Question for DUers: Do you hate the NRA so much you'll ally with Michael Bloomberg?

[iverglas]

65. ...............................

FLORIDA


776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: ...


According to the Senate Committee Report, this presumption is irrebuttable.(20) Therefore, a court will not entertain arguments showing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rather, a court will direct a jury that if they find the basic fact, that the victim was unlawfully in the actor’s dwelling or vehicle, to be proven, then they must find the presumed fact that the actor had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. This finding in turn justifies the use of deadly force, regardless of the circumstances.

(20) Fla. S. Rep. No. 107-436, 6pt. III, at 6 (2005) (Judiciary Rep.) (“Legal presumptions are typically rebuttable. The presumptions created by the committee substitute, however, appear to be conclusive.”). Accord Fla. H.R. Rep. No. 107-249 (2005) pt. B, at 4 (Judiciary Rep.) (“A person is presumed, rather than having the burden to prove, to have a reasonable fear.”).


The head of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association said the law has given people who are too quick to fire a weapon "another defense." "In my mind, it was an unnecessary law," association President Bruce Colton said.

... In a January case in Orange County, the Sheriff's Office did not ask the Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office to decide whether a homeowner with a shotgun should have been charged in the wounding of a drunken intruder who stumbled into the residence at 4 a.m., mistaking it for a friend's house.



KENTUCKY


A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 503 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: ...


A Fayette judge struggled to make sense of Kentucky’s new “home intruder” law yesterday, calling the National Rifle Association-backed legislation confusing, vague and poorly written.
“I’m not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law,” Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said. “It is absolutely silent on the court’s role.”

... In an interview yesterday, University of Kentucky law professor Robert Lawson, widely considered the state’s foremost expert on criminal law, sharply criticized the law. It was approved overwhelmingly by the General Assembly this spring, and it took effect this month.
“It is the worst legislation I have ever seen in 40 years,” said Lawson, the principal drafter of Kentucky’s penal code, which was adopted in 1975.

Supporters of Senate Bill 38, also called the castle doctrine, said that previous law required Kentuckians to retreat from robbers breaking into their home or car. Not so, Lawson says: Unlike many states, Kentucky never had such an obligation. ... Lawson said the home intruder law “is aimed at a problem that didn’t exist” and will create “huge problems of interpretation.”