Home Off Topic

FLorida Stand Your Ground Law Being Challenged

Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,752 AG
The League of Prosecutors in Florida is questioning whether or not the stand your ground is constitutional. 

A South Florida organization of prosecutors that includes Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle is telling the Florida Supreme Court that the latest version of the state’s controversial "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law is unconstitutional.

The League of Prosecutors, in newly filed court documents, asked justices to strike down the law because it unlawfully forces state attorneys to try cases involving self-defense claims before a judge, not a jury. "There is nothing specialized or unique about this defense that the common juror cannot understand," according to the brief filed late Friday.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Florida-s-Stand-Your-Ground-law-is-unconstitutional-Miami-s-top-prosecutor-tells-high-court_173107373
Vote for the other candidate

Replies

  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,033 Admiral
    I hope they consider the make up of the supreme Court in that line of questioning
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,602 AG
    Good luck :trollface:

    Captain Todd Approves

  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,129 Admiral
    I hope they consider the make up of the supreme Court in that line of questioning
    State rights
    amirite
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,685 AG
    How does it violate the constitution? 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,752 AG
    cadman said:
    How does it violate the constitution? 
    Think jury of your peers.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,685 AG
    edited October 2018 #7
    Mister-Jr said:
    cadman said:
    How does it violate the constitution? 
    Think jury of your peers.
    How does it violate the 6th amendment? The accused still has the right of a jury of his peers if the judge says 
    stand your ground does not apply. The judge ruling on stand your ground is an advantage for the accused since the judge will be more likely to base it on facts and apply the law to the situation. 

    I would be Interested in hearing Florida Bulldogs opinion of this challenge, 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,752 AG
    Did you read the article?  Are you a lawyer?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • 1outlaw1outlaw Naples FLPosts: 1,419 Officer
    Mister-Jr said:
    Did you read the article?  Are you a lawyer?
    I did and am interested in hearing Bull frog just as Cad is. He is a lawyer after all!
    Jason :USA
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,402 Admiral
    edited October 2018 #10
    The accused has a right to be tried in front of jury, but doesn't mean they have to.  Also doesn't the stand your ground ruling just decide if the case goes to court, which would be in front of a jury, it doesn't actually decide guilt.  So I am not seeing the problem here.  Unless I am missing something stand your ground is just screening process, it isn't an actual guilt/not guilty court case.  So the 5th doesn't apply.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,685 AG
    edited October 2018 #11
    Mister-Jr said:
    Did you read the article?  Are you a lawyer?
    You know i am not a lawyer, which is why i asked about a lawyers opinion. I did read the article and I know what the 6th amendment says. I do not read anything in the 6th amendment that says the State has a right to a jury trial, It says the accused has a right to trial by jury.

    I know the recent changes made were a bad solution to a problem and the legislature needs to address and fix it, but I don't see how it violates the constitution and according to the article at least one court agreed with me that the law was constitutional. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,752 AG
    I think Michael Drejka should have been required to defend his actions rather than not being charged due to stand your ground law.

    Your opinions may vary.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,402 Admiral
    edited October 2018 #13
    Mister-Jr said:
    I think Michael Drejka should have been required to defend his actions rather than not being charged due to stand your ground law.

    Your opinions may vary.
    But that is neither here nor there.  The right to a trial by jury is for the actual trial (and applies to the defendant, not the lawyer).  It doesn't apply (to my knowledge) to a grand jury.  A grand jury decides if there is enough evidence to go to trial (like a preliminary hearing?), and stand your ground is essentially a grand jury like process.  So regardless of your feelings, there is nothing unconstitutional to see here.  The stand your ground isn't a trial, it is a preliminary "is there enough evidence for a trial" proceeding.    

    *those who know the law better than I, feel free to correct my statement if I misunderstand something*


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,685 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    I think Michael Drejka should have been required to defend his actions rather than not being charged due to stand your ground law.

    Your opinions may vary.
    He was charged with manslaughter. What are you talking about?

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • stc1993stc1993 Albany, GA Carrabelle, FLPosts: 7,551 Admiral
    1outlaw said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    Did you read the article?  Are you a lawyer?
    I did and am interested in hearing Bull frog just as Cad is. He is a lawyer after all!
    A prosecutor at that.
  • Florida BullfrogFlorida Bullfrog Posts: 3,465 Captain
    The article really doesn't tell me anything, and if what little bit it implies is accurate, that's a losing argument. However, reporters often get the law and legal arguments wrong and the way it was summarized might not actually reflect what's being argued.

    I believe there is a serious state constitutional issue with the newest version of Stand-Your-Ground. The Legislature is allowed to write substantive law but is not allowed to dictate legal procedure to the Judiciary. For example, the Legislature gets to say that its illegal to sell firecrackers and the punishment shall be 1 year in jail. But only the judiciary gets to decide how firecracker cases are tried in the courtroom and who has to prove what. When the Legislature shifted the burden to the State for the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, the Legislature was dictating courtroom procedure to the Courts. The Courts have always held that immunity hearings of any sort require a showing by the Defendant that the State then has to rebut. By changing the law, the Legislature said they can overrule the courts concerning how immunity works. I predicted months ago, and still predict, that Stand Your Ground's new provision will be overturned based on it being a procedural matter the Legislature improperly interjected itself into. 
  • Florida BullfrogFlorida Bullfrog Posts: 3,465 Captain
    BTW, I've never heard of the League of Prosecutors. The organization we're all officially apart of is the FPAA. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,402 Admiral
    cadman said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    I think Michael Drejka should have been required to defend his actions rather than not being charged due to stand your ground law.

    Your opinions may vary.
    He was charged with manslaughter. What are you talking about?
    I had the same question.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 5,982 Admiral
    . However, reporters often get the law and legal arguments wrong and the way it was summarized might not actually reflect what's being argued.

    Do you think that is accidental?
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,752 AG
    The article really doesn't tell me anything, and if what little bit it implies is accurate, that's a losing argument. However, reporters often get the law and legal arguments wrong and the way it was summarized might not actually reflect what's being argued.

    I believe there is a serious state constitutional issue with the newest version of Stand-Your-Ground. The Legislature is allowed to write substantive law but is not allowed to dictate legal procedure to the Judiciary. For example, the Legislature gets to say that its illegal to sell firecrackers and the punishment shall be 1 year in jail. But only the judiciary gets to decide how firecracker cases are tried in the courtroom and who has to prove what. When the Legislature shifted the burden to the State for the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, the Legislature was dictating courtroom procedure to the Courts. The Courts have always held that immunity hearings of any sort require a showing by the Defendant that the State then has to rebut. By changing the law, the Legislature said they can overrule the courts concerning how immunity works. I predicted months ago, and still predict, that Stand Your Ground's new provision will be overturned based on it being a procedural matter the Legislature improperly interjected itself into. 

    Thank you for your input.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • Florida BullfrogFlorida Bullfrog Posts: 3,465 Captain
    surfman said:
    . However, reporters often get the law and legal arguments wrong and the way it was summarized might not actually reflect what's being argued.

    Do you think that is accidental?
    Often yes. Legal arguments are often so nuisanced that they don’t boil down into soundbites very well. 

    I have dealt with at least one reporter with an axe to grind who likely purposely misreported facts. But more often I’ve seen reporters just not understand what they’re reporting. 9/10ths of law school is learning to think like an attorney and most of that is learning how to analyize and argue in the terms of a legal logic puzzle. Even very intelligent people without the proper training can have a hard time with legal discernment, and even somewhat unintellegent people can do it once they’re shown how. 
Sign In or Register to comment.