RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Gibbs writes: "Last month, Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) signed a controversial update to the 'Stand Your Ground' law, which put the full impetus on prosecutors to disprove a self-defense claim during a pre-trial hearing."

In this September 13, 2016 file photo, George Zimmerman looks at the jury as he testifies in a Seminole County courtroom in Orlando, Florida. (photo: Red Huber/Orlando Sentinel/AP)
In this September 13, 2016 file photo, George Zimmerman looks at the jury as he testifies in a Seminole County courtroom in Orlando, Florida. (photo: Red Huber/Orlando Sentinel/AP)


Court Rules Florida's New Stand-Your-Ground Law Is Unconstitutional

By Lindsay Gibbs, ThinkProgress

04 July 17


A major defeat for the NRA.

ast month, Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) signed a controversial update to the “Stand Your Ground” law, which put the full impetus on prosecutors to disprove a self-defense claim during a pre-trial hearing.

The updated legislation was supported and promoted by the National Rifle Association, who said that it was merely a clarification on the true intent of the “Stand Your Ground” law when it was enacted in 2005. Previously, it was up to defendants to prove that they used force in self defense.

But on Monday, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that the update was unconstitutional, because of the process used to update the law — it should have been done through the Supreme Court, not the legislature according to Florida’s constitution.

“As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote.

The “Stand Your Ground” law has been controversial since it was first passed. It was central to the jury’s not-guilty verdict in the case of George Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watchman who was acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager who Zimmerman shot and killed in 2012.

The ruling by Hirsch is considered a victory for prosecutors and gun control advocates, who believe that the updated law Scott signed last month forced prosecutors to essentially try the case twice, once at the pre-trial hearing and then again during the trial. The law requires prosecutors to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense by showing “clear and convincing” evidence.

The ruling is based on two cases in Hirsch’s court — that of Liletha Rutherford, a woman who pulled a gun on a couple during an argument and is now accused of aggravated assault; and the case of Omar Rodriguez, who shot and killed a neighbor after an argument over dog poop.

Both trials will continue, but Rutherford and Rodriguez will have to prove that they used force in self defense.

Hirsch’s ruling is expected to be challenged in appellate courts and will likely head to the Florida Supreme Court.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+3 # economagic 2017-07-05 06:17
". . . the “Stand Your Ground” law, which put the full impetus on prosecutors . . ."

It did no such thing. An "impetus" is a push. What the revised law put on prosecutors was the "onus," or burden.

Nitpicking? Hardly. Words have meaning, and persons writing to inform the public (journalists) who misuse words to that degree misinform. The NRA is actually a "which" rather than a "who," but that usage has become so common as to be acceptable.

The story is otherwise informative, although some elaboration on the point that the law will be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court, as Judge Hirsch said, would have been appropriate, since that court has some history related to this issue.

I have written about this before. Timothy Snyder's 9th Lesson "On Tyranny" for resisting that phenomenon is "Be kind to our language." It is a critical factor, as Orwell pointed out some 70 years ago. One learns to write well by reading good writing, which a degree in journalism--muc h less one in "communication" --does not assure.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2017-07-05 16:44
Isn't George Zimmerman a testament to the patience of the black community?

If he'd killed a cop and got off, does anybody think he'd be alive today?
 
 
+3 # Femihumanist 2017-07-05 20:19
I wonder if the prosecutors would put the same onus on Black people who stand their ground as on white people.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN