|
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 |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|