Mediaboss Marketing

Who is protected by the Stand Your Ground law in the event of a shooting? WAAY 31 searched for answers on the heels of a deadly shooting Tuesday in Morgan County.

When you typically hear about the law coming into play, it usually involves two people. Those two people are usually the shooter and the victim.

But lawyers told WAAY 31 it could include a third party under the right circumstances.

Attorney Mark McDaniel said, according to Alabama law, if you choose to defend someone using deadly force, then you are only justified if that person is in grave danger.

"The word is reasonable," McDaniel said. "If you reasonably believe the other person is using or about to use unlawful, deadly force against you or a third person in your presence."

And if that isn't the case, then McDaniel said the shooter could end up in legal trouble and face serious charges.

"If somebody pulls a gun out and then somebody else pulls a gun out," McDaniel said. "Then the third person walks in and shoots the second person who pulled the gun out, then that's going to be called manslaughter."

Decatur Police told WAAY 31 several employees were at Eagle One during the altercation, but authorities couldn't say who actually witnessed the shooting besides the three people involved. However, officers did say the argument started inside of the business and led outside near the back of the building where Cazier was shot and killed.

Police could not confirm whether the shooter saw the altercation from beginning, but authorities did tell me they are continuing to gather evidence for a grand jury to decide the shooter's fate.

"And, the grand jury will certainly consider everything," McDaniel said.

So far, no charges have been filed against the shooter or the other employee involved. Decatur Police said once they complete the investigation, then it will take up to 90 days for a grand jury to look at the case and decide if the Stand Your Ground law applies.

See the article here:
How the 'Stand Your Ground" law could apply to a third party? - WAAY

TAMPA, Fla. - If signed by the Governor, Florida would become the first state to place the burden of proof in Stand Your Ground cases on the prosecution, instead of the defense.

Some fear this change will have a dangerous impact on domestic violence victims.

Mindy Murphy is C.E.O. of The Spring of Tampa Bay, a dedicated to preventing domestic violence and protecting victims.

"The reality is a domestic violence batterer or abuser has nothing to lose now by filing for a Stand Your Ground immunity claim," said Murphy.

Advocates warn the change in Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law will have the unintended consequence of protecting abusers.

RELATED:Former Judge warns of dire consequences of Stand Your Ground changes

"It's going to be, potentially, a really great tool for an abuser to say 'hey, I was defending myself,'" said Murphy.

Murphy says that in many cases, victims are too frightened to come forward, taking a crucial piece of evidence away from the prosecution.

"Put her life at risk by testifying, then there's no way for the state to prove that it wasn't stand your ground."

Advocates want Gov. Rick Scott to help protect victims by vetoing the change.

"It happens behind closed doors and too often the only witness to the domestic violence is the perpetrator and the victim," said Murphy.

Lawmakers who support the change believe in strengthening the Stand Your Ground law is necessary because state prosecutors should always have to prove defendants acted outside the law, in any case.

View post:
Anti-domestic violence advocates warn against Stand Your Ground ... - ABC Action News

TAMPA, Fla. - How people accused of violent crime defend themselves in court could change drastically, after representatives voted to change Florida's self-defense law.

Now a former judge is warning of dire consequences, and an easier path for someone trying to get away with murder.

"This is what we call downstream consequences. The social policy set by this is really horrible," says Jeff Swartz, a professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Riverview.

Right now it's up to an accused defendant to prove they should be immune from a jury trial, but legislators, like Rep. Jeff Brandes of Pinellas County (R) are aiming to change what's known as the "burden of proof."

"The state should always have the burden of proof in these types of situations," Rep. Brandes told ABC Action News earlier this year, in support of changing the Stand Your Ground law. "The state should always have to prove that you acted outside the law."

But Swartz, who is a former County Judge in Florida, and serves as a legal expert for ABC Action News, is warning that the change means it will be up to the state to prove guilt to a judge before the trial ever even happens.

That could mean longer legal processes, and likely means a lot fewer cases will make it to trial.

"The idea that anybody charged with a violent felony -- assault, battery, attempted murder, murder -- can make the state prove him guilty, twice! As opposed to him having to prove he's entitled to the immunity and a jury decide if he's being truthful or not," is a bad idea, says Swartz.

And Swartz warns that in a system where witnesses are essential to get a jury trial, violent crime could become a lot more common.

"I think this will increase incidents of any kind of violence where they believe they can get away with it because there's nobody watching," explains Swartz.

The changes would take effect as soon as Governor Rick Scott signs it into law.

RELATED:Anti-domestic violence advocates warn against Stand Your Ground law change

Meanwhile, a lot could be decided by the first case to go through process under new law and that could be the local case of Curtis Reeves.

A judge has already rejected the former Tampa Police officer's request for immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but under the new law, he might be allowed to request another hearing on the matter, since the standards have changed.

"If I had to place a name on this I think this is the Curtis Reeves Bill," says Swartz to ABC Action News. "I think people saw what happened to Curtis Reeves. They sided with him. Some people were pushing for him. I think some of law enforcement was on his side, I think the NRA was on his side. And I think they wanted to create a circumstance in which someone like Curtis Reeves now gets a judge to maybe determine he doesn't have to stand trial in front of a jury where he believes he would most probably would be found guilty."

Read more:
Former Judge warns of dire consequences of Stand Your Ground ... - ABC Action News

TAMPA, Fla. - How people accused of violent crime defend themselves in court could change drastically, after representatives voted to change Florida's self-defense law.

Now a former judge is warning of dire consequences, and an easier path for someone trying to get away with murder.

"This is what we call downstream consequences. The social policy set by this is really horrible," says Jeff Swartz, a professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Riverview.

Right now it's up to an accused defendant to prove they should be immune from a jury trial, but legislators, like Rep. Jeff Brandes of Pinellas County (R) are aiming to change what's known as the "burden of proof."

"The state should always have the burden of proof in these types of situations," Rep. Brandes told ABC Action News earlier this year, in support of changing the Stand Your Ground law. "The state should always have to prove that you acted outside the law."

But Swartz, who is a former County Judge in Florida, and serves as a legal expert for ABC Action News, is warning that the change means it will be up to the state to prove guilt to a judge before the trial ever even happens.

That could mean longer legal processes, and likely means a lot fewer cases will make it to trial.

"The idea that anybody charged with a violent felony -- assault, battery, attempted murder, murder -- can make the state prove him guilty, twice! As opposed to him having to prove he's entitled to the immunity and a jury decide if he's being truthful or not," is a bad idea, says Swartz.

And Swartz warns that in a system where witnesses are essential to get a jury trial, violent crime could become a lot more common.

"I think this will increase incidents of any kind of violence where they believe they can get away with it because there's nobody watching," explains Swartz.

The changes would take effect as soon as Governor Rick Scott signs it into law.

RELATED:Anti-domestic violence advocates warn against Stand Your Ground law change

Meanwhile, a lot could be decided by the first case to go through process under new law and that could be the local case of Curtis Reeves.

A judge has already rejected the former Tampa Police officer's request for immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but under the new law, he might be allowed to request another hearing on the matter, since the standards have changed.

"If I had to place a name on this I think this is the Curtis Reeves Bill," says Swartz to ABC Action News. "I think people saw what happened to Curtis Reeves. They sided with him. Some people were pushing for him. I think some of law enforcement was on his side, I think the NRA was on his side. And I think they wanted to create a circumstance in which someone like Curtis Reeves now gets a judge to maybe determine he doesn't have to stand trial in front of a jury where he believes he would most probably would be found guilty."

View original post here:
Former Judge warns of dire consequences of Stand Your Ground changes - ABC Action News

The Senate blinked in afight over a standard of evidence, sending a fixto the states stand your ground law to Gov. Rick Scott.

The House on Friday voted to insist that the Senate accept its amendment to Sen. Rob Bradleys bill (SB 128), which aims to streamline claims of self-defense.

Last month, it OKd the bill but changedthe burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence, a lower threshold than the Senates beyond a reasonable doubt, to overcomeself-defense.

By Friday evening, the Senate finally accepted the change on a 22-14 vote.

Bill proponents want the burden tobe on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution, usually prosecutors, requiring a separate mini-trial, of sorts.

In legal terms,clear and convincing evidence is a medium level of burden of proof, according to the Legal Information Institute atCornell Law School.

In order to meet the standard and prove something by clear and convincing evidence, a party must prove that it is substantially more likely than not that it is true, it says. This standard is employed in both civil and criminal trials.

The Republican majority in the Legislature wants to shift the burden to prosecutors, making them disprove a claim of self-defense. Astate Supreme Court decision had put the onus on the defendant to show self-defense.

Democrats have inveighed against the measure, saying it would encourage bad actors to injure, even kill, and then claim self-defense.

The stand your ground law, enacted in 2005, allows people who are attacked to counter deadly force with deadly force in self-defense without any requirement that they flee.

Originally posted here:
Legislative fix to 'Stand Your Ground' law goes to Rick Scott - Florida ... - Florida Politics (blog)