How can that possibly be? How can they investigate the use or threatened use of force if the guy is dead and only the shooter can provide information?
Ask Trayvon Martin.
Well, at least there was a trial and such for that case.
I am stunned that all the person has to do is claim self-defense.
It took over 2 decades of dedicated journalistic work combined with non-stop lobbying and a Department of Justice review before Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, changed the laws so that a police shooting didn’t result in a coroner’s inquest looking into the matter, wherein any and all police officers could say “I thought maybe he might have possibly become a danger to someone at some later time, so I shot him” and they were legally absolved of any criminality.
Now we have a a different process, with more citizen involvement and more transparency, so now we all KNOW the fix is in every time a cop says the same thing and walks, no matter what the circumstances were.
Florida’s SYG law and most Castle Doctrine laws that I know of are more-or-less the same as that.
Inconceivable! :eek:
Yet. But I bet Meuller knows a hell of a lot about the Russsians and the Russian money, which was then funneled from the NRA into political campaigns - and not JUST Trump’s.
I’m not an attorney, but if my understanding of Florida’s statute (and its application) is correct, the use of deadly force is predicated on a “reasonable” fear of great bodily harm. Note that the defendant doesn’t have to demonstrate that he was in fear for his life, only that he was in fear of sustaining great bodily harm.
I don’t think the Sheriff’s office necessarily likes having to let this guy go, but shoving someone to the concrete in a parking lot with cars moving about in different directions is arguably reason enough to claim that he feared great bodily harm. Moreover, the law immunizes the shooter from prosecution if there’s even a half-ass claim that can be backed up. In this case, the video defends the account of the shooter, and as shitty as it is, it doesn’t necessarily matter that the shooter was talking shit to the dead man’s girlfriend - the law allows a man to talk all the shit he wants unless it can be established that he was using threatening language, which a video can’t establish. Had he brandished a weapon, drawn back his fist, or made explicit threats in front of multiple witnesses, maybe it’s a different story.
It probably gets trickier when there’s less evidence to support a claim of self defense, and I don’t think a killer can just claim he was afraid. He has to establish a reason for his fear. The statute still requires justification for homicide. The local police and DA would want to know what constitutes such justification, without which, they would probably start a criminal investigation working toward a possible indictment, provided there’s enough evidence. Thus, if person A kills person B, then law enforcement and the prosecutor would want an explanation from person A. They probably don’t just take his word for it. If all they have is his word and they have reason to doubt his story, then they’d probably at least consider taking the case to trial. Still, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence beyond all reasonable doubt, which is where justice could still get derailed.
“Ground Rules: “Stand your ground” laws give white citizens the kind of impunity that’s usually reserved for police.”
http://abc7ny.com/stand-your-ground-man-wont-be-charged-in-parking-lot-death/3810856/
This Drejka needs to be put down before he does it again, and he WILL.
And in other news, guns killed Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo (or at least caused them to be killed.)
Top that.
I don’t know why you guys are on his case, all he was doing was defending the rights of the handicapped.
The NRA is suing New York State for what it calls a “blacklisting campaign” that has resulted in the NRA being unable to get media liability insurance. Without this insurance, the NRA says, it has been unable to “maintain its physical premises, convene off-site meetings and events, operate educational programs,” and “hold rallies, conventions, and assemblies.” According to financial documents, the NRA overspent by $46 million in 2016.
I don’t know what “media liability insurance is” nor how New York State could prevent the NRA from getting it. Hopefully someone can drop in to explain it. The NRA claims their existence is threatened, but then, the NRA is always claiming that they or gun owners are in existential danger at all times, so who knows? I guess if all else fails, the NRA could just go to their benefactors in Russia for more cash. Oh, wait, Mueller is turning off the spigot there. That’s just a damned shame. Womp womp. My thoughts and prayers are with almost anyone other than the NRA.
They should just raise their fees. Guns owners will pay any amount to make sure that government doesn’t come break down their doors and confiscate their guns!
Media Liability Insurance is pretty much what it sounds like: an insurance policy which covers the TV network, the venue, the CD manufacturer, etc, in the event of damages resulting from the program put on by the policy owner (in this case, the NRA).
http://m.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/pcmli.cfm?
So, to use an example, the NRA buys a TV ad, “defend your 2nd amendment rights”. Tommy Lottacrazy sees this ad, shoots up an anti-NRA protest, arguing he got this idea from the ad. With a MLI policy, the TV station/network is covered* in case the victims decide to sue the TV channel for airing an inflammatory commercial.
However, you just don’t buy a general MLI which covers all events (like a homeowners or general liability policy) these things are sold… and priced… on a case-by-case basis. Usually it’s a routine process, the cost rather negligible and included in the cost of ad creation and placement. Or, in this case, venue selection.
However, with the long sequence of shootings, these policies are becoming more expensive for the NRA to get… a $3,000** policy might become rated merely because it’s the NRA which is requesting it, so it is now $6,000, $30,000, more. Or, as the article states, the insurance company refuses to sell a policy to the NRA at any price, judging the risk of payout to be too high.
It sounds like they’re being squeezed at many ends:
- They sold insurance policies to gun purchasers covering them for court costs in the event the purchaser committed a crime. (As a general rule, you can’t buy insurance which has as its stated goal protecting you financially from intentionally breaking the law. It may even be arguable that the only purpose for buying such a policy is that the purchaser intends to break the law, which is a big no-no.)
- They can’t get general liability any more, which is a big problem for any organization.
- They can’t even get MLI to protect broadcasters who run their programs and/or commercials as they’ve been deemed, in my opinion, too high-risk.
The $46 million loss, well, that’s their problem. Perhaps exacerbated by their insurance woes, but if they sponsored gun shows w/o the necessary insurance, that’s their tough shit.
*To the limits expressed by the policy. They are on the hook for judgements which go beyond the policy benefit amount.
** Numbers are for illustrative purposes and do not reflect actual pricing.
Thanks JohnT! Very clear and helpful. I’m gonna guess you work in the insurance industry? 
So, how wold New York State blacklist them, assuming for the sake of argument that they wanted to? What levers does the state have to get insurance companies to either stop writing policies or price the NRA out?
So does this mean the NRA will finally die? I know that reality is never so kind, but one can dream…
Insurance is regulated by the States… 50 insurance departments in all… so NYS has all the power they need to investigate how the NRA funds and sells policies (if that is what they are doing, then they are likely doing it under what is known as an “affinity” program.)
As far as pricing is concerned, on these specialty products that is left up to the companies. The insurance departments concern themselves mostly with licensing, financial stability, fraud and deceptive sales practices, and commission payouts.
If the NRA is rated (“rated” essentially means “at increased risk”) on a policy, then they pay more. If the risk is too big, then they won’t get insurance*. No one is guaranteed to be covered on any policy (other than health) and insurance companies have the right to turn down an offer of premium if they so decide.
Do note most of my knowledge of the NRA’s complaint comes from the RS article. Further reading shows the NRA is claiming the state pressured the insurers and other financial services companies to stop doing business with the NRA.
*For example, if you want a million dollar term life insurance policy at the age of 95, most companies (if not all) will refuse to insure you, and if they do, the annual premium will easily be in the six-figures.
Thanks again, JohnT. Very helpful!
Welcome, again. Please note, I am not a regulatory expert.
Also, IMHO, rumors of the NRA’s impending financial doom are greatly exaggerated.