Stand your ground ruled unconstitutional

[foszoe]

Florida Judge Rules ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Is Unconstitutional https://www.wsj.com/articles/florid...our-ground-law-is-unconstitutional-1499113172

FL....

Judge rules Stand your ground unconstitutional

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/0...ound-law-ruled-unconstitutional-by-judge.html

 

[Family man]

I love the end of the article makeing it into a race issue and bringing up travon martin.
Disgusting.

 

[halfmileharry]

I saw this earlier today.
MANY of this judge's rulings have been overturned.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Zimmerman's attorney argued his client used force because he "reasonably" believed his life was in immediate danger. When one is being "assaulted" it is "reasonable to believe your life is in danger. Zimmerman was self-defense, no wonder no employee from the AP put their name on this.

 

[Family man]

Zimmerman's attorney argued his client used force because he "reasonably" believed his life was in immediate danger. When one is being "assaulted" it is "reasonable to believe your life is in danger. Zimmerman was self-defense, no wonder no employee from the AP put their name on this.

Exactly to totaly diffrent things. But the lemmings, snowflakes, and social justice white privilege croud cant comprehend. And those that do dont care as long as it pushes their agenda.

 

[oldpink]

Zimmerman's attorney argued his client used force because he "reasonably" believed his life was in immediate danger. When one is being "assaulted" it is "reasonable to believe your life is in danger. Zimmerman was self-defense, no wonder no employee from the AP put their name on this.

Yep
SYG had nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin incident.

 

[gregr]

Unconstitutional as it can be. No law-abiding citizen should be mandated to flee from a criminal assault.

 

[jamil]

On what grounds is it unconstitutional? I think the burden of proof was where it needed to be. If someone is using self defense as a defense, prosecutors should have to prove it wasn't self defense. It seems to me this ruling is unconstitutional.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

*Ugh* The headline makes my head hurt.

It's not even about Stand Your Ground. It's about court procedure for self defense claims, and if the legislature or the judiciary has the authority to make that decision.

They are putting the burden the prosecutor PRE-TRIAL. I'll let the lawyers discuss the differences between pre-trial motions and a trial.

On what grounds is it unconstitutional? I think the burden of proof was where it needed to be. If someone is using self defense as a defense, prosecutors should have to prove it wasn't self defense. It seems to me this ruling is unconstitutional.

So we start with the assumption every killing is self defense and then try to prove it wasn't? Your wife shoots you. You die. There are no witnesses. She does not give a statement. Prove it's not self defense. I'm pretty good with the way Indiana deals with it. Self defense is a defense. If you want to claim self defense, you need to articulate why you thought the force was necessary.

 

[oldpink]

[...]
So we start with the assumption every killing is self defense and then try to prove it wasn't? Your wife shoots you. You die. There are no witnesses. She does not give a statement. Prove it's not self defense. I'm pretty good with the way Indiana deals with it. Self defense is a defense. If you want to claim self defense, you need to articulate why you thought the force was necessary.

Have to agree here, and Mas Ayoob explains how to do that in five steps that should be committed to memory of anyone willing to take on the grave responsibility of defending himself.
https://www.americangrit.com/2016/11/15/stay-jail-justified-self-defense-shooting-video/

He gives a five point checklist for what exactly to say to police officers when they show up:

1. Point out the perpetrator to police
2. Tell police you will “Sign the Complaint”
3. Point out the evidence to police
4. Point out the witnesses to police
5. Tell the police you’ll cooperate with them fully in 24 hours after you’ve spoken with an attorney.

 

[jamil]

*Ugh* The headline makes my head hurt.

It's not even about Stand Your Ground. It's about court procedure for self defense claims, and if the legislature or the judiciary has the authority to make that decision.

They are putting the burden the prosecutor PRE-TRIAL. I'll let the lawyers discuss the differences between pre-trial motions and a trial.



So we start with the assumption every killing is self defense and then try to prove it wasn't? Your wife shoots you. You die. There are no witnesses. She does not give a statement. Prove it's not self defense. I'm pretty good with the way Indiana deals with it. Self defense is a defense. If you want to claim self defense, you need to articulate why you thought the force was necessary.

I missed the "pre-trial" part.

 

[ATM]

Standing one's ground predates the constitution. No worries.

 

[gregr]

On what grounds is it unconstitutional? I think the burden of proof was where it needed to be. If someone is using self defense as a defense, prosecutors should have to prove it wasn't self defense. It seems to me this ruling is unconstitutional.

Without the "stand your ground" laws, a victim of a crime, or assault by a criminal is obligated by law to make every attempt to flee before using lethal force. It is absolutely unconstitutional to mandate that a law-abiding citizen attempt to flee before they have the states permission to defend themselves. Ridiculous. These rogue judges must be replaced with those who understand and honor the Constitution, period.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Without the "stand your ground" laws, a victim of a crime, or assault by a criminal is obligated by law to make every attempt to flee before using lethal force. It is absolutely unconstitutional to mandate that a law-abiding citizen attempt to flee before they have the states permission to defend themselves. Ridiculous. These rogue judges must be replaced with those who understand and honor the Constitution, period.

Please read beyond the headline. This in no way affects "stand your ground", nor did the judge say "stand your ground" was unconstitutional.

The headline "judge says legislation changing of trial rules is unconstitutional" wouldn't get clicks, though.

 

[gregr]

Please read beyond the headline. This in no way affects "stand your ground", nor did the judge say "stand your ground" was unconstitutional.

The headline "judge says legislation changing of trial rules is unconstitutional" wouldn't get clicks, though.

 

[brotherbill3]

Kirk will probably be along (I think he's the first person I noted/recall referencing this) to clarify - or perhaps another legal eagle type can clarify -

But as I recall the earliest ruling of "stand your ground" is from:

Runyon V State, Indiana Supreme Court 1877:

A quick review of my own notes shows the earliest reference to the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine dates back to when the United States numbered a mere 38 states, the Indiana case of Runyon v. State, 57 Ind. 80 (1877). In that case the court noted:


The tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement or even to save a human life . . . [Therefore,] [t]he weight of modern authority . . establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.

source of qoute (from a quick google fu: Stand Your Ground | New Doctrine | Over 136 Years Old )\

it seems BBI got it too; it' s a different matter and 'media's bad interpretation to garner headlines' ...

 

[oldpink]

As BBI already helpfully explained the headline of this was clickbait.
Anyone wondering just how bad a "duty to retreat" requirement can be should look no further than the United Kingdom and (unsure how common, but I've been told that it's the rule in many areas there by many Canadians) Canada.
It's so bad in the UK that you're even required to retreat within your own home there.
Yeah, out with "a man's home is his castle" and in with "a man's home is not even a lean-to."
SMH

 

[Kirk Freeman]

*Ugh* The headline makes my head hurt.

It's not even about Stand Your Ground. It's about court procedure for self defense claims, and if the legislature or the judiciary has the authority to make that decision.

They are putting the burden the prosecutor PRE-TRIAL. I'll let the lawyers discuss the differences between pre-trial motions and a trial.

Blue has it.

Here is Mr. Hardy with more=>Of Arms and the Law: Some judges....

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

I just finished Bruce Lawlor's "when deadly force is involved "

https://www.amazon.com/When-Deadly-Force-Involved-Self-Defense/dp/1442275286

and it was very thought provoking, he touches on Fla, less Zimmerman and more John Dempsey,
What you think is self defense doesnt matter, has to jibe with local prosecutors, at their mercy
Ugh

 

[thebishopp]

It may not be "convenient" and sometimes a "bad guy" may not face justice but wasn't it Franklin who quoted, or paraphrased the statement "that it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer?" Shouldn't the burden always be upon the government to prove guilt? Wasn't that a founding principle?