Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to know what people think of this ruling. It's not a given that procedural rules are dictated by the courts themselves. In some states, procedural rules are created by the legislature, not by the courts. But I don't see why, in those states where the courts do set procedural rules, a law passed and signed cannot modify those rules for a specific law when it is used.
The burden of proof should be on the shooter to prove his case, this law has caused some very problematic court cases in Florida. I agree with the court ruling. I believe there was one high profile case in Tampa where the shooter was walking down the street and the supposed assailant did not even have a gun.
The court decision doesn't defeat SYG, it just requires that the shooter prove that it was self defense.
That high profile case in Tampa was under the previous provisions of FL. Stand Your Ground this ruling applies to changes made May this year.
This is purely procedural, the person claiming self defense has to meet the usual legal bar for the affirmative defense. Would a reasonable and prudent person feel they were in imminent threat of death or serious injury, or where property is also covered would a reasonable and prudent person feel that the property would be stolen or destroyed.
I'm not in disagreement with his logic, legal procedure should be determined by the courts and not the legislature. Nor do I disagree with the logic that people claiming self defense should be able to show it was in self defense to the usual bar. Nor do I think SYG laws are wrong, there should be no requirement to retreat.
I have no issues what so ever with Florida's stand your ground and it should be standard practice.
The idea that you should be forced to retreat before you can defend yourself is bull crap.
Criminals shouldn't be protected when they are a threat.
The burden should be on the state if the victim acted outside the law. Not the opposite. The victim was already a victim of a crime and had to defend themselves. If they acted outside the law it should be on the state to prove that.
The State needs to prove their case under the law. Miami court might be similar to the 9th liberal court that's just against anything related to what Republicans stand for.
I have no issues what so ever with Florida's stand your ground and it should be standard practice.
The idea that you should be forced to retreat before you can defend yourself is bull crap.
Criminals shouldn't be protected when they are a threat.
The burden should be on the state if the victim acted outside the law. Not the opposite. The victim was already a victim of a crime and had to defend themselves. If they acted outside the law it should be on the state to prove that.
If you can remove yourself from harm's way, using lethal force isn't self-defense; its retribution.
The burden of proof should be on the shooter to prove his case, this law has caused some very problematic court cases in Florida. I agree with the court ruling. I believe there was one high profile case in Tampa where the shooter was walking down the street and the supposed assailant did not even have a gun.
The court decision doesn't defeat SYG, it just requires that the shooter prove that it was self defense.
so you believe in guilty until proven inncoent, despite the fact that our judicial system has been built on innocent until proven guilty. well at least we know where YOU stand on this. your idea then is that anyone that goes up in front of the courts has to prove their innocence.
so you believe in guilty until proven inncoent, despite the fact that our judicial system has been built on innocent until proven guilty. well at least we know where YOU stand on this. your idea then is that anyone that goes up in front of the courts has to prove their innocence.
Well, your not quote correct. Self-defense pleas are affirmative. You admit to the offense, but your claiming that the offense was justified under the circumstances. Exigent circumstance is a valid defense for many crimes, for example stealing a car when outside cell range to take someone critically wounded to hospital would not normally be prosecuted given the circumstance.
In such an event, you admit guilt (so guilt need not be proven), but you present facts that make the event no longer criminal. So in that frame Goodnight is correct, the defendant need not be proven guilty, they have already admitted guilt.
That (Para 2) is why I agree with the ruling in Florida, as it stood (and may still as this is not a binding ruling) if the mailman knocked on your door and you shot him, the state had to prove to a judge that it was not in self defense before even taking it to court. If the judge dismissed it that would be the case over. I'm all about the right to defend yourself, but I'm not so one sided as to enable people 'defending' themselves against non-threats.
I'd like to know what people think of this ruling. It's not a given that procedural rules are dictated by the courts themselves. In some states, procedural rules are created by the legislature, not by the courts. But I don't see why, in those states where the courts do set procedural rules, a law passed and signed cannot modify those rules for a specific law when it is used.
in florida and wish it go AWAY --leave self defence and that that---
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
