If, at a pretrial hearing, a defendant meets his burden and establishes his claim of immunity by a preponderance of the evidence, any charge as to which the immunity applies would of course be dismissed. If, however, the court finds that the defendant has not met his burden, the court's ruling has no preclusive effect....

Such a defendant would still be free at trial to plead his claim of immunity to the jury. At trial the burden of proof is exclusively on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.

To earn an acquittal, the defendant need do no more than show reasonable doubt - a quantum of evidence considerably less than a preponderance. And any attempt to bar a defendant from asserting a lawful defense based on the trial court's ruling that the defendant had not sufficientlv established that defense at a pretrial hearing would no doubt run afoul of the defendant's constitutional entitlement to a fair jury trial, see U.S. Const. amend VI; Art. I Sec16, Fla. Const.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The Earth is not endangered by humanity. But humanity is being seriously harmed by those who portray us as a threat and seek to constrain humanity’s numbers, activities, creativity and liberty.

Instead of Earth Day, we should be celebrating Civilization Day.

The United States’ complaint alleges that the examinations impact African-American candidates in two ways. First, African-American candidates for promotion to the four positions pass the examinations at significantly lower rates than white candidates. Second, even those African-Americans who pass the examinations are rarely promoted because the fire department selects candidates for promotion in descending rank-order based primarily upon each candidate’s written examination score and African-American candidates score significantly lower than whites. Title VII prohibits employment practices that result in a disparate impact on the basis of race unless the employer can prove that such practices really test for what the job requires--are “job related and consistent with business necessity.” The complaint alleges that the City’s examinations do not meet this standard and, thus, qualified African-Americans have been kept out of the promotional ranks unnecessarily.

For the past 18 months, the finance minister, Jan Kees De Jager, has been the loudest advocate of the most rigorous austerity for the bailed out countries of the eurozone and of the punitive new fiscal rules. Hoist on its own petard, his government has fallen because it cannot agree on the spending cuts required to meet the new rules by next year. But the Dutch economy is fundamentally sound and prosperous with low unemployment. The head of the national office of budget forecasters, Coen Teulings, says the government simply needs time to make the structural changes required to comply with the rules. To insist that all this be done within a year, entailing huge savings and cuts that will make a relatively benign situation worse, represents a triumph of dogma over pragmatism.

Many of Ms Le Pen’s voters, therefore, will not simply swing behind Mr Sarkozy in the run-off. However much he may try to court their vote by sounding an even harder line on immigration than he has already, these are people who simply do not like the man. One poll suggests that only 40% of her voters will now back Mr Sarkozy; 27% would support Mr Hollande; and 33% are undecided or would abstain.

In other words, Mr Sarkozy has far less of a potential extra second-round vote than the raw numbers might suggest. This is why Mr Hollande looks so strong. He gets 44% simply by adding up all the left-wing vote, both from Mr Mélenchon and other assorted anti-capitalists. Unlike the votes on the “right”, these look safe for Mr Hollande. Last night Mr Mélenchon called on his supporters to vote for Mr Hollande, as did Eva Joly, the Green candidate, who got 2.3%.

So all Mr Hollande needs is a small proportion of Ms Le Pen’s votes, and the rest from [ centrist candidate] Mr Bayrou. This is why, however well Mr Sarkozy does in the televised debate, due on May 2nd, his chances now look slim. Early second-round polls give Mr Hollande an eight-point lead in the second round, and not a single poll during the campaign has put Mr Sarkozy ahead.

Public spending is already running at 56pc of GDP, more than any other eurozone country. Unemployment is at its highest level in 20 years and French exports, in stark contrast to Germany, are stagnating…Whether he likes it or not, Mr Hollande needs the markets to smile on his policies because 59pc of government debt is held overseas by foreign investors, who have little sympathy for “la vie Française” or French Socialism. Even worse, France needs to raise cash equivalent to more than 18pc of GDP this year just to pay the interest on its debt. Next year the cost rises to 19.5pc of GDP, a figure that would increase under a Socialist administration.

Beyond short-term electoral politics, the shifts in France and Netherlands are yet another reminder of the tension at the heart of the eurozone. When European Union leaders forged the euro they gambled on two hugely unpredictable factors: that economic forces could be kept in check, and that national democracies could be managed. Crucially, they wagered that, should an economic crisis necessitate a more integrated economic and political union, national voters and parliaments could be counted on to play along and vote the “right” way.