|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: 'Stand your ground' case clear example why Florida must change law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Sartori case, however, is troubling in three ways the Florida Legislature should address:
Judgment: Before acting in self-defense, you should know you are endangered. "Stand your ground" should require �the danger� to be actual.
Recklessness: A modern, civil society�s laws should punish shooters who fire indiscriminately in the direction of alleged danger. If shooters unreasonably endanger the lives of others, a jury should decide their fate.
Burden of proof: In 2017, the Legislature passed a law requiring prosecutors, rather than defendants, to prove shooters did not act appropriately. Given that many "stand your ground" shootings have no witnesses, such a burden is extremely difficult. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/22/2018)
|
| Translation: Because nobody can prove what really happened, we need to imprison these people when we don't know if they did anything wrong. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(6/22/2018)
|
Judgment: Before acting in self-defense, you should know you are endangered. "Stand your ground" should require �the danger� to be actual."
So if someone points an unloaded gun at you and you shoot him, then you're in trouble because the danger was not actual? There's a reason the law is written the way it is. There's no way to know for sure that the danger is actual until it causes you harm. Don't be stupid.
|
| Comment by:
PP9
(6/22/2018)
|
"Burden of proof: In 2017, the Legislature passed a law requiring prosecutors, rather than defendants, to prove shooters did not act appropriately. Given that many "stand your ground" shootings have no witnesses, such a burden is extremely difficult."
Yes, we call that "innocent until proven guilty." It's kind of a thing here in the US.
Of course the burden is on the prosecution. The real question is why it took a law restating the same principle that is already enshrined in the Constitution. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/22/2018)
|
What about the "reasonable person" doctrine? The idea being "what a reasonable person" would believe if he were in the similar position.
Usually if a person can express a reasonable belief that he was in mortal danger, like say an assailant is aiming a gun at him, and has acted violently and aggressively, providing good reason for the victim to actually fear for his life, so he fires, that is considered reasonable. If the ACTUAL FACT is (as found out by later police investigation) the criminal's gun was empty, or a realistic BB gun, then the victim's fear is still reasonable, even though in actual fact he was not in real danger, because the victim could not have been expected to know the gun could not kill him. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. � Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
