2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,044
- 52,329
- 2,290
Andrew Branca is a lawyer who specializes in self defense law, he covered the George Zimmerman Trial and called it correctly...... here he is explaining Stand Your Ground Laws, and how CNN got it wrong even when another lawyer explained it to them....
CNN Mangles "Stand-Your-Ground" Law Yet Again
First, āstand-your-groundā is not a legal defense, it merely modifies the legal defense of self-defense by waiving the element of avoidance. There is no such thing as raising the legal defense of āstand-your-ground.ā Thatās a legally non-sensical statement. But letās set that aside and get to the substantive mangling.
Second, the sentence suggests that someone in Florida can claim self-defense for a use of force even when they did not āfear further bodily harm.ā This is untrue. Every state, including Florida, requires a reasonable fear of imminent future harm in order for a use of purportedly defensive force to be deemed lawful.
Third, the sentence references that āPreviously, the shooter ā¦ had to prove ā¦ But no longer.ā This is referencing the burden of proof for a claim of self-defense. It is true that previously a defendant claiming self-defense immunity had the burden of proof on that claim, and that last year the Florida legislature shifted that burden of proof to the prosecutor.
Unstated, however, is that a shift of the burden of proof on self-defense to the prosecution is perfectly normal in American lawā49 of 50 states require that at trial it is the burden of the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (the sole exception is Ohio).
=======================
Actually, cases of self-defense are simpler in states with a āstand your groundā law, all other things being equal, because in those SYG states self-defense must be evaluated on only fourelementsāinnocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonablenessārather than five elementsāthe addition of the element of avoidance.
----
Also, āstand-your-groundā is not āself-defense immunity.ā Indeed, these are not only entirely distinct legal doctrines, theyāre found in entirely distinct Florida statutes: SYG in Ā§776.013 and self-defense immunity in Ā§776.032.
Then CNN helpfully supplies itās own demented definition of what it thinks āstand-your-groundā law is:
Generally, āstand your groundā laws allow people to respond to threats or force without fear of criminal prosecution.
There is no universe in which that is a true statement. There is always a risk of criminal prosecution if you ārespond to threats or forceā with defensive conduct. That risk may be great or it may be slight, but it is never zero.
Most self-defense laws state that a person under threat of physical injury has a āduty to retreat.ā If after retreating the threat continues, the person may respond with force.
This is an abject untruth. A large majority of about 36 states are effectively āstand-your-groundā states in that they do not impose a legal duty to retreat before acting in self-defense.
----
Every state allows people to meet āforce with forceā if they reasonably believe they are under threat of being harmed, and meet the other conditions of self-defense. No state, including Florida, allows people to use defensive force if they subjectively but unreasonably believe they are under threat of being harmed (the best that can be hoped for in such a case is the mitigation of murder to manslaughter).
CNN Mangles "Stand-Your-Ground" Law Yet Again
First, āstand-your-groundā is not a legal defense, it merely modifies the legal defense of self-defense by waiving the element of avoidance. There is no such thing as raising the legal defense of āstand-your-ground.ā Thatās a legally non-sensical statement. But letās set that aside and get to the substantive mangling.
Second, the sentence suggests that someone in Florida can claim self-defense for a use of force even when they did not āfear further bodily harm.ā This is untrue. Every state, including Florida, requires a reasonable fear of imminent future harm in order for a use of purportedly defensive force to be deemed lawful.
Third, the sentence references that āPreviously, the shooter ā¦ had to prove ā¦ But no longer.ā This is referencing the burden of proof for a claim of self-defense. It is true that previously a defendant claiming self-defense immunity had the burden of proof on that claim, and that last year the Florida legislature shifted that burden of proof to the prosecutor.
Unstated, however, is that a shift of the burden of proof on self-defense to the prosecution is perfectly normal in American lawā49 of 50 states require that at trial it is the burden of the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (the sole exception is Ohio).
=======================
Actually, cases of self-defense are simpler in states with a āstand your groundā law, all other things being equal, because in those SYG states self-defense must be evaluated on only fourelementsāinnocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonablenessārather than five elementsāthe addition of the element of avoidance.
----
Also, āstand-your-groundā is not āself-defense immunity.ā Indeed, these are not only entirely distinct legal doctrines, theyāre found in entirely distinct Florida statutes: SYG in Ā§776.013 and self-defense immunity in Ā§776.032.
Then CNN helpfully supplies itās own demented definition of what it thinks āstand-your-groundā law is:
Generally, āstand your groundā laws allow people to respond to threats or force without fear of criminal prosecution.
There is no universe in which that is a true statement. There is always a risk of criminal prosecution if you ārespond to threats or forceā with defensive conduct. That risk may be great or it may be slight, but it is never zero.
Most self-defense laws state that a person under threat of physical injury has a āduty to retreat.ā If after retreating the threat continues, the person may respond with force.
This is an abject untruth. A large majority of about 36 states are effectively āstand-your-groundā states in that they do not impose a legal duty to retreat before acting in self-defense.
----
Every state allows people to meet āforce with forceā if they reasonably believe they are under threat of being harmed, and meet the other conditions of self-defense. No state, including Florida, allows people to use defensive force if they subjectively but unreasonably believe they are under threat of being harmed (the best that can be hoped for in such a case is the mitigation of murder to manslaughter).
