• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Could Flip Burden of Proving 'Stand Your Ground'

BlackBook

BlackBook

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2017
Messages
250
Reaction score
78
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Florida Could Flip Burden of Proving 'Stand Your Ground'

GetFile.aspx


"...

While at least 22 states have similar laws that say people can use force — even deadly force — to defend themselves from threats, Florida could soon be alone shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors.

Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fla., says his bill "isn't a novel concept."

"We have a tradition in our criminal justice system that the burden of proof is with the government from the beginning of the case to the end," he said.

Florida's Supreme Court has ruled the burden of proof is on defendants during self-defense immunity hearings. That is the practice around the country. According to a legislative staff analysis of Bradley's bill, only four states mention burden of proof in their "stand your ground" laws — Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, and South Carolina — and all place the burden on defendants.

Bradley's bill died last year but now its chances are improving: It is ready for a full Senate vote when the session begins next week, and one of two House committees assigned to hear it has approved it.

Democrats are opposing the bill, but have little leverage to stop it in a legislature dominated by Republicans and with a Republican governor.

The bill has received passionate opposition from people who feel the existing law has already been abused and will be invoked even more by people seeking to avoid responsibility for violent crimes.

Stand your ground is not just about guns: The defense can be invoked after any act of violence aimed at self-protection, whether it is punching, stabbing, shooting, or striking someone with an object.
..."



This law would make it so a defendant cannot be brought to trial unless the prosecutor can prove beyond any doubt that the defendant did not fear for his/her life.
 
Last edited:
That would definitely be a mixed bag. Of course the current arrangement is a mixed bag as well.
 
Oh cool! So all I gotta do if this law gets passed is drive down to Florida, shoot someone, and say to the cops "HURR DURR HE WAZ THREATININGZ MEE!" and it's on the courts to prove that the innocent victim wasn't? WOW.
 
BlackBook said:
Florida Could Flip Burden of Proving 'Stand Your Ground'

GetFile.aspx


"...

While at least 22 states have similar laws that say people can use force — even deadly force — to defend themselves from threats, Florida could soon be alone shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors.

Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fla., says his bill "isn't a novel concept."

"We have a tradition in our criminal justice system that the burden of proof is with the government from the beginning of the case to the end," he said.

Florida's Supreme Court has ruled the burden of proof is on defendants during self-defense immunity hearings. That is the practice around the country. According to a legislative staff analysis of Bradley's bill, only four states mention burden of proof in their "stand your ground" laws — Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, and South Carolina — and all place the burden on defendants.

Bradley's bill died last year but now its chances are improving: It is ready for a full Senate vote when the session begins next week, and one of two House committees assigned to hear it has approved it.

Democrats are opposing the bill, but have little leverage to stop it in a legislature dominated by Republicans and with a Republican governor.

The bill has received passionate opposition from people who feel the existing law has already been abused and will be invoked even more by people seeking to avoid responsibility for violent crimes.

Stand your ground is not just about guns: The defense can be invoked after any act of violence aimed at self-protection, whether it is punching, stabbing, shooting, or striking someone with an object.
..."



This law would make it so a defendant cannot be brought to trial unless the prosecutor can prove beyond any doubt that the defendant did not fear for his/her life.
Click to expand...

The Florida law is essentially an affirmative defense. There's nothing novel about it at all. It's not a flipping of the burden of proof. The senator is a dope.
 
Phys251 said:
Oh cool! So all I gotta do if this law gets passed is drive down to Florida, shoot someone, and say to the cops "HURR DURR HE WAZ THREATININGZ MEE!" and it's on the courts to prove that the innocent victim wasn't? WOW.
Click to expand...
So the only thing keeping you from driving to Florida and murdering people right now is the existing SYG law? I would like to report your post to law enforcement as a threat: https://www.fbi.gov/tips
 
Gaius46 said:
The Florida law is essentially an affirmative defense. There's nothing novel about it at all. It's not a flipping of the burden of proof. The senator is a dope.
Click to expand...
Affirmative Defense currently places the burdon of proof on the defendant. Placing the burdon of proof on the prosecution is the flip. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant laws before posting further, unless you enjoy how your foot tastes, that is.
 
BlackBook said:
Affirmative Defense currently places the burdon of proof on the defendant. Placing the burdon of proof on the prosecution is the flip. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant laws before posting further, unless you enjoy how your foot tastes, that is.
Click to expand...

Doesn't our legal system place the burden of proof on the prosecution?
 
Rucker61 said:
Doesn't our legal system place the burden of proof on the prosecution?
Click to expand...


It should but the way the law works is once you have admitted you shot someone (its tough to claim self defense or SYG and deny you are the person who shot the person whose death the cops are investigating) and thus the burden shifts to you to prove that your shooting was not illegal. I agree that this sort of plays merry hell with the concept that at all times the burden should remain on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and it sort of makes it a situation that if you kill someone you are guilty UNLESS you prove it was justifiable which flies in the face of murder or homicide is an UNLAWFUL killing of another human being and unlawful general means you did it without proper reason.
 
Phys251 said:
Oh cool! So all I gotta do if this law gets passed is drive down to Florida, shoot someone, and say to the cops "HURR DURR HE WAZ THREATININGZ MEE!" and it's on the courts to prove that the innocent victim wasn't? WOW.
Click to expand...

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was threatening you and that he had the "means motive and opportunity" to carry out said threat. Why do people always distort the law when it is not the actual case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Over the past 25 years or so we've visited and vacationed in Fla. over a dozen times. Planned on going back this year.

If this passes, I'll pass on ever going to Fla. again. Republicans seem bent on reliving the Wild Wild West in some of these states, so I'll happily give my tourist money to some other state.
 
yet another avenue for Republicans to utilize to keep folks they don't want voting

hey look Jim; that guy looks like a Democrat ........... (LOUD BANG) ........... Hey Roy, looks like he's dead
 
Phys251 said:
Oh cool! So all I gotta do if this law gets passed is drive down to Florida, shoot someone, and say to the cops "HURR DURR HE WAZ THREATININGZ MEE!" and it's on the courts to prove that the innocent victim wasn't? WOW.
Click to expand...
Your comment is as silly as it is wrong.




For everybody else, the proposed language is in blue.
The burden is still on the defendant to support their claim of immunity with the alleged facts.


Latest text.

2017128e1


                    A bill to be entitled
      An act relating to self-defense immunity; amending s. 776.032,
      F.S.; providing that the state has the burden of proving that a
      defendant is not immune from prosecution under certain circumstances;
      providing an effective date.


Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

      Section 1. Subsection (1) of section 776.032, Florida
Statutes, is republished, and subsection (4) is added to that
section, to read:
      776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action
for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
      (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.
      (4) In a criminal prosecution, a defendant may file a
pretrial motion claiming the right to the immunity from
prosecution set forth in subsection (1). The motion must clearly
state the reasons that the defendant is immune and allege the
facts on which the claim of immunity is based. The court shall
grant the motion after a pretrial hearing unless the state
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not
immune.

      Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.


CS/SB 128: Self-defense Immunity​
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Republicans seem bent on reliving the Wild Wild West in some of these states, so I'll happily give my tourist money to some other state.
Click to expand...

cuban smokes said:
yet another avenue for Republicans to utilize to keep folks they don't want voting

hey look Jim; that guy looks like a Democrat ........... (LOUD BANG) ........... Hey Roy, looks like he's dead
Click to expand...

The above comments are as silly as they are wrong.

This has nothing to do with reviving an imagined Wild Wild West and has nothing to do with keeping folks from voting.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Over the past 25 years or so we've visited and vacationed in Fla. over a dozen times. Planned on going back this year.

If this passes, I'll pass on ever going to Fla. again. Republicans seem bent on reliving the Wild Wild West in some of these states, so I'll happily give my tourist money to some other state.
Click to expand...

In every case this stupid "wild west" premise has been invoked, it has never come to fruition.
 
Phys251 said:
Oh cool! So all I gotta do if this law gets passed is drive down to Florida, shoot someone, and say to the cops "HURR DURR HE WAZ THREATININGZ MEE!" and it's on the courts to prove that the innocent victim wasn't? WOW.
Click to expand...

Comic book caricatures of laws to protect the general populace from those who would do us harm, from those whose penchant is to harm. Yup, about on par I guess.
 
BlackBook said:
Affirmative Defense currently places the burdon of proof on the defendant. Placing the burdon of proof on the prosecution is the flip. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant laws before posting further, unless you enjoy how your foot tastes, that is.
Click to expand...


I know what it means and does. Not the point. The point is that affirmative defenses are written into laws all the time and are not at all strange as the senator implied. If you've admitted you shot someone that earns you a criminal charge unless you can prove that you were defending your life. That's the way it works.

And btw it's spelled "burden."
 
TurtleDude said:
It should but the way the law works is once you have admitted you shot someone (its tough to claim self defense or SYG and deny you are the person who shot the person whose death the cops are investigating) and thus the burden shifts to you to prove that your shooting was not illegal. I agree that this sort of plays merry hell with the concept that at all times the burden should remain on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and it sort of makes it a situation that if you kill someone you are guilty UNLESS you prove it was justifiable which flies in the face of murder or homicide is an UNLAWFUL killing of another human being and unlawful general means you did it without proper reason.
Click to expand...

But aren't you - the defendant - always on the hook to supply a set of facts that refutes the prosecution's case? Doesn't an affirmative defense essentially just lay out a set of facts that, assuming you can prove they're true, automatically get you off?

Under NY law if the cops find an illegal gun in a car everyone can be charged. An affirmative defense is if you can prove that you had no knowledge that the gun was there. The burden is still on the prosecutor to prove that the gun was there that you were in the car etc etc but if you can prove that you didn't know it was there you get off. I'm not really seeing how that shifts the burden of proof.
 
If this is passed, then the prosecution must prove that the shooter felt threatened? Is that what I'm reading?

If that is the case, then it seems the change will mean that for the shooter, it will be assumed that he did not feel threatened? :confused:

This seems a bit confusing for me.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Over the past 25 years or so we've visited and vacationed in Fla. over a dozen times. Planned on going back this year.

If this passes, I'll pass on ever going to Fla. again. Republicans seem bent on reliving the Wild Wild West in some of these states, so I'll happily give my tourist money to some other state.
Click to expand...
The wild west had a very low murder rate.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If this is passed, then the prosecution must prove that the shooter felt threatened? Is that what I'm reading?
Click to expand...
No, that is not what you're reading at all.

The prosecution must prove that the shooter did not felt threatened. For example, if an investigation found the defendant had made a comment on a discussion forum about going to Florida, killing people and then saying "hur dur I felt threatened", and a resulting FBI tip reporting that post as a threat to the public, that would result in prosecution moving forward.
 
Last edited:
blackjack50 said:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was threatening you and that he had the "means motive and opportunity" to carry out said threat. Why do people always distort the law when it is not the actual case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The OP's article clearly says, and I quote, "Florida Could Flip Burden of Proving 'Stand Your Ground'". So tell me, sir, how this burden is *not* being flipped.
 
BlackBook said:
You evidently do not.


And you're triple spacing between sentences. Enjoying your foot today?
Click to expand...

So enlighten me.

My triple spacing is done purposefully. You purposefully misspell?
 
Phys251 said:
The OP's article clearly says, and I quote, "Florida Could Flip Burden of Proving 'Stand Your Ground'". So tell me, sir, how this burden is *not* being flipped.
Click to expand...

Did you not read the proposed language of the law?

Had you, you should have understood if the headline was actually correct or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom