re: #68 Daniel Ballard

Not really seeing it? Well stop dismissing out of hand those who disagree with you. Like a few lawyers, a prosecutor and the authors.

I’m not. I’ve seen the example of one lawyer that you gave me, who didn’t engage with the actual language of the bill.

You keep referring to the ‘authors’ of the bill. You do know the bill was authored by ALEC and the NRA, right, not the people who submitted it in Florida?

These ruling reflect the racism and bad legal work.

Why do you feel comfortable telling me not to dismiss the opinions of others, and then simply completely dismissing the idea that the rulings could also reflect the language of the law? The language of the law defines the right to stand and retaliate as beginning at the moment of the attack. The only portion of the law that takes into account circumstance is the part that says that if the person using the lethal force ‘provoked’ the attack they aren’t covered— except if the attack on them continues. If ‘provoke’ is broadened to include pursuit of someone, that severely weakens self-defense laws.

Just because the law does not exclude pursuit (or any number of other things) does not so basically alter the meaning of standing your ground or defense under decades of previous cases.

Yes, it does. The new law changes the old system. That’s what laws do. The meaning of ‘stand your ground’ didn’t exist in Florida until this law; the case history of this law is the meaning of it. Are you referring instead to the Castle doctrine, rather than stand your ground?