Murder is OK in Florida

Florida Statutes:  782.04 Murder

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that the “the life of the law has not been logic:  it has been  experience” (The Common Law, 1881). In Florida, logic got the boot under a concept labeled “stand your ground,” meaning you have no obligation to retreat when confronted by someone who is threatening you if you are legally in place.  Florida has now given license to killers to shoot unarmed persons, then to proclaim they were under assault and in fear of their lives.  Such a defense can be used to snub your nose at prosecutors with this nearly impossible task:  “Prove me wrong.”

Last year in Florida a neighborhood watchdog who apparently could not win a fight with a marsh mellow, but who was packing heat nevertheless, killed a young 17-year old boy on his way home from a 7-11 store.  The boy was acting entirely within the law, and, apparently so was the watchdog.  The unarmed boy  was confronted by the watchdog, and, within a minute or two, a fight ensued. The watchdog pulled his concealed weapon, then shot and killed the boy.  The police arrived, the watchdog told them that he was attacked by the unarmed youth, that the youth had knocked him to the ground, and then the youth had pounced on him and pummeled him until he feared for his life. Only then, in that moment of extreme fear, he pulled out his concealed weapon, and killed the boy.   

The neighborhood watchdog was arrested and charged with 2^nd degree murder.  

Fast forward.  The watchdog never took the stand in his own defense.  Rather, he and his attorneys decided to let the prosecution try to prove their case against him without questioning him.  But because killing someone in “self-defense” is a legitimate defense, the prosecution had the added burden for proving their case, and they were left in the unenviable position of trying to prove that the watchdog was lying about being in jeopardy of being killed.  But proving that the watchdog was not in fear of his life without any witnesses to the killing, and no way to cross examine him or to introduce experts about his probable state of mind, meant the prosecution had to do the nearly impossible—prove a negative without evidence.  

The watchdog was found “not guilty” by a jury of his peers.  

There are very few instances in life in which anyone can prove a negative.  Mathematicians can offer proof that the statement that 4 + 2 = 7 is false, but there are few other instances in which proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be offered vis-à-vis the negation of something. In logic, the burden for proving all such assertions falls upon the asserter.  That is not the case under Florida law.  Now the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt by proving the defense “I was in fear of losing my life” was not true .

It seems as if Florida now needs to modify the self-defense law by limiting when it can be used.  An appropriate time to forbid its use would be when you are both the confronter and the one who is armed. If that situation makes you afraid for your life, then you deserve to get your chops busted.  Otherwise, it’s open season on your enemies in the sunshine state by any marsh mellow with just enough strength to pull a trigger.   Human logic is not perfect, but when the law parts company with it, in the immortal words of Charles Dickens, “the law is a ass.”