PROVING THE NEGATIVE: FLORIDA\u27S STAND YOUR GROUND LAW AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws are controversial subjects in today’s world. On one side, some argue that these laws protect our Second Amendment right to bear arms, protect ourselves, and our loved ones without fear of criminal prosecution. On the other hand, opponents argue that Stand Your Ground laws encourage evermore violent acts and vigilantism. In the center is the controversy of applying the law. From the people who are disproportionately charged and tried to those that avoid prosecution, this country has become a heightened example of the problems with the current state of self-defense. From Zimmerman to the McMichaels, Stand Your Ground cases remain a polarizing issue in this country. Stand Your Ground laws are instrumental in protecting the justified killer against prosecution, but a 2017 change to the immunity procedure presents a novel dilemma for prosecutors. As Stand Your Ground laws have become the majority view in this country, opponents have proposed alternatives, and activist groups have advocated for the abolition of self-defense immunity in the wake of an increase in gun violence. This article proposes a different solution, one that avoids the necessity of two full trials, better protects the innocent defendant, and brings self-defense claims in line with other defenses in criminal law