I'm SEETHING!

[Peach]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

Link?

Let’s at least review the reasoning of the majority first. The law doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Peach]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

Link?

Let’s at least review the reasoning of the majority first. The law doesn't exist in a vacuum.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc11-1878.pdf

A Federal District Court struck it down last year, already in the 11th, I believe. Perry's dissent is memorable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

Why isn't the freedom loving left up in arms?

 

[hortysir]

What about possession of large quantities of drugs would presume innocence?

 

[Moonglow]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

Why isn't the freedom loving left up in arms?

ditto with he right

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

Why isn't the freedom loving left up in arms?

ditto with he right

She already mentioned the right. I actively get called an idiot by both sides when I discuss (argue) my views about the laws. I sometimes wonder of people like Peach read the threads they post in, she accuses me of being right wing in the same thread the right wing accuses me of being a lefty.

 

[Moonglow]

Why isn't the freedom loving left up in arms?

ditto with he right

She already mentioned the right. I actively get called an idiot by both sides when I discuss (argue) my views about the laws. I sometimes wonder of people like Peach read the threads they post in, she accuses me of being right wing in the same thread the right wing accuses me of being a lefty.

well good, then all the bases have been covered.

 

[Moonglow]

I am sure the ruling will be struck down when it goes to the US supreme court.

 

[bobcollum]

I thought this was a misplaced parody thread, sorry.

*leaves room*

 

[Liability]

The Florida Supreme Court said, pertinently, referring to its own precedent, "We thus have recognized that generally 't is within the power of the Legislature to declare an act a crime regardless of the intent or knowledge of the violation thereof.' Coleman v. State ex rel. Jackson, 193 So. 84, 86 (Fla. 1939)."

You DO have to know you possess a substance, but the State does not have to prove that you KNEW it was an "illicit" substance (i.e., a controlled substance). However, a defendant can assume a burden (an affirmative defense) and try to show that although he knew he possessed the material, he did NOT know it was an illicit (i.e., controlled) substance.

The Florida Court went ON to cite SCOTUS decisions along the very same lines.

So why is anybody "seething?"

I don't like it, either. But there are legitimate ways of correcting it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Looks like the "I was holding it for the other guy" defense is no longer good.

 

[Peach]

The Florida Supreme Court said, pertinently, referring to its own precedent, "We thus have recognized that generally 't is within the power of the Legislature to declare an act a crime regardless of the intent or knowledge of the violation thereof.' Coleman v. State ex rel. Jackson, 193 So. 84, 86 (Fla. 1939)."

You DO have to know you possess a substance, but the State does not have to prove that you KNEW it was an "illicit" substance (i.e., a controlled substance). However, a defendant can assume a burden (an affirmative defense) and try to show that although he knew he possessed the material, he did NOT know it was an illicit (i.e., controlled) substance.

The Florida Court went ON to cite SCOTUS decisions along the very same lines.

So why is anybody "seething?"

I don't like it, either. But there are legitimate ways of correcting it.

Read the dissent, Perry explains the due process aspects well.

 

[Peach]

Why isn't the freedom loving left up in arms?

ditto with he right

She already mentioned the right. I actively get called an idiot by both sides when I discuss (argue) my views about the laws. I sometimes wonder of people like Peach read the threads they post in, she accuses me of being right wing in the same thread the right wing accuses me of being a lefty.

I have not called you an idiot and occasionally see posts wherein your express a position based on liberty, regardless of the right/left tags.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am sure the ruling will be struck down when it goes to the US supreme court.

Don't bet on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ditto with he right

She already mentioned the right. I actively get called an idiot by both sides when I discuss (argue) my views about the laws. I sometimes wonder of people like Peach read the threads they post in, she accuses me of being right wing in the same thread the right wing accuses me of being a lefty.

I have not called you an idiot and occasionally see posts wherein your express a position based on liberty, regardless of the right/left tags.

If you read my post you will see I did not say you called me an idiot.

 

[Peach]

She already mentioned the right. I actively get called an idiot by both sides when I discuss (argue) my views about the laws. I sometimes wonder of people like Peach read the threads they post in, she accuses me of being right wing in the same thread the right wing accuses me of being a lefty.

I have not called you an idiot and occasionally see posts wherein your express a position based on liberty, regardless of the right/left tags.

If you read my post you will see I did not say you called me an idiot.

You are correct, and I know not your political leanings on all issues. I still believe most Americans are middle of the road, all things considered. And this was a take off on "leaving, heaving, weaving".

 

[hortysir]

and queeving

 

[NLT]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

Do you sell, possess, distribute drugs? why does this put you up in arms ?

 

[Peach]

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a draconian law last week; the law states there is a PRESUMPTION of guilt if an individual possesses, sells, distributes, etc. prohibited drugs. I expected the freedom loving right be up in arms here, but nary a word. STRANGE.

Do you sell, possess, distribute drugs?* why does this put you up in arms ?

The PRESUMPTION INNOCENCE is an integral part of our judicial system and nation; this made the news nationwide. Only "ho hum" here I see, scary.

*Only criminals need worry about the Constitution, GOTCHA.