Mediaboss Marketing

As New York Democrats propose cracking down on gun trafficking amid a crime wave, the areas state senator has a different proposal.

Sen. George Borrello, R-Chautauqua County, is sponsoring a bill implementing a Stand Your Ground law in New York, which would remove the legal duty to retreat from a threat outside the home before using lethal force, as well as granting immunity in criminal and civil cases.

Every one of us has a fundamental right to self-defense. But in practice, the right to self-defense is limited to our homes in New York, Borrello said in a news release Thursday announcing the legislation. The duty to retreat clause, requires New Yorkers to retreat from a violent aggressor when in public before they can defend themselves and their loved ones. The only place a New Yorker is not required to retreat from a violent criminal is when they are inside their homes.

Does that make any sense?, Borrello added. Who would allow themselves to be shot or stabbed before they can take action to defend their lives?

The bill would make defenders immune from criminal and civil liability for use of a weapon in self defense from brandishing a firearm to dissuade an attacker to homicide.

You look at surveys right now, and people dont feel safe people are concerned, Borrello told the Times Herald, noting crime across the state has increased over the past two years.

Borrello said a 2018 shooting in Ellicottville is a prime example of how the law would help New Yorkers defending their lives.

In 2018, Damien Marvin was charged with assault after claiming he shot a man after he was attacked. Marvin was acquitted at trial after a 45-minute deliberation. A civil lawsuit filed in 2019 by the man who was shot ended in an undisclosed settlement in 2021, according to court records.

Here is a guy that was acquitted criminally, but then had to defend himself in a civil case, Borrello said, having to pay a high price for a legal defense. If Stand Your Ground was in place specifically the immunity for civil torts Borrello said he likely would have not have had to endure that civil lawsuit.

The bill has four cosponsors all Republicans. Democrats control 43 seats in the 63-seat chamber, as well as the lower Assembly and the governors office, so the measure faces an uphill climb in Albany.

A similar bill introduced in the 2019-20 legislative session which Borrello co-sponsored died in committee.

Borrello acknowledged the difficulty he faces to pass the bill, but he said the focus should be on gauging the positions of government leaders.

You should be able to ask your legislators their position, he said, noting it is an election year for the Legislature and governor and important for voters to know where officials stand on such issues.

Blocking Stand Your Ground legislation is another example, Borrello accused, of Democrats in Albany protecting criminals over victims, like with the elimination of cash bail for most low-level offenses in 2019 legislation that was partially rolled back in 2020 to allow bail for more charges.

Borrello and other Republicans have been critical of bail reform going into the 2022 election, noting some high-profile repeat offenders have been charged multiple times between their first arrest and adjudication. In addition, they argue the legislation blocks judges from considering risk to the community in their determination of bail.

While most states have Stand Your Ground laws in place, six other states require those being attacked to attempt to retreat before using lethal force outside the home. In-home defense is traditionally covered under the castle doctrine of common law. Three states expand the castle doctrine to home and workplaces, while Wisconsin also extends it to motor vehicles.

The National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups have lobbied for Stand Your Ground legislation in many states with Republican-controlled legislatures, including a push in Arkansas that led to its enactment in 2021. Democrats and anti-gun groups, such as the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence, portray such legislation as making it easier to get away with murder, or referring to the proposals as Make My Day or Shoot First bills.

The RAND Corp., a nonprofit think tank, reported in 2020 that a review of existing scientific studies there is supportive evidence that Stand Your Ground laws increase firearms homicides both justified and unjustified with inconclusive evidence on impacts on suicides, mass shootings, defensive gun use or gun industry outcomes.

Borrello dismissed the concern.

Im not going to stand here and talk about studies when you have a fundamental right to self defense, he said, adding that restricting the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers outside the home is wrong, and that is what this law would correct.

Originally posted here:
Borrello: Stand Your Ground is 'a fundamental right' - Olean Times Herald

In this handout photo provided by the Shelby County Detention Center, former Louisville, Kentucky detective Brett Hankison poses for a mug shot on September 23, 2020, in Louisville, Kentucky. | Source: Handout / Getty

The upcoming criminal trial for a former police detective involved in the deadly raid that killed Breonna Taylor even though he wasnt charged for killing Breonna Taylor will be partially open to the press, a Kentucky judge ruled Thursday.

The ruling againstBrett Hankison, who was fired from the Louisville Metro Police department after botching the execution of a no-knock search warrant on an apartment misidentified as where a suspect was located, was meant to ensure a fair judicial process, Circuit Judge Ann Bailey Smith said in her ruling Thursday, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Smith had one caveat: No members of the press can have cameras in the courtroom during the jury selection process. However, those proceedings will still be open to the media.

Jurors will individually take the witness stand and submit to questioning by counsel, a process that is inherently intimidating to a lay person, Smith wrote in part of her ruling. The court finds that jurors will be likely to be less intimidated by this process, and therefore more likely to be candid in their responses, if they know there is no possibility that the general public and the media present at the proceeding have the ability to broadcast or otherwise record their testimony.

Tamika Palmer, the mother of Breonna Taylor, poses for a portrait in front of a mural of her daughter at Jefferson Square Park on September 21, 2020, in Louisville, Kentucky. | Source: Brandon Bell / Getty

Her decision delivers a setback to Hankison, who in September 2020 was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree for bullets he fired that did not go into Taylors apartment. Hankisons legal team had filed the motion for a media ban as well as another one for a change of venue, the latter on which has not been decided.

A grand jury did not find enough evidence to charge any of the three officers as it directly related to Taylors killing in a disappointment to people calling for justice to be served in the 26-year-olds death.

The office of Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who has defended the criminal charges against Hankison, was among those who opposed the proposed media ban, the Associated Press reported. Cameron emerged as a contemptuous figure in the Black community because of his perceived initial lack of attention to the case and showing more sympathy for the police than for Taylor and her family.

Early in the morning of March 13, 2020, a group of Louisville police officers descended upon Taylors apartment to execute a search warrant for a suspect who was later determined to have already been in police custody. When Taylors boyfriend,Kenneth Walker, heard noise at the front door and suspected a burglar, he retrieved his legal gun and fired a shot in that direction out of self-defense, unwittingly hitting one of the officers while exercising the states stand your ground law. The copsresponded by blindly firing off a hail of bullets, ultimately killing Taylor who, prior to the shooting, had been sleeping.

Police never recovered any drugs after attempting to conduct the search warrant in connection to an investigation around Taylors ex-boyfriend,Jamarcus Glover.Walker was quickly accused of the attempted murder of a police officer, charges that were ultimately dropped nearly one year later.

Jury selection in Hankisons case begins Tuesday.

SEE ALSO:

After Sabotaging Breonna Taylor Case, Daniel Cameron Wants Kentucky To Be National Model For Search Warrants

Daniel Sellout Cameron Is Trying To Overturn Unlawful Mask Mandate For Kids In Kentucky Schools

Read more:
In Setback For Ex-Cop Who Fired Blindly Into Breonna Taylors Home, His Upcoming Trial Will Be Partially Open To The Press - NewsOne

On Friday teenager Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder in a Wisconsin court for shooting dead two men during racial justice protests in August 2020.

The 18-year-old was charged with two counts of homicide, as well as one count of attempt homicide and two counts of recklessly endangering safety. He was found not guilty on all charges.

The three-week trial brought renewed focus to the debate around gun rights in the United States, and the boundaries of legal concepts such as stand your ground and self-defence laws.

Rittenhouse broke down in tears after the verdict was delivered and would have faced the prospect of life in prison if found guilty, the most severe punishment available as Wisconsin does not have a death penalty.

Speaking to Reuters after Rittenhouse was acquitted, Wisconsin criminal defence lawyer Daniel Adams described the verdict as very dramatic but not entirely surprising.

He added that most legal professionals "who looked at the evidence had a feeling the state would not be able to clear the threshold of disproving self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

While the principle of Second Amendment Rights is enshrined in law across the country, the boundaries of those rights can vary greatly between states. In Wisconsin there is no specific stand your ground law which offers greater protection against prosecution in the instance of using a firearm in self-defence.

States which have passed stand your ground legislation have essentially removed the requirement for individuals to have exhausted all other options before using a firearm in self-defence. The additional protections are based on an 18th century legal precedent known as the Castle Doctrine, which gives individuals the right to use force when protecting their dwelling, workplace or motor vehicle.

However in 2005 the state of Florida built upon this precedent to introduce the phrase stand your ground and remove the requirement to attempt to retreat before opting to use a firearm.

In Florida the legislation ensures that a person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.

But Wisconsin has no such law and as such Rittenhouses actions could only be justified if he had no other option when confronted by the protesters. The then-17-year-old had travelled 20 miles from Antioch, Illinois, ostensibly to protect business premises from the threat of damage. Too young to buy a firearm, he had picked up an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle from a friend and headed to downtown Kenosha at the height of the racial justice protests.

However Wisconsin is one of 15 states which places the burden of proof on prosecutors to disprove a defendants self-defence claim, rather than requiring the defendant to prove he had exhausted all other options.

In this instance, the prosecution were unable to prove that Rittenhouse had other options to ensure his safety in the face of the crowd of protestors and the 18-year-old was acquitted.

Follow this link:
Does Wisconsin have the death penalty? Does Wisconsin have stand your ground laws? - AS English

On Feb. 23, 2020, Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William Roddie Bryan Jr. chased Ahmaud Arbery as he jogged in the Satilla Shores section of Glynn County, Georgia. Suspecting Arbery of robbing a house under construction in the neighborhood, the three men cornered the unarmed 25-year-old Black man. During the struggle that ensued, Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery (and allegedly uttered a racial epithet as he stood over the body). Law enforcement officials did not arrest or charge the McMichaels and Bryan for 74 days, and only then because a cell phone video of the incident had been made public.

The defendants maintain they acted in self-defense under a Georgia law which permits an individual to arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Its time to repeal and replace such citizens arrest laws, which exist in one form or another in some 40 states in the U.S.

Citizens arrest laws first appeared in 1285, when Edward I, King of England, signed the Statute of Winchester, empowering citizens who witnessed a crime to make a hue and cry, join in the chase, and detain the suspect until a constable or sheriff arrived.

Codified during the Civil War, amidst widespread fears of runaway slaves, Georgias citizens arrest law was named for Thomas R. Cobb, cousin of the similarly-named congressman and an ardent secessionist who believed the Negro has arrived at his greatest development while in slavery. At the turn of the 20th century, the law was interpreted as a license for white mobs to lynch Blacks; more recently, for individuals and groups to harass and assault them.

In Feb. 2021, Republican Gov. Brian KempBrian KempAll 3 men in Arbery killing found guilty of murder Arbery jury asks to see videos, hear 911 call Arbery case goes to jury MORE declared that Ahmaud was a victim of a vigilante style of violence that has no place in Georgia. Deeming the citizens arrest law ripe for abuse, Kemp called for it to be rolled back.

The Georgia legislature voted to replace it in March. The states new citizens arrest law affirms the shopkeepers privilege to detain shoplifters or dine and dash customers. That said, the legislation prohibits citizens in all cases from usingforce unless it is necessary to protect themselves, others, or their habitation. They must call law enforcement officials within an hour and release suspects if authorities do not arrive in the stipulated time. Unfortunately, I had to lose my son to get significant change, said Wanda Cooper-Jones, Arberys mother.

Georgia is the first state to repeal and replace its citizens arrest law. It should not be the last.

Revised statutes should be tighter than existing laws, including Georgias new one. In South Carolina, for example, citizens may now use deadly force when arresting someone who has stolen property in their possession or someone who flees when he is hailed, if the circumstances raise just suspicion of his design to steal. If police officers in South Carolina use these criteria, its worth noting, they would violate laws requiring probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury.

At the very least, then, reform legislation should limit the types of crimes applicable to citizens arrests; specify that citizens have witnessed the crimes themselves, and how much and under what circumstances force is justified.

Repealing and replacing citizens arrest statutes will constitute an important first step toward equal justice under the law. It should be followed by an end to stand your ground laws. Currently on the books in a majority of states, these statutes constitute an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of the right to self-defense. Authorizing citizens to meet force with force, including deadly force, to prevent bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony, and affirming there is no duty to retreat in such situations, Floridas 2005 stand your ground law played a pivotal role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon Martin to death during a confrontation that was strikingly similar to the killing of Ahmaud Arbery.

Its time as well to reassess the advantages and disadvantages of the peremptory challenge, which permits lawyers in nearly all jurisdictions in the United States to prevent the selection of proposed jurors without having to provide a reason, unless the opposition can somehow demonstrate, prima facie, that the exclusion is based on racial, ethnic or gender discrimination. In the Arbery trial in Glynn County (where 25 percent of the population is Black), for example, defense attorneys used peremptory challenges to get a jury with eleven whites and one Black.

The nearly unanimous vote to reform the citizens arrest law in Georgias legislature suggests that changes in judicial procedures can attract bi-partisan support. They certainly should.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of "Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century."

Go here to see the original:
It's time to repeal and replace citizen's arrest laws | TheHill - The Hill

A Jackson County woman who killed a man she says raped her in 2018 is back behind bars.

A parole officer says Brittany Smith violated her house arrest - for the second time this year - by going out to a trunk or treat event with her kids on Halloween.

The Alabama Bureau of Pardons & Paroles wants her to spend 45 days in the Jackson County Jail for this most recent violation.

WAAY 31 has followed Smiths case from the crime scene through the arrest, legal battle, and sentencing.

Her story and claims of self-defense sparked a national conversation on the Stand Your Ground law, with media outlets coast-to-coast covering the case.

Smith accepted a plea deal for shooting and killing Joshua Todd Smith a man Brittany testified raped her and attacked her brother.

Smith also admitted to arson charges unrelated to the murder under that same deal.

Smith ended up serving 18 months in prison and now is sentenced to another 18 months on house arrest. She started that portion of the sentence in May.

This marks the second time the state parole board says Smith violated her house arrest orders.

Smith had asked for permission to see her kids trick or treat, and to leave her house. Her parole officer said she could see them before the kids went out, but ordered her back home, saying she could not go out with her family to a trunk or treat event.

Smith admitted she attended that event, and the state board of pardons and paroles put out a warrant for her arrest for failing to comply with the house arrest sentence guidelines.

This is her second violation since starting her house arrest. The first stint in the jail was ordered in August. Her probation was not revoked.

Continued here:
Jackson County mom who killed alleged rapist back in jail after taking kids to trunk or treat - WAAY