Affirmative defenses are affirmative defenses. WIthout them you would be guilty of homicide regardless of the circumstances.
the ruling is incorrect, because it is the legislature, and only the legislature, that has the authority to craft laws. If the legislature determines that the burden of proof rests on the state, that is indeed their authority, and it is not for a judge to say it is incorrect.
I don't see based on your statement that would change what already exists that is the root of the ruling since "justified" still takes you back to "fear" which only the accused can testify to. Stand your ground doesn't just apply to your own property though and it doesn't apply just to intruders into your home. I think that the intruder coming through your window is a little different anyway as that is more castle doctrine. I seem to recall some case in a different state in which a man killed an Alzheimer's patient wondering around after dark on his property who wasn't charged under that state's stand your ground even though he wasn't even in the man's house.
LOL you go with that 214 year old failed argument if you want. This court didn't craft anything. It said the law was unconstitutional.
the court in this case stated the law was unconstitutional, because the legislature put the burden of proof on the state rather than on the defendant. In every other case of suspected criminal activity, the burden of proof is always on the state to demonstrate that the defendant is guilty, not the defendant to demonstrate that they are innocent. There is no legitimate reason the same standard should not apply pertaining to self defense.
The shoe is on the other foot...a number of states, such as Utah have allow teachers to carry for sometime... how many teachers have blasted away at anything and injured children? I have yet to see you share a rational arguement...you start with a bias and then rationalize your position. I am far from hysterical, but believe people should be able to excersize their right to self defense and not be a victim to suit the left's anti gun avenda. You can pursue your agenda if you like...I very much doubt you will find converts here and the more your write then more you rei gun owner views of the antis agenda. So, by all means, continue on.
I dont like the argument either way. Just because 1 teacher kills one killed or alternatively. 1 teachers stop 1 perpetrator from killing one kid. Or in this case, it may never have happened either way, should be carrying the day. If there was a weight of occurrences of one side of the coin happening a shitload more then the other, then maybe the argument has more strength. That said, I am glad to live in a place where teachers do not carry weapons and if they did, they would be very quickly gone. When people refer to the "left" to give strength to there argument, it actually weakens there argument in the same manner as someone who tries to refer to the "right" in a derogatary fashion to strengthen there argument weakens theres.
Obviously what you and I consider rational differ; that being said, I'm not looking for converts; just looking to express my opinion regardless of whether or not it's accepted in here. As far as I'm concerned, I've achieved that goal.
You really should read up on affirmative defenses before you continue with such erroneous assertions. All the state has to do is prove the defendant shot someone. After that it is up to the accused to demonstrate that their liability is negated.
Pray tell what relevance does your post have with regard to the above? What does it do to address the fact that the judge in this case made an erroneous ruling, by suggesting that the legislature for the state of Florida is devoid of any authority to determine that the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate that a defendant did not act in self defense? It is the legislature that determines whether or not a specific act constitutes a crime, not the judges who hear the case after the fact when the law is employed.
Florida’s law appears to change the elements of murder to add the absence of self-defense. This makes self-defense an issue whether it was raised or not, and it looks like there has to be some pretrial hearing to show probable cause that self-defense was not involved before the state can bring a man to trial. Neither before nor after this law was there ever any unconstitutional burden shifting to the defendant to prove self-defense. If this statute had done so, then it would have violated the federal constitution. This looks like a separation of powers issue as defined by the Florida constitution. The Court appears to have ruled that the judiciary has the sole power to decide whether a pretrial bar to a prosecution can be imposed upon the executive branch, and it is ruling that it alone has the power to make this change. I have no idea about the intricacies of the Florida constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. What I do know is since the law does not shift the burden of proof onto the defendant then it does not violate his rights. Self-defense is always an “affirmative” defense (absent a legislative change like this). But it is important to understand that calling it an affirmative defense does not impose any particular burden of proof on the defendant. All crimes are defined by their elements, or what facts are required to be proven to meet them. Murder has many subsets, but the typical elements are 1. An intentional killing, and 2. With malice. Malice is defined as the intentional doing of a wrongful act to another without legal excuse or justification at a time when the person’s mind is under the control of reason. Anger, hatred, revenge, etc. are typical motivations for malice. As I said earlier, the absence of self-defense is not one of the elements of murder. That is, unless the legislature changes the law to make it so, the state is not required to prove the absence of self-defense, and no jury instruction allowing for an acquittal because of self-defense is allowed—until the defendant chooses to make it an issue. This is what we mean when we say it is an affirmative defense. That is, you must first claim it, and second you must be able to point to some fact or facts that says it was self-defense. But this is not burden shifting. Follow me now—for here is where your gun hating media pundit gets it wrong. In a high profile case he or she will criticize the jury for acquitting a man whom the pundit believes did not actually prove his self-defense claim. He or she forgets that the bedrock principle of our system of justice is that you are always presumed innocent. The state is the only party that bears the burden of proof. And it always—always bears the burden of overcoming this presumption of innocence by proving each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. A claim of self-defense is an implicit admission of the truth of the first element of the offense of murder—that the killing was intentional. Self–defense then seeks to cast reasonable doubt on whether the killing was done with malice by asserting a justification for the killing. But you don’t have any burden of proving it was done in self-defense. If you can, then well and good and you are acquitted. But all you need is reasonable doubt, and if the evidence is such that a juror says “I can’t say whether it was self-defense or not” then the defendant must be found not guilty. It is only if the state proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant can be found guilty. I know nothing done by the hand of man is perfect, but this is how it is supposed to work.
