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.
If you know anything about how bills are written, then you know they get outside help from people more knowledgeable than they are who write them, and those in the GOP sponsor the bill.
You don't really think that all laws are actually written by these people, do you? They'd have to be experts on everything from economics to the environment to Constitutional law.
Brings to light the meaning of "Don't Tread On Me"
Take note: If violence is your first go to in the arsenal of ideas, you may get culled from society by violence, wielded at a much higher and intense level.
A Florida sheriff claimed "stand your ground" essentially prohibited him from making an arrest in a politically charged and racially tinged shooting death, but his fellow Republicans who wrote the law, criminal-court attorneys and even the National Rifle Association are accusing him of misapplying Florida’s self-defense statutes.
.
.
“Nothing in either the 2005 law or the 2017 law prohibits a Sheriff from making an arrest in a case where a person claims self-defense if there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful,” said Marion Hammer, Tallahassee’s NRA lobbyist who helped shepherd "stand your ground" through the GOP-led Florida Legislature.
“Nothing in the law says a person can sue the Sheriff for making an arrest when there is probable cause,”
No, the sheriff appears to be right on the money. You only need to go to the source.
Quote:
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
As you can see, subsection (2) limits when officers may arrest someone claiming that they acted in accordance with SYG in FL. Perhaps the legislature did not intend for this result, but the language is clear as day.
I note that from the article you presented, the NRA statement does not go against what I wrote. Indeed, as you pointed out, the NRA spokesperson had the following to report:
Quote:
“Nothing in either the 2005 law or the 2017 law prohibits a Sheriff from making an arrest in a case where a person claims self-defense if there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful,” said Marion Hammer, Tallahassee’s NRA lobbyist who helped shepherd "stand your ground" through the GOP-led Florida Legislature.
That's what I wrote. An arrest cannot be made unless there is probable cause that a shooter, etc., did not act in self defense (or in other words, that a shooter's, etc., use of force was unlawful).
As for civil liability, while I'd agree that the SYG law itself doesn't impose civil liability on law enforcement agents/officers, the state's newly revised preemption law may (if anything, this is likely what the sheriff was referring to). Here's a little read on it: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...-lobby/512345/ While this is an untested legal theory as best I can tell, the argument is that you, as an elected official, could open yourself up to civil liability and possible removal from office by the governor if you misapply a law dealing with firearms (SYG deals with self defense generally, which ultimately includes firearms, too). But the fact that such a theory is untested is why the sheriff likely stated that such an arrest could possibly him/the department up to civil liability.
It would have been nice of the Politico "reporter" could have applied a little research before publishing.
If you know anything about how bills are written, then you know they get outside help from people more knowledgeable than they are who write them, and those in the GOP sponsor the bill.
You don't really think that all laws are actually written by these people, do you? They'd have to be experts on everything from economics to the environment to Constitutional law.
A minimum of 3 lawyers did contradict the sheriffs interpretation, as did the NRA lobbyist who's helped draft every Fl. SYG law since its inception. The bills sponsors who carry the bill will know more about the intent than the average legislator. Besides, one needn't be a lawyer to understand how to read every law or jury instructions.
According to the interpretation of some posting here, who I'm pretty sure aren't lawyers, nobody who says they feared imminent serious injury or death would ever be arrested, prosecuted, or convicted.
Like I said, law enforcement does not like the SYG law and they're suing this as a political football to generate negative public opinion. The Sheriff and the DA should be looked at and there might be grounds for them to be forced to resign.
The dead man was a stupid, aggressive a hole who did commit assault but he did stop and back up the second he saw that gun come out. A second earlier he had put his hand in his pocket and that would have been a reasonable time to shoot him.
But the injured man was in pain and shock and had anger and fear and pulled the trigger. Maybe his judgment was clouded just like the dead man's was when he saw his girlfriend arguing with a strange man.
If you wouldn't charge a police officer for the shooting, you can't charge a civilian.
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.
