Comments on: Court: Defendants Face Burden In ‘Stand Your Ground’ Case

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:25:53 +0000

Let’s review this law. It’s called “stand your ground”, when he stood his ground in his vehicle, he was well within the law. When he pursued the unarmed guy, then he is not covered by “stand your ground” law.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:27:21 +0000

Based on the article its pretty simple to me. Dunning apparently was way out of line with his actions but once he was greeted by the elder Bretherick with a weapon at their vehicle he retreaded. I would want to think at this point the immediate threat was under control but the elder Bretherick chose to remove himself from his vehicle and approach Dunnings vehicle.

Sorry, but when Bretherick pursued the prior threat that has retreaded he’s on his own. The ground he was standing on certainly was shaky when he left the immediate area of his own vehicle to approach Dunning at his vehicle.

A few grand to keep the elder Bretherick out of jail is a bargain.

By: chris in Molino

chris in Molino — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:18:51 +0000

@Jeeperman & Lou
Not only spend thousands of dollars, but the state, who judges ultimately side with, want to be able to decide who gets a pass and who doesn’t. No doubt media and public opinion will play a major part in that decision. Too bad the driver who cut the father off and blocked their path (Derek Dunning) wasn’t flying a confederate flag from his vehicle, he’d have been the one charged. (I do know it happened before the flag debauchery, just bein funny)

By: 429SCJ

429SCJ — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:34:38 +0000

When you carry a sidearm, you will eventually find a reason to use it, or a reason will come upon and find you.

Big responsibility and liability on one hand, potentially lifesaving self protection on the other. I support PCC and hope that none of us have to deal with such a situation, but are drilled and prepared for such in case we do.

By: Concerned Citizen

Concerned Citizen — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:34:31 +0000

Common sense should be used to decide whether to pull your weapon or not. No deadly threat, no use of deadly force required. The showing of the weapon was legal, if I remember the laws correctly, as long as it was not pointed at the truck driver. When the passenger left the vehicle and pointed the weapon at the truck driver, he became the law breaker. Again……no deadly threat, no use of deadly force required.

By: Lou

Lou — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:44:47 +0000

Whatever happened to the requirement that the state has the burden of proof
on all criminal matters? Why is this one different? Maybe the “Justices” need
to take another look at this matter from a constitutional standpoint.

By: jeeperman

jeeperman — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:05:24 +0000

What this ruling means is that now if you are involved in a “Stand-your-ground” incident, you have to hire an attorney and spend several thousand dollars to keep your self out of jail.
The trial lawyers and justice industry lobbies and wins again.