Florida Concealed Carry banner

FL Supreme Court rules SYG available to LEOs

2K views 12 replies 5 participants last post by  OHEng 
#1 ·
This story is a couple weeks old, however I didn't notice anything posted in the forum about this.

A Broward Co. Sheriff's Deputy was indicted on murder charges resulting from a 2013 shooting of a guy with an air rifle. The District Court ruled, and the 4th District Court of Appeals agreed, SYG applied to the cop and the case was dismissed. The 4th DCA noted that in a similar case another circuit ruled the opposite way, so they asked the FL Supreme Court to rule, and they ruled (unanimously) in favor of SYG applying to police also.

Predictably, the prosecutor is beside himself, sputtering "But but but the Grand Jury said..."

Story Here
 
#2 ·
All SYG does is remove any duty to retreat. Why in hell would an LEO during their job have any duty to retreat?

Also, I particularly noted this:
The immunity is a key feature: “Stand your ground” lets judges declare someone immune from prosecution if they find certain facts in favor of the killer in pretrial hearings, avoiding trial altogether in a disputed shooting.
How's that for anti gun/LEO "journalism?" :doh
 
#3 ·
LEOs have ALWAYS been exempt from Preclusion (the duty to retreat).

So, saying "SYG" is now available to LEOs is redundant.
 
#4 ·
The issue in this case was not about a duty to retreat, but rather about immunity from prosecution. That said, I agree with the ruling. What I disagree with in this story is UM Law Professor Mary Anne Franks' ridiculously absurd comment about SYG:

“It is clear, after more than a decade of ‘stand your ground’ in Florida, that the law is affirmatively evil,” she wrote. “It encourages people, including police officers, to use deadly force as a first rather than a last defense, with entirely predictable consequences: a steady increase in preventable and unnecessary deaths and a culture of cowardice and impunity.
Gimme a ****ing break. :rolleyes:
 
#5 ·
^^ I guess law professors ain't what they used to be. . . instead of insightful legal analysis we get loudmouth propaganda: evil, cowardice and impunity aren't part of any legal theory or analysis. Its all about spin these days -- no substance.
 
#8 · (Edited)
I think the issue here in this case was that the deputy who was indicted on a count of murder by a grand jury had that grand jury verdict nullified because he opted to take advantage of the SYG hearing. In his case, it dropped the whole prosecution's case flat on the deck AND it immunized him as a result of that finding. The issue that was battled over in the courts was whether or not the deputy could even use this law, given that immunity of LEOs in the line of duty falls under its own statutes. The defense's position was that he can, because he doesn't give up any rights belonging to citizens just because he puts on a badge. The prosecutor's arguments were that he should only have the protection statues provide for LEOs when he's acting as a LEO, AND that the effect of the SYG dismissal allows a single judge to override the indictment of a grand jury.

As far as the last one goes, so what? There's never been a time a judge couldn't dismiss a case no matter what a grand jury did to bring it before his bench. Why is this any different?

As to the first, I agree the LEO doesn't give up rights any other citizen has when performing his duties. Are we going to have a whole separate Bill of Rights for LEOs, or do the same ones everyone else uses work just fine?

The prosecutor got stuffed in court and of course he ain't too happy about that. These prosecutors have had it easy for so long with the ability of a grand jury proceeding virtually always working in their favor, I'm sure they're not happy campers having to jump over any real hurdles before putting on a show for the jury. But a unanimous FL SC? That's got to say something about how far off base the prosecutor's position was.

One key is what the District Court Judge ruled regarding the testimony of a key witness... that said witness was "not believable." Now all these folks howling about the injustice of it all seem to ignore that basic fact. That was the witness who claimed the deceased never took the air rifle off his shoulders (he was carrying it behind his neck, across the shoulders with his hands draped over either end). Well, if that guy can't be believed, then what are facts that refute what both deputies reported?

The complaints sound like a lot of butt hurting to me.
 
#13 ·
You are correct in what you're saying that it doesn't eliminate the other factors, but look at the substance of this case. The deputy already claimed those factors were extent and as a result his shooting of the guy was the appropriate thing to do. The SA disagreed and brought his case to a grand jury, which (surprise!) indicted him for murder.

So, okay, well if the state is so convinced it is a clear cut case of murder, it ought to be a cinch to lay those facts down in front of a judge at the SYG proceeding and be done with it... but the state failed to sway the judge, and the judge said very clearly that the star witness against the deputy (the one who said the deceased never pointed his gun at the deputy) was "not believable." It's simply the ol' "if your witness sux, your case sux."

The grand jury system is so one-sided it's not a good yardstick of case validity and the SA knows that. So why he's running around like his tail feathers are on fire is, to me, nothing more than a bit of grandstanding because he was too zealous and it blew up in his face. I'm thinking the other SA's around FL probably aren't very happy with him at this moment, but oh well. The deputy is fighting for his life; if I were him I'd use every tool in the box to fight with too.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top