|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Fla. to Expand Self Defense Immunity
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
While at least 22 states have similar laws that say people can use force --- even deadly force --- to defend themselves from threats, Florida could soon be the only one that spells out that prosecutors have to prove defendants weren't acting in self-defense before taking someone to trial.
That's under a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Rob Bradley, who says his legislation "isn't a novel concept."
"We have a tradition in our criminal justice system that the burden of proof is with the government from the beginning of the case to the end," he said. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/2/2017)
|
"The Progressive Farmer"?
'Nuff said.
If the elements of self-defense are present as indicated by forensic evidence and/or witness testimony, the prosecution should be forced to acknowledge them a priori and the action should be dismissed with prejudice. That's what the whole SYG thing is about.
All the news media portray this as "shifting the burden", but it actually is RESTORING the burden where it belongs, and where it was always intended to be by the law. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
