>>STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS HAVE SPREAD ACROSS AMERICA OVER THE
COURSE OF THE LAST DECADE, BUT WE ARE NOT DONE YET.
THE HEART OF
STAND YOUR GROUND, FLORIDA, HAS A NEW PLAN TO ENHANCE AND EXPAND
STAND YOUR GROUND WITH A NEW BEEFED UP "STAND YOUR GROUND AND
MAKE MONEY DOING IT" LAW.
WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS THAT IF THE
DEFENDANT SEEKS TO HAVE A CASE DISMISSED BY CLAIMING
SELF-DEFENSE IMMUNITY UNDER THE STAND YOUR GROUND LAW, THE
PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT AT A PRETRIAL IMMUNITY HEARING THAT THE DEFENDANT DOES
NOT QUALIFY FOR THE DEFENSE.
THAT FLIPS 180 WHO ACTUALLY HAS
TO PROVE WHAT.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SHOW I KNOW THAT I KILLED A
PERSON AND I NEEDED TO, IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE -- NOW THEY HAVE TO
PROVE THAT YOU WERE NOT ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE.
AND WE KNOW
WHAT THESE SORTS OF SITUATIONS ARE LIKE, THERE IS OFTEN VERY
LITTLE INFORMATION TO GO ON.
THINK OF ALL THE CASES THAT WOULD
GO DIFFERENTLY IF THIS VERSION HAD EXISTED.
THAT IS NOT ALL, IN
ADDITION, IF A JUDGE GRANTED A MOTION TO DISMISS AT THAT POINT,
DEFENDANTS MAY BE DUE UP TO $200,000 FROM THE STATE ATTORNEY
TO COVER ATTORNEY FEES, COURT COSTS, OR OTHER EXPENSES.
SO YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO TO TRIAL AND YOU CAN GET
PAID FABULOUSLY AS A RESULT.
>>LET'S BREAK THIS DOWN.
FIRST OFF, IF THIS LAW HAD BEEN IN
PLACE WHEN ZIMMERMAN SHOT AND KILLED TRAYVON MARTIN, WHETHER
YOU THINK IT IS A MURDER OR NOT, HE DID SHOOT AND KILL TRAYVON
MARTIN, NOT ONLY WOULD HE HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED AS HE WAS, BUT ON
TOP OF THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA WOULD HAVE HAD TO GIVE HIM
$200,000 FOR SHOOTING TRAYVON MARTIN AND KILLING HIM.
REMEMBER
TRAYVON MARTIN, 17 YEARS OLD, HAD GONE TO GET SKITTLES,
UNARMED.
THEY ARE LIKE, GREAT JOB SHOOTING THAT YOUNG KID,
HERE IS $200,000.
THIS HAPPENS IN A PRETRIAL IMMUNITY HEARING,
WHICH CREATES MORE TIME PRESSURE, JUST MAKES THE JOB OF
THE PROSECUTORS AND THE STATE SO MUCH HARDER.
LET'S PAUSE FOR A
SECOND TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE CONSERVATIVES PUSHING THIS.
I THOUGHT CONSERVATIVES WERE IN FAVOR OF PROSECUTORS AND WANT TO
GET TOUGH ON CRIME.
NO, IN THIS CASE THEY ARE MAKING IT
INCREDIBLY EASY TO GET AWAY WITH, LITERALLY, MURDER.
THINK
ABOUT IT, I KNOW CONSERVATIVES ARE THINKING I SEE SOMEBODY I
DON'T LIKE AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SHOOT THEM, WHETHER IT IS IN
MY HOUSE OR I GOT INTO A FIGHT WITH THEM, KILL THEM AND GET
AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THREAT.
THAT IS THE SCENARIO
THEY ENVISION.
BUT UNDERSTAND, THIS DOES NOT LIMIT THE SCENARIO
TO JUST YOU AND YOUR FANTASIES.
IT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY IN
FLORIDA.
A MUGGER COMES IN SHOOT SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY, UNDER
THE OLD LAW, AND BY THE WAY, THE LAW EVERYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA,
THAT IS WHY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SAID 5-2 THIS IS THE LAW
EVERYWHERE, THE OLD LAW IS, THE STATE HAS TO SHOW BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT YOU DID THE SHOOTING, THAT YOU KILLED THAT
PERSON.
ONCE THEY HAVE MET THAT BURDEN, IT WOULD COME BACK ON
YOU TO SAY, I WILL PROVE SELF-DEFENSE.
YOU PROVED THAT I
KILLED THE GUY, I WILL PROVE SELF-DEFENSE.
THAT MAKES SENSE.
NOW THEY ARE SAYING NO, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT I DID IT AND YOU
HAVE TO PROVE THAT I WASN'T ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE.
THINK
ABOUT HOW HARD THAT IS, BECAUSE I WILL GO BACK TO THE MUGGING
ANALOGY.
A MUGGER SHOOTS SOMEONE YOU KNOW.
LET'S SAY YOUR DAD,
AND YOU ARE LITTLE BRUCE WAYNE.
THAT'S HOW HE BECAME BATMAN.
>>OH, YEAH.
THAT IS FACTUALLY TRUE, YES.
CANONICAL.
>>A MUGGER SHOOTS SOMEONE.
IN THE PAST YOU HAD TO PROVE THAT
HE SHOT THEM, WHICH IS HARD ENOUGH, AND YOU HAVE TO PROVE
THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME.
NOW YOU HAVE TO TURN
AROUND AND THE MUGGER SAYS, I FELT THREATENED BY THE GUY.
I
THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO DRAW ON ME, I FELT THREATENED.
IN THE
PAST YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE, GO AHEAD AND PROVE THAT THE GUY
PUT YOUR LIFE IN DANGER, THAT'S WHY YOU SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD AND
KILLED HIM.
NOW THE STATE SAYS NO, YOU PROVE THAT THE GUY I WAS MUGGING
DIDN'T THREATEN ME, PROVE THAT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
HOW IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT?
YOU CAN APPLY IT IN ANY SCENARIO.
A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING, I FELT HE WAS THREATENING ME, PROVE
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WASN'T.
>>A FIGHT OUTSIDE AN ALLEY, STAND YOUR GROUND.
>> ANYTIME SOMEBODY MURDERS SOMEBODY.
BUT IT HAS TO BE WITH
A GUN, AND I ARGUED ABOUT THIS WHEN WE HAD OUR CURRENT TV
SHOW WITH ONE OF THE TOP GUN ADVOCATES IN THE COUNTRY, I SAID
SO YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT IF I'M DOING SELF DEFENSE WITHOUT A
GUN, THAT IS NOT ALLOWED?
THAT DOESN'T GET ANY PROTECTION?
BUT IF I HAVE A GUN ñ LIKE, WHOEVER HAS THE GUN IS
ALMOST BY DEFINITION THOUGHT TO BE COMPLETELY INNOCENT, AND
THE STATE HAS TO HAVE BURDEN ON TOP OF BURDEN ON TOP OF BURDEN.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN AND SOMEBODY MOWS YOU DOWN, YOU
DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROTECTIONS.
SORRY.
OR IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GUN AND YOU PUNCH THE GUY WITH THE
GUN IN THE FACE, YOU HAVE LESS PROTECTION.
>>YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM REASON TO KILL YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE
LITERALLY THREATENING HIM.
SOMEBODY ATTACKY YOU WITH A GUN,
DON'T RESIST, THEN THEY CAN KILL YOU AND GET AWAY WITH IT
AND GET PAID.
>>BY THE WAY, HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER YOU RESISTED OR NOT?
NOBODY DOES.
ONCE YOU ARE DEAD, A PROSECUTOR HAS TO COME UP WITH
A NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF PROVING THAT THAT GUY KILLED
YOU, AND THAT YOU DID NOT IN ANY WAY RESIST.
IF YOU RESIST
SOMEONE ATTACKING YOU, SELF DEFENSE.
>>AND IF A GUY WITH A GUN SAYS, I FELT THREATENED, HOW ARE
YOU GOING TO PROVE THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE?
WE WATCH THESE GUYS ON TV ALL THE TIME, PEOPLE WITH GUNS
SEEM SCARED ALL THE TIME.
IT SEEMS LIKE A VIABLE DEFENSE TO ME.
>> WHAT THEY HAVE DONE NOW IN FLORIDA, OR ARE THREATENING TO
DO IN THIS CASE, IS WAY BEYOND THE WILD, WILD WEST.
IT IS NEAR
ANARCHY.
EVERYBODY GRAB THEIR GUNS, START SHOOTING AT EACH
OTHER, BECAUSE DEAD MEN DON'T TALK.
SO IF THE OTHER GUY IS
DEAD, YOU ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT.
>>AND THIS IS SAYING THAT IF YOU SHOOT SOMEONE, YOU BETTER FINISH
THEM OFF BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE YOUR CASE A LOT EASIER TO PROVE
IN COURT.
>> ON TOP OF THAT, NOT ONLY ARE YOU GOING TO GET
OFF, THEY WILL GIVE YOU $200,000.
UP TO $200,000 FOR
YOUR DEFENSE.
OH MY GOD, THIS IS INSANITY.
SO WHY IS THE NRA, WHO
CLAIMS THAT WE DON'T WANT BAD GUYS WITH GUNS, WHY IS THE NRA
PUSHING SO HARD FOR THIS?
THINK ABOUT THAT.
I THOUGHT THEY DID
NOT WANT CRIMINALS, I THOUGHT THEY WERE JUST FOR THE
UPSTANDING CITIZENS?
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CHARGED
WITH A CRIME AND WHO WE ARE WORRIED MURDERED SOMEONE, BUT
THE NRA IS THEIR BEST FRIEND IN THIS CASE.
AS THEY WANT YOU TO
USE THEIR PRODUCTS.
THEIR PRODUCTS HAPPEN TO KILL PEOPLE,
RIGHT?
BUT YOU USE THEIR PRODUCTS AND THEY WILL HAVE YOUR
BACK NO MATTER WHAT.
>>IF YOU ARE WATCHING THIS VIDEO AND YOU OWN A GUN AND YOU
IMAGINE A CASE WHERE YOU USE SELF-DEFENSE AND YOU THINK THIS
HELPS ME BECAUSE THIS MIGHT HAPPEN TO ME, IMAGINE FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW OF A CRIMINAL, NOT A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER.
IS
OBJECTIVELY MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER,
WHY WOULD YOU WANT THIS?
YOU ARE BRINGING UP THE NRA, BUT THE
ONLY REASON YOU BRING THEM UP IS BECAUSE DENNIS BAXLEY, WHO
SPONSORED THIS LEGISLATION, ALSO WORKED WITH THE NRA'S CHIEF
LOBBYIST IN FLORIDA ON IT.
THEY LITERALLY GOT TO WORK ON THE LEGISLATION WITH THEM.
>>LET ME GIVE YOU THE DIRECT QUOTE, STATE PREVENTIVE DENNIS
BAXLEY, WHO INTRODUCED THE ORIGINAL STAND YOUR GROUND BILL IN
2005, SAID HE WORKS CLOSELY WITH MARION HAMMER, THE NRA'S CHIEF
LOBBYIST IN FLORIDA, ON LEGISLATION.
HE FLAT-OUT SAYS
IT.
YEAH, THE NRA REPRESENTS GUN MANUFACTURERS, SO I WORK CLOSELY
WITH THEIR CHIEF LOBBYIST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE USE
THEIR PRODUCTS TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER.
>>THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL THING TO THIS.
ONE, IT OBVIOUSLY MAKES
IT EASIER TO GET AWAY WITH THE SORTS OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE WANT
TO DO, THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE DEADLY FORCE REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY.
SOMEBODY THREATENS THEM IN THE
SLIGHTEST BIT, THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO KILL THE PERSON.
BUT IT
HAS ANOTHER EFFECT, A MORE CHILLING EFFECT.
8TH CIRCUIT
STATE ATTORNEY BILL CERVONE CRITICIZED THE PORTION OF THE
BILL THAT WOULD HAVE THE STATE PAY $200,000.
HE SAID THAT WOULD
PUT A FINANCIAL STRAIN ON PROSECUTORS AND AMOUNTS TO
NOTHING MORE THAN TRYING TO PUT A CHILLING EFFECT ON PROSECUTORS
TO TEST THE LEGITIMACY OF A SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM.
BECAUSE
AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN DOCKED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
BECAUSE YOU HAVE LOST THESE CASES IN FLORIDA WHERE THEY WANT
PEOPLE TO GET AWAY WITH THIS, ARE YOU GOING TO RISK LOSING
$200,000 ON A REGULAR BASIS?
YOU WILL NOT DO IT, SO YOU WILL JUST
GIVE UP TRYING TO PROVE THAT IT WASN'T SELF-DEFENSE.
AND THOSE
PEOPLE WILL THEN WALK FREE.
THE IMMUNITY TRIALS, THEY WILL NOT
EVEN BE NECESSARY, BECAUSE PROSECUTORS WILL BE TOO
SCARED TO CHARGE THEM WITH ANYTHING.
>>AND IT IS NOT LIKE THEY ARE UNAWARE OF THAT.
THAT IS THE
WHOLE POINT.
THIS LAW SHOULD BE RENAMED THE GET AWAY WITH MURDER
ACT IN FLORIDA.