Can you source this? The articles I have read say that the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" - that is 50%+1.
You’re right, he’s wrong. ;-)
Another little item rarely reported is that the Stand Your Ground law provides that a person acting in self-defense is accorded immunity from arrest, prosecution or civil liability. That’s immunity not just a presumption at trial.
Thus its the state that has the burden of preponderance of the evidence at a motion to dismiss and at trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” to overcome the defendant’s immunity.
To arrest however all they need is probable cause to believe that self-defense aspects do not apply eg bad guy was the aggressor, had no fear for life or limb, etc.
There will be a motion to dismiss because its a free “shot” at dismissal - worst case you go to trial maybe after an appeal or two and the news has long moved on to the next “outrage”.
Just so you know. ;-)
A common misperception of the public and unfortunately many conservatives in particular is that there is a black and white statute someplace that covers everything. That is wrong.
The Florida trial court will accept the clear and convincing burden and deny the motion.
On the other hand should the court go for a preponderance standard the motion will still be denied but it will telegraph the courts predisposition to yield to public pressure in this matter.