Mediaboss Marketing

On Friday teenager Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder in a Wisconsin court for shooting dead two men during racial justice protests in August 2020.

The 18-year-old was charged with two counts of homicide, as well as one count of attempt homicide and two counts of recklessly endangering safety. He was found not guilty on all charges.

The three-week trial brought renewed focus to the debate around gun rights in the United States, and the boundaries of legal concepts such as stand your ground and self-defence laws.

Rittenhouse broke down in tears after the verdict was delivered and would have faced the prospect of life in prison if found guilty, the most severe punishment available as Wisconsin does not have a death penalty.

Speaking to Reuters after Rittenhouse was acquitted, Wisconsin criminal defence lawyer Daniel Adams described the verdict as very dramatic but not entirely surprising.

He added that most legal professionals "who looked at the evidence had a feeling the state would not be able to clear the threshold of disproving self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

While the principle of Second Amendment Rights is enshrined in law across the country, the boundaries of those rights can vary greatly between states. In Wisconsin there is no specific stand your ground law which offers greater protection against prosecution in the instance of using a firearm in self-defence.

States which have passed stand your ground legislation have essentially removed the requirement for individuals to have exhausted all other options before using a firearm in self-defence. The additional protections are based on an 18th century legal precedent known as the Castle Doctrine, which gives individuals the right to use force when protecting their dwelling, workplace or motor vehicle.

However in 2005 the state of Florida built upon this precedent to introduce the phrase stand your ground and remove the requirement to attempt to retreat before opting to use a firearm.

In Florida the legislation ensures that a person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.

But Wisconsin has no such law and as such Rittenhouses actions could only be justified if he had no other option when confronted by the protesters. The then-17-year-old had travelled 20 miles from Antioch, Illinois, ostensibly to protect business premises from the threat of damage. Too young to buy a firearm, he had picked up an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle from a friend and headed to downtown Kenosha at the height of the racial justice protests.

However Wisconsin is one of 15 states which places the burden of proof on prosecutors to disprove a defendants self-defence claim, rather than requiring the defendant to prove he had exhausted all other options.

In this instance, the prosecution were unable to prove that Rittenhouse had other options to ensure his safety in the face of the crowd of protestors and the 18-year-old was acquitted.

Follow this link:
Does Wisconsin have the death penalty? Does Wisconsin have stand your ground laws? - AS English

On Feb. 23, 2020, Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William Roddie Bryan Jr. chased Ahmaud Arbery as he jogged in the Satilla Shores section of Glynn County, Georgia. Suspecting Arbery of robbing a house under construction in the neighborhood, the three men cornered the unarmed 25-year-old Black man. During the struggle that ensued, Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery (and allegedly uttered a racial epithet as he stood over the body). Law enforcement officials did not arrest or charge the McMichaels and Bryan for 74 days, and only then because a cell phone video of the incident had been made public.

The defendants maintain they acted in self-defense under a Georgia law which permits an individual to arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Its time to repeal and replace such citizens arrest laws, which exist in one form or another in some 40 states in the U.S.

Citizens arrest laws first appeared in 1285, when Edward I, King of England, signed the Statute of Winchester, empowering citizens who witnessed a crime to make a hue and cry, join in the chase, and detain the suspect until a constable or sheriff arrived.

Codified during the Civil War, amidst widespread fears of runaway slaves, Georgias citizens arrest law was named for Thomas R. Cobb, cousin of the similarly-named congressman and an ardent secessionist who believed the Negro has arrived at his greatest development while in slavery. At the turn of the 20th century, the law was interpreted as a license for white mobs to lynch Blacks; more recently, for individuals and groups to harass and assault them.

In Feb. 2021, Republican Gov. Brian KempBrian KempAll 3 men in Arbery killing found guilty of murder Arbery jury asks to see videos, hear 911 call Arbery case goes to jury MORE declared that Ahmaud was a victim of a vigilante style of violence that has no place in Georgia. Deeming the citizens arrest law ripe for abuse, Kemp called for it to be rolled back.

The Georgia legislature voted to replace it in March. The states new citizens arrest law affirms the shopkeepers privilege to detain shoplifters or dine and dash customers. That said, the legislation prohibits citizens in all cases from usingforce unless it is necessary to protect themselves, others, or their habitation. They must call law enforcement officials within an hour and release suspects if authorities do not arrive in the stipulated time. Unfortunately, I had to lose my son to get significant change, said Wanda Cooper-Jones, Arberys mother.

Georgia is the first state to repeal and replace its citizens arrest law. It should not be the last.

Revised statutes should be tighter than existing laws, including Georgias new one. In South Carolina, for example, citizens may now use deadly force when arresting someone who has stolen property in their possession or someone who flees when he is hailed, if the circumstances raise just suspicion of his design to steal. If police officers in South Carolina use these criteria, its worth noting, they would violate laws requiring probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury.

At the very least, then, reform legislation should limit the types of crimes applicable to citizens arrests; specify that citizens have witnessed the crimes themselves, and how much and under what circumstances force is justified.

Repealing and replacing citizens arrest statutes will constitute an important first step toward equal justice under the law. It should be followed by an end to stand your ground laws. Currently on the books in a majority of states, these statutes constitute an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of the right to self-defense. Authorizing citizens to meet force with force, including deadly force, to prevent bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony, and affirming there is no duty to retreat in such situations, Floridas 2005 stand your ground law played a pivotal role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon Martin to death during a confrontation that was strikingly similar to the killing of Ahmaud Arbery.

Its time as well to reassess the advantages and disadvantages of the peremptory challenge, which permits lawyers in nearly all jurisdictions in the United States to prevent the selection of proposed jurors without having to provide a reason, unless the opposition can somehow demonstrate, prima facie, that the exclusion is based on racial, ethnic or gender discrimination. In the Arbery trial in Glynn County (where 25 percent of the population is Black), for example, defense attorneys used peremptory challenges to get a jury with eleven whites and one Black.

The nearly unanimous vote to reform the citizens arrest law in Georgias legislature suggests that changes in judicial procedures can attract bi-partisan support. They certainly should.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of "Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century."

Go here to see the original:
It's time to repeal and replace citizen's arrest laws | TheHill - The Hill

A Jackson County woman who killed a man she says raped her in 2018 is back behind bars.

A parole officer says Brittany Smith violated her house arrest - for the second time this year - by going out to a trunk or treat event with her kids on Halloween.

The Alabama Bureau of Pardons & Paroles wants her to spend 45 days in the Jackson County Jail for this most recent violation.

WAAY 31 has followed Smiths case from the crime scene through the arrest, legal battle, and sentencing.

Her story and claims of self-defense sparked a national conversation on the Stand Your Ground law, with media outlets coast-to-coast covering the case.

Smith accepted a plea deal for shooting and killing Joshua Todd Smith a man Brittany testified raped her and attacked her brother.

Smith also admitted to arson charges unrelated to the murder under that same deal.

Smith ended up serving 18 months in prison and now is sentenced to another 18 months on house arrest. She started that portion of the sentence in May.

This marks the second time the state parole board says Smith violated her house arrest orders.

Smith had asked for permission to see her kids trick or treat, and to leave her house. Her parole officer said she could see them before the kids went out, but ordered her back home, saying she could not go out with her family to a trunk or treat event.

Smith admitted she attended that event, and the state board of pardons and paroles put out a warrant for her arrest for failing to comply with the house arrest sentence guidelines.

This is her second violation since starting her house arrest. The first stint in the jail was ordered in August. Her probation was not revoked.

Continued here:
Jackson County mom who killed alleged rapist back in jail after taking kids to trunk or treat - WAAY

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Ottawa, on Sept. 1, 2020.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

Noah Weisbord is an associate professor at Queens University Faculty of Law.

Last week, the Supreme Court delivered a vital judgment on the parameters of self-defence in Canada. In doing so, the Court missed a rare opportunity to rein in the countrys broad self-defence law.

The case considered involved Peter Khill, a former army reservist living in Binbrook, Ont. In 2016, Mr. Khill shot and killed Jon Styres, an unarmed Indigenous man he suspected was stealing his truck from his driveway. At trial, Mr. Khill testified that his military training led him to react instinctively to neutralize a threat loading his shotgun and approaching Mr. Styres, rather than calling the police and waiting inside his home. His attorneys summoned experts to support their contention that the jury should consider Mr. Khills training when evaluating the reasonableness of his threat perception, and his reaction to it. In 2018, based on the self-defence argument, Mr. Khill was fully acquitted by jury.

Story continues below advertisement

The Crown challenged Mr. Khills acquittal, arguing that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Mr. Khills role in the incident that is, his behaviour before he killed Mr. Styres, which is a consideration in determining if an act is justified self-defence. The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial, a decision then appealed to the highest court in the land. On Thursday, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed that a retrial was necessary, and that the judge will be required to instruct the jury to consider the reasonableness of Mr. Khills acts in the lead-up to Mr. Styress death.

This was the Supreme Courts first judgment on Canadas self-defence and defence of property laws since they were overhauled in 2013. After a citizens arrest of a shoplifter by the owner of a Toronto grocery store, the reforms which passed without much public debate relaxed and eliminated the traditional constraints on defensive force, which included necessity and proportionality. This change gave juries new discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of an accuseds actions in the circumstances.

The critical changes in Canadas self-defence law rendered it more permissive in important respects than Floridas notorious Stand Your Ground Law, which largely dispenses with the traditional retreat requirement before deadly force is legally justifiable. After its enactment in the state, homicides nearly tripled; 70 per cent of people who invoked Stand Your Ground went free. Killers were almost three times more likely to prevail if the victim was Black.

Canadas overhaul was originally intended to provide urban shopkeepers, battered women and other vulnerable groups with realistic options to defend themselves. Mr. Khills acquittal showed the law could now exonerate armed ex-soldiers confronting threats to their property.

The Supreme Court was right to order a retrial, but it was timid and divided in interpreting the broader law. Its decision did nothing to limit the slow creep toward impunity for initial aggressors. Nor did the Court provide Mr. Khills new trial judge and jury with concrete guidance on whether the accuseds role in the incident disentitles him to the self-defence claim. Indeed, five of the nine Justices left the jury wide discretion to decide whether or not Mr. Khills role in the incident colours the reasonableness of the ultimate act.

The four other Justices had proposed guardrails in deciding whether Mr. Khills lethal actions were justified. They wanted the new trial judge to instruct the jury to evaluate whether or not Mr. Khills behaviour before the shooting was aggressive, provocative or excessive. But the majority prevailed, leaving the jury wide discretion to decide on the reasonableness of Mr. Khills role in the incident. Ideally, the Supreme Court would have limited the scope of self-defence, and clarified the guardrails based on traditional self-defence principles such as necessity and retreat, which deter pre-emptive strikes and prioritize the protection of human life over protection of property.

This 5-4 Supreme Court decision will have broad implications. Canadians who trust the impartial, good judgment of our juries will be pleased with the discretion it provides them. Indigenous people and others critical of Gerald Stanleys 2018 acquittal by a Saskatchewan jury for the killing of Colten Boushie, a Cree member of the Red Pheasant First Nation, have reason to be wary of unfettered, appeal-proof juries in future self-defence cases.

Story continues below advertisement

We may hope that our national values and legal culture inoculate us against the systematic bias and arbitrary self-defence outcomes seen in Florida and other U.S. jurisdictions. In the hands of a conscientious jury, Canadas new self-defence law leaves space for a nuanced conception of reasonableness that takes circumstances and vulnerabilities into account. But if our new self-defence law is applied by a system blind to racial bias, and if it is applied in polarized communities, our self-defence law remains a danger to Canadas most vulnerable communities, and to our efforts to build a more just society.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

See the rest here:
Canadas self-defence laws are too sweeping, and the Supreme Court just gave them a pass - The Globe and Mail

Provided by Hearst Television, Inc. Handgun

Ohio's new "stand your ground" law went into effect his month.

The controversial new law, signed by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine in January, eliminates Ohioans' duty to retreat before using force.

The measure expands the so-called stand your ground right from an individuals house and car to any place, if that person is in a place in which the person lawfully has a right to be.

The new law can be explained like this: In the past, if someone shot in self-defense, the burden was on the shooter to prove that's why they did it. With a "stand your ground" law, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to prove the shooting was not justified.

In addition to making prosecutors prove a claim of self-defense may not be justified, the measure would also eliminate the call for gun owners with concealed carry permits to try to retreat from a threat before opening fire.

The Republican governor signed the bill despite his long expressed concerns that GOP lawmakers were ignoring his own legislation proposed following the 2019 mass shooting in Dayton.

DeWine has said he wants any gun legislation to include his proposals for toughening background checks and boosting penalties for felons committing new crimes with guns. The governor has pushed these measures since the 2019 mass shooting in Dayton that killed nine and wounded more than two dozen.

DeWine said he's not giving up, and will continue to ask the new GOP-controlled General Assembly to approve his proposals.

Video: Ohio set to become latest state with 'Stand Your Ground' gun law (WLWT Cincinnati)

Ohio set to become latest state with 'Stand Your Ground' gun law

Click to expand

UP NEXT

Republican lawmakers and gun rights groups praised DeWine for signing the stand your ground bill. Proponents of the law say this legislation simply aligns Ohio with most other states in the country.

"We were quite happy that the governor followed through on his campaign promises to enact, to remove the duty-to-retreat requirement in the self-defense law in Ohio," said Joe Eaton with Buckeye Firearms Association. "You have to realize that the removal of duty-to-retreat really changes nothing else with the self-defense laws in Ohio."

Eaton insists the state's new stand your ground law does not mean someone can shoot first and ask questions later.

"You have to first not have started the situation, not have escalated the situation," he said. "And secondly, you have to be in immediate fear of death or serious bodily harm and have no other option except for deadly force to survive that situation."

That's not the way Ethan Nichols, executive director of Ohio Students for Gun Legislation, sees the new law.

"This isn't a Second Amendment issue. I support the Second Amendment," Nichols said. "But this has nothing to do with that. Your ability to shoot someone without just, you know - randomly shoot someone because you feel threatened, it's ridiculous."

Nichols worries the new law will exact a heavy toll on minority communities.

"It's a racist law," Nichols said. "I think for Ohioans that this is a, very obviously, a step in the wrong direction. This is a step backwards into another century."

While Nichols and Eaton share different perspectives with regard to Ohio's new 'Stand Your Ground' law, there may be common ground when it comes to one thing gun Eaton said.

"Of course, retreating, if at all possible is still the safest and best and most recommended method because if you can avoid any type of situation that could endanger yourself or someone else, that always has to be the first priority," Eaton said.

READ THE FULL STORY:Ohio's new 'stand your ground' law: Everything you need to know

CHECK OUT WLWT:Stay in the know. Get the latest Cincinnati news, weather and sports from the team at Ohios own WLWT.

Read more from the original source:
Ohio's new 'stand your ground' law: Everything you need to ...