Florida Stand your Ground law revision passes committee

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.theledger.com/article/20151020/NEWS/151029955/1374?Title=Stand-Your-Ground-revision-passes-Senate-committee

From our old pal Joe Reedy

3 different gun bills.

1. Conceal carry on college campus
2. conceal carry license holders can now open carry
3. stand your ground the burden of proof is now on the prosecutor to prove it was not self defense instead of the accused.  

I am anxious to hear from the legal eagles about how this change to stand your ground will affect these cases. Will it hurt the citizen defending themselves or will it help them?

Quote:TALLAHASSEE — Three gun bills that will be considered during Florida's legislative session next year continue to pass through Senate committees.

On Tuesday, the Criminal Justice committee passed a bill (SB 344) that revises the Stand Your Ground law and another that would allow those with concealed carry permits to openly carry in public. At the same time, the Higher Education committee passed a bill to allow concealed permit owners to carry on campus.

Of the three, the one that got the most scrutiny was Stand Your Ground. The Senate's version, sponsored by Republican Rob Bradley of Fleming Island, puts the burden of proof on prosecutors to prove that the defendant was not acting in self-defense where that person is asking for immunity. The current statute requires the defendant to prove those claims before a judge in order to avoid trial.

"What we are clarifying is that immunity has meaning," Bradley said. "As case law has evolved, they have strayed from legislative intent."

Stacy Scott, speaking on behalf of Florida Public Defenders Association, sees the bill as not an expansion of Stand Your Ground but as a clarification of the procedure by which those rights are asserted.

Lucy McBath, who spoke in opposition, said she thought that had the proposed bill been in effect during the trial of the man who shot her son, prosecutors would have lost the case. Jordan Davis, 17, was shot and killed at a Jacksonville gas station in 2012 and the shooter claimed self-defense but was later found guilty. The dispute centered over loud music that was playing in the car.

"There's far more ambiguity. It is based on perception of the shooter if the threat was credible," McBath said. "If you have to do that before the judge and now jurors that is compounding work to prove innocence of the victim. It is ludicrous and it is not making communities safer."

The bill still has to go through the Judiciary and Rules committees in the Senate in order to reach the floor. A companion bill in the House (HB 169) has yet to be heard by any committees.

Despite opposition from the state Fraternal Order of Police, SB 300 passed committee. The bill would make Florida the 45th state to allow residents with permits to carry anywhere not prohibited by law. A similar bill was approved by the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on Oct. 6.

The Senate's Higher Education Committee was the second committee to approve concealed carry permit owners to carry on college campuses (SB 068). It was passed by the Criminal Justice Committee on Sept. 16. However it still has to go through the Judiciary and Rules committees before reaching the floor.

[fredtoast]

Big benefit to anyone who kills someone and then claims self defense.

[Rotobeast]

(10-21-2015, 12:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.theledger.com/article/20151020/NEWS/151029955/1374?Title=Stand-Your-Ground-revision-passes-Senate-committee

From our old pal Joe Reedy

3 different gun bills.

1. Conceal carry on college campus
2. conceal carry license holders can now open carry
3. stand your ground the burden of proof is now on the prosecutor to prove it was not self defense instead of the accused.  

I am anxious to hear from the legal eagles about how this change to stand your ground will affect these cases.   Will it hurt the citizen defending themselves or will it help them?

Does this count against police ?

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-21-2015, 12:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.theledger.com/article/20151020/NEWS/151029955/1374?Title=Stand-Your-Ground-revision-passes-Senate-committee

3. stand your ground the burden of proof is now on the prosecutor to prove it was not self defense instead of the accused.  

I am anxious to hear from the legal eagles about how this change to stand your ground will affect these cases.   Will it hurt the citizen defending themselves or will it help them?

LOL... Florida where the legal system subvert basic principals of logic.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-21-2015, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Big benefit to anyone who kills someone and then claims self defense.

Thank you Fred for responding. I wonder what affect this would have had on the Jacksonville case? That did not seem like self defense at all, more of a rage shooting.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-21-2015, 02:50 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: LOL... Florida where the legal system subvert basic principals of logic.

I think stand your ground is a good thing. I think it was warranted in the trayvon Martin deal. But the Jacksonville guy who shot someone because their music was too loud was not defending himself. I don't believe he got off, but tbh I can not remember.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-21-2015, 02:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think stand your ground is a good thing.   I think it was warranted in the trayvon Martin deal.  

I agree with you: Trayvon Martin had the right to stand his ground and beat that guy's civilian ass for stalking and harassing him late at night.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, can go **** himself.

[6andcounting]

Isn't it always on the prosecutor to prove the defendant's action was with proof beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of the law? If someone is charged with murder 1, the prosecution has to prove both premeditation and the intention to kill. That's true whether the defendant's defense is traditional self-defense, stand your ground, denying the intent was to kill (a crime would still have been committed, but not murder 1) or claiming the police arrested the wrong guy.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-21-2015, 03:04 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I agree with you: Trayvon Martin had the right to stand his ground and beat that guy's civilian ass for stalking and harassing him late at night.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, can go **** himself.

Correct TM had every right to beat him up. The problem was when GZ was trying to tap out and end the fight..... TM was trying to finish him. This isn't mortal komat. Had TM gotten up then and told him to leave him alone or he would get more, he would be alive today.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-21-2015, 02:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think stand your ground is a good thing.   I think it was warranted in the trayvon Martin deal.   But the Jacksonville guy who shot someone because their music was too loud was not defending himself.   I don't believe he got off, but tbh I can not remember.

I think music is a subjective art that can be enjoyed by most people, however there will always be people that have difficulty finding value in certain genres as well as individual performers.  I am guilty of that as most I assume are.  I find most modern country entirely insufferable.

[6andcounting]

(10-21-2015, 03:26 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I think music is a subjective art that can be enjoyed by most people, however there will always be people that have difficulty finding value in certain genres as well as individual performers.  I am guilty of that as most I assume are.  I find most modern country entirely insufferable.

That's because modern commercial music all uses pop beats, singing hooks and rap-like flows for the verses. The main difference between radio rap and radio country songs are the slang used to described females/their behinds and choice of alcoholic beverage they claim to be enjoying while they party.

[fredtoast]

(10-21-2015, 03:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Isn't it always on the prosecutor to prove the defendant's action was with proof beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of the law? If someone is charged with murder 1, the prosecution has to prove both premeditation and the intention to kill. That's true whether the defendant's defense is traditional self-defense, stand your ground, denying the intent was to kill (a crime would still have been committed, but not murder 1) or claiming the police arrested the wrong guy.

Generally the state has to put on enough evidence to prove its case (premeditation, intentional killing, whatever) then the defense has the right to raise the issue of self defense.  At this point the defendant had to prove his portion of the case that his actions were reasonable and justified.

[6andcounting]

(10-21-2015, 03:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Generally the state has to put on enough evidence to prove its case (premeditation, intentional killing, whatever) then the defense has the right to raise the issue of self defense.  At this point the defendant had to prove his portion of the case that his actions were reasonable and justified.

Okay. Is the standard of proof the same though between the prosecution and defense? Since the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, wouldn't the defense just have to raise enough doubt that it was self-defense to get one juror to say not guilty? I thought the only defense where the burden of proof is 100% on the defense is insanity. Other than that, the defense is only required prove something enough to create doubt.

What's your feedback on my perceptions?

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-21-2015, 03:58 PM)6andcounting Wrote: That's because modern commercial music all uses pop beats, singing hooks and rap-like flows for the verses. The main difference between radio rap and radio country songs are the slang used to described females/their behinds and choice of alcoholic beverage they claim to be enjoying while they party.

Ummmmm....I wasn't making a point about music at all.  But I agree with your assesment of modern country and pop music in general.

[6andcounting]

(10-21-2015, 04:07 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Ummmmm....I wasn't making a point about music at all.  But I agree with your assesment of modern country and pop music in general.

I was agreeing and expanding on your last sentence of that post.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-21-2015, 04:11 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I was agreeing and expanding on your last sentence of that post.

You were agreeing with my point?

[fredtoast]

(10-21-2015, 04:05 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Okay. Is the standard of proof the same though between the prosecution and defense? Since the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, wouldn't the defense just have to raise enough doubt that it was self-defense to get one juror to say not guilty? I thought the only defense where the burden of proof is 100% on the defense is insanity. Other than that, the defense is only required prove something enough to create doubt.

What's your feedback on my perceptions?

Varies from state to state.

Self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense".  An affirmative defense does not attack the truth of the facts the state has submitted.  An "affirmative defense" raises new claims by the defense that excuse or justify the defendants behavior (insanity, emergency situation, self-defense, etc).  So the defendant is usually required to prove these new claims by at least a "preponderance of the evidence" before the State is required to disprove them.  So I don't really know how this new law works in Florida.  There has to be some proof of self defense presented before the state can be required to disprove self-defense.  I could see if they were talking about shootings taking place in a persons home, but in Florida the stand-your-ground law applies everywhere.  Can't imagine how the defense could argue that the state failed to disprove self defense when no evidence of self defense was presented.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-21-2015, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Can't imagine how the defense could argue that the state failed to disprove self defense when no evidence of self defense was presented.

cuz Florida.

[6andcounting]

(10-21-2015, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Varies from state to state.

Self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense".  An affirmative defense does not attack the truth of the facts the state has submitted.  An "affirmative defense" raises new claims by the defense that excuse or justify the defendants behavior (insanity, emergency situation, self-defense, etc).  So the defendant is usually required to prove these new claims by at least a "preponderance of the evidence" before the State is required to disprove them.  So I don't really know how this new law works in Florida.  There has to be some proof of self defense presented before the state can be required to disprove self-defense.  I could see if they were talking about shootings taking place in a persons home, but in Florida the stand-your-ground law applies everywhere.  Can't imagine how the defense could argue that the state failed to disprove self defense when no evidence of self defense was presented.

Makes sense. It's a little more rigid than just spouting off anything and claiming to the jury that it should be accepted as doubt. When it comes to the finer details of the argument it's about persuading the jury, but other than that there is some responsibility on the defense to construct a proper argument with evidence.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-21-2015, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Big benefit to anyone who kills someone and then claims self defense.

I agree.  If true, this is basically a license to kill.  All I would need to do is claim I feared for my life.  How does a prosecutor prove I wasn't feeling fear?  In many cases, the only other witness is dead so they sure aren't testifying against me.

Lucie should be very, very afraid of his "wife."