Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.
Sure, but why play night stalker?
I dunno. It's not the best idea. But as somebody who was just robbed for thousands upon thousands of dollars I can understand what might lead somebody to it.
I certainly do not buy that. I've had that experience, and also having a car stolen, having a parked broken into, having a parked car totaled, and just stuff - all kinds of stuff lost to thieves. And I guess this could be the part where I say "and I didn't start night stalking," but aren't all these things that most adults experience at some point? I think they are. I'm not special. Loss of property is universal.
Living in a neighborhood where some houses were broken into makes a person a citizen of the United States; if that was a primary motivator, we'd all be packing heat, driving around looking to catch some shady characters.
I certainly do not buy that. I've had that experience, and also having a car stolen, having a parked broken into, having a parked car totaled, and just stuff - all kinds of stuff lost to thieves. And I guess this could be the part where I say "and I didn't start night stalking," but aren't all these things that most adults experience at some point? I think they are. I'm not special. Loss of property is universal.
Living in a neighborhood where some houses were broken into makes a person a citizen of the United States; if that was a primary motivator, we'd all be packing heat, driving around looking to catch some shady characters.
Some neighborhoods really are worse than others. And sometimes these things happen in waves. We had multiple break-ins over a short period of time on our street. Other neighborhoods may have no break-ins in a year.
The main problem with my neighborhood is that all the sketchy-ass people who you'd want to follow to see what they're up to live there.
EDIT: Also, keeping eyes on somebody increases the chance of catching them, or deterring them. If I thought I saw somebody looking to break into a house, I might try to do so. But obviously I'd consider avoiding an actual confrontation to be a top priority, and I don't carry.
It's also kind of irrelevant to the case. Following someone you're suspicious of while waiting for the police is not a crime.
I'll leave the particulars of the case to the jury to decide (just like I do all other crimes), and I don't think a little tangent about what could motivate people to carry and actively patrol looking for criminals is too much of a stretch for this thread.
It's also kind of irrelevant to the case. Following someone you're suspicious of while waiting for the police is not a crime.
I'll leave the particulars of the case to the jury to decide (just like I do all other crimes), and I don't think a little tangent about what could motivate people to carry and actively patrol looking for criminals is too much of a stretch for this thread.
I'll just point out, as has been repeatedly mentioned, that his choice to carry and choice to patrol may be independent.
It's also kind of irrelevant to the case. Following someone you're suspicious of while waiting for the police is not a crime.
I'll leave the particulars of the case to the jury to decide (just like I do all other crimes), and I don't think a little tangent about what could motivate people to carry and actively patrol looking for criminals is too much of a stretch for this thread.
Oh well in that case the last time I had anything stolen from me was over twenty years ago and I barely remember it. Were my house to be broken in to now I'd probably be freaking the fuck out for years on end given my imagination and my wife even more so. Also our neighborhood has a neighborhood watch that actively patrols as well.
It's also kind of irrelevant to the case. Following someone you're suspicious of while waiting for the police is not a crime.
I'll leave the particulars of the case to the jury to decide (just like I do all other crimes), and I don't think a little tangent about what could motivate people to carry and actively patrol looking for criminals is too much of a stretch for this thread.
I'll just point out, as has been repeatedly mentioned, that his choice to carry and choice to patrol may be independent.
Considering the 39 previous calls to the cops? Considering the fact that Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer?
It's also kind of irrelevant to the case. Following someone you're suspicious of while waiting for the police is not a crime.
I'll leave the particulars of the case to the jury to decide (just like I do all other crimes), and I don't think a little tangent about what could motivate people to carry and actively patrol looking for criminals is too much of a stretch for this thread.
I'll just point out, as has been repeatedly mentioned, that his choice to carry and choice to patrol may be independent.
There are a lot of things we can say about what is normal for people to do. As I said before, where I grew up, where burglaries and trespassing were a thing but not a huge thing, it was considered normal for homeowners to "stalk" and approach and question teenagers on foot in the neighborhood.
I don't know everything that happened, but what would have been "normal" to me would be...
Martin: Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: What are you doing here?
Martin: I'm staying with a family friend on ___ street, why?
Zimmerman: I'm just patrolling the neighborhood, we have somewhat of a crime problem. Sorry to bother you, let me know if you see anything suspicious.
Because that was normal for me when I was a teenager. Somehow a fight a started between statements 2 and 3 above, though.
However, I do not think it is normal or ethical for Zimmerman to have (allegedly) approached Martin to question him while carrying a gun. If were to find out that any of the adults who questioned me in my neighborhood when I was a teen were in fact carrying a gun when they approached me, I would be furious and would want to figure out a way to prevent them from ever approaching a teen again while carrying a gun.
I don't think its normal for one man to take an undesignated position of authority of a neighborhood and patrol it while armed. Nor is it normal to assume authority over random people, or that random people must answer to that one man.
Since were talking anecdotes, I lived one block from the roughest neighborhood growing up. It was so bad that one year the police cleared all trees, brush, and fences from the projects because they kept losing suspects in a chase. At the other end of the street was a convenience store and we saw black people of various ages walking down our street all the time at all hours.
Not once did anyone, ever, follow these people to "make sure they aren't doing anything illegal". Because that's racist as fuck and asking for trouble. The few times we were legitimately worried, we called the police and stayed in the house.
This is Mississippi. In the 1980s. A time and place where, had this incident occurred, Zimmerman would have easily gotten away with it.
There are a lot of things we can say about what is normal for people to do. As I said before, where I grew up, where burglaries and trespassing were a thing but not a huge thing, it was considered normal for homeowners to "stalk" and approach and question teenagers on foot in the neighborhood.
I don't know everything that happened, but what would have been "normal" to me would be...
Martin: Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: What are you doing here?
Martin: I'm staying with a family friend on ___ street, why?
Zimmerman: I'm just patrolling the neighborhood, we have somewhat of a crime problem. Sorry to bother you, let me know if you see anything suspicious.
Because that was normal for me when I was a teenager. Somehow a fight a started between statements 2 and 3 above, though.
However, I do not think it is normal or ethical for Zimmerman to have (allegedly) approached Martin to question him while carrying a gun. If were to find out that any of the adults who questioned me in my neighborhood when I was a teen were in fact carrying a gun when they approached me, I would be furious and would want to figure out a way to prevent them from ever approaching a teen again while carrying a gun.
Questioning suspicious people is normal, but doing so while carrying concealed is not normal and unethical?
Expanding on your personal scenario lets assume this:
One of the adults in your neighborhood felt the need to carry concealed (say he runs a business that deals in a lot of cash, and is worried about being robbed)
Every morning he puts on his gun when he gets dressed. Unless he goes somewhere he is not allowed to carry, he keeps it on him until he goes to bed.
In the evening when he is home he walks around the neighborhood a few times. If he meets someone he doesn't recognize he walks up to them, and initiates a conversation typically:
Excuse me.
How are you doing?
Haven't seen you before, do you live here?
OK, nice to meet you.
His only reason for doing so is because he is trying to be proactive in preventing burglaries in his neighborhood. The idea is that a potential burglar that is looking for a target will go to another neighborhood. One where he hasn't been noticed by a resident while casing the area.
In this situation you feel that his actions are unethical? However, if before he patrols the neighborhood he takes off his gun, his actions are ethical?
I realize everyone has their own idea of what is ethical and what isn't. Personally I feel that the approach has more influence on what is ethical than whether there is a gun. To show what I mean if you change the greeting to, "What are you doing in my neighborhood, (insert preferred derogatory term)?"
The thing is that Zimmerman thought he already knew exactly what type of person he was confronting. I doubt he went in politely after already assuming the worst about Martin.
The thing is that Zimmerman thought he already knew exactly what type of person he was confronting. I doubt he went in politely after already assuming the worst about Martin.
I didn't mean to imply this to Zimmerman and Martin. I think the girlfriend's:
Why are you following me?
What are you doing here?
To be a likely possibility as far as the initial exchange. I was mostly referring to the ethics of approaching someone with a gun, and giving a scenario to demonstrate.
Questioning suspicious people is normal, but doing so while carrying concealed is not normal and unethical?
Expanding on your personal scenario lets assume this:
One of the adults in your neighborhood felt the need to carry concealed (say he runs a business that deals in a lot of cash, and is worried about being robbed)
Every morning he puts on his gun when he gets dressed. Unless he goes somewhere he is not allowed to carry, he keeps it on him until he goes to bed.
In the evening when he is home he walks around the neighborhood a few times. If he meets someone he doesn't recognize he walks up to them, and initiates a conversation typically:
Excuse me.
How are you doing?
Haven't seen you before, do you live here?
OK, nice to meet you.
His only reason for doing so is because he is trying to be proactive in preventing burglaries in his neighborhood. The idea is that a potential burglar that is looking for a target will go to another neighborhood. One where he hasn't been noticed by a resident while casing the area.
In this situation you feel that his actions are unethical? However, if before he patrols the neighborhood he takes off his gun, his actions are ethical?
I realize everyone has their own idea of what is ethical and what isn't. Personally I feel that the approach has more influence on what is ethical than whether there is a gun. To show what I mean if you change the greeting to, "What are you doing in my neighborhood, (insert preferred derogatory term)?"
It's not even a matter of concealed. I wrote a lengthier, better post about it a few days ago. But he was patrolling the neighborhood, and then actively pursuing people he thought looked suspicious. To do this while armed but without being deputized, and not even on your own property, is unethical, yes. Someone who carries a gun should know this. It doesn't necessarily make you a murderer, but if you are an armed citizen pursuing and approaching suspicious youths beyond your own property, you are in effect looking for someone to get killed.
If, however, you carry a weapon while on neighborhood watch, and you keep your distance and call the police, but you get approached and attacked anyway, you are far less culpable, and perhaps not unethical at all.
Actually, I didn't say there are no issues with the law. Nor did I say the law "works" in other states.
What I said was that SYG has not turned Florida into a bloody playground for serial killers. I was responding to this:
Oh, I agree with you completely about the silliness of the "go go serial killers" argument. But yeah, you were saying the law "works" in other states; you put up a chart showing that SYG laws don't affect the rate of claimed justifiable homicides, i.e., actual killers don't find SYG useful. That chart isn't helpful to us in looking at Florida's law.
The point of the chart was to show that homicide rates in SYG states were approximately the same as in states without SYG laws - ie, that SYG doesn't turn a state into some Murderer's Paradise.
The point was not to say that SYG doesn't have issues, nor was it to say that it doesn't affect the rate of justifiable homicide claims. The law is specifically designed to affect the rate of justifiable homicide claims, that's why it was written and passed to begin with.
The task force hasn't even begun its work yet, let alone made an anti-SYG finding/recommendation. What if it comes back with a report that fully endorses the current SYG law? Or with a report that endorses minor, cosmetic changes to the law, but keeps the core principles of SYG intact?
I'm really not sure what your point is. Other states are not flipping out about their SYG laws because of the Martin killing. Florida is, and not simply because of this; it's because the law is way too broad and prone to abuse. It's bad enough that the government has actually appointed a task force to review the law, instead of just letting the Legislature do it or whatever. Of course it's possible that the task force will fuck up, whitewash or otherwise be useless; wouldn't surprise me.
You're speculating that the reason the task force exists is because there's some recognition of SYG as problematic.
It could just as easily exist because the Zimmerman-Martin case has caused a political ruckus, and Gov. Scott wants to look like he's doing something about it in order to placate the plebes. After all, nothing screams "government (in)action" like forming some blue-ribbon committee to study an issue for months and months. Everyone gets to claim they did something about SYG - "Look, I formed a committee to study it!" - without anything ever actually getting done. So maybe it's just generic political ass-covering.
It could also just as easily exist for the purpose of whitewashing the problems with SYG. Maybe they'll conclude that Florida's SYG law is awesome and doesn't need any changes at all. The fear of this scenario is why there's already criticism of the panel for being biased in favor of SYG. So maybe it's driven by a pro-SYG political agenda.
The existence of the task force could have several meanings besides the "Everyone recognizes SYG is a big problem and we need to change it" one that you're ascribing to it.
If a there's a finding of fact that a "preponderance of the evidence" (ie, a 51% chance) that the suspect acted in self-defense, then what's the point of going to trial? The prosecution will just lose at trial anyways. If they can't meet the standard for 51%, then how in the world are they going to meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict?
It isn't even a new out or second bite of the apple. Florida judges are able to set aside a jury verdict in any criminal case - not just SYG-related ones - if they feel the evidence does not support the verdict. All the SYG pre-trial motion does is move the judge's decision to the beginning of the court process on SYG-related cases, rather than delaying it until after the jury has convicted (judges can't set aside acquittals, only convictions).
*headdesk*
1) Judges in EVERY state can set aside a jury's verdict if it's not supported by the evidence (JNOV); this is true in civil cases, too. There are particular legal standards by which a judge can do so. "Well, shit, he looks innocent to me, guys" is not that standard. It's also brought after all the evidence has been admitted and after the jury has deliberated.
2) You have it backwards. The issue isn't "what's the point of going to trial", it's "why are we having a motion before trial instead of just having the trial?" If the defendant loses, then the prosecution has to do it all over again, only with a higher standards. If the defendant wins, he would certainly have won at trial. Again, there's no reason for this procedure other than to give the defendant a free throw - particularly as:
3) Florida's SYG treats a motion (such as would be brought in a civil case) as the equivalent of an acquittal. The prosecution doesn't get to appeal the motion, or move for reconsideration; if they lose, that's it, the defendant can't be prosecuted. AND is immune from a civil suit, don't forget that.
4) Shit, if this is such a fabulous idea, why are we even having criminal trials? Make prosecutors do every element of their case to "preponderance of the evidence", and then only if they win the whole thing do they get to actually go to trial, and repeat the procedure.
1) One of the standards for a judge to set aside a jury conviction is if the judge decides that the conviction is not supported by the evidence. A judge who believes that the evidence is 51% in favor of the defendant should set aside a jury conviction. If they don't, that's on those judges. 49% in favor of the prosecution isn't even close to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
But no one cares because "Tough on Crime" is the order of the day in the US criminal justice system, and defendant's rights be damned. Even as every day we learn about more and more of the thousands of innocent people who have spent years rotting in our prisons.
2) If the prosecution can't even make the 51% standard, then what is the point of going to trial? I can think of only one - that the prosecution knows it's easier to convince a jury of laypeople than it is to convince an expert.
And yes, the prosecution has to do it all over again with higher standards. So? They already have to "do it all over again with higher standards" when going from indictment (where the standard is Probable Cause) to conviction at trial (where the standard is Beyond Reasonable Doubt). Should we get rid of grand juries too, because they're also a "free throw" pre-trial motion for the defense?
3) Civil immunity is one of the issues I have with the SYG law.
4) I don't know, why don't we make this sort of pre-trial motion more common? I haven't looked into the logistics of it, but it seems like it could save some time and court costs if a case can be settled in a pre-trial motion rather than requiring a full-blown trial.
Oh, wait, I do know. It's because such a process would favor the defendant, which means any politician proposing it be applied to suspects who aren't in the NRA/ALEC's favor would be automatically labeled "Soft On Crime".
I'd argue the Marissa Alexander case is an example of Florida prohibiting "pursuit". The judge in that case ruled that since she returned from the (locked) garage to the house, that she went from a safe area to a dangerous area, and therefore that was proof that she didn't feel threatened.
CA's law and FL's law are each broader in different areas. Especially with how CA's law has been as much defined through case law as it has through legislative text. A 2005 CA court decision found that SYG was available even to people using illegally-owned guns - in that case, a convicted felon who shot a would-be attacker. Even though it's a felony for a convicted felon to even possess a gun under any other circumstance.
No, the Alexander case is not about prohibiting "pursuit". Read the CALCRIM instruction again. It permits pursuit "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/<insert crime>) has passed". In other words, the judge at the pre-trial hearing ruled that she didn't need to pursue him to protect herself; he didn't rule "sorry, but self-defense goes out the window when you pursue". And the jury, apparently swayed by her ex-husband suddenly changing his story, convicted her in what, 12 minutes?
The judge (female, btw) ruled that Alexander re-entering the home was proof that she was not in fear, because she moved from a place that was farther from her attacker (garage) to a place that was closer to her attacker (house).
How is that different from a pursuit? A pursuit is moving from a place that's farther (letting the attacker run away) to a place that's closer (chasing after the attacker).
I don't understand what point you're trying to make re the convicted felon. The case you're talking about is People v. Rhodes. Using a weapon for self-defense does not, by itself, automagically mean that the felon illegally possessed a weapon. (This makes sense, when you think about it. Imagine that A, who is convicted of a felony, is attacked by B who wants to kill her. A snatches a shotgun out of B's rifle rack and kills him, then drops it and calls the police. Is A guilty of being a felong unlawfully possessing a firearm?) Rhodes also pointed out that he was not actually charged with illegal possession of a weapon.
It's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm at all in California - except in cases where the firearm in self-defense.
Which makes no sense, because where did that gun come from? Did it just magically fall out of the sky at the instant the felon was threatened? Was the felon being chased down the street and just saw a gun laying on a window-sill, and grabbed it to shoot their attacker? In order for the felon to possess the gun at the instant self-defense was needed, the felon would have had to possess the gun at a previous moment when not threatened.
At any rate, the CA case law allows felons to possess guns during instances of self-defense, even when all other instances of a felon possessing a gun is a felony in itself.
The point in bringing it up is to compare the broadness of CA SYG/self-defense laws vs FL's. Does FL also allow felons to use guns in cases of self-defense? Because a felon possessing a firearm* in Florida is a felony, with a 3-year mandatory minimum.
(*OT - FL's definition of a "firearm" is bizarre. It doesn't apply to any gun manufactured before 1919 AND any replicas of such guns. Which seems to me like it would perfectly allow for a felon to carry around a Colt M1911 and argue it's a "replica" of the original 1911 pistol. Even though the basic design of the gun hasn't changed much in the last 100 years, and a variant of it (M1911A1) is still in use by military and police forces today, suggesting that it's still plenty lethal and combat-effective.)
(*OT - FL's definition of a "firearm" is bizarre. It doesn't apply to any gun manufactured before 1919 AND any replicas of such guns. Which seems to me like it would perfectly allow for a felon to carry around a Colt M1911 and argue it's a "replica" of the original 1911 pistol. Even though the basic design of the gun hasn't changed much in the last 100 years, and a variant of it (M1911A1) is still in use by military and police forces today, suggesting that it's still plenty lethal and combat-effective.)
That's protection for collectors.
If you've ever watched Pawn Stars, the Nevada equivalent of that law is what lets them do business in antique firearms.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
(*OT - FL's definition of a "firearm" is bizarre. It doesn't apply to any gun manufactured before 1919 AND any replicas of such guns. Which seems to me like it would perfectly allow for a felon to carry around a Colt M1911 and argue it's a "replica" of the original 1911 pistol. Even though the basic design of the gun hasn't changed much in the last 100 years, and a variant of it (M1911A1) is still in use by military and police forces today, suggesting that it's still plenty lethal and combat-effective.)
That's protection for collectors.
If you've ever watched Pawn Stars, the Nevada equivalent of that law is what lets them do business in antique firearms.
I'm sure that's the intent. It just seems to me that it would also apply to guns like the M1911 and replicas thereof - even if the replica was produced in 2012 - because the original began manufacture before the 1919 cutoff date.
I'm assuming the intent of the law is to prevent felons from owning guns that are combat effective. They don't care if a felon owns some muzzle-loading flintlock musket or something, it's not a combat-effective firearm. But pre-1919 pistols (or more likely, recently manufactured replicas of them) can still be quite combat-effective today.
Maybe change the exemption to just black powder guns, or long guns. I guess it'll suck for Florida felon antique gun dealers who deal exclusively in pistols
California's SYG law is actually broader than Florida's, I think. It allows the "defender" to pursue, rather than simply not retreat. And it retains Florida's burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.
California's law is NOT broader than Florida's. It doesn't provide civil immunity, and it doesn't allow the defendant - before any trial - to make a motion with a showing on "preponderance of the evidence" (that is, more likely than not), and get an easy shot at a self-defense claim before getting to make it all over again at trial. California doesn't allow pursuit, period; it allows pursuit IF reasonably necessary in order to defend oneself from the danger. (So, let's say I attack you with the obvious intent to kill, you fire at me, and I run around a corner to pick up a gun we both know is lying there. You have the right to pursue me to stop me from picking up that gun and killing you. You don't have the right to hunt me down if there's no further danger.) I don't see that Florida actually prohibits pursuit.
I'd argue the Marissa Alexander case is an example of Florida prohibiting "pursuit". The judge in that case ruled that since she returned from the (locked) garage to the house, that she went from a safe area to a dangerous area, and therefore that was proof that she didn't feel threatened.
CA's law and FL's law are each broader in different areas. Especially with how CA's law has been as much defined through case law as it has through legislative text. A 2005 CA court decision found that SYG was available even to people using illegally-owned guns - in that case, a convicted felon who shot a would-be attacker. Even though it's a felony for a convicted felon to even possess a gun under any other circumstance.
As for using an illegal gun to defend yourself, why should that matter? And even if youre alleging self defense that doesnt get you out of other charges, so its possible that the ex-con who killed a dude was charged with felon in possession of a firearm.
I'm actually currently in Sanford, and I have t admit: it is suspicious wearing a hoodie here. But that's only because it's as hot and humid as Satan's balls.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I imagine that it wasn't three months ago, though. In the rain. :bz
The point of the chart was to show that homicide rates in SYG states were approximately the same as in states without SYG laws - ie, that SYG doesn't turn a state into some Murderer's Paradise.
The point was not to say that SYG doesn't have issues, nor was it to say that it doesn't affect the rate of justifiable homicide claims. The law is specifically designed to affect the rate of justifiable homicide claims, that's why it was written and passed to begin with.
But, again, Florida's SYG law is different than the laws of other states. You're comparing apples and crabapples. "Extending the castle doctrine to public places doesn't, by itself, appear to increase the rates of claimed justifiable homicide"? Certainly. But the chart is not helpful in telling us whether Florida's version of those laws, which IIRC is imitated by only one other state out of the 30+ that have such laws, would result in any difference.
You're speculating that the reason the task force exists is because there's some recognition of SYG as problematic.
It could just as easily exist because the Zimmerman-Martin case has caused a political ruckus, and Gov. Scott wants to look like he's doing something about it in order to placate the plebes. After all, nothing screams "government (in)action" like forming some blue-ribbon committee to study an issue for months and months. Everyone gets to claim they did something about SYG - "Look, I formed a committee to study it!" - without anything ever actually getting done. So maybe it's just generic political ass-covering.
It could also just as easily exist for the purpose of whitewashing the problems with SYG. Maybe they'll conclude that Florida's SYG law is awesome and doesn't need any changes at all. The fear of this scenario is why there's already criticism of the panel for being biased in favor of SYG. So maybe it's driven by a pro-SYG political agenda.
The existence of the task force could have several meanings besides the "Everyone recognizes SYG is a big problem and we need to change it" one that you're ascribing to it.
Please don't put words in my mouth. You're better than that. Of course the task force is being created because of the political ruckus. And there is a political ruckus because public sentiment is that there is, or at least may be, a real problem with this law. It's not as though nobody thought of those problems before today; opponents of the law argued back before it was implemented in 2005 that it would give shelter to criminals and that it would be unfair to the families of victims. Seven years after it was adopted there's finally some effort to take a look at the law. As I said, it could certainly end up being a whitewash - wouldn't surprise me in the least. Do you think, though, that there would have been the slightest effort before the Martin case to say "Oh wow, maybe those hippie gun-haters had a point"?
1) One of the standards for a judge to set aside a jury conviction is if the judge decides that the conviction is not supported by the evidence. A judge who believes that the evidence is 51% in favor of the defendant should set aside a jury conviction. If they don't, that's on those judges. 49% in favor of the prosecution isn't even close to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
But no one cares because "Tough on Crime" is the order of the day in the US criminal justice system, and defendant's rights be damned. Even as every day we learn about more and more of the thousands of innocent people who have spent years rotting in our prisons.
The jury is supposed to be the finder of fact. That's why we have a jury (which a defendant can decline in favor of a judge) in the first place. JNOV motions are hard to win precisely because in a jury trial, it's the jury, not the judge, that weighs the evidence. The judge shouldn't be substituting her judgment for the jury's except in extraordinary circumstances. Do you believe this is incorrect? (Also, you seem to be applying the 51% standard kind of randomly.)
2) If the prosecution can't even make the 51% standard, then what is the point of going to trial? I can think of only one - that the prosecution knows it's easier to convince a jury of laypeople than it is to convince an expert.
And yes, the prosecution has to do it all over again with higher standards. So? They already have to "do it all over again with higher standards" when going from indictment (where the standard is Probable Cause) to conviction at trial (where the standard is Beyond Reasonable Doubt). Should we get rid of grand juries too, because they're also a "free throw" pre-trial motion for the defense?
If a grand jury declines to indict a defendant, does that forever immunize that defendant from being charged with that crime? The problem is not that there's a pre-trial motion; the problem is that the motion is an I Win button. The prosecutor can't appeal if the judge's ruling is in sane, and can't come back later if there is stronger evidence. If the judge leans over the bench, winks at the defendant and says "Honey, I ain't never seen a man get shot who didn't get just what was comin' to him. Motion granted" then that's all she wrote. THAT is the problem. It's not simply an evidentiary hearing.
4) I don't know, why don't we make this sort of pre-trial motion more common? I haven't looked into the logistics of it, but it seems like it could save some time and court costs if a case can be settled in a pre-trial motion rather than requiring a full-blown trial.
Oh, wait, I do know. It's because such a process would favor the defendant, which means any politician proposing it be applied to suspects who aren't in the NRA/ALEC's favor would be automatically labeled "Soft On Crime".
Are you saying that anyone who finds this pre-trial motion, as embodied in Florida's SYG law, problematic, is a crazy NRA/ALEC fanboy?
The judge (female, btw) ruled that Alexander re-entering the home was proof that she was not in fear, because she moved from a place that was farther from her attacker (garage) to a place that was closer to her attacker (house).
How is that different from a pursuit? A pursuit is moving from a place that's farther (letting the attacker run away) to a place that's closer (chasing after the attacker).
California's law permits pursuit when "reasonably necessary" to protect oneself from the harm; in other words, it isn't a 4e daily where if you move you break the stance and lose all the benefits. In CA, Alexander would have had to have shown that it was "reasonably necessary" for her to move into the house to protect herself from great bodily harm or death. From the reports of the case it sure seems like the problem was not that the law was against her, but that the jury simply did not believe her version of events - particularly since Mr. I Hit All My Baby Mamas Except One changed his testimony at trial.
It's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm at all in California - except in cases where the firearm in self-defense.
Which makes no sense, because where did that gun come from? Did it just magically fall out of the sky at the instant the felon was threatened? Was the felon being chased down the street and just saw a gun laying on a window-sill, and grabbed it to shoot their attacker? In order for the felon to possess the gun at the instant self-defense was needed, the felon would have had to possess the gun at a previous moment when not threatened.
.....did you read the example I gave, which is a pretty simple and non-insane example of how a felon could "possess" a gun long enough to use it for self defense?Also, did you note that in Rhodes, they *didn't* charge him with illegally possessing a firearm, which would kinda seem to be a no-brainer if you're saying "The guy had no right to self-defense because he shouldn't have had that weapon in the first place"? I'm going to repeat this in a minute, but nothing prevents a prosecutor from charging the felon with possessing a firearm outside of the period when it was used or necessary for self-defense. "I shot him because he was gonna kill me" doesn't magically erase the fact that the felon's been walking around with the gun prior to that.
At any rate, the CA case law allows felons to possess guns during instances of self-defense, even when all other instances of a felon possessing a gun is a felony in itself.
The point in bringing it up is to compare the broadness of CA SYG/self-defense laws vs FL's. Does FL also allow felons to use guns in cases of self-defense? Because a felon possessing a firearm* in Florida is a felony, with a 3-year mandatory minimum.
Yes, I know the point in bringing it up. It doesn't make that point. The problem with "can't even use a gun in self-defense, you're not allowed to have one" is that, in essence, that would be saying that felons have a lesser right to self-defense. A is a convicted felon; B is not. B attacks A in a fit of unprovoked rage and tries to strangle him to death. In trying to fight off B, A puts his hand on B's shoulder and discovers that B is wearing a handgun in a shoulder rig. Is A legally permitted to pull B's gun out and shoot B in self-defense? Well, if felons can't possess guns during instances of self-defense, then no, A has to suck it up and die.
Also, there is nothing I can see in California' SYG law that doesn't also allow prosecution of a felon for possessing a firearm when it's not being used in self-defense. If A shot B with his own gun that he'd been carrying around all week because he thought it looked cool, the DA can certainly go after A for possessing that weapon during that time.
CA's law is not broader than Florida's. Yes, I read the same SF Chron article you probably did and CA's law has been around longer, which means we've had more time to hammer out the stupid - but courts routinely look to other states in handling new laws. "Well, we don't have an interpretation of this law yet. But State X has a law that is the same/very similar, and they did it this way."
(*OT - FL's definition of a "firearm" is bizarre. It doesn't apply to any gun manufactured before 1919 AND any replicas of such guns. Which seems to me like it would perfectly allow for a felon to carry around a Colt M1911 and argue it's a "replica" of the original 1911 pistol. Even though the basic design of the gun hasn't changed much in the last 100 years, and a variant of it (M1911A1) is still in use by military and police forces today, suggesting that it's still plenty lethal and combat-effective.)
Don't think this won't happen.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
(1) “Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918, and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
Only replicas of early type firing mechanisms are considered antiques and 1911 ammo is still readily available.
So yeah, no chance a centerfire cartridge type firearm like a 1911, even an original, is going to classify as an "antique firearm."
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
I'm saying that on the criminal side nothing about this pretrial motion crap infringes anybody's rights. That's it. Like, yeah it puts a lot of power into the hands of a judge, but only to acquit. So any perversion of due process is in favor of the accused, which generally is better than the alternative.
So you're OK with giving a judge the powers of a jury - specifically, jury nullification? That's precisely what this does.
Also, I'm not sure what this "better than the alternative" you refer to is. You seem to be suggesting that it is a perversion of due process against the accused not to have such a pre-trial motion. If that's the case, then I don't know why we care about prosecutorial inconvenience or any other issue; have the "I Win" hearing in every single criminal case. What is the "alternative" to such a motion?
...it would infringe the prosecutor's right to life...
Well, no, it would infringe the prosecutor's right to have the government take her life without due process of law. That's fine; we can create a new crime, Really Malicious Prosecution. A prosecutor who opposes a SYG pretrial motion on self-defense and loses is guilty of Really Malicious Prosecution. If we want to get around those stupid ACLU types we can have the penalty be something like 30 days in jail and an automatic referral to the State Bar for investigation of misconduct.
Giving somebody who is allegedly the victim of a crime the means to dispose of a case quickly and get on with their life is not on its face an absurd idea. If the prosecutor can't meet a preponderance burden, they should wait until they can. Or move on. But as we've seen in various cases, prosecutors don't always do that, and certainly aren't averse to ridiculous overcharging as well.
We already have those means. This is not the first pretrial motion ever invented.
I agreed, in the post you quoted, that the civil immunity is a problem. You failed to quote that portion, though. Was this on purpose?
No. I get that you see it's a problem. I don't think that you get why it's a problem, or see that it infringes on the rights of others who are not parties to the motion.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
(1) “Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918, and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
Only replicas of early type firing mechanisms are considered antiques and 1911 ammo is still readily available.
So yeah, no chance a centerfire cartridge type firearm like a 1911, even an original, is going to classify as an "antique firearm."
I'm confused - it appears that the statute would cover all of the following:
1) Firearms actually manufactured before 1919.
2) Replicas of #1, no matter when the replica was manufactured.
3) Firearms (no matter when manufactured) that can fire fixed ammunition, as long as that ammunition was manufactured before 1919, is no longer manufactured in the US, and is not normally available to consumers.
You seem to be saying that firearms in category #1 would not be covered. Am I misreading?
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
No. I get that you see it's a problem. I don't think that you get why it's a problem, or see that it infringes on the rights of others who are not parties to the motion.
Actually, that's precisely why I see it as a problem.
Also, I like the idea if a criminal statute for Really Malicious Prosecution.
No. I get that you see it's a problem. I don't think that you get why it's a problem, or see that it infringes on the rights of others who are not parties to the motion.
Actually, that's precisely why I see it as a problem.
Also, I like the idea if a criminal statute for Really Malicious Prosecution.
Sure. Then we could just forget about prosecuting serious crimes at all, because nobody would want to put their career and law license on the line on the no-review-permitted whims of a judge. If somebody commits murder, then we'll just let their heirs address it as a wrongful-death case in the civil system.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm confused - it appears that the statute would cover all of the following:
1) Firearms actually manufactured before 1919.
2) Replicas of #1, no matter when the replica was manufactured.
3) Firearms (no matter when manufactured) that can fire fixed ammunition, as long as that ammunition was manufactured before 1919, is no longer manufactured in the US, and is not normally available to consumers.
You seem to be saying that firearms in category #1 would not be covered. Am I misreading?
I will break it down.
(1) “Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918 [FULL STOP] and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
1) Firearms that use early type ignition systems made before 1919.
2) Replicas of #1
3) Firearms made before 1919 that use fixed ammunition that is not readily available or still made in the US.
That is why a 1911 or a remake of it would not qualify.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
TThe "early ignition type" comes after "including" as a separate clause. Any firearm made in or before 1919 is exempt, regardless of ignition type. At least by the language used. This would include original model 1911 pistols.
TThe "early ignition type" comes after "including" as a separate clause. Any firearm made in or before 1919 is exempt, regardless of ignition type. At least by the language used. This would include original model 1911 pistols.
Except that 1911 ammo is still readily available and produced in the US, thereby DQing it.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
TThe "early ignition type" comes after "including" as a separate clause. Any firearm made in or before 1919 is exempt, regardless of ignition type. At least by the language used. This would include original model 1911 pistols.
Except that 1911 ammo is still readily available and produced in the US, thereby DQing it.
Except that "and also" seems to parse to "or, " especially given that it comes after the FULL STOP you pointed out.
(1) “Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918 [FULL STOP] and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
1) Firearms that use early type ignition systems made before 1919.
2) Replicas of #1
3) Firearms made before 1919 that use fixed ammunition that is not readily available or still made in the US.
That is why a 1911 or a remake of it would not qualify.
Really not trying to be pedantic - I'm just reading it as broken down differently:
Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918 and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
....and because it says 'including' rather than being specifically limited to "firearms manufactured in or before 1918 which use a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar early type of ignition system".
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Also, if it was a criminal statute, wouldn't that put their career and license in the hands of a jury, not a judge? Just sayin.
Defendants can choose a bench or a jury trial as they prefer. You know that, I assume. Also, what happened to criminal proceedings being an awful thing for innocent people and we should just let them get on with their life?
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.
Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.
People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.
Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other? Oh, and would you look at that. You're doing the same thing you've accused me of this entire time. My brother in law spit milk out of his nose at this post.
To my knowledge, being night-stalked alone has never lead to permanent injury or death. Maybe that's a difference? But yes, is is also uncivilized. As is burglary, which apparently led to the night stalking. As is possession of what is likely stolen property, which while not directly related is ironic to me. Or maybe that's not irony. Fucking Alanis messing with my head.
I've actually been permanently injured by a minor and short altercation with somebody. I've had friends that have been as well. So yeah, I consider physically assaulting somebody to be on a different level of uncivilization than mere "night stalking."
Dude, do we really want to waste internets arguing about something I wasn't actually supporting?
Though yes, I realize bench trial is a choice. You made it sound like the default.
You seemed to be arguing that the only relevant criterion is "Does this violate the defendant's due-process rights?" I would hope we all agree that if the answer is 'yes' a law is bad, but you appear to say that if the answer is 'no' then we don't really need to go any further.
In terms of the pretrial hearing permitted under Florida's SYG law, that's not a "bench trial"; that's a hearing on a motion, and judges, not juries, decide motions.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Posts
I certainly do not buy that. I've had that experience, and also having a car stolen, having a parked broken into, having a parked car totaled, and just stuff - all kinds of stuff lost to thieves. And I guess this could be the part where I say "and I didn't start night stalking," but aren't all these things that most adults experience at some point? I think they are. I'm not special. Loss of property is universal.
Living in a neighborhood where some houses were broken into makes a person a citizen of the United States; if that was a primary motivator, we'd all be packing heat, driving around looking to catch some shady characters.
Some neighborhoods really are worse than others. And sometimes these things happen in waves. We had multiple break-ins over a short period of time on our street. Other neighborhoods may have no break-ins in a year.
The main problem with my neighborhood is that all the sketchy-ass people who you'd want to follow to see what they're up to live there.
EDIT: Also, keeping eyes on somebody increases the chance of catching them, or deterring them. If I thought I saw somebody looking to break into a house, I might try to do so. But obviously I'd consider avoiding an actual confrontation to be a top priority, and I don't carry.
I'll leave the particulars of the case to the jury to decide (just like I do all other crimes), and I don't think a little tangent about what could motivate people to carry and actively patrol looking for criminals is too much of a stretch for this thread.
I'll just point out, as has been repeatedly mentioned, that his choice to carry and choice to patrol may be independent.
Oh well in that case the last time I had anything stolen from me was over twenty years ago and I barely remember it. Were my house to be broken in to now I'd probably be freaking the fuck out for years on end given my imagination and my wife even more so. Also our neighborhood has a neighborhood watch that actively patrols as well.
Considering the 39 previous calls to the cops? Considering the fact that Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer?
Unlikely.
Definitely possible and quite a stretch.
I don't know everything that happened, but what would have been "normal" to me would be...
Martin: Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: What are you doing here?
Martin: I'm staying with a family friend on ___ street, why?
Zimmerman: I'm just patrolling the neighborhood, we have somewhat of a crime problem. Sorry to bother you, let me know if you see anything suspicious.
Because that was normal for me when I was a teenager. Somehow a fight a started between statements 2 and 3 above, though.
However, I do not think it is normal or ethical for Zimmerman to have (allegedly) approached Martin to question him while carrying a gun. If were to find out that any of the adults who questioned me in my neighborhood when I was a teen were in fact carrying a gun when they approached me, I would be furious and would want to figure out a way to prevent them from ever approaching a teen again while carrying a gun.
Since were talking anecdotes, I lived one block from the roughest neighborhood growing up. It was so bad that one year the police cleared all trees, brush, and fences from the projects because they kept losing suspects in a chase. At the other end of the street was a convenience store and we saw black people of various ages walking down our street all the time at all hours.
Not once did anyone, ever, follow these people to "make sure they aren't doing anything illegal". Because that's racist as fuck and asking for trouble. The few times we were legitimately worried, we called the police and stayed in the house.
This is Mississippi. In the 1980s. A time and place where, had this incident occurred, Zimmerman would have easily gotten away with it.
Questioning suspicious people is normal, but doing so while carrying concealed is not normal and unethical?
Expanding on your personal scenario lets assume this:
One of the adults in your neighborhood felt the need to carry concealed (say he runs a business that deals in a lot of cash, and is worried about being robbed)
Every morning he puts on his gun when he gets dressed. Unless he goes somewhere he is not allowed to carry, he keeps it on him until he goes to bed.
In the evening when he is home he walks around the neighborhood a few times. If he meets someone he doesn't recognize he walks up to them, and initiates a conversation typically:
Excuse me.
How are you doing?
Haven't seen you before, do you live here?
OK, nice to meet you.
His only reason for doing so is because he is trying to be proactive in preventing burglaries in his neighborhood. The idea is that a potential burglar that is looking for a target will go to another neighborhood. One where he hasn't been noticed by a resident while casing the area.
In this situation you feel that his actions are unethical? However, if before he patrols the neighborhood he takes off his gun, his actions are ethical?
I realize everyone has their own idea of what is ethical and what isn't. Personally I feel that the approach has more influence on what is ethical than whether there is a gun. To show what I mean if you change the greeting to, "What are you doing in my neighborhood, (insert preferred derogatory term)?"
I didn't mean to imply this to Zimmerman and Martin. I think the girlfriend's:
Why are you following me?
What are you doing here?
To be a likely possibility as far as the initial exchange. I was mostly referring to the ethics of approaching someone with a gun, and giving a scenario to demonstrate.
It's not even a matter of concealed. I wrote a lengthier, better post about it a few days ago. But he was patrolling the neighborhood, and then actively pursuing people he thought looked suspicious. To do this while armed but without being deputized, and not even on your own property, is unethical, yes. Someone who carries a gun should know this. It doesn't necessarily make you a murderer, but if you are an armed citizen pursuing and approaching suspicious youths beyond your own property, you are in effect looking for someone to get killed.
If, however, you carry a weapon while on neighborhood watch, and you keep your distance and call the police, but you get approached and attacked anyway, you are far less culpable, and perhaps not unethical at all.
The point of the chart was to show that homicide rates in SYG states were approximately the same as in states without SYG laws - ie, that SYG doesn't turn a state into some Murderer's Paradise.
The point was not to say that SYG doesn't have issues, nor was it to say that it doesn't affect the rate of justifiable homicide claims. The law is specifically designed to affect the rate of justifiable homicide claims, that's why it was written and passed to begin with.
You're speculating that the reason the task force exists is because there's some recognition of SYG as problematic.
It could just as easily exist because the Zimmerman-Martin case has caused a political ruckus, and Gov. Scott wants to look like he's doing something about it in order to placate the plebes. After all, nothing screams "government (in)action" like forming some blue-ribbon committee to study an issue for months and months. Everyone gets to claim they did something about SYG - "Look, I formed a committee to study it!" - without anything ever actually getting done. So maybe it's just generic political ass-covering.
It could also just as easily exist for the purpose of whitewashing the problems with SYG. Maybe they'll conclude that Florida's SYG law is awesome and doesn't need any changes at all. The fear of this scenario is why there's already criticism of the panel for being biased in favor of SYG. So maybe it's driven by a pro-SYG political agenda.
The existence of the task force could have several meanings besides the "Everyone recognizes SYG is a big problem and we need to change it" one that you're ascribing to it.
1) One of the standards for a judge to set aside a jury conviction is if the judge decides that the conviction is not supported by the evidence. A judge who believes that the evidence is 51% in favor of the defendant should set aside a jury conviction. If they don't, that's on those judges. 49% in favor of the prosecution isn't even close to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
But no one cares because "Tough on Crime" is the order of the day in the US criminal justice system, and defendant's rights be damned. Even as every day we learn about more and more of the thousands of innocent people who have spent years rotting in our prisons.
2) If the prosecution can't even make the 51% standard, then what is the point of going to trial? I can think of only one - that the prosecution knows it's easier to convince a jury of laypeople than it is to convince an expert.
And yes, the prosecution has to do it all over again with higher standards. So? They already have to "do it all over again with higher standards" when going from indictment (where the standard is Probable Cause) to conviction at trial (where the standard is Beyond Reasonable Doubt). Should we get rid of grand juries too, because they're also a "free throw" pre-trial motion for the defense?
3) Civil immunity is one of the issues I have with the SYG law.
4) I don't know, why don't we make this sort of pre-trial motion more common? I haven't looked into the logistics of it, but it seems like it could save some time and court costs if a case can be settled in a pre-trial motion rather than requiring a full-blown trial.
Oh, wait, I do know. It's because such a process would favor the defendant, which means any politician proposing it be applied to suspects who aren't in the NRA/ALEC's favor would be automatically labeled "Soft On Crime".
The judge (female, btw) ruled that Alexander re-entering the home was proof that she was not in fear, because she moved from a place that was farther from her attacker (garage) to a place that was closer to her attacker (house).
How is that different from a pursuit? A pursuit is moving from a place that's farther (letting the attacker run away) to a place that's closer (chasing after the attacker).
It's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm at all in California - except in cases where the firearm in self-defense.
Which makes no sense, because where did that gun come from? Did it just magically fall out of the sky at the instant the felon was threatened? Was the felon being chased down the street and just saw a gun laying on a window-sill, and grabbed it to shoot their attacker? In order for the felon to possess the gun at the instant self-defense was needed, the felon would have had to possess the gun at a previous moment when not threatened.
At any rate, the CA case law allows felons to possess guns during instances of self-defense, even when all other instances of a felon possessing a gun is a felony in itself.
The point in bringing it up is to compare the broadness of CA SYG/self-defense laws vs FL's. Does FL also allow felons to use guns in cases of self-defense? Because a felon possessing a firearm* in Florida is a felony, with a 3-year mandatory minimum.
(*OT - FL's definition of a "firearm" is bizarre. It doesn't apply to any gun manufactured before 1919 AND any replicas of such guns. Which seems to me like it would perfectly allow for a felon to carry around a Colt M1911 and argue it's a "replica" of the original 1911 pistol. Even though the basic design of the gun hasn't changed much in the last 100 years, and a variant of it (M1911A1) is still in use by military and police forces today, suggesting that it's still plenty lethal and combat-effective.)
That's protection for collectors.
If you've ever watched Pawn Stars, the Nevada equivalent of that law is what lets them do business in antique firearms.
Technically speaking anyone involved in a case like this (living or dead) will be 'on trial'.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I'm sure that's the intent. It just seems to me that it would also apply to guns like the M1911 and replicas thereof - even if the replica was produced in 2012 - because the original began manufacture before the 1919 cutoff date.
I'm assuming the intent of the law is to prevent felons from owning guns that are combat effective. They don't care if a felon owns some muzzle-loading flintlock musket or something, it's not a combat-effective firearm. But pre-1919 pistols (or more likely, recently manufactured replicas of them) can still be quite combat-effective today.
Maybe change the exemption to just black powder guns, or long guns. I guess it'll suck for Florida felon antique gun dealers who deal exclusively in pistols
Florida's SYG law has been interpreted to allow someone to pursue as well (guy chases thief for a block before stabbing him to death and gets off under SYG) so CA and FL law are similar in this regard (although I dont know how far you can pursue someone in CA).
As for using an illegal gun to defend yourself, why should that matter? And even if youre alleging self defense that doesnt get you out of other charges, so its possible that the ex-con who killed a dude was charged with felon in possession of a firearm.
But, again, Florida's SYG law is different than the laws of other states. You're comparing apples and crabapples. "Extending the castle doctrine to public places doesn't, by itself, appear to increase the rates of claimed justifiable homicide"? Certainly. But the chart is not helpful in telling us whether Florida's version of those laws, which IIRC is imitated by only one other state out of the 30+ that have such laws, would result in any difference.
Please don't put words in my mouth. You're better than that. Of course the task force is being created because of the political ruckus. And there is a political ruckus because public sentiment is that there is, or at least may be, a real problem with this law. It's not as though nobody thought of those problems before today; opponents of the law argued back before it was implemented in 2005 that it would give shelter to criminals and that it would be unfair to the families of victims. Seven years after it was adopted there's finally some effort to take a look at the law. As I said, it could certainly end up being a whitewash - wouldn't surprise me in the least. Do you think, though, that there would have been the slightest effort before the Martin case to say "Oh wow, maybe those hippie gun-haters had a point"?
The jury is supposed to be the finder of fact. That's why we have a jury (which a defendant can decline in favor of a judge) in the first place. JNOV motions are hard to win precisely because in a jury trial, it's the jury, not the judge, that weighs the evidence. The judge shouldn't be substituting her judgment for the jury's except in extraordinary circumstances. Do you believe this is incorrect? (Also, you seem to be applying the 51% standard kind of randomly.)
If a grand jury declines to indict a defendant, does that forever immunize that defendant from being charged with that crime? The problem is not that there's a pre-trial motion; the problem is that the motion is an I Win button. The prosecutor can't appeal if the judge's ruling is in sane, and can't come back later if there is stronger evidence. If the judge leans over the bench, winks at the defendant and says "Honey, I ain't never seen a man get shot who didn't get just what was comin' to him. Motion granted" then that's all she wrote. THAT is the problem. It's not simply an evidentiary hearing.
I'm glad to hear it, because this provision of SYG is (from the point of view of a civil attorney) fucking insane.
Are you saying that anyone who finds this pre-trial motion, as embodied in Florida's SYG law, problematic, is a crazy NRA/ALEC fanboy?
California's law permits pursuit when "reasonably necessary" to protect oneself from the harm; in other words, it isn't a 4e daily where if you move you break the stance and lose all the benefits. In CA, Alexander would have had to have shown that it was "reasonably necessary" for her to move into the house to protect herself from great bodily harm or death. From the reports of the case it sure seems like the problem was not that the law was against her, but that the jury simply did not believe her version of events - particularly since Mr. I Hit All My Baby Mamas Except One changed his testimony at trial.
.....did you read the example I gave, which is a pretty simple and non-insane example of how a felon could "possess" a gun long enough to use it for self defense?Also, did you note that in Rhodes, they *didn't* charge him with illegally possessing a firearm, which would kinda seem to be a no-brainer if you're saying "The guy had no right to self-defense because he shouldn't have had that weapon in the first place"? I'm going to repeat this in a minute, but nothing prevents a prosecutor from charging the felon with possessing a firearm outside of the period when it was used or necessary for self-defense. "I shot him because he was gonna kill me" doesn't magically erase the fact that the felon's been walking around with the gun prior to that.
Yes, I know the point in bringing it up. It doesn't make that point. The problem with "can't even use a gun in self-defense, you're not allowed to have one" is that, in essence, that would be saying that felons have a lesser right to self-defense. A is a convicted felon; B is not. B attacks A in a fit of unprovoked rage and tries to strangle him to death. In trying to fight off B, A puts his hand on B's shoulder and discovers that B is wearing a handgun in a shoulder rig. Is A legally permitted to pull B's gun out and shoot B in self-defense? Well, if felons can't possess guns during instances of self-defense, then no, A has to suck it up and die.
Also, there is nothing I can see in California' SYG law that doesn't also allow prosecution of a felon for possessing a firearm when it's not being used in self-defense. If A shot B with his own gun that he'd been carrying around all week because he thought it looked cool, the DA can certainly go after A for possessing that weapon during that time.
CA's law is not broader than Florida's. Yes, I read the same SF Chron article you probably did and CA's law has been around longer, which means we've had more time to hammer out the stupid - but courts routinely look to other states in handling new laws. "Well, we don't have an interpretation of this law yet. But State X has a law that is the same/very similar, and they did it this way."
Don't think this won't happen.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It wouldn't because the actual statute reads:
Only replicas of early type firing mechanisms are considered antiques and 1911 ammo is still readily available.
So yeah, no chance a centerfire cartridge type firearm like a 1911, even an original, is going to classify as an "antique firearm."
So you're OK with giving a judge the powers of a jury - specifically, jury nullification? That's precisely what this does.
Also, I'm not sure what this "better than the alternative" you refer to is. You seem to be suggesting that it is a perversion of due process against the accused not to have such a pre-trial motion. If that's the case, then I don't know why we care about prosecutorial inconvenience or any other issue; have the "I Win" hearing in every single criminal case. What is the "alternative" to such a motion?
Well, no, it would infringe the prosecutor's right to have the government take her life without due process of law. That's fine; we can create a new crime, Really Malicious Prosecution. A prosecutor who opposes a SYG pretrial motion on self-defense and loses is guilty of Really Malicious Prosecution. If we want to get around those stupid ACLU types we can have the penalty be something like 30 days in jail and an automatic referral to the State Bar for investigation of misconduct.
It seems as though you believe the only meaningful criterion is "Does this infringe on the due process rights of the accused?" and if not, it's OK?
We already have those means. This is not the first pretrial motion ever invented.
No. I get that you see it's a problem. I don't think that you get why it's a problem, or see that it infringes on the rights of others who are not parties to the motion.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm confused - it appears that the statute would cover all of the following:
1) Firearms actually manufactured before 1919.
2) Replicas of #1, no matter when the replica was manufactured.
3) Firearms (no matter when manufactured) that can fire fixed ammunition, as long as that ammunition was manufactured before 1919, is no longer manufactured in the US, and is not normally available to consumers.
You seem to be saying that firearms in category #1 would not be covered. Am I misreading?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Actually, that's precisely why I see it as a problem.
Also, I like the idea if a criminal statute for Really Malicious Prosecution.
Sure. Then we could just forget about prosecuting serious crimes at all, because nobody would want to put their career and law license on the line on the no-review-permitted whims of a judge. If somebody commits murder, then we'll just let their heirs address it as a wrongful-death case in the civil system.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I will break it down.
1) Firearms that use early type ignition systems made before 1919.
2) Replicas of #1
3) Firearms made before 1919 that use fixed ammunition that is not readily available or still made in the US.
That is why a 1911 or a remake of it would not qualify.
Except that 1911 ammo is still readily available and produced in the US, thereby DQing it.
Except that "and also" seems to parse to "or, " especially given that it comes after the FULL STOP you pointed out.
Really not trying to be pedantic - I'm just reading it as broken down differently:
....and because it says 'including' rather than being specifically limited to "firearms manufactured in or before 1918 which use a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar early type of ignition system".
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Unless dealt with in another statute, that is.
Defendants can choose a bench or a jury trial as they prefer. You know that, I assume. Also, what happened to criminal proceedings being an awful thing for innocent people and we should just let them get on with their life?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Though yes, I realize bench trial is a choice. You made it sound like the default.
It has in this case?
You seemed to be arguing that the only relevant criterion is "Does this violate the defendant's due-process rights?" I would hope we all agree that if the answer is 'yes' a law is bad, but you appear to say that if the answer is 'no' then we don't really need to go any further.
In terms of the pretrial hearing permitted under Florida's SYG law, that's not a "bench trial"; that's a hearing on a motion, and judges, not juries, decide motions.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.