifics about what procedures or burdens of proof. Charles Rose, director of Stetson Law’s Center for Excellence in Advocacy, said that’s because this was a “political statement about the right to bear arms.” “It’s a political statute being applied in the real world set of circumstances,” he said. This has left the door open to the sort of litigation now before Florida’s highest court. The defendant in that case is arguing that he shouldn’t have had the burden of proving he was defending himself when he pointed his gun at a man on the highway who nearly sideswiped his father’s vehicle. His case is about an aggravated assault charge because he didn’t fire his gun. But if the defendant wins this case, it would mean that even in murder cases, all the defendant would have to do is assert the defense, and then wait for prosecutors to prove them wrong.


“If the court rules the state’s got the burden, I think it’s going to open the door for a lot of lawyers to use the immunity statute that were not using it,” Robert Buonauro, an Orlando attorney, told the Orlando Sentinel. Even in its current form, the law has been used to grant immunity to a man who shot dead two 24-year-olds after he went back to his car to get his gun, and another who shot dead a mentally ill acquaintance who he says threatened to beat him up. Among the victims in Florida Stand Your Ground cases were 26 children and teens.
Perhaps the most alarming objection to the law is that it exacerbates racial bias. Studies have found that defendants are significantly more likely to prevail if the victim is black. And white-on-black homicides are 354 percent more likely to be found “justified” under the law (meaning perpetrators escape charges) than white-on-white homicides.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/08/3600165/the-florida-supreme-court-is-hearing-a-case-that-could-make-stand-your-ground-even-worse/

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Gun fights at the OK Corral....GAME ON!

What happens if two of these gun humpers pull a gun on each other?

[chrisa]

2. "Fearing bodily harm" is too subjective to be law

Someone who is out of their mind might "fear bodily harm" from a little girl holding an icecream cone and a balloon. I believe that there should be a duty to retreat to an extent, and that laws should never be based on "feelings" like this.

[Lurks Often]

8. Correctly it is "A reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm"

with the jury determining what is reasonable

[Bjorn Against]

3. Shooting victims have no rights

Gunners think they should have the right to kill someone and we are just supposed to believe them when they tell us the person was a threat. The shooting victim is judged guilty until proven innocent, and the shooter has no duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person they killed was actually guilty of the crime they killed them for.

It is time to tighten self defense laws, the right to self defense should not outweigh all the rights of the shooting victim.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. i am confused and i don't know the law that well

but if the state brings charges, isn't the burden of proof always on the state? how is this different?

sP

[Bjorn Against]

6. In an affirmative defense the burden of proof often changes

In affirmative defense is basically when someone says "yes, I committed the act that I am on trial for but it was justified." In such a case the burden on the state is constitutionally only to prove the act was committed, then the burden switches to the defendent to prove the justification.

Self defense laws have gotten so far tilted towards the shooter however that the shooter has no real burden to prove the person they shot was actually guilty of the crime they shot them for.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. interesting, never thought of it that way

thanks for the calm and reasoned response.

sP

[spanone]

5. NOTHING surprises me anymore....sadly

[Initech]

9. The sad thing is that we're closer to legalizing murder than legalizing marijuana use.

[hollysmom]

10. will this mean fewer people in Florida?

The insanity of this law may make liberals leave in disgust, not with their beautiful state but with the law makers and the other people left can shoot it out.

No I do not wish this to happen, I have friends who love living there, but I guess a 1% person has to get shot to get people to look at these laws with an open mind. I can't believe that people in these open carry states can take guns near schools and playgrounds. And traffic will cause a lot of problems if people can get away with that. I remember when I was jockeying in tight traffic with a car next to me, and suddenly I saw a guy start rifling around on the passanger seat for soemthing and I dropped back in case it was a gun and we don't have those laws here. oy

[GeorgeGist]

11. Stupid Laws ...

don't end well.

[belzabubba333]

12. we havent started the race was the 1% want so theyre greasing the wheels