Florida Moves To Restrict Media Access To Stand Your Ground Case Records

After a Tampa Bay Times' review of 200 cases that involved the controversial "Stand Your Ground" law found an "uneven application" and "shocking outcomes," one Florida lawmaker is seeking to impede the media's ability to scrutinize the law.

Earlier this month, state Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fort Walton Beach) filed an amendment that would "severely limit access to court records in the self-defense cases," the Times' Michael van Sickler reports.

The amendment would allow those found innocent in a Stand Your Ground case to "apply for a certificate of eligibility to expunge the associated criminal history record."

Gaetz said his amendment was unrelated to the Times' Stand Your Ground investigation, the Associated Press reports. "The point is to ensure that someone who appropriately uses a Stand Your Ground defense doesn't have their life ruined by the use of that defense," he said.

Gaetz's amendment has sparked concern among journalists, Media Matters reports, who say the loss of access to public records could have damaging effects. Alongside statements from editors at the Miami Herald and Florida Times-Union are the opinions of staff who worked on the groundbreaking review by the Times:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Now here is the other part to this political madness,they will set up a hearing to address concerns about the amendment,buut guess who they put in charge of it?? only the same guy who want to expunge those very records..Gaetz, at-least pretend to giva@#$^** about fair process let us know you still care about what we think even if it's a lie.

Free speech is free speech but it should come with a requirement for responsibility.

The media are irresponsible! Trial my media wrecks innocent lives.

In my view, no names of people charged or involved in any case, should be published until or if they are found guilty by a trial of peers.

Victims names should never be published, it can destroy the lives and well being of the innocent.

In this case, I agree that the innocent should be protected but, only by not allowing their names to be published. Other details should be a matter of public record.

Ultimately, we must protect the innocent and the victims and the media are ruthless.

P

pheonix358
Free speech is free speech but it should come with a requirement for responsibility.

The media are irresponsible! Trial my media wrecks innocent lives.

In my view, no names of people charged or involved in any case, should be published until or if they are found guilty by a trial of peers.

Victims names should never be published, it can destroy the lives and well being of the innocent.

In this case, I agree that the innocent should be protected but, only by not allowing their names to be published. Other details should be a matter of public record.

Ultimately, we must protect the innocent and the victims and the media are ruthless.

P

Phoenix is isn't about retrying those found innocent by media, but about collecting the data on cases it's kinda like tearing out pages of a history book so you can't make further studies or even do a comparison it's a blatant political move by the designers of Stand Your Ground Law,it stinks to high hell of censorship.

reply to post by pheonix358

Starred.

As long as public records are not expunged as a pretext ... I don't have a problem with this idea. The gun grabbers seem to have no problem with their own agenda, and I'd almost be willing to vote favorably for this ... on pretext. LOL

Snarl
reply to post by pheonix358

 

Starred.

As long as public records are not expunged as a pretext ... I don't have a problem with this idea. The gun grabbers seem to have no problem with their own agenda, and I'd almost be willing to vote favorably for this ... on pretext. LOL

It's not about gun grabbers but about who gets nailed for stand your ground vs who goes home, in this case all gun lubbers are not created equal.

reply to post by Spider879


I stated that the records should be available, just not the names or other identifying information of the victims and those found to be not guilty.

I would go a bit further. Courts should have the option of finding a person Guilty, Not Guilty or Innocent.

P

Does this mean that don't want it published that someone was found to be in the right for standing their ground?
If so does that mean that those statistics would not be used therefore only showing that stand your ground is a bad thing and another reason to try to take away guns ?

www.huffingtonpost.com...
Please scroll down to the bottom of the link and view the slide to some of these cases.
On there it exonerates Gang bangers ,a man who killed his wife's lover all kinds of reasons that would be murder in most states or at least manslaughter but in Florida dead men tell no tales.

reply to post by Spider879


I didn't scroll down to read the cases because a man standing his ground
and being exonerated, is still a man standing his ground and being exonerated.
Character, nor circumstance should be an issue. The issue is the guilt or
innocence of the person as tried by a jury of peers who have access to
all the evidence.

I don't like secretive actions in government at all. But we do protect our
minors names from the media, when charged with, or a victim of, a crime.
So there is precedent.

reply to post by pheonix358

Guilty, Not Guilty, or Innocent

You have the sight. Nobody with it ... is Innocent.

I respect that!!

rival
reply to post by Spider879

 

I didn't scroll down to read the cases because a man standing his ground
and being exonerated, is still a man standing his ground and being exonerated.
Character, nor circumstance should be an issue. The issue is the guilt or
innocence of the person as tried by a jury of peers who have access to
all the evidence.

I don't like secretive actions in government at all. But we do protect our
minors names from the media, when charged with, or a victim of, a crime.
So there is precedent.

You are an ATS member I expected regardless of your political views or inclinations you would like to at-least know how some things are the way they are and the decisions made by a hammer and a gavel or the Fed and State governments, to look beyond group think and question or the very least look at the status quo ..and not go Baa Baaa...hear no evil see no evil the justice system is infinitely just...Baaa baaa..come on man tell me you are made of better stuff.

i see it like this if a person is found not guilty by a jury of his peer's. it's over.
the media, doesn't deserve access to records where they can hound someone for just pure spite, or because it will generate ratings for weeks on end like,nacny disgrace, jane velez-bitchell, dr pooh on call,or that madcow woman do when they get a hold of these.

hell nancy and jane will drag something that's years old out and start talking sh@@ about the people.

reply to post by Spider879


To be fair, our American justice system is not infinitely just. You could ask anyone
exonerated by DNA (after having been convicted, and served time) and they'd back
that sentiment. But it is arguably the best justice system humans have contrived
for themselves, to date.

And the point I was making by citing that I didn't look at the background of the
shooters that were exonerated is that their background is only
as relevant as the judge and the twelve jurors believe it is relevant.
To that end I would rather have a jury of my peers, with access to all
the evidence, judge me as guilty, or innocent. And would rather not be
judged by the sensational media. The Trayvon Martin case is a good example.
Our own ATS forum blew up over that case, and none of us had any real
evidence that wasn't sensationalistic media hype to begin with. And I'm not
claiming high-ground--I threw my two cents on the matter on several occasions.

The statement in the OP sums it up well, and I agree.

"The point is to ensure that someone who appropriately uses a Stand Your Ground
defense doesn't have their life ruined by the use of that defense," he said.

Somehow I agree with this. The media can absolutely RUIN your life if they don't happen to agree with a not guilty verdict handed down by a jury of peers. OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman; what is the first thing that pops into most people's heads when they hear those names? Guilty. Yet all three of them were found not guilty. The trials are over, you can't just drag someone through the gutter based on your own private (often faulty) beliefs. We founded our judicial system to get AWAY from mob rule, so why do we let our media implement a (slightly) tamer version of it?

I think this has less to do with protecting folks found innocent than protecting a flawed law, so ok fine remove the names of those found innocent although I find that altering what I believe should be public record for any reason to be wrong, I can live with that,the main thing about Goetz and others is obfuscation,lets cover it up so they can shut-up!