Mother arrested for defending children

wrightme · Oct 25, 2014

notalawyer said:
In Florida, an individual must make a prima facie claim of self defense, then and only then does the burden of proof shift to the state. The idiot in this case did so, now the burden of proof that she did not act within the "reasonable person standard" shifts to the state.

Cite?

Further, how can a person make a 'prima facie' claim of any sort?

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...S598US598&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=prima facie

'Prima Facie' isn't a claim someone has to utter, it is based upon what actually happened, or how what happened actually does appear.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1598

prima facie
: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account makes it a prima facie case.

As an example from FL trespass statutes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.12.html

(1) The unauthorized entry by any person into or upon any enclosed and posted land shall be prima facie evidence of the intention of such person to commit an act of trespass.

notalawyer · Oct 25, 2014

For your last two posts:

If you don't say anything, you will be arrested.
For example someone calls 911, LEO arrive and you are there with a recently fired gun and a dead guy. You don't say squat; Don't offer any defense. Off to jail you go.
If you continue to remain silent, the investigation will show you shot someone. Absent any witnesses statements, the jury will have nothing other than you, a fired gun and a dead guy. Maybe the dead guy had a gun or knife, but without your statement claiming self defense those facts a pretty meaningless. The prosecution theory is that he drew it in self defense, not the other way around. Remember they are there to get convictions, not to be fair.

Also, if you do not make a prima facie case of self defense (see bold below), the jury will never hear the self defense instruction, and therefore will convict you.

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Falwell v. State, 88 So. 3d 970 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2012

wrightme · Oct 25, 2014

notalawyer said:
For your last two posts:

If you don't say anything, you will be arrested.
For example someone calls 911, LEO arrive and you are there with a recently fired gun and a dead guy. You don't say squat; Don't offer any defense. Off to jail you go.
If you continue to remain silent, the investigation will show you shot someone. Absent any witnesses statements, the jury will have nothing other than you, a fired gun and a dead guy. Maybe the dead guy had a gun or knife, but without your statement claiming self defense those facts a pretty meaningless. The prosecution theory is that he drew it in self defense, not the other way around. Remember they are there to get convictions, not to be fair.

Also, if you do not make a prima facie case of self defense (see bold below), the jury will never hear the self defense instruction, and therefore will convict you.

Falwell v. State, 88 So. 3d 970 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2012

While 'the burden of proof' may be on the defendant in such instance, that does not create a requirement to deliver such evidence to the cops. If enough evidence is already apparent, why would such declaration be needed?

The 'thought experiment' has traveled far afield from 'defense from snake'.

SovereignAxe · Oct 25, 2014

Primus said:
I agree with the arrest. And what "lifelong" consequences are you talking about? Arrest does not equal conviction.

Where's the "appeal to emotion" police when we need them?

Since you obviously ignored everything I said, and I don't feel like repeating myself, I'll quote myself.

SovereignAxe said:
So you really feel this incident was worth arresting her for? It was worth giving her an arrest record which is going to follow her for the rest of her life and probably make it difficult to get a job for the rest of her life?

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with that. Cite her and fine her. Jail is for violent people that cause harm to others. This was no more reckless than speeding, and we don't arrest people for that do we?

Employers and creditors can run an NCIC check on anyone that applies. A frivolous arrest is going to make this difficult for anyone that considers an arrest record an automatic DQ.

notalawyer · Oct 26, 2014

SovereignAxe said:
Since you obviously ignored everything I said, and I don't feel like repeating myself, I'll quote myself.

Employers and creditors can run an NCIC check on anyone that applies. A frivolous arrest is going to make this difficult for anyone that considers an arrest record an automatic DQ.

Moral of story: Don't do stupid stuff that is a felony in Florida. :uhoh:

Primus · Oct 26, 2014

SovereignAxe said:
Since you obviously ignored everything I said, and I don't feel like repeating myself, I'll quote myself.

Employers and creditors can run an NCIC check on anyone that applies. A frivolous arrest is going to make this difficult for anyone that considers an arrest record an automatic DQ.

Im pretty sure arrest record won't even pull up on NCIC. You need a bop check. For example if I run name and dob an ncic hit will show if they are wanted out of state. But NOT arrest or even conviction records. If I want that I have to check bop for that state. Now maybe its possible from the record room. I'm curious so I'll have to poke around.

So even if they do a bop check and see an arrest it'll still show a dismissed or ng or cwof. If the employer still says your a no go even with not guilty or dismissed then that's on them.

Primus · Oct 26, 2014

notalawyer said:
Moral of story: Don't do stupid stuff that is a felony in Florida. :uhoh:

+100

rightwinglibertarian · Oct 27, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
The snakes? They were part of the staff !

Not guilty.

ROTFL Well the staff were likely brainwashing the kids with liberal propaganda. I've seen enough on news sites such as Freedom Outpost and WND to know how much they just love to support the Constitution

twoskinsonemanns said:
Zero tolerance. No defensive weapons allowed in our victim zones!

pffftttt. Got that right *eyeroll*

Primus said:
I agree with the arrest....

Arrest for protecting someone? Well I have no words for you that are allowed on this forum. Wrong just doesnt describe it.

Primus · Oct 27, 2014

rightwinglibertarian said:
ROTFL Well the staff were likely brainwashing the kids with liberal propaganda. I've seen enough on news sites such as Freedom Outpost and WND to know how much they just love to support the Constitution

pffftttt. Got that right *eyeroll*

Arrest for protecting someone? Well I have no words for you that are allowed on this forum. Wrong just doesnt describe it.

Lol

marshaul · Oct 27, 2014

notalawyer said:
Moral of story: Don't do stupid stuff that is a felony in Florida. :uhoh:

But everything's a felony in Florida.

77zach · Oct 27, 2014

marshaul said:
But everything's a felony in Florida.

Neocon ground zero. We have attorney general Pam Bondi running campaign commercials bragging about how she unilaterally banned bath salts and other drugs complete with flashing police lights and cops in the background. She's a despicable pol and also fighting open carry efforts in Florida.

Adrich86 · Nov 10, 2014

Primus said:
If.... If you saw a unicorn.... If I won the lottery.... If I fell down and broke my spleen.... All irrelevant.

Again "no one was hurt". So as I said, everything is fine until a kid gets zinged. Sorry I'd rather not wait until then.

I'm gonna assume 77zach is one of those people that think you shouldn't get in trouble for drunk driving until you hurt somebody.

Primus · Nov 10, 2014

Adrich86 said:
I'm gonna assume 77zach is one of those people that think you shouldn't get in trouble for drunk driving until you hurt somebody.

Quite possibly but I'll let him speak for himself on that one. All boils down to "victimless" crimes. A lot "victimless" crimes are only that until someone gets killed or shot. Some say deal with it when it happens others agree it can/should be prevented it.

The Truth · Nov 10, 2014

I doubt most alcoholics can or have the ability to heed the law whilst feeding their addiction. Some people make bad choices. Others need help.

Primus · Nov 10, 2014

The Truth said:
I doubt most alcoholics can or have the ability to heed the law whilst feeding their addiction. Some people make bad choices. Others need help.

Agreed. That's more important then just throwing dudes in cages.

marshaul · Nov 10, 2014

Primus said:
Quite possibly but I'll let him speak for himself on that one. All boils down to "victimless" crimes. A lot "victimless" crimes are only that until someone gets killed or shot. Some say deal with it when it happens others agree it can/should be prevented it.

It's not "victimless" if it negligently and actively endangers others. Such endangerment may take the form of civil liability rather than "crime", but it's certainly not aggressive to stop individuals from, say, shooting without a proper backstop in populated areas, or driving vehicles recklessly and/or without reasonable control.

All this crap about "those people that think you shouldn't get in trouble for drunk driving until you hurt somebody" is an intentional straw man, and it ain't gonna fly 'round here.

The argument is never "drunk driving is always OK until you hurt someone." The argument is usually that driving is ipso facto OK, unless the driving rises to the level of egregious active endangerment. While alcohol use may cause a state of demonstrated impairment which engenders "egregious active endangerment", current arbitrary BAC-based DUI laws are status crimes which are not dependent on demonstrated impairment, and to the extent that they arbitrarily prosecute individuals who do not, in fact, represent a significantly elevated risk they favor false security over liberty, and are therefore bad/in need of reform.

That's an argument.

77zach · Nov 11, 2014

marshaul said:
It's not "victimless" if it negligently and actively endangers others. Such endangerment may take the form of civil liability rather than "crime", but it's certainly not aggressive to stop individuals from, say, shooting without a proper backstop in populated areas, or driving vehicles recklessly and/or without reasonable control.

All this crap about "those people that think you shouldn't get in trouble for drunk driving until you hurt somebody" is an intentional straw man, and it ain't gonna fly 'round here.

The argument is never "drunk driving is always OK until you hurt someone." The argument is usually that driving is ipso facto OK, unless the driving rises to the level of egregious active endangerment. While alcohol use may cause a state of demonstrated impairment which engenders "egregious active endangerment", current arbitrary BAC-based DUI laws are status crimes which are not dependent on demonstrated impairment, and to the extent that they arbitrarily prosecute individuals who do not, in fact, represent a significantly elevated risk they favor false security over liberty, and are therefore bad/in need of reform.

That's an argument.

Why do you think the above is so hard for people to understand? You explain it to them and it doesn't compute. I always think of the vacuum cleaner in Idiocracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpFUrjq8nWE

notalawyer · Nov 11, 2014

Adrich86 said:
I'm gonna assume 77zach is one of those people that think you shouldn't get in trouble for drunk driving until you hurt somebody.

I am. (or damage something, etc.)

It's not a crime until there is a victim.

But then again everyone knows that driving drunk will quite possibly lang you in jail. So one maks the active decision to engage in behavior where that might happen. Do stupid things, pay the price.

Just like this case, especially since she made a statement to a witness to the effect "I'll take responsibility for that." when she was reminded that having/shooting a gun on school property is illegal.

PistolPackingMomma · Nov 18, 2014

marshaul said:
It's not "victimless" if it negligently and actively endangers others. Such endangerment may take the form of civil liability rather than "crime", but it's certainly not aggressive to stop individuals from, say, shooting without a proper backstop in populated areas, or driving vehicles recklessly and/or without reasonable control.

All this crap about "those people that think you shouldn't get in trouble for drunk driving until you hurt somebody" is an intentional straw man, and it ain't gonna fly 'round here.

The argument is never "drunk driving is always OK until you hurt someone." The argument is usually that driving is ipso facto OK, unless the driving rises to the level of egregious active endangerment. While alcohol use may cause a state of demonstrated impairment which engenders "egregious active endangerment", current arbitrary BAC-based DUI laws are status crimes which are not dependent on demonstrated impairment, and to the extent that they arbitrarily prosecute individuals who do not, in fact, represent a significantly elevated risk they favor false security over liberty, and are therefore bad/in need of reform.

That's an argument.

+100

*slow clap*

twoskinsonemanns · Nov 19, 2014

notalawyer said:
It's not a crime until there is a victim.

but what if?
What if
What if

You just don't get it.

Mother arrested for defending children

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member