Here is the order:
HirschRuling SYG Uncon by Rumpole21 on Scribd
Highlights from the order include the following:
"When in due course of human events..."
"Ask not what you can do to an intruder, ask what caliber ammunition should be in your firearm..."
"That's one small step for the Florida Legislature, and one giant leap for mankind..."
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."
And of course, the judge found succor in his favourite president- Abraham Lincoln:
"A law divided against itself cannot stand..."
15 comments:
Show off.
The truth of the matter is that Judge Hirsch simply detests the idea that private citizens can own firearms. if you ask him pointedly if he believes whether private citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, he will talk around the matter and eventually say no, he does not. He is a fierce supporter of all the ideals set forth in the Bill of Rights, except for the Second Amendment. Judge Hirsch does not believe in either concealed carry privileges, or the right of self defense. His solution to being attacked is to call the police and await their arrival, retreating "to the wall" before deadly force can be used in a self defense scenario, even at the risk of the victim's life.
Because of his intense personal views in matters relating to firearms, the man should not be sitting in judgement on any cases involving firearms or self defense issues. If you are representing a client who is charged in a firearms matter or one that raises self defense or "stand your ground" issues, move to recuse him. If you do not, you can rest assured that he is already prejudiced against your client and will use your client's case as a bully pulpit to impose his views to your client's detriment. While a good judge in non-firearms related matters, he is a hoplophobe, pure and simple.
If true he is not a good judge.
Did any of you actually read the order or the new version of the law? All he did was say that the changing of the burden of proof was unconstitutional.
We need a Judge who loves the 2nd Amendment and law abiding citizens.
Come on Judge Hanzman. Straighten this out.! It is CONSTITUTIONAL
This ruling is wrong. It is very confusing, but Miltie disregards the Florida Constitution!
What about the SMILEY V STATE case Miltie?
Say it ain't so. Stand your Ground de la O. Where is Judge Fine?
Come on Judge Martin Zilber - come home from your summer vacation in the Alps and help us gun owners. The PBA will love you more. John Rivera needs you now. Find Stand Your Ground Constitutional.
What would Judge Peter Adrien or Judge Marcos Ambrose have done with this issue?
Anonymous,
Florida is a land of the stupid and ignorant. We are the worst of the worst. Our sovereign state delights in murdering innocents. The idea that one should not have to take every step to avoid killing is insane. If our statutes condone murder, then they are not worthy of respect and there is no reason to obey; except fear of the coercive power of the state.
The judge-made common law had it correct. In a just and moral society, one cannot use deadly force if there is an opportunity to retreat. The only place one does not have to retreat from is your home. If there is a doubt about the use of deadly force, the verdict is not guilty. If deadly force is used and there is doubt about whether or not the Defendant should have retreated, the verdict is not guilty.
What was wrong with that? If a man shoots and kills another when he could have walked away isn't he a murderer? Of course he is. Murderers are bad folks. Our Legislators pass laws to help bad folks; that means they too are evil. So, just STFU about your "laws," and your "justice" system. Your laws are bullshit and your system ain't just. You are just a bunch of dirty murderers.
Just read Judge Hanzman's order on the same issue from a July 3 hearing.
He found it Constitutional!
Chapter 776/782 in residential homestead foreclosure?
Under Florida law, in residential homestead foreclosure, the castle doctrine generally, Chapter 776 Justifiable Use of Force, and Chapter 782 Homicide, there are exemptions for law enforcement, but not for foreclosure mills, corrupt lawyers, or corrupt judges. The homicide in residential homestead foreclosure of 76 year-old Frank Collelo in March 2015 raises a question, a nonlawyer forced to appear pro se in Hillsborough County. Did Collelo have a right too defend himself under Chapter 776 and/or Chapter 782? Collelo was entitled to civil counsel in residential homestead foreclosure in Florida under the federal Older Americans Act (OAA), as administered by the Dept. of Elder Affairs, Title III B: Supportive Services, legal assistance, links below.
In connection with the requirement in wrongful death actions of an underlying tort or breach of duty, proof of the defendant’s violation of a statute or regulatory provision that either is designed to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves or establishes a duty to take precautions to guard a certain class of persons from a specific type of injury, establishes negligence per se. Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 3d Dist. 1978).
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force
The Older Americans Act (OAA) 42 U.S. Code Chapter 35 - PROGRAMS FOR OLDER AMERICANS https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-35
S.192 - Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2016
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/192
Federal Older Americans Act (OAA) Program
Title III B: Supportive Services, legal assistance
http://elderaffairs.state.fl.us/doea/oaa.php
This comment from Wednesday should be in this post:
Eye on the CJ said...
Important words propounded by CJ Miltin Hirsch in his learned opinion in State v. Rutherford:
"Centripetal"
"Irrefragably"
"Bailiwick"
Wednesday, July 05, 2017 3:48:00 AM
I read the order and others of Judge Hirsch. He is peeling the onion down to the core where most of us never get but a couple of layers beyond the flakes of brown skin as you pick up the onion. After 30 years in the criminal court system assembly line and nearing the end in poor health I would like to challenge Judge Hirsch and other intellectuals to turn their efforts towards how we can rectify problems that have persisted throughout our careers. Are we that enamored with job preservation that we will continue to look the other way at the root causes of the criminal justice system's never ending supply of defendants which keep the system and careers going. I am talking about the national embarrassment of crime in Chicago (100 shot in 4 days). I know that you read this blog Judge Hirsch, Blake, Soto and so many others. What are you doing to change things for the better?. I have two projects for you: 1. STOP letting kids quit school-you know that over half the defendants in your courtrooms dropped out of school and had no father figure in the home. 2. How does our society address gun violence in Chicago when the Governor does not request the militia (national guard troops) yet the citizenry live in what is tantamount to a war zone in 3 distinct areas of Chicago where most of the shootings are occurring ;(1900) in 2017 and this has been going on for 10 years. Why not have Miami lead the way as the city with the best defense bar in the nation and come up with some lawsuits and motions and arguments to help solve this national crisis. Now get to work. I can't do it anymore.
LOL @ the thought of your brand new 3RD DCA judge norma Lindsey reading Milt's opinion. I can see her already, "Yeah, I'll just concur with whatever you guys say."
7:44 Ive tried gun cases in front of Judge Hirsch in which it seemed highly probably my client not only illegally possessed guns (automatic firearms at that), but used them to terrorize and enforce drug deals. Nonetheless the police investigated lazily and there was reasonable doubt. We beat the cases and Judge Hirsch congratulated me on the win and wished my client good luck.
If indeed he is so anti-gun as you write, he is all the more impressive for umpiring the trials in a neutral fashion and letting the law control the outcome.
I too tried a firearm case in front of Hirsch. He's a tough judge and does not suffer fools but he is strong on the law. He made some pro-defense rulings that most judges wouldn't have the understanding or courage to make. Most would judge rule for the State. Client was acquitted. Regardless, at no point did I feel that Hirsch had any feelings one way or the other toward firearms. He tried the case fairly and followed the law to a tee.
Post a Comment