Judge Finds Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law Protects Gangmembers in Shooting

[maestro pistolero]

The problem is simply that this judge (any many others that think like him) believe that if in some cases, a law provides some measure of protection for an unsavory character, then the law must somehow be "bad" or "flawed".

It's only a problem if the Judge acts on his belief in the ruling. In this case, the Judge disagreed with the law, but followed it anyway. That's what judges are supposed to do.

 

[ScottRiqui]

True - the judge acted correctly (although his understanding of the law, specifically that it would protect *both* parties, is flawed.)

It was Judge Lewis' unnecessary hand-wringing and lamenting of the non-existent unintended consequences of the law that have prompted the State's Attorney to petition the Governor to have the law revoked.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

None of this you described, even if true, is unlawful activity.

They were charged by the prosecution with the deliberate ambush of the people they killed - in relation to an earlier ambush and shooting of the same gang just a few minutes (and blocks) away earlier that night. The facts given in the news story support the prosecutor's version better than they support the judge's version; but I am not going to belabor the the point. While I'm skeptical that these guys are innocent, they could in fact be innocent. All the discussion about "Well maybe they are innocent" or "presumtion of innocence" is background noise that misses the real problem here.

The problem in this case is that the judge has said these two men are not guilty, because he believes under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, both parties to a shooting can claim self-defense. If you read 776.013(3), this is plainly not true. Whichever party is the attacker, cannot claim self-defense.

Instead of doing his job and determining who the attacker was based on the evidence presented, the judge is being intellectually lazy and claiming that both sides can claim self-defense. He has misstated the plain law in Florida - and apparently done it to score points for an agenda. At that point, I would have to wonder how credible his evaluation of the facts are.

In this case, the Judge disagreed with the law, but followed it anyway.

Actually, we don't know that he did. If the defendants were actually the attackers (as the prosecutor alleges), then they cannot claim self-defense. Based on the facts in the story, the judge never says he finds their story credible. Instead he says "that two individuals, or even groups, can square off in a middle of a public street, exchange gunfire, and both be absolved from criminal liability" under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

At best, that is a gross misstatement of the law that looks really bad because it lacks the context of the rest of his 7 page opinion. At worst, he is letting two guys go who deliberately ambushed and killed two other men because he thinks it is more important to promote gun control than justice.

Taylor and Jackson were the initial shooters.

Brown and Tyler were the drivers in a separate vehicle with the AK, and were fired upon, then returned fire, striking Jackson in the face.

That is Brown's testimony of what happened. Lucky for Brown that Tyler had an AK47 loaded and ready to instantly return fire with 30 rounds eh? Lucky for Brown and Tyler both that the Judge apparently didn't accept the prosecutions argument and evidence that Brown and Tyler had gone to the Holton Street project to continue an earlier fight (which would negate the claim of self-defense) as well.