Posted on 07/03/2017 10:44:16 AM PDT by rarestia
Reading the entire decision, it seems clear to me the judge really hates the whole idea of “stand your ground”, and he spent a LOT of time in his decision talking about why he is opposed to it.
But it is true that the operative part of his finding was about the procedural issue. The rest of it is, I presume, his hope that some other judge will take his work and use it to fight the entire notion of “stand your ground”.
As a primer, it was actually an interesting read. The judge does a good job of covering the basics of “stand your ground” as the “Castle Doctrine”, and in my opinion falls flat when he fails to explain WHY it is such a “good” thing that you should flee and avoid harming someone when standing on a sidewalk, but completely cool to shoot the same person if you are standing in your foyer.
In other words, if the law really cared about “fleeing” as the better choice, whenever it is “feasible”, the fact that you have “shelter” in your home really doesn’t change that; nor does the judge explain why people shouldn’t feel shelter in their car, in their place of employment, in a supermarket, or frankly while sitting on a park bench.
The courts should make law and not the legislature? Did I get that right?
Methinks you misunderstand me, and you should retract your last comment.
Marbury v. Madision is the very genesis of Judicial activism, because "Judicial Review" was invented by the Supreme Court from whole cloth.
In other words, the Constitution does not have "Judicial Review" as an enumerated power.
And thus the power grab the Supreme Court was ALLOWED to take in 1803 has lead to the tyranny from the bench we have today.
TYRANT
Should be arrested NOW and made an example of.
He’s a circuit court judge, so more than likely he was elected by the voters of Miami-Dade county.
Betcha he’s got armed security and probably lives in a gated community with security.
if you mean the Florida Supreme Court, that is obvious. OTOH you might have a case to take to SCOTUS:A judge announcing that he is a law maker isn’t exactly participating in a republican form of government . . .
- Article 4 Section 4:
- The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Doesn’t that contradict the US constitution though, WRT presumed innocence?
No. Self defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of murder. The trick is to get prosecutors to not charge people who have used deadly force with justification. Some prosecutors drag people through the mud to score political points - see prosecution of George Zimmerman. One way to correct this is to jigger the burdens of proof.
Ohio has the WORST self-defense arrangement in law. Burden is on defendant to prove it. Not so elsewhere, where generally it is up to the prosecutor to disprove it, beyond a reasonable doubt.
“What is the legislative branch supposed to do?”
Stand and enthusiastically applaud the judges, or be carted off to a labor camp for socialist re-education!!!/s;)
Oh my God, do we have judges so ignorant they don’t know Legislators legislate? No, I think they know full well. They are clearly treasonous traitors.
Can Gov. Scott have this judge removed, or subject him to a mental screening, or something?
Who, WHO, WHO will be the one to FINALLY put them in their place and restore our Republic?
What a freak show USA judges have become. I am fully able to read USConstitution, and I don’t see anywhere therein anything related to not being able to Stand Your Ground.
Many, many judges need to be fired; or tarred and feathered. Black robed freaks.
My first thought would be to remind the judge that he rules on law, not to create, “craft” (what a horseshit word in this case) law. That is the responsibility of the legislature.
Judge Hirsch? Wasn’t he the comedian who played a cab driver on that show with Louie and Latka? He’s playing judges now?
No need to appeal...Just ignore them...
Defendant is stuck with the procedure the court asserts is proper. In other words, defendant doesn't get to choose between the statute and the court. The court made the pick how things would be handled in its courtroom, in this case.
The Florida Supreme Court doesn't MAKE laws! Well, at least they're not supposed to. This judge needs to be removed immediately because of his pure ignorance!
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.