Latest Headlines
- Undocumented Farm Worker, 45, Gets 25 Years For Attempted Sexual Battery Of 11-Year Old In Walnut Hill
- Fields Of Faith: Community Worship Service Held At Northview High
- 2-Month-Old Passes Away Following Escambia County Wreck
- ECSO Deputy Involved In Chain Reaction Crash On Highway 29
- Updated: Two Stab Each Other Outside Atmore Tractor Supply Company Store In Ongoing Dispute
- Two Injured In Two Wrecks That Slowed Highway 29 Traffic Tuesday Afternoon
- North Escambia Baseball Battle: Tate Gets Senior Night 8-4 Win Over Northview (With Gallery)
- Inmate Flown To The Hospital After Incident At Century Correctional Institution
- Northview Lady Chiefs Beat Washington 19-2
- Check Your Tickets: No One Has Claimed $66,000 Winning Lottery Ticket Sold In Davisville
Florida Supreme Court To Weigh If Felons Can Stand Their Ground
July 3, 2014
The Florida Supreme Court will consider whether convicted felons have the right to claim immunity under the state’s controversial “stand your ground” self-defense law, even if they are barred from possessing guns in the first place.
Justices agreed Wednesday to hear the case of Brian Bragdon, who was charged 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 a document in the case.
B
ragdon argued that he fired the gun while trying to defend himself and sought to get the charges dismissed under “stand your ground.” But a circuit judge ruled that Bragdon was prevented from seeking immunity because he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm at the time of the shooting, and the 4th District Court of Appeal also ruled against him.
The appeals court based its decision on its own 2012 ruling in the case of Harvey Hill, a felon who shot a man during a confrontation over a woman and then claimed he did so in self defense. The court ruled that he couldn’t do so under “stand your ground.”
“Here, the defendant used the very instrumentality that he was not lawfully allowed to possess to injure his alleged assailant,” the court ruled in the Hill case.
But between Hill and Bragdon, the 2nd District Court of Appeal found in another case that there was at least one section of the “stand your ground” law that could apply even to felons. The court was considering the case of Aaron Little, who shot another man in a confrontation.
“His status as a felon in illegal possession of a firearm did not preclude that claim of immunity,” the 2nd DCA ruled. “And, as set forth above, Little established by a preponderance of the evidence that his use of force was justified to prevent his imminent death or great bodily harm as provided for in” the law.
The 2nd DCA said it wasn’t sure whether the decisions in the Little and Hill cases were in conflict — something that makes the Florida Supreme Court more likely to intervene. But in its ruling on Bragdon, the 4th DCA said there was a conflict with the Little ruling. Bragdon asked the justices to hear the case based on that conflict, and lawyers for the state agreed.
The “stand your ground” law says people can use deadly force and do not have a duty to retreat if they think it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. The law offers criminal and civil immunity in such cases.
It’s not clear when the Supreme Court might rule. The order issued Wednesday sets out a schedule for attorneys in the case to file briefs but said the court would set a time for oral arguments later.
by Brandon Larrabee, The News Service of Florida
Comments
14 Responses to “Florida Supreme Court To Weigh If Felons Can Stand Their Ground”
The only difference between a convicted felon and someone who isn’t . The felon was caught. In a lot of cases the state overcharged. The felon didn’t have the money for a defense lawyer and ended up taking a plea in his best interest. Now his life is ruined. He can’t get a good job, which means he can’t support himself let alone family. The state has a high recidivism rate because the profit off it. Where is the felons second chance? It doesn’t exist !!! Now you expect him not to defend himself !! That’s a basic right!!! We have to somehow wise up.. There are a lot of smart talented felons who can contribute if given a chance!!!
I am a convicted felon. I work, pay taxes, went to school for what I do, God fearing and learned from my mistakes… If I was to own a gun I wouldn’t use it as an attacker, the aggressor, but I would be wrong, much less charged for defending my life?! These little white boys shooting up schools weren’t felons before they did what they did to become one so everyone should be a felon just for the simple fact we don’t know the true intent of any gun owner.. Everybody that robs is not a felon.Stand your ground should apply to everybody. I’m a felon but that doesn’t mean I haven’t changed how I think. Simple minded people think a felon will never change.. The law should look at all the evidence to base a ruling. Felons should be able to protect themselves jus like a non-felon. Times have changed.
Fred, I have to agree with you. As I said, “as long as everything in his story checks out regarding self-defense,” then he should not be charged with anything except felon in possession. It would seem like, just by virtue of the fact both the offender and the “victim” were in vehicles, self defense would not stand. There are several questions that come to my mind but are not answered by this story. The answers to those questions could change the “appearance” of the self-defense not standing, though. Stand your ground is just an extension of self-defense laws.
We all can protect ourselves. I didn’t read the entire law, but does it say, does not apply to felons?
If they would start attaching an appropriate penalty for a felon being in possession of a gun, we wouldn’t have to worry about this so much. Stand your ground laws are NOT intended to prevent those in the midst of committing a felony from prosecution for their crimes. If you are actively committing a crime while armed, including possessing a firearm if you are a convicted felon, then you shouldn’t get the benefit of this law.
I say that Convicted Felons found in possession of a firerm should get 15 years in Prison – No If’s and’s or But’s.
Everyone has the Right to defend themselves from bodily harm ..
I agree with Curious, a felon has no right to a gun, so if in any case he/she shoots someone, they are in violation of the law & subject to prosecution. We can’t have gangbangers running wild & at war, then using the law to slip the noose when they get caught killing.
It might seem absurd that this issue is even being heard, but this is America & every American citizen is entitled to due process of the law. Should a felon just let themselves be killed? No. But the courts must take this issue on in a case-by-case basis, reviewing all admitting circumstances. A headache for the court system, yes, but, again, due process trumps all arguments
REGARDING:
“Oh wait…laws don’t mean anything anymore”
Most people obey most laws most of the time.
Convicted felons have been proven to have broken at least one law considered a major law, not a teeny, tiny misdemeanor. Outlaws don’t always obey laws.
It really gets twisted when seeking justice. Felons lose the right to carry weapons, along with their right to run for public office, vote, serve on juries. Surely that is why many of them want them restored as soon as possible. (mostly so they can run for governor, of course)
Procedures for having civil rights restored are in place but they include not getting caught breaking other laws for a time. If they obey the law during that time, they are not armed. If they are proven to be armed, they are not eligible to have their civil rights restored because they have shown their unwillingness to be good citizens.
For some of them — especially those who rile other outlaws — going unarmed might well be a death sentence. However, there is a fair chance our convicted felon was carrying a weapon to intimidate or possibly kill other people and just happened to use it in this instance. It is even conceivable — for all we know — that he was not threatened at all, simply killed the only other person who knew the truth.
Another problem with convicted felons is that not all of them are honest.
Go figure.
David for better felons
(or fewer)
I disagree with Dennis. here is a situation where the subject fired from one car into another car. What kept him from driving away? Maybe the full facts would bear out the necessity to fire his weapon, but I have to say he had no business with the gun in the first place, and because he was armed, he likely was emboldened to get into a confrontation and escalate to the point of using deadly force. If he had not been armed, he likely would have tried to avoid trouble. I do not agree that stand your ground applies when you got yourself into a confrontation when you could have avoided trouble. I think it should be narrowly applied to those situations where someone could not reasonably have avoided the situation.
As crazy as all this sounds, I think the Stand Your Ground Law should take precedence in this matter. Simply charge him with “felon in possession of a firearm” and let that be that – as long as everything in his story checks out regarding self-defense.
Yet another perfectly good reason to avoid doing the things which might result in a felony conviction.
Such things also lead some to wish you dead.
David for the right to defend
with no need to do so
Just because you are a felon, does not mean you can’t defend yourself. I think they should be able to use the Stand Your Ground defense, but if they use a gun then they should be charged with possession of a gun by a convicted felon Gun.
What curious said…what are they doing with a firearm? Oh wait…laws don’t mean anything anymore…geeeeez.
Felons aren’t even supposed to own a firearm to begin with, then he shot somebody. hmmmm