But on Monday, two years after the incident, Siskos' public defender told a judge her client had killed Kasbach in self defense. In fact, the attorney argued, Siskos shouldn't even face trial because he had done nothing more that night than stand his ground.
Judges can take days to rule on "stand your ground" motions. In Monday's hearing, which lasted eight hours and included 10 witnesses, Judge Daniel Merritt Jr. decided in just 45 minutes to deny the defense's motion that Siskos, 42, should be immune from prosecution.
Then the law worked as intended. The article goes on to complain about "court costs," but isn't it worth the price of not sending an innocent man to jail?
To the Tampa Bay Times (formerly St. Petersburg Times), no.
I had a liberal aquaintence argue this kind of case to me. Saying how people can just up and kill people without any cause and then claim self defense. I asked for any instances of this. He had none (of course). Pointed out a few cases (which then turned out that the SYG defense was denied). Liberals love making up circumstances and fats. It's their MO.
The expense argument is a particularly odd one.
Apparently the paper believes the state saves money by having a full-blown trial rather than a single-day hearing.
It is also very odd to claim that a law should be repealed because defense attorneys attempt to use it where it doesn’t apply, unsuccessfully in this case. That’s what defense attorneys do. In fact, it’s what they’re supposed to do.
Did you notice the attempt to claim self-defense because the shooter’s perception was damaged by past trauma? I suspect that’s another misapplication. Surely when the law says “reasonably believes” it refers to a rational person, not a delusional one, whose beliefs are by definition not reasonable.