Sometimes, Florida gets it right!
 

Reports are coming from reliable 2A sources that Fl. Gov. Rick S cott has signed bill SB-128 into law, today. This bill shifts the "burden of proof" in cases involving a HD/SD use of force (including deadly force) from the defense, to the prosecution, where the original law intended it to be.

In FL, If a person involved in a HD/SD use of force and/or deadly force claims that use was "justifiable" under FL's "justifiable use of force" laws, they have the option of a pre-trial hearing to resolve the matter. If the pre-trial result is that the use was justified (or it's declared justified by LE without a hearing), the shooter is then immune from any further legal action (either criminal or civil) in re: that particular incident. However, due to case law and judiciary procedures, the burden of proof (that the use of force was justified) has fallen on the defense. With the signing of this bill, the burden of proof shifts back to the State or prosecution.... HOWEVER, with a "reduced" standard of "clear and convincing evidence..." not the more difficult "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It's more than "preponderance of the evidence" std (51%) but less than "reasonable doubt" (about 90+%). Still, it's the best pro 2A thing we got this year from the legislature, so we'll take it.

nanner

That is awesome! More reason to move down there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Way to go Fl....

Winner winner chicken dinner

Well, we ain't totally out of the woods, just yet.

Bill SB-1052 is still on the Gov's desk AFAIK. This is the bill that alters Florida Statute 776.013. Supposedly, it corrects a "scrivener error" that, inadvertently requires a person in a dwelling or residence or "occupied vehicle" to be "under attack" before they "do not have a duty to retreat and may stand their ground..." etc. etc. The correction fixes that error by stating that "A person in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be does not have a duty to retreat and may stand their ground..." However, notice that the words "occupied vehicle" have been removed!

The concern is that by doing this, that a "duty to retreat" when in one's occupied vehicle has been restored. Some argue that FS 776.012 (which is still in tact) will protect us in places other than our residence or dwelling.

But let's just say, I don't want to be the test case. :eek:

In other news, the administration has determined Yankees moving to Florida are considered an imminent threat to the lives of Floridians and therefore justifiable use of force is authorized for self defense...


:p

Update: Gov. S cott, reportedly, also signed SB-1052. So we'll see how that plays out in the courts...

http://www.floridashootersnetwork.co...es/popcorn.gif

our Yankees here are good Yankees. The rest are damn yankees

The biggest problems with SB128 is the "clear and convincing" standard the prosecution needs to prove for the use of force to be not justifiable. This means it's easier for prosecutors to prove this in pre-trial hearings than "beyond a reasonable doubt" at trial, so I feel they still have an edge. Biggest issue is that if you lose a pre trial hearing, you're more than likely to be convicted for the use of force at trial. I believe this is going to result in the lot of SD cases no opting for pre trial hearing and going straight to trial where the burden is higher on the prosecutors (beyond a reasonable doubt), but the cost of a trial to a defendant is astronomical.

It would appear that Marrion Hammer and the folks over at Florida Carry are OK with that reduction in the burden of proof standard. I once read where they are likening it to a curfew of 12mindight, vs 2AM.

I guess we'll have to await the courts and see what happens, just as we'll have to wait in re: SB-1052, which Gov. S cott also signed. I hope we don't have to start retreating in our vehicles!!!

We'll have to see what happens. But I hate to have to wait for test cases for the law to have some clarity. It should be clear from the moment the statute gets enacted as law.

About having to retreat in one's vehicle, hell no I'm willing to be the test case. If someone is willing to break my window then I'll assume they have all the intention of harming me and my loved ones. I'll use all the necessary force, up to deadly force to protect myself and my family.

Agreed. And I surely wouldn't want to be one of those test cases, either! :eek:

I think they want you to try and flee the scene in your vehicle before you have to use force/deadly force. That's a bit risky, especially if the BG is shooting at you or shooting the tires out to disable the vehicle.

I think this whole "duty to retreat" in a vehicle thing is about the Michael Dunn case.