[JoeRedskin]

Been thinking over the Florida immunity law (the one saying, if you assert self-defense, you can't be arrested without proof that the "self-defense" defense is inapplicable) and why I find it morally bothersome. It appears to change the claim of "self-defense" from an affirmative defense to a presumptive defense and, in doing so, lessens the value of life.

As an affirmative defense, "self-defense" is something I have to prove in order to be innocent of murder. If I fail to prove my actions satisfied the elements of self-defense, my defense fails and I may be liable for first or second degree murder. As such, I better be damn sure of myself before resorting to deadly force in self-defense. Simply put, as an affirmative defense, the philosophical underpinning of the "self-defense" claim is that, if you kill someone, the presumption is you are wrong to do so.

The presumption that it is wrong to kill someone is eliminated, however, when the claim of "self-defense" is converted into a presumptive defense as it appears to be in Florida. As a presumptive defense, I don't need to prove I acted in self-defense, I just need to assert that I was doing so. Once asserted, it becomes the State's burden to find enough evidence to prove I that I was not acting in self-defense. As such, when (like here) the evidence is just too conflicting to say one way or another with any reasonable degree of certainty, the State will almost always fail to overcome the presumption. As a result, the possibility that a person wrongly lost their life will never even make it to a jury.

Essentially, as a presumptive defense, the philosophical underpinning of the "self-defense" claim is that killing someone is not assumed to be wrong. Rather, Floridians have said that the right to defend your person is primary even if sometimes innocent people get killed. I am pretty sure I have a problem with that.