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

#976
#976
n_huffhines said:
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?
Click to expand...

According to LG's anti-NRA rant early in the thread, the SYG laws were changed in Florida to put the burden of proof on the prosecution instead of on the defense. I know it seems unusual, but it's not a bad idea in principle to ensure an overeager anti-gun prosecutor doesn't challenge every instance of SYG on ethical grounds.

Remember, the nuances in SYG laws vary from state to state.
 
#978
#978
DancingOutlaw said:
It started off as the defense’s burden, it changed recently to prosecutions. I think the notion was you shouldn’t start off as guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

But it's not determining guilt, it's just determining whether or not this protection applies.
 
#979
#979
n_huffhines said:
But it's not determining guilt, it's just determining whether or not this protection applies.
Click to expand...

In a way, it is determining guilt. Just that the prosecution has to prove it instead of the defense proving it's not. Basically, the defense in this situation gets to sit back and make the prosecution prove the shooter wasn't in a SYG situation. Not the defense having to prove it was.

Basically, the way I understand it at this point, is I'm involved in a shooting all I have to do is invoke the SYG situation and the police are powerless to charge me at that point unless it's blatantly obvious I had ill intent on my mind. Now, the DA can change that and charge me, but only if they feel they can prove the situation was not specifically a SYG situation based on the testimony of the shooter and other evidence gathered (like the video).
 
#980
#980
Grand Vol said:
In a way, it is determining guilt. Just that the prosecution has to prove it instead of the defense proving it's not. Basically, the defense in this situation gets to sit back and make the prosecution prove the shooter wasn't in a SYG situation. Not the defense having to prove it was.

Basically, the way I understand it at this point, is I'm involved in a shooting all I have to do is invoke the SYG situation and the police are powerless to charge me at that point unless it's blatantly obvious I had ill intent on my mind. Now, the DA can change that and charge me, but only if they feel they can prove the situation was not specifically a SYG situation based on the testimony of the shooter and other evidence gathered (like the video).
Click to expand...

If it is in fact a way of determining guilt, then the law is saying the defense has to prove guilt twice, which doesn't make sense. I understand a judge dismissing a case when it's clear-cut SYG, but if there is any question at all, the idea that this protection saves the shooter from trial is troubling. I get that they want to safeguard against overzealous prosecution, but if there is any shade of gray in the case, it should be judged by a jury. I believe that this is specifically the point of juries. If we're going to have subjective rulings, 12 heads are better than 1. What is the point of a having jury trials at all if a manslaughter case can be dismissed because the defense can't prove the shooter wasn't reasonably scared.

Is there any other area of the law that requires this much burden of proof to see a jury trial?
 
#981
#981
n_huffhines said:
If it is in fact a way of determining guilt, then the law is saying the defense has to prove guilt twice, which doesn't make sense. I understand a judge dismissing a case when it's clear-cut SYG, but if there is any question at all, the idea that this protection saves the shooter from trial is troubling. I get that they want to safeguard against overzealous prosecution, but if there is any shade of gray in the case, it should be judged by a jury. I believe that this is specifically the point of juries. If we're going to have subjective rulings, 12 heads are better than 1. What is the point of a having jury trials at all if a manslaughter case can be dismissed because the defense can't prove the shooter wasn't reasonably scared.

Is there any other area of the law that requires this much burden of proof to see a jury trial?
Click to expand...

The court of VN every time you post.
 
#982
#982
n_huffhines said:
If it is in fact a way of determining guilt, then the law is saying the defense has to prove guilt twice, which doesn't make sense. I understand a judge dismissing a case when it's clear-cut SYG, but if there is any question at all, the idea that this protection saves the shooter from trial is troubling. I get that they want to safeguard against overzealous prosecution, but if there is any shade of gray in the case, it should be judged by a jury. I believe that this is specifically the point of juries. If we're going to have subjective rulings, 12 heads are better than 1. What is the point of a having jury trials at all if a manslaughter case can be dismissed because the defense can't prove the shooter wasn't reasonably scared.

Is there any other area of the law that requires this much burden of proof to see a jury trial?
Click to expand...

I think there are pros and cons to what Florida did. You take Sheriff Dickface down in Broward County who would probably charge everyone he could because of his extreme anti-2A viewpoints and damn the SYG laws. The law protects people from that as well as not spending time in jail, lawyer fees, etc, etc, etc.

On the other hand you have a situation like this where the shooter likely should have been charged from the get go. The law protects him. However, justice will prevail in this case, so it just took a bit longer to figure out.
 
#984
#984
DancingOutlaw said:
Yes but the original configuration was for the defense to prove something. That is backwards to our standard proceedings.
Click to expand...

The original configuration of what? All laws? When has the defense ever had to prove anything in order to go to trial? Typically, all they have to do is present some evidence to support their suspicions...in other words, all they have to do is prove that the charges are not frivolous.
 
#985
#985
n_huffhines said:
The original configuration of what? All laws? When has the defense ever had to prove anything in order to go to trial? Typically, all they have to do is present some evidence to support their suspicions...in other words, all they have to do is prove that the charges are not frivolous.
Click to expand...
Of the SYG hearing.

Do you have baby brain already?
 
#988
#988
n_huffhines said:
Bottom line is if you're a CC, you take on a lot of responsibility. This isn't some scared homeowner shooting a burglar. He picked a fight and then immediately jumps to "I feared for my life" because he got pushed? That doesn't fly. This is a guy who has a history of looking for a fight. He's demonstrated he's not a responsible gun owner and that he's a hot head on multiple occasions. It's not going to be hard to prove this guy is negligent.

And if they go to civil court? That's a slam dunk.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very important case and important lesson for CC holders out here.
 
#989
#989
n_huffhines said:
But it's not determining guilt, it's just determining whether or not this protection applies.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it goes further. If the protection doesn't apply, then what would stop the prosecution from pursuing murder charges? Challenge the SYG law first, then go for the home run. Kind of how I wonder why prosecutors don't go for civil prosecution first... kind of the practice round, then swing for the fence. Had they done that with OJ, that asshat would be on death row.
 
#992
#992
DancingOutlaw said:
Practice drawing while falling backwards?
Click to expand...
Not the lesson I was thinking about. More along the lines of how to resolve a conflict and avoid arguing. Once he told her not to park there and she gave him some back talk, it was in his hands to continue to argue with a fool or to just carry on about his business. There is no value in trying to get the last word in a street argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top