Home Intruder Claims "Stand Your Ground" Law for His Defense

[henschman]

According to the article, this hearing before the SC Supreme Court is only on the issue of "when in a trial a judge should hold a hearing about evidence that a defendant used deadly force because he claimed he feared for his life." It is not on the issue of whether the defense should apply in this case -- as others have mentioned, it clearly does not. It is likely that SYG is fairly new in SC, and they haven't developed a whole lot of precedent on when and how evidentiary hearings are conducted to decide if the defense applies. The SCSC will make a ruling that will apply in all future proceedings in which the defense is asserted. I think everybody involved realizes that the defense is BS in this situation... the issue is just how it is procedurally handled when someone claims a defense under this statute.

 

[mugsy]

Henschman - thank you for that clear and cogent summary.

 

[CHenry]

This was my understanding as well. I believe for the law to even be applicable you must be "somewhere you are legally allowed to be". Inside someone else's house without their knowledge and/or permission doesn't fit that description in my book.

That's OK and FL law, not sure about other states.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I don't care what the law says. If this guy is found not guilty something is seriously wrong. They really need to change their existing laws if so. The supreme court justices need to be replaced for even allowing this to be heard. This guy should be found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Period.

 

[CHenry]

I don't care what the law says. If this guy is found not guilty something is seriously wrong. They really need to change their existing laws if so. The supreme court justices need to be replaced for even allowing this to be heard. This guy should be found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Period.

Agreed!

 

[henschman]

Guys, relax... his guilt or non-guilt is not what is at issue here. Just the issue of whether a hearing must always be conducted any time a defendant claims the SYG defense. The trial judge has already said that it is ridiculous to assert the defense in this case, so if the SCSC makes him give the guy a hearing, it is clear that he will deny the applicability of the defense. The only issue is whether they have to give him the hearing in the first place.

See, without us dirtbag lawyers to explain stuff like this to you, you would be worked into a frenzy any time the sensationalist media prints a story like this!