We are an entitled, petty, barbaric country: Handicapped parking shooting

#951
#951
LG has already explained how hard it is to get SYG thrown out.
I said "no conviction". I also said that the public pressure would bring a charge.
 
#954
#954
T-TownVol said:
Stand your ground has to be disproven first. The manslaughter is the charge that he will be tried on if, if stand your ground is disproven.
Click to expand...

Understood, but the threshold for "reasonable" still remains. FL use of deadly force

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

The grounds for use of force don't change simply because there's a pre-trial hearing as provided for here.

776.032
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

The fact that McGlockton did assault Drejka would trigger the prima facie claim. A person on video unambiguously retreating from a presented firearm, literally until the moment he was shot, should* meet the burden for denial of immunity.

*I say should because I've no idea how it's going to play out as, and I'm sure you're well aware, legal stuff can get weird. I'm all about armed self-defense and fully support the idea of no duty to retreat but if this is an example of what that's supposed to include we need to get the paring knife out and start carving on definition.
 
#955
#955
I saw a criminal law professor from USF speak about this case and she said it is a STEEP hill for the prosecution to climb in this case. She predicted no conviction due to SYG. (not that it should matter, but before the thought of racism creeps in, she is black)
 
#956
#956
T-TownVol said:
It is exactly how it works here in Florida. He gets the stand your ground hearing first. If that is denied then he goes on trial for manslaughter. Stand your ground must be disproven first. But what do I know, I just live here and follow it. I guess I should concede to someone from Arizona.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about SYG, I'm talking about what the burden of proof entails if it goes to trial. You should concede because you don't know how to read.
 
#959
#959
n_huffhines said:
It's irrelevant to the point I am making and you didn't need to say this the first time, let alone repeat yourself.
Click to expand...

"That's not how it works since this is manslaughter, actually. All they have to prove is that his fear was not reasonable. "
Sounds like you are arguing SYG to me. But..........
Last word......I win!
 
#960
#960
T-TownVol said:
Rightly so. Now he gets his stand your ground hearing where the judge will decide if that is valid as a defense or not. If the judge says no it moves to trial. If the judge agrees with the stand-your-ground application then it's over and he goes free. That is my understanding of what's about to happen. But the huge point here is, the prosecution has the huge burden of proving he was not in fear of his life
Click to expand...

I'm not a criminal guy, but my memory is that if the judge says he can present the ddefense... the case goes on and the prosecution, in addition to proving the elements of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt must disprove his SYG defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a tough row to hoe.
 
Last edited:
#961
#961
T-TownVol said:
"That's not how it works since this is manslaughter, actually. All they have to prove is that his fear was not reasonable. "
Sounds like you are arguing SYG to me. But..........
Last word......I win!
Click to expand...

I even bolded the portion of your post that I was responding to. I don't know how much easier I can make it. They don't have to disprove that he was afraid, it all hinges on whether or not his fear was "reasonable".

Capture.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    54.1 KB · Views: 4
#962
#962
n_huffhines said:
I even bolded the portion of your post that I was responding to. I don't know how much easier I can make it. They don't have to disprove that he was afraid, it all hinges on whether or not his fear was "reasonable".

View attachment 163162
Click to expand...

Cart....Horse
Manslaughter is the means of getting him to invoke SYG. Invoking gets a SYG hearing before a regular trial. THEN the regular trial IF the SYG is thrown out. The "reasonable" still goes to SYG and fear for life is the president.
It is not as easy as you are trying to make it.
 
#963
#963
ClearwaterVol said:
I'm not a criminal guy, but my memory is that if the judge says he can present the ddefense... the case goes on and the prosecution, in addition to proving the elements of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt must disprove his SYG defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a tough row to hoe.
Click to expand...

Every expert I have heard/read says that the SYG has to be thrown out for the manslaughter trial to proceed.
 
#968
#968
T-TownVol said:
Cart....Horse
Manslaughter is the means of getting him to invoke SYG. Invoking gets a SYG hearing before a regular trial. THEN the regular trial IF the SYG is thrown out. The "reasonable" still goes to SYG and fear for life is the president.
It is not as easy as you are trying to make it.
Click to expand...

This has been my point all along, though it may have been muddled in the middle. It's not about when it happens in the judicial process, it's that the crux of the question is whether or not it's reasonable, not whether or not he was afraid.
 
#969
#969
ClearwaterVol said:
I could be wrong. Like I said not a criminal guy and I was firing from memory. Either way it is tough for the prosecution.
Click to expand...
You are charged with whatever felony.
You then claim SYG if you want.
There is a hearing to decide if SYG immunizes you from the charges presented.
The prosecution must prove SYG does not apply.
 
#970
#970
DancingOutlaw said:
You are charged with whatever felony.
You then claim SYG if you want.
There is a hearing to decide if SYG immunizes you from the charges presented.
The prosecution must prove SYG does not apply.
Click to expand...

Ding......Ding.....Ding........very heavy burden!
 
#971
#971
DancingOutlaw said:
You are charged with whatever felony.
You then claim SYG if you want.
There is a hearing to decide if SYG immunizes you from the charges presented.
The prosecution must prove SYG does not apply.
Click to expand...

Is that right or is it the opposite? Defense has to prove SYG applies?
 
#973
#973
n_huffhines said:
Is that right or is it the opposite? Defense has to prove SYG applies?
Click to expand...

From my earlier post.

776.032
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

This would be the prosecution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#974
#974
Grand Vol said:
According to LG and CWV, the prosecution has to prove SYG doesn't apply in that situation.

Florida law specifically.
Click to expand...

That seems backwards. I understand a tie going to the shooter if we're talking about a jury verdict, but if we're just determining whether or not a shooter should face a jury of his peers, why on earth would tie go to the shooter?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top