Mediaboss Marketing

TAMPA, Fla. - How people accused of violent crime defend themselves in court could change drastically, after representatives voted to change Florida's self-defense law.

Now a former judge is warning of dire consequences, and an easier path for someone trying to get away with murder.

"This is what we call downstream consequences. The social policy set by this is really horrible," says Jeff Swartz, a professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Riverview.

Right now it's up to an accused defendant to prove they should be immune from a jury trial, but legislators, like Rep. Jeff Brandes of Pinellas County (R) are aiming to change what's known as the "burden of proof."

"The state should always have the burden of proof in these types of situations," Rep. Brandes told ABC Action News earlier this year, in support of changing the Stand Your Ground law. "The state should always have to prove that you acted outside the law."

But Swartz, who is a former County Judge in Florida, and serves as a legal expert for ABC Action News, is warning that the change means it will be up to the state to prove guilt to a judge before the trial ever even happens.

That could mean longer legal processes, and likely means a lot fewer cases will make it to trial.

"The idea that anybody charged with a violent felony -- assault, battery, attempted murder, murder -- can make the state prove him guilty, twice! As opposed to him having to prove he's entitled to the immunity and a jury decide if he's being truthful or not," is a bad idea, says Swartz.

And Swartz warns that in a system where witnesses are essential to get a jury trial, violent crime could become a lot more common.

"I think this will increase incidents of any kind of violence where they believe they can get away with it because there's nobody watching," explains Swartz.

The changes would take effect as soon as Governor Rick Scott signs it into law.

RELATED:Anti-domestic violence advocates warn against Stand Your Ground law change

Meanwhile, a lot could be decided by the first case to go through process under new law and that could be the local case of Curtis Reeves.

A judge has already rejected the former Tampa Police officer's request for immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but under the new law, he might be allowed to request another hearing on the matter, since the standards have changed.

"If I had to place a name on this I think this is the Curtis Reeves Bill," says Swartz to ABC Action News. "I think people saw what happened to Curtis Reeves. They sided with him. Some people were pushing for him. I think some of law enforcement was on his side, I think the NRA was on his side. And I think they wanted to create a circumstance in which someone like Curtis Reeves now gets a judge to maybe determine he doesn't have to stand trial in front of a jury where he believes he would most probably would be found guilty."

Read more:
Former Judge warns of dire consequences of Stand Your Ground ... - ABC Action News

TAMPA, Fla. - How people accused of violent crime defend themselves in court could change drastically, after representatives voted to change Florida's self-defense law.

Now a former judge is warning of dire consequences, and an easier path for someone trying to get away with murder.

"This is what we call downstream consequences. The social policy set by this is really horrible," says Jeff Swartz, a professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Riverview.

Right now it's up to an accused defendant to prove they should be immune from a jury trial, but legislators, like Rep. Jeff Brandes of Pinellas County (R) are aiming to change what's known as the "burden of proof."

"The state should always have the burden of proof in these types of situations," Rep. Brandes told ABC Action News earlier this year, in support of changing the Stand Your Ground law. "The state should always have to prove that you acted outside the law."

But Swartz, who is a former County Judge in Florida, and serves as a legal expert for ABC Action News, is warning that the change means it will be up to the state to prove guilt to a judge before the trial ever even happens.

That could mean longer legal processes, and likely means a lot fewer cases will make it to trial.

"The idea that anybody charged with a violent felony -- assault, battery, attempted murder, murder -- can make the state prove him guilty, twice! As opposed to him having to prove he's entitled to the immunity and a jury decide if he's being truthful or not," is a bad idea, says Swartz.

And Swartz warns that in a system where witnesses are essential to get a jury trial, violent crime could become a lot more common.

"I think this will increase incidents of any kind of violence where they believe they can get away with it because there's nobody watching," explains Swartz.

The changes would take effect as soon as Governor Rick Scott signs it into law.

RELATED:Anti-domestic violence advocates warn against Stand Your Ground law change

Meanwhile, a lot could be decided by the first case to go through process under new law and that could be the local case of Curtis Reeves.

A judge has already rejected the former Tampa Police officer's request for immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but under the new law, he might be allowed to request another hearing on the matter, since the standards have changed.

"If I had to place a name on this I think this is the Curtis Reeves Bill," says Swartz to ABC Action News. "I think people saw what happened to Curtis Reeves. They sided with him. Some people were pushing for him. I think some of law enforcement was on his side, I think the NRA was on his side. And I think they wanted to create a circumstance in which someone like Curtis Reeves now gets a judge to maybe determine he doesn't have to stand trial in front of a jury where he believes he would most probably would be found guilty."

View original post here:
Former Judge warns of dire consequences of Stand Your Ground changes - ABC Action News

Bob Owens, a longtime Second Amendment advocate and editor of the website Bearing Arms, was found dead Monday in North Carolina. He was 46.

Leading with an item titled, We Are Diminished, Bearing Arms co-editor Jenn Jacques on Tuesday expressed deep regret and profound sorrow that Owens life came to a tragic end.

We did not make an announcement on Bearing Arms because it was more important to us to give the family a day to grieve than to break the story and get clicks, Jacques wrote, adding that Owens was a huge part of the 2A world, he was first and foremost a son, brother, husband, father, and friend.

Police in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina which is about 30 minutes south of Raleigh found Robert Eugene Owens dead near an intersection stop sign with a gun nearby, the News & Observer reported.

TheBlaze confirmed the victim was Owens of Bearing Arms. Police are working to determine if Owens death was a suicide or the result of foul play, town spokeswoman Susan Weis told the paper.

On Sunday, Owens posted about his progress on a book he was writing: Three days left and 10,000 more words to finish The Deplorables Guide to Guns. I got this.

Owens last Facebook message was posted Monday:

Owens Bearing Arms bio reads:

A long-time shooting enthusiast, Bob began blogging as a North Carolina native in New York at the politics-focused Confederate Yankee in 2004. In 2007, he began writing about firearms, gun rights, and crime at Pajamas Media, and added gun and gear reviews for Shooting Illustrated in 2010.

Bob is a graduate of roughly 400 hours of professional firearms training classes, including square range and force-on force work with handguns and carbines. He is a past volunteer instructor with Project Appleseed. He most recently received his Vehicle Close Quarters Combat Instructor certification from Centrifuge Training.

Conservative commentator and fellow Second Amendment advocate Katie Pavlich penned a tribute to Owens in Townhall on Tuesday.

I didnt just work with Bob, Pavlich wrote. He wasnt simply a colleague who I spent time with here and there. He was my friend.

She continued, When I received the news of Bobs death Monday afternoon, I was in disbelief. Shortly after, complete sadness and grief took over. Then, devastation.

I will remember Bob for all of the smiles he put on my face and the laughter he brought to those around him. He was an incredible friend with the kindest of hearts, Pavlich said. He served as an important mentor to many and was an overwhelmingly positive influence in my life. I was blessed to know him and I will miss him dearly. Please keep his family in your prayers during this horribly difficult time.

A GoFundMe page has been set up for Owens wife and two daughters.

Heres a video interview Owens did with National Rifle Association TV on preserving the Second Amendment:

See the rest here:
Bob Owens, longtime Second Amendment advocate, dies at 46 - TheBlaze.com

A conservative columnist who was suspended by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after a pro-NRA piece talked to Charles Payne this morning on FBN.

Stacy Washington was suspended Friday over her column "Guns and the Media," and then she quit her position.

The paper's editor explained that, Her active promotional activities and professional association with the National Rifle Association represented an unacceptable conflict of interest in her most recent column, which resulted in our suspension of her work."

Washington's column was a response to a local op-ed in which the writer suggested the NRA is a greater threat to America than ISIS.

"The linkage is not only rife with improper context; it is false on its face," Washington wrote.

Washington said this morning she does not have a "professional affiliation" with the NRA. She said her op-ed was not a defense of the NRA, but more about a left-leaning newspaper publishing the ISIS vs. NRA comparison.

"You were fighting for the First and Second Amendments on this one," Payne noted.

Washington, a veteran, said she has always been open about her ownership of guns as an NRA member.

"Nothing in the column can be impugned by the fact that I may or not be a member of the NRA," she said.

Watch the discussion above.

'Newsweek' Writer: I Hope GOP Sees Family Members Die After ObamaCare Repeal

'Who Appointed You to the Supreme Court?': Senator Grills Yates For Defying Trump Travel Ban

Krauthammer Slams 'Condescending' Obama: 'Good Riddance, Mr. President'

Continued here:
Pro-Second Amendment Columnist Suspended Over Piece ... - Fox News Insider

Seattle deputies carry rifles near the scene of a shooting in downtown Seattle, April 20, 2017. (AP/Elaine Thompson)

SEATTLE The Ninth Circuit seemed skeptical of Seattle police officers claims that a new use-of-force policy mandated by the Department of Justice violates their Second Amendment rights.

U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith told the officers attorney he didnt have much of an argument at a three-judge panel appellate hearing on Monday.

More than 100 officers sued to block the police reforms in 2014, saying the revised use-of-force policy unreasonably restricted them from defending themselves and violated their Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

The Seattle Police Department was placed under a consent decree in 2012 after an 11-month investigation by the DOJ found routine use of excessive force and civil rights violations. As part of the police departments settlement with the DOJ, it implemented new use-of-force policies that stress minimal reliance on physical force.

U.S. Chief District Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed the suit from the Western District of Washington in 2014, finding no case supports the officers novel theory that a police department policy outlining expectations for an officers use of force can burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

Pechman also said the officers grossly misconstrue Fourth Amendment law by claiming the use-of-force policy is a metaphorical seizure of their right to use force.

At Mondays hearing, the officers attorney, Athan Tramountanas, urged the panel to revive the case.

He said the new use-of-force policy is overly complicated and dangerously restrictive.

Tramountanas stuck with the argument that the new rule robs police of their Second Amendment right to self-defense.

You must abandon your reason, Tramountanas said in reference to the guidelines that now require officers to use de-escalation techniques before resorting to force.

The officers arent arguing for no policy, he said, just a policy thats reasonable.

They have to be able to defend themselves, he added.

City attorney Gregory Narver contended that the lower courts ruling was spot-on, and that this was not a Second Amendment case.

Hyperbole aside, this doesnt disarm the police, Narver said. He also argued the policy doesnt keep officers from defending themselves.

If the officers had real concerns about the use-of-force policy, they should have brought them before the federal judge overseeing the police reforms rather than asking an appellate panel to create a new fundamental constitutional right, Narver said.

The 126 officers, sergeants and detectives who filed the suit did so without union approval.

U.S. Circuit Judges Carlos Bea and U.S. District Judge William Hayes sitting by designation from the Southern District of California also sat on the panel.

Read the DOJ mandated use of force policy below:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Use_of_Force_Policy.pdf

More:
Seattle Cops Sue Over Police Reforms, Claiming They Violate ... - Mintpress News (blog)