Florida is looking to expand Stand Your Ground, not abolish it

[Type Username Here]

Florida lawmaker Matt Gaetz has proposed an amendment to the state’s controversial “stand your ground” law that would make it virtually impossible to obtain the court records of defendants who have successfully used the self-defense law in trial.

Rep. Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, proposed the change after the Tampa Bay Times published a review of 200 cases, which shows the law is unevenly applied in similar cases and has unpredictable results.

The proposed amendment would allow for defendants who successfully use the law as a legal defense, or have their charges dropped, to apply for a “certificate of eligibility” to expunge information related to “stand your ground” from their criminal records. The change could only take place once a defendant applies for the certificate.

The amendment was attached to a bill with wide bipartisan support that seeks an expansion of the "stand your ground" law for people who fire warning shots as a method of self-defense, a change brought about after the high-profile Marissa Alexander case drew attention to issues with Florida’s mandatory minimum sentencing for cases involving a gun.

Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot into her ceiling during an altercation with her estranged husband. An appeals court has ordered her a new trial.

The bill has already worked its way through the state’s Republican-controlled House and the Senate is expected to pass it. A formal vote is scheduled for Wednesday.

The measure has drawn intense criticism from local media, which say the change will significantly damage access to public records.

“Closing records and putting controversial cases that involve violence into the dark is a bad idea, it is against democracy,” Tampa Bay Times Editor Neil Brown said in an interview with Media Matters. He argued thatthe Times wouldn't have been able to conduct its review of the cases if this measure were in effect.

“This would have inhibited our work further. Our work was done based on court records as well as the stories of the incidents when they occurred.”

Kelly McBride, Senior Faculty for Ethics at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in Florida, told Al Jazeera that if the law was solid, it would stand up to public scrutiny.

“The reality is every time journalists dig into this, you don’t have to go very far at all to raise major questions about the legitimacy of the law and the fairness of how it is applied,” said McBride. “This is how the checks and balances work in a democracy. Laws hold great power over citizens, and individual journalists look at those laws and scrutinize whether that power is reasonable.”

Poynter is parent company of Times Publishing, the company that publishes the Tampa Bay Times.

McBride said the public also pays when journalists aren’t able to put laws under the microscope. She pointed to a recent report in Florida that exposed an issue with traffic lights.

The state legislature allowed cities to install red-light cameras at many intersections, and a number of cities also shortened the length of time between the yellow and red lights, which theoretically leads to more people being fined for “running” red lights.

“The journalists were the ones who revealed that, so as a driver in this state I now know I don’t just have to be wary of cruising through a red light. I have to be wary of how long the yellow light is, and I know that from journalism,” said McBride.

Rep. Gaetz has staunchly defended “stand your ground,” saying he doesn’t support “changing one damn comma” in the law. The law gained widespread notoriety followingGeorge Zimmerman’s acquittal in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, and it was thrust back into the spotlight in the Jordan Davis case.

Gaetz was unavailable for comment, but he told the Associated Press his amendment was not related to the Tampa Bay Times piece.

"The point is to ensure that someone who appropriately uses a 'stand your ground' defense doesn't have their life ruined by the use of that defense," he said, calling any changes to the law “reactionary and dangerous” and those opposed to the law were “uninformed.”

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...ournalistsaccesstostandyourgroundrecords.html

 

[tmonster]

seems legit......? no no it does not actually

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Not saying i condone the expansion of the law, but it would seem that protection from warning shots should have been in there before protection from shooting someone in the face.

 

[Type Username Here]

Not saying i condone the expansion of the law, but it would seem that protection from warning shots should have been in there before protection from shooting someone in the face.

I can see why people think warning shots are good idea and would limit deaths, but if this come to fruition, you will see why that isn't the case. It appears that bullets still have to answer to the laws of physics.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I can see why people think warning shots are good idea and would limit deaths, but if this come to fruition, you will see why that isn't the case. It appears that bullets still have to answer to the laws of physics.

I agree. I'm just talking about in the realm of this dumb ass law. You would think NOT shooting people would be protected already.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Damn, it's gon take a lot of mental math to kill young black men now. How soon til these hicks enroll to physics and geometry classes at their local community college?

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

20 years is ridiculous but she still fukked up...

 

[Type Username Here]

20 years is ridiculous but she still fukked up...

According to the proposed amendment to SYG, she did not fukk up. If this passes, the threshold for firing warning shots will damn near not exist. You will be able initiate an argument or fight, and fire warning shots in self-defense indiscriminately. If the ricochet or bullet drop ends up shooting or killing someone else you would have a legal protection.

 

[Brown_Pride]

...what's really scare is this is a step in the right direction.
Sometimes you gotta go forward to go backward ~ Ricky Bobby

 

[Brown_Pride]

According to the proposed amendment to SYG, she did not fukk up. If this passes, the threshold for firing warning shots will damn near not exist. You will be able initiate an argument or fight, and fire warning shots in self-defense indiscriminately. If the ricochet or bullet drop ends up shooting or killing someone else you would have a legal protection.

ok wait...if it kills someone else they gonna that?

this is a step in the wrong direction if that's the case.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

According to the proposed amendment to SYG, she did not fukk up. If this passes, the threshold for firing warning shots will damn near not exist. You will be able initiate an argument or fight, and fire warning shots in self-defense indiscriminately. If the ricochet or bullet drop ends up shooting or killing someone else you would have a legal protection.

Yeah and I disagree with this law. But a change in the law is not going to retroactively affect her is it? I mean unless it's changed before her appeal.

edit: and she still deserves jail time regardless of whether this warning shot thing was in place or not.

 

[tmonster]

I'm realizing
that one
1. I just need to stay out of florida and this is not my problem anymore
and
2. it is going to take a lot of mothers crying before they ask themselves, "what they fukk are we doing?", it's just how it has to be. things have to get really bad before they realize that it does not have to be so bad.

 

[Type Username Here]

ok wait...if it kills someone else they gonna that?

this is a step in the wrong direction if that's the case.

All you would have to do is say you were firing a warning shot and had no intention to kill or strike that other person.

See, warning shots are dangerous because it takes away the aspect of intentionally pulling the trigger to kill someone. Most people, even those with guns, don't have the nerve to kill or shoot a person. This takes away that. A lot of people would feel comfortable shooting warning shots. Bullets still follow the laws of physics, regardless of where the gun is pointed.

For example, here is what can happen when people shoot rounds into the air in celebration:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/12/30/warning-against-firing-weapons-into-the-air-on-new-years-eve/

This is going to increase the rate of use of weapons.

 

[tmonster]

For example, here is what can happen when people shoot rounds into the air in celebration:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/12/30/warning-against-firing-weapons-into-the-air-on-new-years-eve/

.

that story should tell you all you need to know about how inappropriate our relationship with and concept of deadly weapons has become. it if were not so dangerous it would be hilarious

 

[Box Cutta]

All you would have to do is say you were firing a warning shot and had no intention to kill or strike that other person.

See, warning shots are dangerous because it takes away the aspect of intentionally pulling the trigger to kill someone. Most people, even those with guns, don't have the nerve to kill or shoot a person. This takes away that. A lot of people would feel comfortable shooting warning shots. Bullets still follow the laws of physics, regardless of where the gun is pointed.

For example, here is what can happen when people shoot rounds into the air in celebration:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/12/30/warning-against-firing-weapons-into-the-air-on-new-years-eve/

This is going to increase the rate of use of weapons.

Yeah, it's unfortunate what happened to this women, but I feel like a lot of the "progressives" (both racial and gender) that have been arguing for Ms. Alexander are really misunderstanding exactly what they are asking for.

This same reasoning can be applied to why cops don't fire warning shots, or (as is commonly argued for) "non-lethal" shots. "Why not just shoot in him the leg?" Because the only fukking time a cop should fire his gun in the first place is when his life is in immediate danger...any situation where he could afford to just "clip" the guy, he shouldn't be shooting at all.

What this change basically means : You can now pull out a gun *and* fire it in even more instances now.

The standard for pulling out a weapon should be SOOOOOO fukking high in a modern, civilized, society. Florida is going to lower that standard significantly with these changes. And it's fukked up, because when Marissa Alexander is released, they are going to point to her as an example of "fairness" in the justice system or as a win for blacks....when the law freeing her will become the exact opposite. Cot damnit.