|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 3, 2017, 07:35 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,886
|
"Presumed Innocent" legislation in Florida Stand-Your-Ground ruled "Unconstitutional"
> A judge in Florida ruled Monday that the state's updated "stand your ground"
> law, which required prosecutors to disprove a defendant's self-defense case > at pretrial hearings, is unconstitutional, setting up a showdown that could > make its way to the state's top court. > > Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that the amendment to the law > allowed lawmakers to overstep their authority, adding that it should have > been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court in the first place.... > > “As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be > legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/03...-by-judge.html I find myself darkly "amused" by a judicialry that is increasingly deciding that Legislatures cannot write the law... particularly legislation expressly written to force presumed innocence after the FSC decided that presumed guilt should the going-in position. But then lower court judges as both Legislator *and* Executive seems to be an emerging norm of late. |
July 3, 2017, 07:46 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,441
|
Quote:
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
|
July 3, 2017, 09:26 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,297
|
...
Last edited by armoredman; July 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM. |
July 3, 2017, 10:01 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
|
Competence issue? !!! Is it not the duty of legislatures to enact laws? Is it not the duty of courts to apply laws in individual cases, including, if necessary, interpretation in some cases? Does Florida law empower judges to enact laws?
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member |
July 3, 2017, 11:48 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
I read the linked article, and before this thread goes off the rails, completely, I'd like to point out a few things.
First, while it is Fox News, some of the statements are from the Miami Herald, and clicking on the link to the Miami Herald gets me a page telling me I have viewed all my free articles this month. Which is kind of odd, because I have viewed NO Miami Herald articles this month, or this year. And, while its only $1.99 to subscribe, I'm not going to pay them to read what I believe will be "yellow journalism". The Fox article also has an ending line stating the AP contributed. The Fox article (which might simply be a regurgitation of an AP story with Fox's name on it) is full of statements that practically scream "taken out of context", and statements that, while factually technically accurate lack important information, creating an impression that is at odds with the actual facts. In other words, slanted or spun, aka propaganda. I don't know everything the judge said, and its QUITE possible other statements he made would put the quoted statements in a much different light. I'm not trying to defend the judge, or his ruling, only pointing out that the snippets of conversation ascribed to him MIGHT have been deliberately chosen to give a misleading impression. Quote:
To me, that small detail is rather important. Without it, the quoted text implies that Zimmerman shot Martin without reason (possibly from a distance?). Which was not the facts in the case. Fox goes on with two more statements, neither one mentioning the facts in the shooting, one stating Zimmerman's lawyers argued he was justified, and the other that he was found not guilty by the jury. Neither one of those statements does anything to dispel the impression created by the opening statement about the case. Considering how they treated this well known and widely publicized case (partial truth), I have to wonder what they LEFT OUT in reporting the statements made by Judge Hirsch. I'm not saying the Judge is right, he might be completely in the wrong (which I FEEL is probably the case) I'm just saying we should not form conclusions based only on snippets of statements sold to us by people who in the very same article demonstrate their capacity to leave out important facts about other matters. Also consider the headline, again, technically factual but intended to create an opinion more than inform. Again, without enough background information, one cannot form a valid opinion. The judge might have ruled the law unconstitutional, because he does not believe in the concept of lawful self defense, OR he might have ruled based on a procedural point of law (such as a law overriding the courts authority to make its own procedural rules, which might very well BE unconstitutional under the defined separation of powers) The article simply does not give us enough information to determine which of these the case may be, or even if it is something else, entirely. Seems to me, the most "fair and balanced" thing Fox News has done lately is to drop using the phrase "fair and balanced" about everything they report.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
July 4, 2017, 12:19 AM | #6 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously none of you have read the ruling, so you actually have no clue why the judge decided as he did. In fact Judge Hirsch based his decision on the separation of powers set out in the Florida constitution -- something none of you have bothered to find out about. As Judge Hirsch writes (State v. Rutherford, Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial District, Miami-Dade County, F16-12827, at pg 7): He then goes on to outline how and why he finds the changes relating to burdens of production, proof and persuasion effected by the legislation at issue are, under Florida law, matters of procedure within the the primary purview of the Florida Supreme Court. Note that I had previously outlined here what the changes in the law were actually about
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
July 4, 2017, 10:00 AM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
The first two questions that came to my mind were (1) "who should decide legal matters of the kind in question, the legislature or the courts?", and (2) "have any of those making the comments here read or studied the court decision?".
Well, it seems that the answer to the first is set forth in the Florida Constitution for all to see, and that the answer to the second was "no" until Frank took the initiative to enlighten us. |
July 4, 2017, 07:36 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,886
|
Quote:
We could have done totally without it while you simply explained the procedural difference for Florida. Try it next time. and I yet remain darkly amused.... |
|
July 4, 2017, 07:56 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,297
|
Quote:
|
|
July 4, 2017, 08:34 PM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Well, comments from those who have not read the decision have very little worth indeed.
And no, that is not an ad hominem attack. Just who is it who has a "fundamental misunderstanding on the roles of the three branches of government". The Florida Constitution seems to be quite clear on the question. Perhaps assuming that someone is "lazy" is a little strong, but if they haven't put in the effort. what else might one reasonable conclude? Whether one is amused or not means less. |
July 4, 2017, 08:43 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,886
|
little worth indeed... think I'll bow out of this with an object lesson that that has nothing at all to do w/ the law.
...merely ostentation. Next time educate instead of issuing outright and immediate insult... Something some of us in the more technical portions of this do quite often. |
July 4, 2017, 08:58 PM | #12 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
But in Florida, the state Constitution provides that "the supreme court shall adopt rules of practice and procedure in all courts...". And a law that would attempt to do so would be unconstitutional. Why the legislators would not have known that is a mystery, but in fairness, that kind of thing happens from time to time. |
||
July 4, 2017, 09:34 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
|
Not to pile on, but...
Knee-jerk responses to court rulings perceived to be ‘anti-gun’ reflect poorly on Second Amendment advocates, and makes it that much more difficult to safeguard the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – the response to the Florida ruling is just another unfortunate example.
Indeed, the ruling is purely procedural, in no manner seeking to place limits on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the Florida constitution or the Federal Constitution. |
July 4, 2017, 09:46 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
|
|
July 4, 2017, 10:00 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
More likely, they had in mind what they thought they wanted, and thought it within their purview to bring it about. I wondered about it, but lacking sufficient knowledge, I chose to not comment. I was "too lazy" to research the question for myself. I considered asking about it, but I decided that the question would come up and bring us the answer. That has happened. |
|
July 4, 2017, 10:49 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Although this judge has quite the following and has been affirmed by decision of the Florida Supreme Court, this decision seems to me a bit of a stretch. For example, the California supreme court establishes the rules of practice and procedure for the courts of the state, but that in no way precludes the Legislature from doing so as well. Moreover, this new law is more than a mere procedural rule, but has elements of substantive law, specifically as to where the burden of proof lies in any particular matter. It seems to me that the Legislature, as it did when it enacted Florida's original SYG law, has the power to establish presumptions affecting the burden of proof, and thus the burden of going forward (to use legalese). If the defendant is presumed to be acting in lawful self-defense, then it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove that he (or she) was not so doing. The new law merely provides that a pre-trial hearing on the SYG defense is no longer optional with the defendant, but mandatory with the State, and instead of the defendant having to prove a prima facie case of self-defense, it is the burden of the prosecutor to show that he was not acting in self defense, much as the prosecutor will have to do at trials in which the defense is asserted. why is it a mere "procedural" rule to require the same burden of proof at both proceedings?
|
July 4, 2017, 11:18 PM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
July 4, 2017, 11:35 PM | #18 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course what a Florida court of appeals will do with this remains to be seen. But Hirsch's ruling does appear to be based on the foundation of a provision of the Florida constitution and applicable Florida case law and is most likely not, therefore, merely a spasm of an incompetent judge.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
July 4, 2017, 11:41 PM | #19 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
Some legislators are attorneys, but not all are. (And some who are may have graduated in the bottom half of their class at law school.) It's supposed to be a bedrock principle of our legal system that in a criminal case the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). Perhaps the legislators thought that a law calling for the burden of proof of innocence to fall on the defendant is contrary to the American legal system, and so they attempted to correct that. |
||
July 5, 2017, 12:46 AM | #20 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And, as I outlined here, it doesn't necessarily make a significant, practical difference. Quote:
And as has been noted many times, pleading self defense necessarily requires that the defendant effectively admit committing acts which are the elements of a crime. And as has often been pointed out, common, lay understanding of certain legal principles (like the presumption of innocence) can often be incomplete or imperfect.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
July 5, 2017, 08:45 AM | #21 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 5, 2017, 11:02 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,606
|
It sounds like the decision was based on a question of who gets to set burden of proof rules, the Florida Supreme Court or the Florida legislature and that the merits of the law itself weren't commented upon. Is this correct?
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
July 5, 2017, 11:24 AM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
July 6, 2017, 07:10 PM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
It can often be instructive to look at how different news outlets treat the same story. We have a link to a Fax News story in the OP.
On the other hand, here is how The Wall Street Journal described Judge Hirsch's ruling in Rutherford: The WSJ is still too sketchy to help someone really understand the law involved in the ruling. But insofar as it clarifies that the constitutional issue is a matter of the state constitution, not the U. S. Constitution, and that the pivotal issue involves the distinction between substantive law and matters of procedure, it is more accurate.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
|
|