Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
HBecwithFn7

For Those Following the FL Legislature

7 posts in this topic

It's been reported this evening that Gov. Rick Scott signed SB-128 into law, today.  This bill shifts the "burden of proof" in cases involving a HD/SD use of force (including deadly force) from the defense, to the prosecution, where the original law intended it to be.

In FL, If a person involved in a HD/SD use of force and/or deadly force claims that use was "justifiable" under FL's "justifiable use of force" laws, they have the option of a pre-trial hearing to resolve the matter. If the pre-trial result is that the use was justified (or it's declared justified by LE or prosecutor without a hearing), the shooter is then immune from any further legal action (either criminal or civil) in re: that particular incident. However, due to case law and judiciary procedures, the burden of proof (that the use of force was justified) has always fallen upon the defense. With the signing of this bill, the burden of proof shifts back to the State or prosecution.... HOWEVER, with a "reduced" standard of "clear and convincing evidence..." not the more difficult "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It's more than "preponderance of the evidence" std (51%) but less than "reasonable doubt" (about 90+%). Still, it's the best pro 2A thing we got this year from the legislature, so we'll take it.

Banane09.gif


That said, there remains one bill on the Gov's desk that can affect  2A folks this year in FL.   SB-1052.  This bill makes alterations to that "justifiable use of force law." Originally, the change being made was designed to correct a "scrivener error" that, in essence, inadvertently required a person in their dwelling/home or occupied vehicle to be "under attack" before they  "no longer had a duty to retreat and could 'Stand their Ground' " under that law.    The correction now states that a person "in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and may stand their ground, etc. etc."  But notice.... something is missing.... the protection of that law no longer applies to one's "occupied vehicle..."   The dems made them take that out to get support for the bill.    I think it was in response to the Michael Dunn Case, here in FL  There is some conjecture as to whether or not it will result in a loss for 2A people, because there's a different law that was not changed that might still keep that "No duty to retreat/ Stand your ground" protection in tact when in one's vehicle or in any other place where the shooter "has a right to be."  But the concern among 2A people is that judges will interpret the removal of "occupied vehicle" from the law affected by SB-1052 as a restoration of a "duty to retreat" when in your vehicle.

We hope the Gov. vetoes it.  I can live with the "attack" issue for a bit longer until they get it right.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SJG said:

Not much room to retreat if you are inside a vehicle

 

Agreed. But I think they're believing that a "duty to retreat" would involve the ability to flee the scene in your vehicle.  But one can still get shot trying to do that. Or the BG can disable the vehicle  by shooting the tires, etc. I wouldn't want to give the BG those opportunities. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the result of the individual a few years back that shot into the car parked next him. Came home from a wedding, wife went into 7/11 to get sumtin. Kids parked next him playing loud music. Verbal occurred. Then he( ccw holder) shot into the car.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zeke said:

Is this the result of the individual a few years back that shot into the car parked next him. Came home from a wedding, wife went into 7/11 to get sumtin. Kids parked next him playing loud music. Verbal occurred. Then he( ccw holder) shot into the car.

 

That would be Michael Dunn.  And yes, that's, precisley, whom I believe this is about.  The Jordan Davis/Michael Dunn case was, in essence, "Martin/Zimmerman  Round 2."   Only this time, Dunn was guilty as sin and, thusly, convicted.  Angela Corey (Duval County SA at the time and who's team was brought into Seminole County to prosecute Zimmerman) prosecuted this case personally, refusing to allow a repeat of Martin/Zimmerman. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, HBecwithFn7 said:

That would be Michael Dunn.  And yes, that's, precisley, whom I believe this is about.  The Jordan Davis/Michael Dunn case was, in essence, "Martin/Zimmerman  Round 2."   Only this time, Dunn was guilty as sin and, thusly, convicted.  Angela Corey (Duval County SA at the time and who's team was brought into Seminole County to prosecute Zimmerman) prosecuted this case personally, refusing to allow a repeat of Martin/Zimmerman. 

Ya, that guy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0