HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » State high court to rule:...

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:01 AM

 

State high court to rule: Does 'stand your ground' protect felons who shoot?

TALLAHASSEE The Florida Supreme Court will consider whether convicted felons have the right to claim immunity under the state's "stand your ground" self-defense law even if they are barred from possessing guns in the first place.

Justices agreed this week to hear the case of Brian Bragdon, who was charged in Palm Beach County with two counts of attempted first-degree murder, shooting into an occupied vehicle, discharging a firearm from a vehicle and being a felon in possession of a firearm, according to court documents.

According to the Palm Beach Post, Bragdon was arrested in 2012 after he shot another man outside a strip club in suburban West Palm Beach.

An arrest affidavit, the newspaper reported, showed Bragdon and a group of other patrons got involved in a fight inside the club. The altercation continued outside and investigators said they later found 40 shell casings.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/state-high-court-to-rule-does-stand-your-ground-protect-felons-who-shoot/2187242

12 replies, 1208 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply State high court to rule: Does 'stand your ground' protect felons who shoot? (Original post)
SecularMotion Jul 2014 OP
Duckhunter935 Jul 2014 #1
intaglio Jul 2014 #2
Duckhunter935 Jul 2014 #3
intaglio Jul 2014 #4
Duckhunter935 Jul 2014 #6
Duckhunter935 Jul 2014 #8
blueridge3210 Jul 2014 #10
The Green Manalishi Jul 2014 #12
Jenoch Jul 2014 #5
intaglio Jul 2014 #7
Jenoch Jul 2014 #9
gejohnston Jul 2014 #11

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:09 AM

1. That should be interesting

 

I would hope they would be barred from that defense since they are prohibited persons

Care to abide by the group SOP and discuss your post? You are a host of a groups and ignore the SOP and should know better.

Secular has hundreds of posts in this group without comment or discussion in the post with other members. Violating the SOP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=22&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=23&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=24&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=25&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=26&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=27&sort=author
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172&page=28&sort=author

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:19 AM

2. He is offering a subject for discussion

Do you object to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:25 AM

3. as he will not and does not discuss

 

Yes I think he does not abide by the stated SOP

It might be different if he actually responded to the posts he makes when others comment. See how many time in the several hundred posts that Secular has posted in this group, his favorite group he has actually discussed the topic he posted about with other members.

In my opinion it is just Google cut and paste spam but the nice host here allows Secular to keep posting unlike Secular's group that blocks any posters they do not agree with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:47 AM

4. And you are not currently discussing the OP

Your point is?

Many groups have similar statements of purpose and all understand that people post articles and blog posts without comment to which group members can reply.

My opinion of the OP is that under a strict interpretation Bragdon has a point. Imagine he picked up a gun offered to him, or previously dropped by a companion, to defend himself is he not entitled to use the "stand your ground" defense? Does the fact of Blagdon being a felon previously allow others to declare open season on him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:48 AM

6. I did in my initial post

 

I then answered your question which was off the topic of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 07:04 AM

8. excepth what you say did not happen

 

Bragdon has a point. Imagine he picked up a gun offered to him, or previously dropped by a companion, to defend himself is he not entitled to use the "stand your ground" defense?


and just how did you come to that conclusion?

from the linked story, never just picked up a gun but fired frrom a car and shot a person in the back

At some point, Bragdon leaned out the window of his car and shot striking one of the patrons in the back and hitting a truck twice, the report said.

Bragdon argued that he fired the gun while trying to defend himself and sought to get the charges dismissed under "stand your ground."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 07:55 AM

10. It was my understanding

 

That in order to claim a "stand your ground" defense one could not be breaking the law at the time. According to the report Bragdon was involved in an accurate, which is unlawful. He may still be able to claim self defense even if denied his "stand your ground" claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:47 PM

12. FIRST throw him in jail for all appropriate violations

WRT being a prohibited person.

Then give him a fair trail after he serves his sentence. Hopefully in a few decades.

But then I would support automatic life in prison with no parole of for *ANY* crime involving the use of any firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:47 AM

5. If it is ruled that the law allows a felon

 

to 'stand his/her ground' by using a firearm in self-defense then the law needs to be rewritten to disallow such actions. The felon should still be prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm, firing it in self-defense notwithstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 06:51 AM

7. So others, currently criminal, can declare open season on the man

Think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 07:13 AM

9. Criminals are always going to break the law.

 

What has changed? It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. Are you in favor of changing that law so that it is not illegal for a felon to possess firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 09:13 AM

11. no it doesn't

all of the same rules apply as Duty to Retreat. Outside of being expected to retreat if you can (and only if you can in complete safety). Reading the article, what it is really about is does someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm allowed to defend themselves with a firearm. While self defense, anywhere, can not be claimed if you are engaged in criminal activity. In this case, carrying the gun is the only criminal act. It does not say what the previous conviction was of. For all we know it was for insider trading or pot possession 35 years ago.
Personally, this is where I agree with Canada's gun laws. Unless it was a violent crime, you may legally own a gun again once you do your time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread