« Article criticizing NFA classification of short barreled rifles | Main | Randy Barnett cleans a "living constitutionalist's" clock »
Some judges....
Florida judge rules one aspect of "no retreat" (apparently, the fact that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense) is unconstitutional. Pretty far out in left field. The legislature cannot establish what is a defense to a criminal offense? Or it cannot determine who bears the burden of proof on that?
And as usual the media confuses "no retreat" with every aspect of self-defense. These cases involved who bears the burden of proof on self defense, not whether someone had a duty to retreat. Ditto for the Zimmerman case, where all the witnesses said that Zimmerman was on his back, pinned to the ground, at the moment he fired, and so had no way to retreat.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Some day MAYBE the people will arise from their collective comas and dump all the judges to reclaim our rightful sovereignty over our government. The Judiciary has dealt the greatest damage to the Constitution with their determinations based on their predilections rather than on law. Too bad it appears most judges are so full of themselves they can't see past the brown stuff collecting in their minds.
John Locke asked: "For what is the point of drawing up dumb, silent statements of laws, if anybody may attach a new meaning to the words to suit his own taste, find some remote interpretation, and twist the words to fit the situation and his own opinion?"
And from Blackstone:
For whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.
Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6
In 2005 the Florida legislature addressed three separate theory's of self defense.
Immunity from Prosecution
Presumption of Fear
No Duty to Retreat.
See Florida Statute Chapter 776.
The MSM and in this case even the Judge, is too lazy to treat them individually and uses the sound bite/catch all phrase... Stand Your Ground.
This laziness all started with the Zimmerman case.
The current case at the Judge's bar is an Immunity from Procecussion case and has nothing to do with Duty to Retreat - Stand Your Ground.
Even better is that researchers don't understand that some states already had no duty to retreat.
There have been a few studies or articles put out trying to show certain states had an negative reaction after passing a SYG law. Except they don't check to make sure the law that was passed actually changed the common law use of force.
I have seen a few which look at Georgia, but Georgia has never had a duty to retreat. Ooops.
"The current case at the Judge's bar is an Immunity from Procecussion case and has nothing to do with Duty to Retreat - Stand Your Ground."
Gotta ask, then: what is the effect of this judge's ruling, not so much for the case at bar, but for other similar self-defense uses? HOw can a Judge's ruling affect a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute?
IANAL. Don't even play one on the internet.
My understanding is the only thing that was struck down was a procedural requirement that the prosecution disprove self defence in a hearing before proceeding to trial. What wasn't mentioned is that the state constitution says The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts. So it was struck down because it was perceived as a procedural rule and the legislature would require a 2/3s vote to override or change a procedural rule the court has set.
Doesn't seem out of bounds just obscure legal stuff.
Eric:
Volokh Conspiracy had a very thorough post on this ruling, its origin and effects, I found it right after commenting here. Obscure, yes.
The news piece is not very detailed but it doesn't sound like a coherent argument.