Mediaboss Marketing

The Florida Supreme Court no longer plans to use a Palm Beach County case to examine whether felons can use the state's Stand Your Ground self-defense law to avoid serious criminal charges.

In July, the state's highest court announced it would consider whether Brian Bragdon a convicted cocaine dealer accused of shooting at two men in 2012 should be eligible to seek immunity from prosecution.

The Stand Your Ground question was classified as high profile, because of "significant public and media interest in this matter."

But on Dec. 22, the Supreme Court said it no longer had any basis for reviewing the case and sent it back to the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach. There has been no recent activity in the appeals court, records show; however, a case status hearing is set for Feb. 20 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

Why the change by the Supreme Court? It turns out the appellate court had released an opinion in a separate case also from Palm Beach County that essentially wiped out the reason for the Supreme Court deciding to examine Bragdon in the first place.

On July 16, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled Harvey M. Hill Jr., 24, a felon from Riviera Beach, could try to get his 2009 aggravated battery with a firearm charge dismissed under the controversial self-defense law.

It was a reversal of the appellate court's position in the same case in 2012, and for Bragdon in 2013. Those opinions concluded Hill and Bragdon had no right to Stand Your Ground because they used guns.

It's illegal for felons to possess guns and part of the Stand Your Ground law says it doesn't apply to a person "engaged in an unlawful activity."

But that first Hill opinion conflicted with a 2013 ruling from the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which said a felon in a Lee County second-degree murder case was entitled to use Stand Your Ground to argue he was justified in shooting to protect his life when an assailant pointed two guns at him.

In its second Hill opinion, the 4th District Court of Appeal wrote it now agreed with the 2nd District court that gun-toting felons have the same rights as law-abiding citizens to use the Stand Your Ground law.

Follow this link:
Stand Your Ground remains a possible defense for felons

MIAMI - Tyrone Smith knew how to use his fists. Around his Miami Gardens neighborhood, the 19-year-old was known as the "Karate Kid" because he taught local children self-defense and how to stand up to bullies.

But when Smith felt insulted and began shouting at neighbor Jason Kinsey, the confrontation did not end in fisticuffs. Instead, Kinsey, 20, fatally shot the unarmed teenager - claiming he was defending himself against the martial arts expert.

A judge agreed. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas last month ruled that Kinsey did act in self-defense, saying prosecutors are "discounting the enormity of Smith's rage and the level of physical skill that Smith possessed as compared to Kinsey."

The legal fight, however, is far from over. The state attorney's office is now appealing the judge's decision to dismiss the second-degree murder charge.

For prosecutors and Smith's family, the case encapsulates all that is wrong with Florida's Stand Your Ground law: Smith was unarmed, challenging Kinsey to an "old-school" fistfight only after being repeatedly provoked.

"People use that to get away with murder," said Smith's grandmother, Cynthia Hill. "The law needs to be modified."

Travares Daniels, Smith's uncle, said: "I know if a jury had heard this, he'd be going to jail."

But for Kinsey and his defense team, the law worked exactly as lawmakers designed it. Kinsey was the bullied victim and had no duty to retreat. His fear of "great bodily harm" was real, even if Smith had no weapon in his hands, said attorney Richard Gregg.

"This case shows how the Stand Your Ground law is supposed to work and does work," Gregg said. "It's textbook."

Smith is still facing an illegal firearm and evidence-tampering charge. He is under house arrest as prosecutors appeal.

Read the original post:
Another Stand Your Ground case in Florida continues the controversy

Micki Zalatimo, who spoke during an August bond hearing for the woman who claims self-defense in her son's fatal stabbing, has argued that A'Kara Edwards' use of force against 22-year-old Alex Whipple wasn't necessary. (FILE/ANDREW KNAPP/STAFF)

About the law

The S.C. Protection of Persons and Property Act recognizes that a persons home, vehicle and business is his castle.

A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of ... death and can use deadly force if an unlawful intruder is forcefully trying to enter a home or if the person has reason to believe that a forceful act is occurring or has occurred. But this presumption of fear does not apply if the person against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be ... has the right to stand his ground ... if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent serious injury or a violent crime.

A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

Source: S.C. law

Alex Whipples mother doesnt want his life reduced to the value of a 2006 Ford.

He and his girlfriend, AKara Edwards, were bickering Aug. 4 at Edwards North Charleston home. He had been drinking that morning.

Read the original:
S.C. 'stand your ground law' key to domestic violence murder case

Guilty ... Michael Dunn raises his hands in disbelief as he looks toward his parents after the verdicts were announced in his trial in Jacksonville, Florida.

Jacksonville, Florida: In failing to acquit or convict Michael Dunn on the most significant charge the premeditated murder of a teenager in a dispute over loud music a jury on Saturday may have run headlong into the breadth and reach of Floridas contentious "stand-your-ground" self-defence law.

In their 30 hours of deliberation, the 12-member panel wrangled with a question that cuts to the heart of all self-defence claims: How does a juror know when using lethal force is justified, where nothing is straightforward, memories are hazy or contradictory and perception counts as much as fact?

Even as the jury agreed to convict Dunn of attempted murder, it found no consensus on murder.

Jordan Davis' mother, Lucia McBath, leaves the courtroom with her husband Curtis McBath during the trial of Michael Dunn in Jacksonville, Florida.

In the courtroom, Dunn told the jury he shot Jordan Davis, 17, after the teenager pointed a shotgun at him from the window of a sport utility vehicle, threatened him and then got out of the truck. The two cars were parked side by side in front of a petrol station convenience store.

Advertisement

But the prosecution said there was no shotgun: No witness saw one, the three teenagers who were in the vehicle with Jordan said they did not have a shotgun, and the police never found one. While Dunn fired 10 rounds at the teenagers on November 23, 2012, no one ever shot back.

Rather, the prosecution argued, Dunn shot Jordan because he became enraged after the teenager disregarded his request to turn down the loud rap music blasting from the vehicle and then mouthed off, hurling expletives at him. He fabricated a story about the shotgun to bolster his self-defence claim, they added.

Widespread anger ... Jacob Black ducks his head behind a sign outside of the Duval County Courthouse during the trial of Michael Dunn.

Read the original:
Stand your ground law complicated jurys job in Michael Dunn trial

By The Associated Press - Associated Press - Wednesday, December 17, 2014

The murder trial of a Montana man who shot and killed 17-year-old German exchange student Diren Dede in his garage tested a state law that gives a person the right to use force or threaten to use force to protect his or her own home from unlawful entry or attack, particularly a provision known as stand your ground. Markus Kaarma unsuccessfully invoked the law in his defense, saying he was protecting his family and property. He was convicted of deliberate homicide Wednesday. Heres a brief explanation of the law and controversy surrounding it.

AN OLD LAW CHANGES, SPARKING DEBATE

Montanas self-defense law has been on the books in some form since the 19th century. In 2009, it was amended to eliminate the restriction that a person was justified in using force only when entry is made or attempted in violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner. It also was changed to state that a person who is threatened with physical harm has no duty to retreat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. Shortly after Dedes death, a state legislator proposed legislation striking the 2009 changes, arguing they encourage vigilante justice. Gary Marbut, of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has said it is premature to say the law needs to be fixed. Marbut, who helped draft the 2009 changes, had argued that if Kaarma was convicted, it would prove the law was working fine.

A LEGAL MOVEMENT THAT BEGAN IN FLORIDA

Montana is just one of about half the 50 U.S. states that have enacted stand your ground laws, starting with Florida in 2005. The laws have strong backing from gun rights groups, including the powerful National Rifle Association. But the Floridas law came under intense scrutiny during the trial of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, who was the acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Other cases have called into question laws in Minnesota, Colorado, North Carolina and other states.

See original here:
AP EXPLAINS: Montana's 'stand your ground law'