Mediaboss Marketing

Good policymaking requires an evenhanded approach. The proposed changes to the Stand Your Ground Law that recently passed the Florida Senate are anything but evenhanded.

The bill pushes back on a majority decision by the court that ruled that individuals who claim self-defense under the Stand Your Ground statute must prove in a pretrial immunity hearing that they met deadly force with deadly force in fear for their lives.

Under the bill, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is not entitled to claim stand your ground immunity.

While beyond a reasonable doubt sounds like what prosecutors ordinarily should do, consider that in the hearing that they must prove what someone is not entitled to.

Likely the victim is no longer living and the witness list is either grossly short or non-existent.

Further, a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that even the law as it currently exists is associated with a spike of over 30 percent in Floridas firearm-related homicide rate since its passage in 2005. This is despite a national decline in homicides since the early 1990s.

Another study, conducted by the Tampa Bay Times, found that one-third of defendants initiated the confrontation, shot or pursued an unarmed victim and went free.

Given what we know, and what the court apparently understands, the political badminton on this issue should stop and the scales should not be pushed away from fairness and justice.

Valuing the life of individuals should reign over a need to play whos boss, and the court should be able to operate in its appropriate space.

The Senate bill now waits as the House companion, I hope, goes through enough committees to give it proper vetting with more opportunity for public testimony that exposes the fatal flaw of victims never getting their side of the story told because they are no longer able to talk.

And people are able to walk away from a potential murder scene.

State Sen. Audrey Gibson,

Jacksonville

Read this article:
Tuesday's Lead Letter: Change to Stand Your Ground Law is ... - Florida Times-Union

As the only independent, state-based gun violence prevention organization in Minnesota, Protect Minnesota strongly opposes the passage of Stand Your Ground legislation.

This bill is unnecessary. Minnesota law allows individuals to use deadly force in self-defense from grievous bodily harm or death. There is nothing confusing about it: Minnesotans can already use deadly force in self-defense. However, current law establishes an objective standard: the shooter is required to prove the shooting was justified.

This bill removes the obligation to retreat in all situations and gives the presumption of innocence to the shooter, setting a completely subjective standard. All the shooter must do to justify killing another human being is claim that he felt threatened, whether or not the threat was real.

The bill also authorizes use of deadly force when responding to any attempted felony on private property -- in effect establishing the death sentence for attempting to steal a high-end bike out of a garage.

This bill would not make Minnesota safer. Minnesota's gun death rate is 6.6 per 100,000 people. The average gun death rate in the 24 states with Stand Your Ground laws is 14.3 per 100,000 more than twice Minnesota's rate, according to the Kaiser Foundation. A study of states that have enacted such laws showed no evidence of crime deterrence -- rates of burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault have not been affected. On the other hand, homicides in those states have increased by around 8 percent, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

This bill would put Minnesotans at risk. The implementation of Florida's Stand Your Ground law was associated with a 24.4 percent increase in homicide and a 31.6 percent increase in firearm-related homicide, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. On average, Stand Your Ground states have experienced a 53 percent increase in homicides deemed legally "justifiable" in the years following passage of the law, compared to a 5 percent decrease in states without the laws, according to the National Urban League.

Stand Your Ground represents a particular threat to people of color and immigrants, who are often met with suspicion by Minnesotans. If it passes, almost any shooting could be justified because the shooter "felt threatened," even if the "threat" was a hoodie or a hijab. Racial bias and inconsistency in the implementation of these laws is a widespread phenomenon. In Stand Your Ground states, white killers are 354 percent more likely to be found innocent if the victim is black than if the victim is white, according to FBI data cited by the PBS news program "Frontline."

This bill also puts anyone whose behavior is unusual at risk, such as those who suffer from mental illness or autism. Although the gun lobby would like us to believe that the mentally ill are the primary perpetrators of gun violence, in actuality they much more likely to be victims. Their behavior can seem "scary" and this bill gives Minnesotans the right to shoot "scary" people.

The same is true for home health care workers, meter readers, pizza deliverers, repair people, census takers, and kids whose Frisbee ends up in a neighbor's garden -- anyone who has to cross a property line or knock on a stranger's front door would be put at risk if someone in the home felt "threatened" by their presence.

To sum up, Stand Your Ground is unnecessary, won't make Minnesota safer, and will put Minnesotans at risk. This "shoot on sight" legislation does not align with Minnesota Nice nor Minnesota values. We urge state law makers to keep House File 239 from moving forward.

The Rev. Nancy Nord Bence is executive director of

, which is based in St. Paul.

Read the original:
Bence: Stand Your Ground law makes no one safer - Post-Bulletin

Ill give the mainstream media this much: Its absolutely consistent in its inability to understand or explain use-of-force law generally and Stand-Your-Ground laws in particular.

The most recent example comes out of Tulsa, Okla., where this past Monday a 23-year-old staying at his fathers home encountered three armed assailants who had forcibly entered by kicking in the back door.

Unfortunately for these home invaders, the 23-year-old possessed a loaded AR-15 rifle, and he knew how to use it. All three suspects ended up dead. A fourth, the getaway driver, would later turn herself into police. The shooter immediately called 911 to report the incident, a call which is remarkable in its own right. (Seriously, go listen to it.)

As seems inevitable in any media coverage of a self-defense shooting, news reports of the incident routinely made reference to Stand-Your-Ground:

The homeowners son who shot them has not been arrested while police investigate whether he acted in self-defense under the states Stand Your Ground law. CBS News

[Assistant District Attorney Jack ] Thorp told reporters that investigators will help his office determine whether Oklahomas Stand Your Ground law applies in the case of the triple shooting. Fox News

Killing of 3 teens during burglary may test Oklahoma stand your ground law Yahoo News

As also seems inevitable, these references to Stand Your Ground laws betrayed a shocking inability to understand what such laws actually mean.

The first thing to know about Stand Your Ground is that traditional self-defense law often imposed a legal duty to retreat before using defensive force if a safe avenue of retreat was available. Stand Your Ground serves to relieve a defender of that duty to retreat in cases where it would previously have existed and that is all that Stand Your Ground does.

This means, of course, that in circumstances in which no legal duty to retreat exists, Stand Your Ground is entirely irrelevant, because no one needs to be relieved of a legal duty he never had in the first place.

If no safe avenue of retreat is available, then there is no legal duty to retreat, even in the absence of a Stand Your Ground law. If there exists a safe avenue of retreat for the defender, but that path of retreat is not safe for a person accompanying the defender (e.g. a small child or elderly parent), the defender is not required to leave the other behind, and thus there is no legal duty to retreat, again rendering any Stand Your Ground law irrelevant.

And then there is the universal exception to any legal duty to retreat: the so-called Castle Doctrine, which holds that even in cases when one would otherwise have a legal duty to retreat, that legal duty doesnt apply if they are in their castle meaning their home and sometimes their business or vehicle and they are facing armed intruders who have forcibly entered. In such a home-invasion, there is no legal duty to retreat, so Stand Your Ground laws do not apply.

This last circumstance is precisely what that 23-year-old Oklahoman faced on Monday, and there is no state in the country where he would have had a legal duty to retreat, meaning his actions were not governed by Stand Your Ground law. Instead, he found himself in a very straightforward defense of dwelling scenario. Under Oklahoma law, as in many states, a home defender in this situation is also favored by the creation of certain legal presumptions that strengthen the legal defense for their use of force.

The relevant Oklahoma law is easily found in Oklahoma Statute 1289.25, Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder, which creates two legal presumptions in defense of dwelling cases.

The first is that the defender had a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm:

A person...is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if...the person against whom the defensive force was used...had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business...

The second legal presumption created by the statute is that the home invader intends to commit an act of violence:

A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

It is true that 1289.25 elsewhere contains references to Stand Your Ground, self-defense immunity, and reimbursement of a defenders legal expenses in a civil suit. But each of these is an entirely distinct legal concept, and may or may not apply to a particular defensive force event depending on the facts of the case. As explained above, the statutes Stand Your Ground provisions dont remotely apply to the Tulsa shooting, as the long-standing provisions of the Castle Doctrine already relieved the defender of any legal duty to retreat even if such a duty existed under Oklahoma law.

In short, this was a defense of dwelling scenario which raised a legal presumption of reasonable fear on the part of the defender and of intent to commit violence on the part of the home invader. Stand Your Ground has nothing whatsoever to do with this case but no one should hold their breath waiting for the mainstream media to realize it.

Andrew F. Branca is an attorney and the author of The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide for the Armed Citizen.

READ MORE:

See more here:
The Mainstream Media Gets 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Wrong Again - National Review

Either Oklahomas implementation of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are substantially different than that of the rest of the country, or the assistant district attorney could use a refresher on the laws of self defense.

The nearly eight-minute 911 call begins about 12:44 p.m. on Monday.

Ive just been broken into. Three men, two Ive shot in my house, the caller says. Ones down, ones still talking. You need to get here now.

The caller doesnt sound panicked, and waits for the operator to ask him questions.

Wagoner County Chief Deputy Les Young said a deputy arrived two minutes after the 911 call was initiated. The operator keeps the caller a 23-year-old who lives at the home on the phone until you hear the deputy talking to him.

A probable cause affidavit alleges Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez, 21, planned the burglary and waited in the car while the masked intruders broke into the home.

In a news release Wednesday, the sheriffs department said Rodriguez waived her right to an attorney and told them she determined the residents had money and expensive belongings, and that was why she selected his home to hit a lick a term some criminals use to describe getting a significant amount of money in a short period of time.

Authorities said the suspect became aware of the homeowner, but did not know him or his son, the shooter.

Rodriguez and the three slain intruders burglarized a spare apartment at the residence earlier in the day and returned to rob the main house, the news release said. The three teens, dressed in black and covering their faces, kicked in the door, encountered the resident and were shot inside the house.

One of the injured suspects exited the home and tried to get back in to Rodriguezs vehicle, but she told investigators she drove away and left him in the driveway, the release said.

Rodriguez allegedly fled and later went to the Broken Arrow Police Department.

Does Stand your ground law apply?

Young said she was arrested and was being held on suspicion of three counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree burglary and one count of second-degree burglary.

Assistant District Attorney Jack Thorp said Tuesday that Rodriguez could be formally charged with murder if the suspects were killed while she was involved in a felony. But formal charges wont come until later in the week, at the earliest.

It is unclear whether Rodriguez has an attorney.

The deceased suspects were Jaycob Woodruff, 16; Jacob Redfern, 17; and Maxwell Cook, 19, the sheriffs office said. One suspect had a knife, and another carried brass knuckles, authorities have said.

Thorp told reporters that investigators will help his office determine whether Oklahomas Stand Your Ground law applies in the case of the triple shooting.

The 911 call and all publicly available information suggests that the shooting occurred during a home invasion attempt in which the suspects were armed with a knife and brass knuckles. One of the dead burglars was found dead inthe driveway after running from the home. The others were found inside the home.

This sounds like a textbook castle doctrine case under Oklahoma law.

21-1289.25 PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.

B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Stand your ground laws (including Oklahomas) are an expansion of castle doctrines protections to apply to places other than in the home or business. As this was unquestionably a burglary/home invasion,Assistant District Attorney Jack Thorp is mistaken in suggesting that 21-1289.25 D, the stand your ground provision, should apply.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and 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, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I fully expect the mainstream media to misapply and misconstrue the laws regarding self defense cases in order to make lawful self defense seem bad or evil. They are, after all, typically strong supporters of gun control.

Its infuriating, however, for prosecutors not to know the laws regarding self defense in their jurisdictions.

This is clearly a castle doctrine case where a man was confronted by armed home invaders who came into his residence. Stand your provisions are not relevant, and the prosecutor should explain that to the media, as the case has now gained national attention.

Author's Bio: Bob Owens

Originally posted here:
Okie District Attorney Incorrectly Cites Stand Your Ground Law In Triple Homicide - Bearing Arms

Lucy McBath, Guest columnist 12:06 a.m. ET March 30, 2017

A framed copy of the Jet magazine cover story on Jordan Davis, son of Ron Davis and Lucy McBath, is pictured the law office of their attorney, John Phillips, in Jacksonville. Jordan Davis,17, was shot to death by Michael Dunn, of Satellite Beach, on Nov. 23, 2012.(Photo: Tim Shortt, FLORIDA TODAY)Buy Photo

The Florida House will soon vote on a bill that would expand the states already-deadly Stand Your Ground law. These laws embolden individuals to shoot first and ask questions later rather than encourage people to de-escalate their conflicts through peaceful means and walk away when safe to do so.

Research shows that Floridas current iteration was associated with an increase in firearm homicides, and while these types of laws put all of us at risk, they have a disproportionate impact on communities of color.

I understand this painful reality all too well. My son, Jordan Davis, was just 17 years old when he was shot and killed by an older white man during a dispute over loud music at a Jacksonville gas station. Jordan and his friends were all unarmed. My sons killer was not.

Michael Dunn murder conviction upheld in loud-music fatal shooting

Research shows that when white shooters kill black victims, the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable 11 times more frequently than when the shooter is black and the victim is white. Additionally, Florida Stand Your Ground cases with minority victims are half as likely to lead to conviction, compared with cases that involve white victims.

Since Jordans murder, Ive dedicated my life to honoring his memory by telling his story and working to make sure no other parent experiences the pain of having a child stolen from them through gun violence. I, along with Florida members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and other gun violence survivors, will continue to speak out against this bill and all other dangerous bills that put our communities at risk.

Floridas Stand Your Ground already gives untrained civilians more leeway to shoot than the U.S. military gives its soldiers in war zones. Now, SB 128 would expand the law by effectively requiring criminal defendants who raise a Stand Your Ground defense to be convicted twice once by a judge and once by a jury.

This new bill would shift the burden of proof in Stand Your Ground pretrial hearings from defendants to prosecutors, forcing the state to prove a shooter acted unlawfully before it even brings a case to trial. This would make it easier for gun criminals to elude justice. It would also create an insurmountable backlog of cases for prosecutors, and stretch already-thin resources without allocating any more funding to that state agency.

Video: Loud-music shooter Michael Dunn gets life in prison

Simply put, these types of laws do not deter crime. They allow individuals to shoot and kill others in public places even when they can clearly and safely walk away from the conflict.

We should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people not passing laws that turn everyday confrontations into deadly shootouts.

Floridians deserve better than this. Jordans memory deserves better than this. Trayvons memory deserves better than this. Our lawmakers should remember that the dangerous proposal theyre supporting today can and will have irreversible and even deadly consequences for many Floridians for years to come.

Lucy McBath is the Faith and Outreach Leader for Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

Read or Share this story: http://on.flatoday.com/2nCbk8v

Read the rest here:
Victim's mother: Stand Your Ground emboldens shooters - Florida Today