Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page

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: 'Stand your ground' case clear example why Florida must change law
Submitted by: Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com

There are 4 comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments

The Sartori case, however, is troubling in three ways the Florida Legislature should address:

Judgment: Before acting in self-defense, you should know you are endangered. "Stand your ground" should require the danger to be actual.

Recklessness: A modern, civil societys laws should punish shooters who fire indiscriminately in the direction of alleged danger. If shooters unreasonably endanger the lives of others, a jury should decide their fate.

Burden of proof: In 2017, the Legislature passed a law requiring prosecutors, rather than defendants, to prove shooters did not act appropriately. Given that many "stand your ground" shootings have no witnesses, such a burden is extremely difficult.

Comment by: mickey (6/22/2018)

Translation: Because nobody can prove what really happened, we need to imprison these people when we don't know if they did anything wrong.

Comment by: PP9 (6/22/2018)

Judgment: Before acting in self-defense, you should know you are endangered. "Stand your ground" should require the danger to be actual."

So if someone points an unloaded gun at you and you shoot him, then you're in trouble because the danger was not actual? There's a reason the law is written the way it is. There's no way to know for sure that the danger is actual until it causes you harm. Don't be stupid.

Comment by: PP9 (6/22/2018)

"Burden of proof: In 2017, the Legislature passed a law requiring prosecutors, rather than defendants, to prove shooters did not act appropriately. Given that many "stand your ground" shootings have no witnesses, such a burden is extremely difficult."

Yes, we call that "innocent until proven guilty." It's kind of a thing here in the US.

Of course the burden is on the prosecution. The real question is why it took a law restating the same principle that is already enshrined in the Constitution.

Comment by: MarkHamTownsend (6/22/2018)

What about the "reasonable person" doctrine? The idea being "what a reasonable person" would believe if he were in the similar position.
Usually if a person can express a reasonable belief that he was in mortal danger, like say an assailant is aiming a gun at him, and has acted violently and aggressively, providing good reason for the victim to actually fear for his life, so he fires, that is considered reasonable. If the ACTUAL FACT is (as found out by later police investigation) the criminal's gun was empty, or a realistic BB gun, then the victim's fear is still reasonable, even though in actual fact he was not in real danger, because the victim could not have been expected to know the gun could not kill him.