View Single Post
Old 11-23-2012, 13:15   #2
rvrctyrngr
Senior Moment
 
rvrctyrngr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gator Nation
Posts: 5,578


I have a huge problem with the 'immunity for self-defense' hearings that are currently being utilized in the courts. The hearing is NOT authorized by statute, and during the hearing, the defendant must prove that they acted in self-defense. The courts are using this based upon a flawed decision by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Peterson, which based its opinion on a similar but different Colorado Statute!!!

The intent of the legislation was to 'presume immunity for self-defense cases', and make the State prove the defendant did not act in self-defense, not the other way around. What's happening now basically nullifies the Legislature original intent.
__________________
Director,

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
-Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes Brown v. United States, 1921

Last edited by rvrctyrngr; 11-23-2012 at 13:16..
rvrctyrngr is offline   Reply With Quote