[ad_1]
At another time, in another state, the video could be too disturbing to watch.
A suspected thief looks for a way to pass a Lakeland store owner who is holding a gun. The thief puts a hand on the door just as the store owner stops to stop him.
He comes almost to the outside as the store owner grabs his shirt and then opens fire. The thief falls face to face and the store owner stands over him for several minutes, watching the end of a lifetime.
The video is both sad, voyeuristic and disturbing.
It has also become a digital gathering place for legal and moral debates. Once again, the infamous provision of the Florida law is ripe for public scrutiny. And a scene that would have been horrible not so long ago is now legitimately defended by many.
So what does that say about life in Florida in 2018? Did "defending your ground" change our approach to self-defense and make us more tolerant of lethal force?
Bullet by bullet, is our perspective changing?
"If you forgive me for being brief, the answer is yes," said Bob Dekle, a former assistant attorney general who sued serial killer Ted Bundy. "What" hold your position "is a useless massacre and has that in a justifiable killing."
• • •
Polk's General Counsel said Friday night that his office did not believe that Lakeland store owner Michael Dunn was protected by your trial law and accused him of second degree murder in Christobal's death. Lopez.
This is not the end of the question, however. Dunn can always seek your ground protection at a preliminary hearing and perhaps later, perhaps, assert his right of self defense in front of a jury.
As in the shooting of Markeis McGlockton, filmed in front of a Clearwater convenience store in July, the circumstances are nuanced.
Lopez was accused of attempting to steal a small hatchet and, although he tried to flee the shop, one could argue that he had a deadly weapon because the hatchet seemed to be in his right hand. He is clearly visible next to his body after his shot.
And in this sense, the Lakeland video shares a common ground with the McGlockton affair. McGlockton also retreated when he was shot, but only after knocking out Michael Drejka and threatening him in a threatening manner.
Thus, even if the Florida juries are instructed to focus only on the facts of a given case, do these highly publicized and controversial confrontations gradually bring the public's perception to a more permissive definition of self-defense?
"If people do not pay attention to the details of a video, there could be a tendency to simplify it and leave behind the wrong message," said Clearwater's defense attorney Stephen Romine. "So, if a guy is acquitted, he thinks it's okay to shoot at someone he's pushing you into a parking lot." Or, shoot a thief on the fly if he tries to leave a shop.
"This is the danger that anyone looks at one of these world-type videos and thinks it establishes how and when you can use lethal force."
Occasional observers may be excused if they do not fully understand the legal details of the law "defend your position". Even experts tackle the vague concepts of whether a person "reasonably believes" that they are in danger, or what is "imminent". risk & # 39;. & # 39;
In the Clearwater car park, there was a split second when McGlockton was standing above Drejka after knocking him out. At that point, it is reasonable to believe that Drejka was in imminent danger. But two seconds later, when the gun is fired, McGlockton has already withdrawn.
During the Lakeland shootings, Dunn could argue that he had the right to legally detain Lopez. He shot her only after realizing that the hatchet was in the hands of the other man.
These claims may not have been convincing 20 years ago, but the legal barrier to self-defense has been unquestionably lowered with "stand your soil".
For some, it's a scary thought.
For others, it was too late.
The legal distinction of "stand for the ground" is that it removes the obligation to withdraw before reacting with deadly force. The practical distinction in today's world is that it often provides a justification for an exaggerated reaction.
"We continue to push the boundaries of society with" hold your position, "said Charles Rose, professor at Stetson University Law College. In the minds of many people, the acceptability of a behavior is not acceptable shortly thereafter. since.
"You can make an anecdotal argument that we have standardized the use of firearms for self-defense … and depending on your point of view, you think that's a good change or not . "
Proponents of the Second Amendment often say that an armed society is a polite society. Rose has a different interpretation. An armed society, he said, is a frightening society.
It's a semantic distinction that probably depends on a person's worldview.
What is less subject to debate is the practical effect of "defending your position" in Florida's criminal justice system. This has been going on for more than a decade, and has undoubtedly changed the perception of an acceptable response in the heat of confrontation. .
This applies to judges, prosecutors and jurors.
Also for shop owners and budding crusaders.
"It's been so long since we discuss, criticize and examine in more detail that this is no longer an anomaly." It's the new normality, said West Palm Beach lawyer Leonard Feuer. , who has successfully used "defend your position" in many cases. and said acquittals are becoming more common.
"There is now this new standard that makes use of lethal force."
[ad_2]
Source link
