Posted on 05/06/2017 6:58:16 AM PDT by rstrahan
The legislature of Florida, following numerous complaints of over-zealous prosecutors, has changed the controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law. Now, instead of an individual having to prove he had the right to use force in self-defense, the prosecution now has the burden of proof that the individual DIDN'T have the right of self-defense. Going to the governor's desk, expected to be signed.
“Yep. They are telling a story now, of how Travyon dreamed of being a pilot. Who knew???”
Yeh,Right ! Someone heard him say “he was flying high” and zap! He wanted to be a pilot....
“I’m hearing St. Trayvon got a posthumous degree from some college now.”
Still ain’t gonna get him a job.
What next, a posthumous Nobel Prize?
After the Trayvon Martin fiasco (I realize they never used the “Stand Your Ground” defense) It helps keep Judges in line by zooming in on a specific area to keep their personal opinions and public pressure out of the courtroom.
Some terms just need to be spelled out and handled in a different way for the libidiots!
“He was just turning his life around”
I seem to always be dealing with a prejudice against lawyers. I have this preconceived notion that they spend three years in classes learning how to distort and ignore our Constitution and English Common Law. Every time I think I am being released from this affection, I encounter an article like this and spiral downward again.
Winning!
If the Son has been shining down on you all day it doesn’t matter so much if the sun has been beating down on you all day.
The burden on the prosecutor instead of the defendant is a huge change. You are going from a disadvantaged starting point of having to prove you are not guilty, versus you starting from an assumed position of innocence, and the prosecutor having to prove you are guilty.
This has no impact on the trial. It only impacts pre-trial hearing.
Okay, but if they cannot prove it, it may mean they do not go to trial in the first place, and waste pubic funds prosecuting a case they lose. They generally dont go to trial with cases they have a real risk of losing.
+ 1
The red neck is a sign of honor.
And somebody needs to explain how this would not carry over into what the jury (if that kind of trial) is expected to determine. “Did the state show something” is different from did the defendant fail to show something.
All i know is its better to start out with a presumption of innocent until proven guilty, instead of assumed guilty and forced to prove innocence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.