Count me among those not capable of understanding why correctly shifting the burden of proof away from the defense and back onto the prosecution would be unConstitutional. In fact, I'd venture to say that the old way the law worked would have been more likely version to be legitimately unConstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:
Count me among those not capable of understanding why correctly shifting the burden of proof away from the defense and back onto the prosecution would be unConstitutional. In fact, I'd venture to say that the old way the law worked would have been more likely version to be legitimately unConstitutional.

I am no kind of expert on the Florida constitution. Perhaps it has some provision that makes it improper for the lege to make such changes in state criminal procedure.

But I wouldn't expect that to be true. The United States constitution wouldn't prevent Congress from legislating changes to federal criminal or civil procedure (unless, of course, the change violated some other constitutional guaranty). Legislatures do pass law sometimes to abridge or change the law when they think the courts have misinterpreted the law or when they realize the old law needs to be changed.

But it doesn't pay much to speculate about the legal arguments here without knowing what is in the Florida constitution or having read more about the arguments pro and con.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Zimmerman's case was not a Stand Your Ground case, as I recall. He was outright attacked and had no opportunity to disengage. Is that correct?

Zimmerman's attorneys never claimed 'Stand Your Ground' as a defense. That was simply the media and anti-gun groups irresponsibly spinning this in a way that supported their agenda.

The option was available and they chose not to ask for a ruling. I don't understand why. Maybe if you ask for a stand your ground ruling and the judge rules unfavorably, it hurts your chances at trial?

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Miami Judge References Harry Potter to Strike Down New "Stand Your Ground" Law

quote:

From the Article:
Data shows Florida's Stand Your Ground law is awful. The rule lets you kill anyone you want in self-defense, even if you're the person who started a fight. In the years since the law went into effect, the state's murder rate has shot up dramatically. The law has been used to exonerate multiple cops who have shot unarmed people and, most notably, to let George Zimmerman walk free after following, harassing, and then fatally shooting unarmed Miami teen Trayvon Martin — a killing that later helped spark the Black Lives Matter movement.

It's a half-truth that the murder rate "shot up dramatically". It spiked a couple years after the law, but then receded down to it's previous level a couple years after that. The murder rate has been essentially flat ever since.

Florida Murder Rate - 1960-2015:


Sources: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:
Count me among those not capable of understanding why correctly shifting the burden of proof away from the defense and back onto the prosecution would be unConstitutional. In fact, I'd venture to say that the old way the law worked would have been more likely version to be legitimately unConstitutional.

I am no kind of expert on the Florida constitution. Perhaps it has some provision that makes it improper for the lege to make such changes in state criminal procedure.

But I wouldn't expect that to be true. The United States constitution wouldn't prevent Congress from legislating changes to federal criminal or civil procedure (unless, of course, the change violated some other constitutional guaranty). Legislatures do pass law sometimes to abridge or change the law when they think the courts have misinterpreted the law or when they realize the old law needs to be changed.

But it doesn't pay much to speculate about the legal arguments here without knowing what is in the Florida constitution or having read more about the arguments pro and con.

The Florida Supreme Court is empowered in the state constitution to enact procedural laws with respect to the courts. The judge in this case determined that the burden of proof and the standard of proof for SYG that were set by Florida Supreme Court precedent are procedural laws as contemplated by the constitution and thus cannot be changed by the legislature.

I don't know enough to know if this was the correct decision, but reading it, it doesn't appear to be a case of a leftist making stuff up. It's a fairly reasoned decision. I am curious to see if it gets appealed and what happens.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The option was available and they chose not to ask for a ruling. I don't understand why. Maybe if you ask for a stand your ground ruling and the judge rules unfavorably, it hurts your chances at trial?

I would venture that is the consensus, if you opt for SYG hearing and you are not found to have properly stood your ground you're going to be fubar in court, basically self incrimination, additionally any evidence you present in a SYG hearing the prosecution will have and thus more time to prepare and fully understand your defense.

Zimmerman was in a lynching, having defended himself from assault with deadly force during the hate whitey movement by blacks era perpetuated by the media and supported by Obama, Obama, Holder et al....

The new law was there to fix an error in the old law that created this situation where you had to defend yourself and prove your innocence, it put the financial burden on the individual and released the state from the costs and expenses of creating a case for every shooting to prove it wasn't Self Defense.

Money and power...

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I am curious to see if it gets appealed and what happens.

The Florida AG has said that they are going to appeal.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...-20170703-story.html

quote:

Kylie Mason, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Pam Bondi, said Bondi would appeal the order.

Scott spokesman John Tupps also said the governor's office is reviewing the judge's ruling.

I find that trying to discuss a legal ruling based on a newspaper report frequently in exercise in futility.

Here is the judge's ruling:

http://www.miamiherald.com/lat.../binary/HirschRuling

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:
Count me among those not capable of understanding why correctly shifting the burden of proof away from the defense and back onto the prosecution would be unConstitutional. In fact, I'd venture to say that the old way the law worked would have been more likely version to be legitimately unConstitutional.

I am no kind of expert on the Florida constitution. Perhaps it has some provision that makes it improper for the lege to make such changes in state criminal procedure.

But I wouldn't expect that to be true. The United States constitution wouldn't prevent Congress from legislating changes to federal criminal or civil procedure (unless, of course, the change violated some other constitutional guaranty). Legislatures do pass law sometimes to abridge or change the law when they think the courts have misinterpreted the law or when they realize the old law needs to be changed.

But it doesn't pay much to speculate about the legal arguments here without knowing what is in the Florida constitution or having read more about the arguments pro and con.

The Florida Supreme Court is empowered in the state constitution to enact procedural laws with respect to the courts. The judge in this case determined that the burden of proof and the standard of proof for SYG that were set by Florida Supreme Court precedent are procedural laws as contemplated by the constitution and thus cannot be changed by the legislature.

I don't know enough to know if this was the correct decision, but reading it, it doesn't appear to be a case of a leftist making stuff up. It's a fairly reasoned decision. I am curious to see if it gets appealed and what happens.

Does this mean that ONLY the courts have the ability to make procedural rules in Florida? That would seem to be an odd state of affairs, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:
Count me among those not capable of understanding why correctly shifting the burden of proof away from the defense and back onto the prosecution would be unConstitutional. In fact, I'd venture to say that the old way the law worked would have been more likely version to be legitimately unConstitutional.

I am no kind of expert on the Florida constitution. Perhaps it has some provision that makes it improper for the lege to make such changes in state criminal procedure.

But I wouldn't expect that to be true. The United States constitution wouldn't prevent Congress from legislating changes to federal criminal or civil procedure (unless, of course, the change violated some other constitutional guaranty). Legislatures do pass law sometimes to abridge or change the law when they think the courts have misinterpreted the law or when they realize the old law needs to be changed.

But it doesn't pay much to speculate about the legal arguments here without knowing what is in the Florida constitution or having read more about the arguments pro and con.

The Florida Supreme Court is empowered in the state constitution to enact procedural laws with respect to the courts. The judge in this case determined that the burden of proof and the standard of proof for SYG that were set by Florida Supreme Court precedent are procedural laws as contemplated by the constitution and thus cannot be changed by the legislature.

I don't know enough to know if this was the correct decision, but reading it, it doesn't appear to be a case of a leftist making stuff up. It's a fairly reasoned decision. I am curious to see if it gets appealed and what happens.

Does this mean that ONLY the courts have the ability to make procedural rules in Florida? That would seem to be an odd state of affairs, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

That is what the judge seems to be saying - that the state constitution gives the Florida Supreme Court exclusive domain over procedural rules.

Well, FL is off my list....

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Zimmerman's case was not a Stand Your Ground case, as I recall. He was outright attacked and had no opportunity to disengage. Is that correct?

Zimmerman's attorneys never claimed 'Stand Your Ground' as a defense. That was simply the media and anti-gun groups irresponsibly spinning this in a way that supported their agenda.

The option was available and they chose not to ask for a ruling. I don't understand why. Maybe if you ask for a stand your ground ruling and the judge rules unfavorably, it hurts your chances at trial?

Defense attorneys sometimes will choose not to call for a stand your ground hearing because they would have to reveal all their case and witnesses in the hearing that can complicate things if they have to go to trial later

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:...
The option was available and they chose not to ask for a ruling. I don't understand why. Maybe if you ask for a stand your ground ruling and the judge rules unfavorably, it hurts your chances at trial?

Stand your Ground Motion needs to be filed pre-trial. In that case it would garner lots of PR and more than likely the judge would deny it, (which is pretty standard) which the Defense (IMO) did not what.

Most people don't understand that Self-Defense and Stand your ground are basically 2 different vehicles. And in the Z case Stand your ground was not very clear cut. I think it was very smart on the Defense not to argue it, and go straight to Self-Defense.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Well, FL is off my list....

quote:

Kylie Mason, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Pam Bondi, said Bondi would appeal the order.

Scott spokesman John Tupps also said the governor's office is reviewing the judge's ruling.

Yeah, the WOLF, I mean PAM, is on the MOFO.

While I don't fully understand the legal side of the ruling I am not concerned.

Florida has been using the liberals playbook for a while and this is just another play from it.

Pass a law that pushes the line some. If it stands then push the line a little more, if part of it doesn't stand then you have still made progress. If none of it stands the figure out why the push back was successful, rework the law and push it forward again.

This is just a small hiccup in years of small wins by the state legislature. This could actually be a good thing, consider it feedback from the enemy on how to get it right.

This whole innocent until proven guilty concept thingy is on the radar and we will get there.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Well, FL is off my list....

Bro, you live in New Jersey...

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Here is the judge's ruling:

http://www.miamiherald.com/lat.../binary/HirschRuling

So much for the "transactional" argument, no? If the matter never gets to court, why would procedural rules matter at all? Until you get to the logistics of running the matter through court, you never get to what the judge is calling 'procedural law'.

What the judge is trying to do here is claim that 'Stand Your Ground' is a defense, where the legislature has passed 'Stand Your Ground' as a means of clarifying that no offense has been committed at all.

What has Hirsch's skirts blown up is that people who defend themselves are no longer automatically obligated to come before a judge to prove they did not commit a crime. Hirsch just wants one last crack at having the option to engage in arbitrary behavior to flatter the vanity of the bench.

So...

Has anything happened with this?