'Stand your ground' defendants must continue to prove immunity, Florida justices say

[flamin lib]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-florida-stand-your-ground-ruling-20150710-story.html

TALLAHASSEE — In a case that started with a Central Florida tourist brandishing a gun during a traffic dispute, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday said people who use the state's controversial "stand your ground" legal defense have the burden of proving they should be shielded from prosecution.

The 5-2 ruling dealt with a key part of the way the state has carried out the "stand your ground" law, which in part provides immunity to people who use justifiable force in self-defense.

In "stand your ground" cases, pre-trial evidentiary hearings are held to determine whether defendants are immune from prosecution because of the law. The Supreme Court ruling Thursday centered on who should have the burden of proof during those hearings —defendants or prosecutors.

Long story made short; traffic incident, unarmed man blocks egress of vehicle, second man with gun forces unarmed man back into car and continues to point gun at him. Court said the unarmed man retreated and was no threat, so they charged the guy with the gun with assault.

The issue at stake here is who must prove self defense? Does the guy with a gun have to prove that his life really was in danger or does the state have to prove that it wasn't?

Consider this: The guy with a gun has accused the other guy of being a threat to life. Should he not have to prove that the other guy really was a threat just as the state has to prove guilt when innocence is assumed? The guy with a gun has set himself up to be judge and executioner. The judicial system serves the very same function in criminal cases and must prove the guilt of those who come before it. Shouldn't the guy with a gun have the same burden?

Seems only right to me, after all, in the Travon Martin case we only heard one side of the testimony. 'Cause Travon was dead.