'Stand your ground' defendants must continue to prove immunity, Florida justices say

[flamin lib]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-florida-stand-your-ground-ruling-20150710-story.html

TALLAHASSEE — In a case that started with a Central Florida tourist brandishing a gun during a traffic dispute, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday said people who use the state's controversial "stand your ground" legal defense have the burden of proving they should be shielded from prosecution.

The 5-2 ruling dealt with a key part of the way the state has carried out the "stand your ground" law, which in part provides immunity to people who use justifiable force in self-defense.

In "stand your ground" cases, pre-trial evidentiary hearings are held to determine whether defendants are immune from prosecution because of the law. The Supreme Court ruling Thursday centered on who should have the burden of proof during those hearings —defendants or prosecutors.

Long story made short; traffic incident, unarmed man blocks egress of vehicle, second man with gun forces unarmed man back into car and continues to point gun at him. Court said the unarmed man retreated and was no threat, so they charged the guy with the gun with assault.

The issue at stake here is who must prove self defense? Does the guy with a gun have to prove that his life really was in danger or does the state have to prove that it wasn't?

Consider this: The guy with a gun has accused the other guy of being a threat to life. Should he not have to prove that the other guy really was a threat just as the state has to prove guilt when innocence is assumed? The guy with a gun has set himself up to be judge and executioner. The judicial system serves the very same function in criminal cases and must prove the guilt of those who come before it. Shouldn't the guy with a gun have the same burden?

Seems only right to me, after all, in the Travon Martin case we only heard one side of the testimony. 'Cause Travon was dead.

[Fred Sanders]

1. Burden of proof should indeed always be on the guy using a designed weapon - the judges applied age old logic.

The Gun has no special status before the law when it comes to having to pass the "air of reality" test before you get to raise self-defence, which has another set of rules for proof.

As I recall, a ton of cases have been dismissed where some guy shot another guy because the prosecution had the burden of proof from the get go and the shooter did not even have to claim the shooting might be reasonable, it was deemed to be reasonable as soon as the bullet left the barrel.

Cash may be King in the financial world, but Logic is King in the Courts.

[mountain grammy]

2. Should have been a unanimous verdict.

Florida!