I, for one, am not sure about this. And I am not a liberal.
msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-law-shifts-burden-of-proof-in-stand-your-ground/ar-BBCnXtR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
I, for one, am not sure about this. And I am not a liberal.
Comments welcome.
To be honest, I’ve never liked these sorts of laws. They sound right and good on paper; but they encourage people with little real training to do something even seasoned and trained cops make mistakes over. Sometimes an innocent person ends up dead and the shooter is sucked into the legal system for something that may well have not required deadly force.
And there are those who attempt to manipulate the situation to put themselves in a position to commit a murder while claiming self dfense. Anything that makes killing another person easier is innappropriate IMHO.
At the pretrial hearing, the prosecution usually has to present evidence to show that they have a decent chance of obtaining a guilty verdict and are not wasting the court’s time. “Stand Your Ground” was an exception because the defendant was admitting that he killed someone (doing a major part of the prosecutor’s work) but that he had a justified reason. The defendant obviously has to prove this at trial. This law basically requires the prosecution to present evidence they should already have before they even think about a trial. It gives the honest citizen the same protections that are afforded to the vicious predator he shot.
Those of us who are responsible would rather have this option.
See my response to Reepicheep.
Anything that makes murdering another person easier is wrong. Anything that allows the honest citizen to exercise his right to defend his life, liberty and property without fear of unjustified prosecution is a very good thing indeed.
I’ve got almost 15 years of track experience, 60 days total. A good part of that as an instructor. I’ve also lived in Germany and visited it many times and driven the Autobahn during many of those. I’ve driven in the UK on the “wrong” side of the road and on its winding B roads with occasional one lane tracts and ancient hedgerows and walls waiting to take off your paint. I’ve driven all over Europe. I’ve driven in Africa. I’ve lived in Dubai, with all of their crazy traffic, and drove to Oman while I was there.
Outside of a few bad western movies, and maybe one or two good ones, when has this ever happened?
My thoughts exactly.
Good point. I thought of that as well, to be honest.
“Vicious Predator.”
Also a few movie crime thrillers.
I’m having a hard time envisioning a scenario where it would work, even if someone did it, which, as you concede, has never happened. I very much doubt that somebody bent on murder was on waiting for a very minor change to the “Stand Your Ground” law to do it.Also a few movie crime thrillers.
Seriously-------
Just because it has never happened, does not mean it cannot happen. And also that it SHOULD happen. And AGAIN-------I am not a bleeding heart liberal.
This law only requires the prosecution to present evidence that they should already have. No abuse or manipulation is possible.“Vicious Predator.”
That’s part of the problem I have with this. You are assuming off the beginning that that the killed party was a criminal who got what he/she deserved.
Abuse and manipulation of this is almost guaranteed. And pardon my lack of faith in my fellow man, but I am not as confident of the inability of people to use this for abuse. But that’s me, I guess.
Ok, but you can bet a lot of groups are going to offer objections to it. Some would say if this law had been in place back when Trayvon was shot, there would have been a good chance that Zimmerman would never have been charged. And whatever your opinion or my opinion on this (I have ceased to argue about such things for a while now), many people DO say there was evidence of malfeasance on the part of Zimmerman on the case and that it was an unjust shooting. But what’s done is done and he is a free man. Fine.
“Innocent until proven guilty” seems it would require this change.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-law-shifts-burden-of-proof-in-stand-your-ground/ar-BBCnXtR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
I, for one, am not sure about this. And I am not a liberal.
Comments welcome.
I would tell your friend that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is ambiguous, that is clearly not possible and the case ought to be dismissed.Ok, but you can bet a lot of groups are going to offer objections to it. Some would say if this law had been in place back when Trayvon was shot, there would have been a good chance that Zimmerman would never have been charged. And whatever your opinion or my opinion on this (I have ceased to argue about such things for a while now), many people DO say there was evidence of malfeasance on the part of Zimmerman on the case and that it was an unjust shooting. But what’s done is done and he is a free man. Fine.
Just yesterday I had a close friend argue that this was passed to make it harder for prosecutors to prove a case, particularly when the evidence is “ambiguous.”
Take of that what you will. All I hope is that this comes out for the benefit of EVRYONE in Florida.
Since you know about this more than me (apparently), then by all means enlighten me.