A new bill in the Florida legislature will expand the “Stand Your Ground” law - specifically, the provision that allows a defendant to request a hearing where the court determines if he is immune from prosecution.
“Well, what’s wrong with that?” you ask. Essentially, this bill would require prosecutors to convict anyone who claims self-defense twice: it will shift the burden of proof at the immunity hearing to the state, and require them to *disprove *that you are entitled to immunity beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only that, but the state will pay all of your legal fees and other costs if you win, even if the reason you win is that the state proved you were not entitled to immunity by clear and convincing evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Leaving aside the wisdom of the whole Stand Your Ground scheme for a moment (which, based on our experience in Florida, is a dismal failure), this bill would make it better to have killed someone in self-defense than not to have killed or injured anyone at all (those “factually innocent” people sure as hell don’t get their attorney’s fees paid by the state).
So fuck you Marion Hammer, for using our state as a lab for your gun legislation. Fuck you, Dennis Baxley, for being a shill for the NRA and a terrible excuse for a legislator.
What’s wrong with that? Have there been a significant # of cases where “stand you ground” was successfully used as a defense against pre meditated murder?
Sure, I have seen a number where “youths” or others did something stupid and the householder *apparently *over-reacted and used deadly force where it seems to us sitting in our easy-chairs to be unnecessary.
But what is the use of sending a otherwise law-abiding home-owner to (our overcrowded) prison for life due to what we consider a mistake in judgement?
George Zimmerman isn’t experiencing enough nightmares to keep him from tweeting pictures of Trayvon Martin’s body.
You may be missing the difference - with this new law, you only have to claim to have been “standing your ground”, and the state now has to prove you weren’t. The burden of proof shifts, and the success rate of the claim would be expected to jump.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Cases in which SYG is a defense are, by definition, not those involving pre-meditated murder.
This is parody, right?
Yes, but that’s not the point. Under this bill, the prosecution would be required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not immune from prosecution, in a preliminary hearing. Under the original SYG law, the defendant had the burden of proof at the immunity hearing.
Then they get to do it all over again at trial (along with proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
Nope. Please explain the benefit of sending a otherwise law-abiding home-owner to (our overcrowded) prison for life due to what we consider a mistake in judgement?
Please list the Florida homeowners who should have gone to prison, except for Stand Your Ground. Got many?
I mean, ya got Zimmerman, but he didn’t use “Stand Your Ground”. Evidently you didn’t know that.
Let me again state that I believe SYG is not a good law.
That said, I don’t think the requiring the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s claimed defense doesn’t apply is necessarily a bad thing. It is, and should be, a difficult thing for the prosecution to convict someone of murder, or manslaughter, or whatever Florida calls it.
I think the state having to pay costs if the SYG is proved is a terrible idea. There should be an assumption that if you shoot someone, there will be a trial, unless a truly overwhelming amount of evidence indicates against it. That might make people less likely to shoot someone under SYG unless they really had to.
on edit: and it’s not like the evidence used in the pretrial hearing is going to go away. Heck it might make it even more available if one of the witnesses becomes unavailable.
If they keep pushing the law in this direction, dueling will become effectively legal again. Two people agree to a duel with pistols at 10 paces; they meet in a deserted area; one of them dies, the other tells the cops the following story:
“We met to discuss our differences peacefully, but he got mad and pulled a gun, so I drew mine and fired in self-defense.”
The police aren’t going to hear about the agreement to fight a duel, because the winner won’t tell them, and the loser is dead. They may have suspicions, but can they prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?
It might possibly work in any jurisdiction, but the more deference the authorities have to give self-defense claims, the more likely it is to work, until you reach a point where dueling becomes effectively legal.
First, this has nothing to do with “homeowners.” Florida has followed the common law Castle Doctrine since statehood, so the SYG defense (which is not at issue here) makes absolutely no difference to people who are in their homes.
Second, nobody mentioned Zimmerman except you (and Zimmerman did in fact claim SYG immunity, but did not receive it because his lawyers chose not to request an SYG hearing).
You clearly don’t know that SYG immunity is a largely unrelated statutory provision, but since you asked, can read about why the SYG scheme doesn’t work yourself.
I don’t have a problem with the burden of proof at trial. I have a problem with making the prosecution meet that burden twice. Again, this makes it twice as hard to convict someone of a violent crime (not only murder, but battery, assault, etc.) merely because they raise self-defense rather than factual innocence as their defense.
I am more angry about the costs thing, but that kind of stands on its own.
As for the evidence thing, it can go away. The SYG hearing is treated as a hearing on a motion to dismiss under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, so there are some hearsay problems.
They’ve already proved it once, can’t the prosecution do it again.
And, (genuine question) are there hearsay rules different in motions to dismiss than at a trial? Are they laxer or more stringent (God help me, I first typed “stringbean” there)
They can. The question is whether they will. Mathematically speaking, any close case now becomes a very difficult case. Let’s say the prosecution has a 50% chance of prevailing in an ordinary trial, given the evidence. Now, they have a 25% chance of prevailing since they need to do it twice.
Well, that’s kind of the thing. We don’t have a similar provision for any other crime; “ordinary” defendants have to prove wrongdoing by the prosecution to get their fees paid.
Based solely on the article from the Gainesville link, the FL proposal seems like a bad idea. I am in favor of the current FL law that the defendant had to show based on a preponderance of the evidence that immunity applied. If that failed, SYG could still apply during trial where the prosecutorial burden was higher.
No, the hearsay rules are the same (though as a rule there will be less stuff being introduced for truth purposes). The issue is that the testimony given will not automatically be admitted in the full trial just because it came in at the hearing. The witnesses will all be testifying again, with all the potential for changed recollection and change of heart and so on. Their memories will obviously be worse by then, too.
So you are upset that some people charged with a very serious crime might be treated fairly defense cost wise while others with lesser/different crimes are not?
The answer to that objection is to expand it to everyone, not insist that everyone charged with something get equally screwed.
So, ElvisL1ves is now “nobody”? And, given your posting history, if you say you weren’t considering him- well then, somewhere a pair of pants will spontaneously burst into flames.
Yes, I do know. But you didn’t know Zimmerman wasn’t a SYG case.
Again- Please explain the benefit of sending a otherwise law-abiding home-owner to (our overcrowded) prison for life due to what we consider a mistake in judgement?
Here’s from you link, the case they thought was the worst example of abuse by SYG (not counting Zimmerman, which they were wrong on-* also*)
*“What happened: Michael Monahan, a disabled veteran, shot and killed two men who cornered him in the cabin of his sailboat during an argument. Monahan told police the men had tried to remove him from the sailboat, which he said he had previously bought from one of the men, Raymond “Ramie” Mohlman. Mohlman was angry because Monahan had allowed the boat to be ticketed while still registered in Mohlman’s name. Mohlman and the other victim, Matthew Vittum, had both been drinking. Prosecutors argued that neither victim was armed when boarding the boat and that neither had touched the shooter during the argument. Legally, Mohlman still owned the boat at the time.
The outcome: Judge dismissed the two, first-degree murder charges.”
*
So we got two drunk men, violently & angrily cornering a older disabled veteran. The vet shot and killed them. Could this have been solved without a shooting? Quite possibly. But we weren’t there. What benefit to society would be gained by putting this disabled veteran in a overcrowded prison for life? Does anyone think Monahan thought to himself “Gee, this is a SYG state, I can kill these two dudes and get away with it?” before he shot? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
So you state SYG is a dismal failure. **Please prove this. **Even you own cite sez " It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon."
Why do you want* that woman* to go to prison for life?
Don’t get me wrong. The SYG laws can be argued to be a bad idea (depending on the details). This new thing where it MAY be you get two trials MAY be a bad idea.
But the idea that if you are innocent it don’t cost you nuttin is a some end of the world thing is just gawd fucking stupid IMO.
