|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 23, 2012, 02:00 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 801
|
@TomServo.....you chopped off the beginning of my statement. So by what you did post of my statement, you are 100% correct; there may be more to the story.
@Mleake...I did hear the Feds were stepping in, but I did not hear that the state was doing anything.....thats all good news you posted. |
March 23, 2012, 05:19 PM | #27 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 5, 2012
Posts: 73
|
There is no way to intelligently discuss the Zimmerman/Martin case without fully knowing all the facts which means we have to wait until the investigation is complete and it is put through trial. Right now, on a daily basis, there is a combination of false statements, opinions presented as facts, transparent distortions, a complete absence of relevant details and most every news article is presented from the family's point of view with outdated pictures when Martin was much younger.
I have not formed an opinion on that particular case or Stand Your Ground because I do not know all the facts. I have stopped reading news articles on the case because I know they will not have all the facts. So we have to wait until the legal process has completed and, unfortunately, that might be at least another month or more. Our system is slow, but it works and all of the facts will be revealed in good time. We should most certainly not try a man by information we find on the internet and we should not strike down laws because of the sudden emotion an event presents at the time. We should be slow and methodical with our approach and make every move in the spirit of the Constitution. So we have to wait and I will decide upon this issue when the legal process has completed. Every person is entitled to due process and has rights in these matters which should be upheld no matter the situation. |
March 23, 2012, 05:46 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
|
The subject of this thread is supposed to be the article:
Focus Must Be Narrower by Adam Winkler published in the New York Times. Focus on what he says, concludes and how he does it. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...round-law-says But remember: Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat |
|
March 23, 2012, 08:04 PM | #29 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Granted that what brought about Professor Winkler's article was the Martin/Zimmerman confrontation. This is however, not what this thread is supposed to be about, as Mello2u has stated above.
I am going to start banning folks that bring up the Florida shooting in context with this thread. Why? We know next to nothing of the actual facts of that case. Saying anything at this point, about that case, is mere speculation or emotions run amok. Be warned! |
March 24, 2012, 06:56 PM | #30 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
I am not going to comment on the Martin shooting, since I know little or nothing about it, but I was aware of the Florida statute re The Castle Doctrine prior to the Martin shooting and had commented on the perceived problems with the statute. No; not on TFL. The sum and substance of my review was that the Florida statute gives rise to the presumption that a shooting was justifiable merely from the fact that a dwelling or a vehicle was unlawfully entered. For instance, if a drunk who had mistook your home for his down the street, entered it without permission (unlawfully) and passed out on the couch, a homeowner that chose to blow the sleeping drunk to kingdom come would be entitled to a presumption that he "held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another" and would be immune from prosecution.
What really griped me about Florida's statute was its failure to provide whether the presumption was rebuttable or irrebuttable. My understanding is that the statute was enacted to prevent over zealous prosecutors from forcing a shooter to prove that they held a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. To place the burden on the accused arguably flew in the face of system where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I tend to agree with that train of thought and believe that a shooter should be presumed to have feared imminent peril, as long as the presumption is rebuttable. Were it rebuttable, then once any evidence is offered tending to prove that a fear of imminent death or injury was lacking, no presumption exists. As for the stand your ground part of the statute, it really has nothing to do with the existence or extent of any presumption. If force is used in any other place than a dwelling, residence, or vehicle, it seems abundantly clear that the accused may not rely on the presumption that he/she held the reasonable belief. Once they are shown to or admit to doing the shooting, they have the burden of establishing justification. Just my 2 cents. Last edited by TheKlawMan; March 24, 2012 at 07:02 PM. Reason: spelling |
March 24, 2012, 07:29 PM | #31 |
Member
Join Date: February 28, 2002
Posts: 32
|
Just an aside, but I'm really impressed at the discussion of this issue I have seen at various gun forums. Always mature, reasoned, empathetic discussion. A few of the right-leaning or libertarian sites I have visited feature a disturbing number of commentators that celebrate the incident, as if a shooting that resulted in the death of a teenager (and from the looks of it not a gang member or criminal) were a cause for celebration. Kudos to the gun crowd.
|
March 24, 2012, 07:32 PM | #32 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The Florida statute is quoted and linked to in posts 14 and 16. The presumption is that the defender had a reasonable fear of "imminent peril of death or great bodily harm." That is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, for a use of force to be determined to be justified. For example, if the defender instigated or provoked the act, he would lose claim to justification. In addition, the Florida statute sets out a number of circumstances under which the presumption would specifically not arise. [2] You might be interested to know that California law, Penal Code 198.5, includes a similar presumption:
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 |
|||
March 24, 2012, 10:27 PM | #33 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
Thank you for the lesson on California law. I have barely cracked a Crim book since school days, but this so happened to be one with which I had some small familiarity. Not much since the issue at bar is Florida law and when the state in question is clear on the law I find it best to argue governing law.
Turning to Florida law, I see that FS Section 90.301(2) provides that a presumption is rebuttable untless the law from which it arises expressly provides that it is conclusive. Obvioulsly you have a good deal of trial experience and are well aware of how easy it is to refute the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not reasonably hold a fear of imminent death or harm . . . . In the hypo of the drunk passed out on the couch the prosecution may win, but it can be rather difficult from what I hear. |
March 24, 2012, 10:54 PM | #34 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Nor is such a presumption an especially new feature in "use of force" law. The California statute goes back to 1984. Quote:
Indeed it's probably not unreasonable to conclude that, absent a clear and excruciatingly obvious indication to the contrary, someone who has unlawfully and forceably broken into your home intends you no good. And you seemed perfectly happy with the presumption if it were rebuttable (post 30): So now that you've learned that the resumption of 776.013 is rebuttable, you should be comfortable with the law.
__________________
"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 |
|||
March 25, 2012, 02:06 AM | #35 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
Why am I not surpised that you have no trial experience. As for your knowledge of presumptions, they are something that I rarely dealt with and of which I admit to knowing little. I believe it has been nearly fifteen years since I had a serious presumption issue arise. I don't even remember exactly what the issue was or if I ever understood it, but I do remember winning the case. I do know it had nothing to with criminal law. Am I happy with the presumption in the Florida statute? The more I think of it, I just don't lilke it although I can't quite put together what bothers me so much about it.
Last edited by TheKlawMan; March 25, 2012 at 02:48 AM. |
March 25, 2012, 03:16 AM | #36 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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 |
||
March 25, 2012, 10:00 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
I deleted my post about what is being reported on our local news about the shooting for the fact of not wanting to be possibly banned.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. Last edited by Don P; March 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM. Reason: fear of being banned |
March 25, 2012, 12:12 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
As I was glancing through the thread, I kept looking for mention of the "initial aggressor" limitation to the right of self-defense and its interplay with the "no duty to retreat" doctrine. I didn't see any in my scan through. I know it is a limitation in my state and in Florida (see below). I suspect it is in many states' penal codes because our penal code was based on the Model Penal Code.
The initial aggressor limitation essentially takes away the right to use self-defense and make the no duty to retreat doctrine moot if the suspect/defendant is the initial aggressor. It does take into consideration whether the initial aggressor backs off. There's an article about this on the Volokh Conspiracy. http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-...sor-exception/ |
March 25, 2012, 12:29 PM | #39 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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 |
|||
March 25, 2012, 12:47 PM | #40 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
How would you feel about Florida's Castle/Stand Your Ground Law if the presumption was conclusive, Frank Ettin?
I wonder if this post is going to disappear into cyber space like the one I thought I earlier posted. Basically, I merely noted that you appear to have had a fine legal education and I assume that you were a fine attorney. Last edited by TheKlawMan; March 25, 2012 at 02:45 PM. |
March 25, 2012, 02:00 PM | #41 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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 |
||
March 25, 2012, 02:21 PM | #42 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
FL Senate Staff Analysis Finds Presumptions Conclusive
In response to my asking,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/ses...05s0436.ju.pdf Last edited by TheKlawMan; March 25, 2012 at 02:44 PM. |
||||
March 25, 2012, 03:21 PM | #43 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And you also purport to quote, without any citation, a statement by a Florida attorney, not here present, who merely relies on the unsupported, bald, and equivocal statement in the Senate Staff Report. This is starting to drift the thread off course and will not be continued.
__________________
"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 |
||||
March 25, 2012, 03:54 PM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
If you really wanted the cite to Gutmacher, all you had to do was ask or do a quick google. If asked to decide the qustion of conclusiveness, I suggest that the courts will pay little attention to the boilerplate re not reflecting intent of the bill's author or the Senate. That is not to say the judiciary will not inquire into the basis of the analyst's opinion. If the court finds that the bill passed based on the analyst's statement of conclusiveness, the court may be inclined to rule aginst the presumptions' rebuttableness.
If you believe I have misrepresented Attorney Gutman's comment, read it for yourself at http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/mm...Store_Code=FFL . Click on answer #1. "purport to quote"? That you would accuse me of misrepresenting Gutman and in the next breath warn me away from rebutting your accusation is incredulous. . |
March 25, 2012, 07:25 PM | #45 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,462
|
Needless to say, this case is still in the news. According to today's "updates," Zimmerman's attorney thinks "Stand your ground" applies only in your house.
Mr. Zimmerman might want to rethink his choice of attorney. And then this: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justic...html?hpt=ju_c2 Quote:
|
|
March 25, 2012, 08:17 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
It's an interesting situation, because a necessary part of claiming self-defense is admitting that you did in fact shoot the other person. At that point, you've given the state enough for a second-degree murder conviction, and you have to "work yourself out of the hole" from that point. |
|
March 25, 2012, 08:37 PM | #47 |
Member
Join Date: March 23, 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 56
|
Well, I've been reading a lot on this particular law. And regardless of what your arguments are on either side, I believe fully as a living, hard working human being if you are in danger of your life being taken by someone else, it is not only your right, but your duty to ensure your own way of life. I firmly believe in live and let live, but when someone crosses that line, that oh so very fine line, I would not hesitate regardless of law. Even if that decision could maybe, possibly result in my imprisonment. After all, I'd know what the alternative was, and that's not less pleasant.
__________________
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche Last edited by SilentScreams; March 25, 2012 at 08:42 PM. Reason: ..typo. :) |
March 25, 2012, 11:03 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
|
Quote:
Should police arrest people when they lack probable cause? No.
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat |
|
March 25, 2012, 11:47 PM | #49 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
So the evidence "appeared" to support a claim of self defense that night. What about all the time that passed since the day of the incident? To say it supported the defense of self defense "that night" implies that it no longer supports the defense.
|
March 25, 2012, 11:55 PM | #50 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,149
|
Member Ignored my Warning.
Last edited by Al Norris; March 26, 2012 at 08:34 AM. Reason: Off Topic Post, Redacted |
|
|