TRN: Your take on this please

[Deleted]

Florida's 'stand your ground' law ruled unconstitutional by judge

A judge in Florida ruled Monday that the state's updated "stand your ground" law, which required prosecutors to disprove a defendant's self-defense case at pretrial hearings, is unconstitutional, setting up a showdown that could make its way to the state's top court.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that the amendment to the law allowed lawmakers to overstep their authority, adding that it should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court in the first place, The Miami Herald reported.

“As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote.

The Florida Supreme Court had ruled in 2015 to shift the burden to defendants, requiring them to prove in pretrial hearings that they were defending themselves in order to avoid prosecution on charges for a violent act.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed the amended legislation, backed by the National Rifle Association, into effect in June. Prosecutors were vehemently against the updated law because they believed it made it easier for defendants to get away from murder. Prosecutors also had to provide "clear and convincing" evidence that a defendant was not using the force as an act of self-defense.

The law was first passed in 2005 and it gave people the right to "shoot first" if they believed their lives were in danger at that moment.

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself," the Florida law states.

It also gave judges the right to dismiss charges against the defendant if they believed reasonable self-defense was used in the case.

In states without the "stand your ground law," people must retreat first before using force.

The controversial self-defense law came into the spotlight during George Zimmerman's case in 2012, when the neighborhood watchman shot and killed the unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Central Florida.

Zimmerman's attorney argued his client used force because he "reasonably" believed his life was in immediate danger.

A jury ultimately acquitted Zimmerman of second-degree murder.



www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-ruled-unconstitutional-by-judge.html


From what I've read this judge is a real dink. Hopefully his decision can be appealed and overturned.

[Deleted]

I'm not Trn, but first off, this moron judge is wrong because he said "the amendment to the law allowed lawmakers to overstep their authority, adding that it should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court in the first place."   It is NOT the judiciary's authority to create law.  That privilege is reserved to the legislative branch.

I'm wondering if this imbecile is saying that if someone invades my house or car, that I must abandon same before I am justified in using lethal force.  That is totally insane.  If I leave the cover of my house or car, I am exposing myself to anyone who might be lying in wait.

That judge's ruling WILL be thrown out.

[roxalot]

Jul 4, 2017 18:19:28 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

I'm not Trn, but first off, this moron judge is wrong because he said "the amendment to the law allowed lawmakers to overstep their authority, adding that it should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court in the first place."   It is NOT the judiciary's authority to create law.  That privilege is reserved to the legislative branch.

I'm wondering if this imbecile is saying that if someone invades my house or car, that I must abandon same before I am justified in using lethal force.  That is totally insane.  If I leave the cover of my house or car, I am exposing myself to anyone who might be lying in wait.

That judge's ruling WILL be thrown out.

For once, I hope you're right.

[trnyerheadncough]

Jul 4, 2017 16:03:32 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Florida's 'stand your ground' law ruled unconstitutional by judge

A judge in Florida ruled Monday that the state's updated "stand your ground" law, which required prosecutors to disprove a defendant's self-defense case at pretrial hearings, is unconstitutional, setting up a showdown that could make its way to the state's top court.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that the amendment to the law allowed lawmakers to overstep their authority, adding that it should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court in the first place, The Miami Herald reported.

“As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote.

The Florida Supreme Court had ruled in 2015 to shift the burden to defendants, requiring them to prove in pretrial hearings that they were defending themselves in order to avoid prosecution on charges for a violent act.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed the amended legislation, backed by the National Rifle Association, into effect in June. Prosecutors were vehemently against the updated law because they believed it made it easier for defendants to get away from murder. Prosecutors also had to provide "clear and convincing" evidence that a defendant was not using the force as an act of self-defense.

The law was first passed in 2005 and it gave people the right to "shoot first" if they believed their lives were in danger at that moment.

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself," the Florida law states.

It also gave judges the right to dismiss charges against the defendant if they believed reasonable self-defense was used in the case.

In states without the "stand your ground law," people must retreat first before using force.

The controversial self-defense law came into the spotlight during George Zimmerman's case in 2012, when the neighborhood watchman shot and killed the unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Central Florida.

Zimmerman's attorney argued his client used force because he "reasonably" believed his life was in immediate danger.

A jury ultimately acquitted Zimmerman of second-degree murder.



www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-ruled-unconstitutional-by-judge.html


From what I've read this judge is a real dink. Hopefully his decision can be appealed and overturned.

I am personally not a fan of our particular Stand Your Ground law, as I've seen firsthand experience of its misuse. I haven't read the article or the decision as it's been a holiday weekend. At first glance though, the statement he made has some issues.

[roxalot]

Jul 5, 2017 6:28:49 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Jul 4, 2017 16:03:32 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Florida's 'stand your ground' law ruled unconstitutional by judge

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself," the Florida law states.

It also gave judges the right to dismiss charges against the defendant if they believed reasonable self-defense was used in the case.

In states without the "stand your ground law," people must retreat first before using force.

I am personally not a fan of our particular Stand Your Ground law, as I've seen firsthand experience of its misuse. I haven't read the article or the decision as it's been a holiday weekend. At first glance though, the statement he made has some issues.

Which 'stand your ground' law ARE you a fan of..?..

[trnyerheadncough]

Jul 5, 2017 13:05:49 GMT -5 roxalot said:

Jul 5, 2017 6:28:49 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

I am personally not a fan of our particular Stand Your Ground law, as I've seen firsthand experience of its misuse. I haven't read the article or the decision as it's been a holiday weekend. At first glance though, the statement he made has some issues.

Which 'stand your ground' law ARE you a fan of..?..

Ones that only apply to one's home. If people have an opportunity to retreat in public, they should be required to do so. The way it is applied now, the prosecution is required to prove that the Defendant's actions were unreasonable...and far too often, the only person who might've been able to argue that, is dead.

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2017 13:51:44 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Jul 5, 2017 13:05:49 GMT -5 roxalot said:

Which 'stand your ground' law ARE you a fan of..?..

Ones that only apply to one's home. If people have an opportunity to retreat in public, they should be required to do so. The way it is applied now, the prosecution is required to prove that the Defendant's actions were unreasonable...and far too often, the only person who might've been able to argue that, is dead.

LOL!
So you can outrun a bullet.   Most people can't, Superman.
You're gonna retreat from two or more guys who have you boxed in.  Which way do you turn?
How far can the little old lady retreat before the 20 year old thug catches up to her and stabs her 10 times?
What about the young mother with 3 kids in tow (one in a stroller)?

Do you EVER think before you write your stuff?

P.S. The prosecution ALWAYS has to prove that a crime has been committed!    Where did you go to law school? 

[AlaCowboy]

Jul 5, 2017 15:09:46 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jul 5, 2017 13:51:44 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Ones that only apply to one's home. If people have an opportunity to retreat in public, they should be required to do so. The way it is applied now, the prosecution is required to prove that the Defendant's actions were unreasonable...and far too often, the only person who might've been able to argue that, is dead.

LOL!
So you can outrun a bullet.   Most people can't, Superman.
You're gonna retreat from two or more guys who have you boxed in.  Which way do you turn?
How far can the little old lady retreat before the 20 year old thug catches up to her and stabs her 10 times?
What about the young mother with 3 kids in tow (one in a stroller)?

Do you EVER think before you write your stuff?

Pick all the hypothetical situations you want, tailored to support your position. I think what trn is referring to is when some black guys in a car talk some trash and the white guy pulls a gun and starts shooting as they drive away. That happened.

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2017 15:15:01 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:09:46 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

LOL!
So you can outrun a bullet.   Most people can't, Superman.
You're gonna retreat from two or more guys who have you boxed in.  Which way do you turn?
How far can the little old lady retreat before the 20 year old thug catches up to her and stabs her 10 times?
What about the young mother with 3 kids in tow (one in a stroller)?

Do you EVER think before you write your stuff?

Pick all the hypothetical situations you want, tailored to support your position. I think what trn is referring to is when some black guys in a car talk some trash and the white guy pulls a gun and starts shooting as they drive away. That happened.

If it happened EXACTLY like that, that's not self-defense and no one would argue otherwise.
If the black guys pulled guns and started shooting as they drove away, then the white guy very well COULD argue self defense.
If it is ONLY words, no one is ever justified in using physical violence.

Trn made no such reference.  He made an incorrect blanket statement.

[trnyerheadncough]

Jul 5, 2017 15:31:13 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:15:01 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Pick all the hypothetical situations you want, tailored to support your position. I think what trn is referring to is when some black guys in a car talk some trash and the white guy pulls a gun and starts shooting as they drive away. That happened.

If it happened EXACTLY like that, that's not self-defense and no one would argue otherwise.
If the black guys pulled guns and started shooting as they drove away, then the white guy very well COULD argue self defense.
If it is ONLY words, no one is ever justified in using physical violence.

Trn made no such reference.  He made an incorrect blanket statement.

I'll give you a scenario that I think of when I think of this law, and why I don't like it.

Two kids are playing basketball at a local park on opposite teams. One kid after a play says to the other guy, "You're fouling me...quit fouling me."

Argument escalates. No fighting though. The complaining kid turns to walk away when he gets cold cocked in the jaw. Kid dies.

Prosecution refuses to prosecute because they believe that the "Stand Your Ground Law" applies.

[trnyerheadncough]

Jul 5, 2017 15:09:46 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jul 5, 2017 13:51:44 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Ones that only apply to one's home. If people have an opportunity to retreat in public, they should be required to do so. The way it is applied now, the prosecution is required to prove that the Defendant's actions were unreasonable...and far too often, the only person who might've been able to argue that, is dead.

LOL!
So you can outrun a bullet.   Most people can't, Superman.
You're gonna retreat from two or more guys who have you boxed in.  Which way do you turn?
How far can the little old lady retreat before the 20 year old thug catches up to her and stabs her 10 times?
What about the young mother with 3 kids in tow (one in a stroller)?

Do you EVER think before you write your stuff?

P.S. The prosecution ALWAYS has to prove that a crime has been committed!    Where did you go to law school? 

Dumbass. Read what I said...and focus on the words "If people have an opportunity to retreat in public..."

Two or more guys having you boxed in isn't an "opportunity to retreat in public". The little old lady doesn't have an "opportunity to retreat in public" if she's being chased by a thug with a knife.

Learn to f-ing read what I say before opening your mouth.

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2017 15:45:55 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:31:13 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

If it happened EXACTLY like that, that's not self-defense and no one would argue otherwise.
If the black guys pulled guns and started shooting as they drove away, then the white guy very well COULD argue self defense.
If it is ONLY words, no one is ever justified in using physical violence.

Trn made no such reference.  He made an incorrect blanket statement.

I'll give you a scenario that I think of when I think of this law, and why I don't like it.

Two kids are playing basketball at a local park on opposite teams. One kid after a play says to the other guy, "You're fouling me...quit fouling me."

Argument escalates. No fighting though. The complaining kid turns to walk away when he gets cold cocked in the jaw. Kid dies.

Prosecution refuses to prosecute because they believe that the "Stand Your Ground Law" applies.

That's wrong.  The one who did the hitting is the aggressor and should face charges.  Somebody needs a new D.A.

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2017 15:47:54 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:09:46 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

LOL!
So you can outrun a bullet.   Most people can't, Superman.
You're gonna retreat from two or more guys who have you boxed in.  Which way do you turn?
How far can the little old lady retreat before the 20 year old thug catches up to her and stabs her 10 times?
What about the young mother with 3 kids in tow (one in a stroller)?

Do you EVER think before you write your stuff?

P.S. The prosecution ALWAYS has to prove that a crime has been committed!    Where did you go to law school? 

Dumbass. Read what I said...and focus on the words "If people have an opportunity to retreat in public..."

Two or more guys having you boxed in isn't an "opportunity to retreat in public". The little old lady doesn't have an "opportunity to retreat in public" if she's being chased by a thug with a knife.

Learn to f-ing read what I say before opening your mouth.

Who decides what "opportunity" is?  The one fearing for his life at the moment, or the asshole in his ivory tower second-guessing him days later?
You NEVER have to retreat.  If you can, that is always the best action, but requiring it is plain stupid, illogical, and unreasonable.

You REALLY want someone in an emergency to stand there and debate himself "Am I being reasonable?"  You are beyond absurd.
You obviously have never been physically attacked out of the blue.

[trnyerheadncough]

Jul 5, 2017 15:57:28 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:45:55 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

I'll give you a scenario that I think of when I think of this law, and why I don't like it.

Two kids are playing basketball at a local park on opposite teams. One kid after a play says to the other guy, "You're fouling me...quit fouling me."

Argument escalates. No fighting though. The complaining kid turns to walk away when he gets cold cocked in the jaw. Kid dies.

Prosecution refuses to prosecute because they believe that the "Stand Your Ground Law" applies.

That's wrong.  The one who did the hitting is the aggressor and should face charges.  Somebody needs a new D.A.

A-freakin'-men.

[trnyerheadncough]

Jul 5, 2017 16:01:30 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:47:54 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Dumbass. Read what I said...and focus on the words "If people have an opportunity to retreat in public..."

Two or more guys having you boxed in isn't an "opportunity to retreat in public". The little old lady doesn't have an "opportunity to retreat in public" if she's being chased by a thug with a knife.

Learn to f-ing read what I say before opening your mouth.

Who decides what "opportunity" is?  The one fearing for his life at the moment, or the asshole in his ivory tower second-guessing him days later?
You NEVER have to retreat.  If you can, that is always the best action, but requiring it is plain stupid, illogical, and unreasonable.

You REALLY want someone in an emergency to stand there and debate himself "Am I being reasonable?"  You are beyond absurd.
You obviously have never been physically attacked out of the blue.

Who decides the opportunity? The jury. That's the way it was before stand your ground laws existed. I am big time against a judge being able to dismiss charges if the judge thinks reasonable self-defense was used. How can a judge do that without a formal trial, or at least a major evidentiary hearing?

You're presuming they were in fact "in fear for his life". If the circumstances exist where that is so crystal clear, then no jury would ever convict.

You're presupposing an actual fear of life as a backdrop for your belief in all scenarios. Horse manure.

As the law is now, a defendant need only to claim that he was standing his ground. He doesn't have to prove it. The prosecutor has to prove he wasn't. By clear and convincing evidence. At least before, the Defendant had to prove he was acting in self-defense. It is nearly impossible to disprove a negative.

If the prosecutor can't, then the guy walks. Like if he cold cocked a guy in the jaw.