Comments on: One Way Florida’s “Warning Shot” Bill Could Help Marissa Alexander

By: Eric Friday

Eric Friday — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:22:12 +0000

Andrew, I would point out that Florida recognizes the doctrine of transferred intent in self defense cases just as in use of force cases. IF Alexander manages to raise a proper defense as to Gray, that extends to any assault against the children.

By: Andrew Branca

Andrew Branca — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 22:19:37 +0000

Haha, Eugene’s a much smarter guy than me, I doubt he needs to steal any of my stuff. We’ve conversed, though, so I know he’s aware of my work, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he picked up some of that knowledge from reading my posts.

In any case, my goal is to educate. If people get educated, I can hardly accuse them of “stealing”.

I actually Tweeted out his post, I thought he got it pretty much dead on. I mean, everything in it is substantively correct–I’m me, and Eugene is Eugene, so we’d naturally tend to emphasize different things and perhaps explain points differently, but I didn’t see any errors in his piece.

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

By: gregjgrose

gregjgrose — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:36:52 +0000

Could help if I could spell my lousy jokes, make that erudeet

By: gregjgrose

gregjgrose — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:28:48 +0000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/27/what-stand-your-ground-laws-actually-mean/

Man, this guy stole your gig! What goes on here!?

But, how’d he do, considering it’s gotta be watered down for the WP audience?

(That is, on legal points, as to the writing style, I much prefer the, street, shall we say, over the erudite.)

(Oops, sorry, that means you win in that category.) <–supposed to be funny

-gig

By: Andrew Branca

Andrew Branca — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:52:28 +0000

Because that option has neither been requested nor offered–at least, not publicly.

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

By: steveo1

steveo1 — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:43:46 +0000

Why doesn’t she just plead no contest and get time served? I’m sure the prosecution would go for that, just to be rid of this case.

By: Milhouse

Milhouse — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:29:13 +0000

Here’s another way the “good faith” clause could backfire. It’s not necessary that the person have a good faith belief they were acting in self-defense. All that’s necessary is a good faith belief that they were not breaking the law. Which means that if the defendant honestly and sincerely thought that the law allows him to shoot young hoodie-clad black men bearing skittles, then the mandatory minimum doesn’t apply. And given the press coverage of the “stand your ground” laws and the Zimmerman trial, who could be blamed for thinking that this is the law? After all, all the newspapers and all the TV pundits said it was! So why shouldn’t the defendant have believed them?

By the way, I’m not even sure that a reasonable and prudent person, of average intelligence (IQ 100), whose only source of news is the MSM, would not have thought this was the law. That Dunn fellow probably thought it. So even if a reasonable belief were required this might pass that test. How much more so when only a good faith belief is required.

By: Bruce Hayden

Bruce Hayden — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:34:39 +0000

I think that the aspect of mandatory minimum sentences that you highlight at the end is one of the most troubling to me – the ability to convert a single gunshot into multiple felonies, and, thus, multiple consecutive minimum sentences. The other aspect, of course, is that they give even more power to district attorneys and their prosecutors, because they are the ones who are stacking the charges, making what would have been, at worst, a short sentence, into a potential here for 60 years.