Mediaboss Marketing

As Florida state Representative James W. Grant argued on Wednesday in favor of expanding Floridas already deadly Stand Your Ground law, he invoked Trayvon Martin and the name of my son, Jordan Davis. He used my sons name to claim that the system was workingthat the fact that my sons killer is now spending life in prison after claiming self-defense and citing the Stand Your Ground law means that Floridas Stand Your Ground law doesnt get in the way of justice being served.

Related: Guns in America: Law restricting doctors gun speech struck down

Heres my message for RepresentativeGrant: Dont you dare use my sons name to justify your support for this reckless bill. As RepresentativeGrant knows, I testified against the bill and expanding Stand Your Ground in Florida. I did so in hopes of protecting children like my son.

RepresentativeGrant said on the House floorthat the system worked for us. We went to trial twice to get a conviction for Jordans murder. The first time, the jury could not convict the man who shot my son nine times as he sat unarmed in the backseat of his friends car, in part because of the Stand Your Ground jury instructions. The second trial won us the verdict we wanted, but it didnt bring back my child.

Jordan Daviss mother, Lucy McBath, leaves the courtroom with her husband Curtis McBath as court recessed for the jury to reconsider the first charge against Michael Dunn in Jacksonville, Florida, on February 15, 2014. Dunn was accused of first degree murder in the death of Davis after an altercation over loud music at a Florida gas station in November 2012. Bob Mack/Florida Times-Union/Reuters

Jordan was 17 when he was shot and killed while sitting in a car at a Jacksonville gas station for the apparently threatening behavior of listening to loud music with his friends. Jordan was unarmed, but he was a young black man. Now my beloved only son is gone.

Jordan is a victim of this states shoot first, ask questions later culture that is largely a product of the Stand Your Ground law. Jordans killer felt within his rights to shoot at my child because of Stand Your Ground and the culture it creates.

Stand Your Ground laws make all of us more vulnerable to the threat of gun violence, but they also have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Shootings of black victims by white shooters are deemed justifiable11 times more frequentlythan when the shooter is black and the victim is white. When controlling for other factors, Florida Stand Your Ground cases with minority victims are half as likely to lead to conviction, compared to cases with white victims.

Whats more, a list of Stand Your Ground cases in Florida from 2005-2012,compiled by the Tampa Bay Times, found that at least 26 children and teens were killed in incidents related to the law. My son was one of them.

The Florida House on Wednesday passed S.B. 128, which is a bill that would expand Floridas already deadly Stand Your Ground law. Lawmakers ignored the concerns of their constituents, gun violence survivors and even prosecutors to strengthen a law that has traumatized so many families in the state.

Stand Your Ground laws embolden everyday citizens, like the man who shot and killed my son, to act like vigilantes, instead of seeking peaceful solutions to everyday disputes. Floridas Stand Your Ground law gives untrained civilians more leeway to shoot than the U.S. military gives its soldiers in war zones. Now, with S.B. 128, this already deadly law would become even more reckless by effectively requiring criminal defendants who raise a Stand Your Ground defense to be convicted twiceonce by a judge and once by a jury.

S.B. 128 would allow more gun criminals to escape justice by flipping the burden of proof in pre-trial immunity hearings from defendants to prosecutors, forcing the state to prove a shooter acted unlawfully before it brings a case to trial. Under this bill, prosecutors would struggle under an insurmountable number of cases, with no additional resources to alleviate their increased workload.

This is unacceptable.

While most parents my age are cheering on their childrens prospective career plans and asking about dates, I find myself burying my face in Jordans polo shirts trying to imagine the man my boy would be today. I miss my son.

Lawmakers like Representative Grant should understand that the proposals they boldly support today are a slap in the face to those of us who know all too well the grief that gun violence can cause.

My son is not a tactic to be used in political arenas for relevancy and points. Expanding Floridas deadly Stand Your Ground law is not about politics. This is about parents having to bury their children before college acceptance letters roll in. This is about black mothers worrying if playing loud music means that her child will be stalked and killed. This is about communities of color being forced to live with traumatic experiences. Its about whether we want to live in fear of our neighbors and community members.

Nearly 21 years ago, I made a promise to my newborn son that my life would be dedicated to honoring and protecting him to the best of my abilities. Jordan was taken from me. I will still fulfill my promise. I will still do my part to create a country that would have been safe for my son. And while Representative Grant may claim hes doing just that with his support of S.B. 128, my sons final resting place and the graves of so many other innocent Floridians says differently.

Lucy McBath is the faith and outreach leader for Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Lucys son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed in an argument over loud music at a gas station in Jacksonville, Florida, on November 23, 2012. Lucy is also a member of the Mothers of the Movement.

See the article here:
Jordan Davis's Mother: Don't Use My Son's Death To Expand Stand ... - Newsweek

TALLAHASSEE | The House and Senate are in a stand-off, for now, about a controversial bill dealing with stand your ground self-defense cases.

The two chambers have approved different versions of a proposal (SB 128) intended to shift a key burden of proof in stand your ground cases from defendants to prosecutors in pre-trial hearings.

As the bill returns to the Senate after the House approved its version this week, House and Senate leaders are maintaining support for their different positions.

The House wants to require prosecutors in stand your ground cases to overcome the asserted immunity sought by defendants through clear and convincing evidence. The Senate, which rejected the clear and convincing evidence language earlier this session, has set a higher standard known as beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ive said from the beginning, if the government wants to convict you of a serious crime and send you to prison, they should have the burden of proof at every stage of the proceeding beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, Senate President Joe Negron, R-Stuart, told reporters on Thursday. Its the highest legal standard in the world. Its served us well. And in order for the government to prevail in the underlying criminal case theyre going to have to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. So I prefer the Senates higher legal standard.

When asked if the House language could kill the bill, Negron, an attorney, replied, Its only week five (of the legislative session). I assume theyll send the bill back to us, and it will be up to the senators on what they want to do. My preference would be that we stand on the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt criminal standard.

The 60-day regular session is scheduled to end May 5.

The overall proposal, backed by groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Florida Public Defender Association, stems from a Florida Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that said defendants have the burden of proof to show they should be shielded from prosecution under the stand your ground law.

House sponsor Bobby Payne, R-Palatka, told reporters Thursday the clear-and-convincing-evidence threshold was a reasonable and fair place to land after hearing from numerous groups regarding how the 2005 law should be interpreted.

We need to consider the opportunity for encouraging victims to come forward in those particular situations, Payne replied when asked why he supported the clear and convincing language.

On Wednesday, before the House voted along party lines to support the bill, Rep. James Grant, a Tampa Republican who is an attorney, also defended the House clear-and-convincing-evidence approach.

If the government cannot beat the lesser, easier burden in an immunity trial, then they darned sure cant meet beyond and to the exclusion of each and every reasonable doubt when they ask for a conviction, Grant said.

The Senate voted 23-15 to approve its version of the bill on March 15.

The stand your ground law has long been controversial. It says people can use deadly force and do not have a duty to retreat if they think it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

In its 2015 ruling, the Supreme Court majority opinion written by Justice Barbara Pariente said immunity in the stand your ground law is not a blanket immunity, but rather, requires the establishment that the use of force was legally justified.

But a dissenting opinion, written by Justice Charles Canady and now highlighted by Republican lawmakers, countered that the majority ruling substantially curtails the benefit of the immunity from trial conferred by the Legislature under the Stand Your Ground law.

The factual question raised by the assertion of Stand Your Ground immunity in a pretrial evidentiary hearing is the same as the factual question raised by a Stand Your Ground defense presented at trial: whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants conduct was not justified under the governing statutory standard, Canady wrote.

The proposed change has been opposed by Democratic lawmakers and groups such as the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, who have argued it would put an end to cases before all the facts are revealed. They also contend the stand your ground law has disproportionate effects on minorities, as it is used more successfully as a defense when white shooters kill African-Americans.

Read this article:
House, Senate at odds over controversial 'stand your ground' self-defense cases - Florida Times-Union

The two chambers have approved different versions of a proposal (SB 128) intended to shift a key burden of proof in stand your ground cases from defendants to prosecutors in pre-trial hearings.

TALLAHASSEE The House and Senate are in a standoff, for now, about a controversial bill dealing with stand your ground self-defense cases.

The two chambers approved different versions of a proposal (SB 128) intended to shift a key burden of proof in stand your ground cases from defendants to prosecutors in pre-trial hearings.

As the bill returns to the Senate after the House approved its version this week, House and Senate leaders are maintaining support for their different positions.

The House wants to require prosecutors in stand your ground cases to overcome the asserted immunity sought by defendants through clear and convincing evidence. The Senate, which rejected the clear and convincing evidence language earlier this session, has set a higher standard known as beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ive said from the beginning, if the government wants to convict you of a serious crime and send you to prison, they should have the burden of proof at every stage of the proceeding beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, Senate President Joe Negron, R-Stuart, told reporters Thursday. Its the highest legal standard in the world. Its served us well. And in order for the government to prevail in the underlying criminal case, theyre going to have to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. So I prefer the Senates higher legal standard.

When asked if the House language could kill the bill, Negron, an attorney, replied, Its only week five of the legislative session. I assume theyll send the bill back to us, and it will be up to the senators on what they want to do. My preference would be that we stand on the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt criminal standard.

The 60-day regular session is scheduled to end May 5.

The overall proposal, backed by groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Florida Public Defender Association, stems from a Florida Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that said defendants have the burden of proof to show they should be shielded from prosecution under the stand your ground law.

House sponsor Bobby Payne, R-Palatka, told reporters Thursday the clear-and-convincing-evidence threshold was a reasonable and fair place to land after hearing from numerous groups regarding how the 2005 law should be interpreted.

We need to consider the opportunity for encouraging victims to come forward in those particular situations, Payne replied when asked why he supported the clear and convincing language.

On Wednesday, before the House voted along party lines to support the bill, Rep. James Grant, a Tampa Republican who is an attorney, also defended the House clear-and-convincing-evidence approach.

If the government cannot beat the lesser, easier burden in an immunity trial, then they darned sure cant meet beyond and to the exclusion of each and every reasonable doubt when they ask for a conviction, Grant said.

The Senate voted 23-15 to approve its version of the bill March 15.

The stand your ground law has long been controversial. It says people can use deadly force and do not have a duty to retreat if they think it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

In its 2015 ruling, the Supreme Court majority opinion written by Justice Barbara Pariente said immunity in the stand your ground law is not a blanket immunity, but rather, requires the establishment that the use of force was legally justified.

But a dissenting opinion, written by Justice Charles Canady and now highlighted by Republican lawmakers, countered the majority ruling substantially curtails the benefit of the immunity from trial conferred by the Legislature under the Stand Your Ground law.

The factual question raised by the assertion of Stand Your Ground immunity in a pretrial evidentiary hearing is the same as the factual question raised by a Stand Your Ground defense presented at trial: whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants conduct was not justified under the governing statutory standard, Canady wrote.

The proposed change has been opposed by Democratic lawmakers and groups such as the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, who have argued it would put an end to cases before all the facts are revealed. They also contend the stand your ground law has disproportionate effects on minorities, as it is used more successfully as a defense when white shooters kill African-Americans.

Read more:
House, Senate differ on 'stand your ground' - The News Herald

New York Daily News

Stand Your Ground changes easier on Fla. shooting suspects New York Daily News Shooting suspects in Florida might have a better chance to avoid prosecution because of a new Republican-backed measure on the Sunshine State's controversial Stand Your Ground law. The Florida House of Representatives passed an NRA-endorsed bill ...

See more here:
Stand Your Ground changes easier on Fla. shooting suspects - New York Daily News

A critic of the states stand your ground law Wednesday said a change to the law now moving through the Legislature will make it easier for people to murder other human beings.

Lawmakers now are considering shifting the burden to prosecutors, making them disprove a claim of self-defense. Sen. Perry Thurston, a Fort Lauderdale Democrat, called that making a bad law worse.

He appeared with several fellow Democrats at a morning press conference in the Capitol.

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.

The House onTuesday amended a Senate measure(SB 128) to change the burden of proofto overcomeself-defense to clear and convincing evidence, a lower threshold than the Senates beyond a reasonable doubt.

But lowering the burden wont help the bill, Thurston told reporters, because the problem is with the burdens shifting: Essentially forcing prosecutors to prove a negative.

Rep. Kamia Brown, an Orlando Democrat, added thatthe move willincentivize domestic abusers to finish the job.

Why not go all the way there wont be anyone around to dispute a stand your ground defense, she said.

And Rep. Bobby DuBose, anotherFort LauderdaleDemocrat, said it will embolden gang members to pick on the competition with impunity under the cover of a stand your ground defense.

Specifically, the Senate billsponsored by Fleming Island Republican Rob Bradleywould requireprosecutors to showthat a defendant is not immune from prosecution.

Its in reaction toa state Supreme Court decision that put the onus on the defendant to show self-defense under the stand your ground law.

The House is scheduled to vote on the amendedbill later Wednesday, sending it back to the Senate.

A Periscope video of the press conference can be viewed below:

See the original post:
Democrats decry change to 'stand your ground' law - Florida Politics - Florida Politics (blog)