44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 04:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
parados wrote:
By that time, it is too late, is it not
under your "gun is needed for protection" scenarios?


OmSigDummy, using his renowned "logic", replied:
Quote:
Yes, it it NOT.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 04:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Either that or some other form of attack,
with a sharp object or blunt object,
fire, acid or any tangible danger.

Now you are completely undermining your arguments on other issues.
http://able2know.org/topic/143714-1
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 04:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Says who? Who invited him in? I am not well read on this story....

Good lord. Then read the damn thread, or the related articles.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:18 pm
@parados,
DAVID wrote:
Either that or some other form of attack,
with a sharp object or blunt object,
fire, acid or any tangible danger.
parados wrote:
Now you are completely undermining your arguments on other issues.
http://able2know.org/topic/143714-1
NO, not at all; your analysis is very flawed.
In your linked example arson was threatened and
it was actively attempted. That is a lot more than enuf.
I stand by what I posted. Your reasoning is dramatically in error!
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:24 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
parados wrote:
By that time, it is too late, is it not
under your "gun is needed for protection" scenarios?


OmSigDummy, using his renowned "logic", replied:
Quote:
Yes, it it NOT.
Its nice of u to re-publish my position in this matter.





David
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:31 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Its nice of u to re-publish my position in this matter.


I've taken it upon myself to expose stupidity as it relates to the English language, Om. And as relates stupidity on language, you certainly are fertile ground.

Your reasoning is always dramatically in error!
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:40 pm
@DrewDad,
parados wrote:
I guess, it's OK and legal for a criminal to kill you
if you try to defend yourself according to your logic.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
What??
If u defend yourself from WHAT??
Your post is unclear.
DrewDad wrote:
Criminal threatens you.
I take it that u mean a threat of imminent violence.




DrewDad wrote:
You pull a gun to defend yourself.
Only if the threatened violence is pretty damned imminent.






DrewDad wrote:
Criminal shoots you.

Criminal shielded by "stand your ground" law,
because he perceived a threat to himself and responded with deadly force.
No. That is not what the law says.
Its explicit language excludes that situation.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:43 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Its nice of u to re-publish my position in this matter.
JTT wrote:
I've taken it upon myself to expose stupidity as it relates to the English language, Om. And as relates stupidity on language, you certainly are fertile ground.

Your reasoning is always dramatically in error!
It appears that in the world of your nightmares,
where reason is twisted backward, that is true; sad, but harmless for the rest of us.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:51 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It appears that in the world of your nightmares,
where reason is twisted backward, that is true; sad, but harmless for the rest of us.


Really, Om?

1. Aren't you a twice convicted child molester?

2. Were you not disbarred for the previously mentioned activities?

Let me reply for you, using OmSig "logic".

To question 1. - "yes". As to question 2. - "yes".
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Trayvon Martin had every legal right to be in that gated community


Says who? Who invited him in? I am not well read on this story but I do know that once we allow controlled access communities then we have agreed that the group has the right to control access. I have always apposed them on the grounds that they deprive Americans of the right of free movement.
Into & over private property??????????
By that reasoning, we have the right to march thru your bedroom
by day or by nite, in fair weather or foul.

I don 't think so, Hawkeye.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 05:59 pm
@MMarciano,
MMarciano wrote:
Trayvon Martin had every legal right to be in that gated community. He had every legal right to be walking on a sidewalk at night in the rain and wearing a hoodie carrying a bag of candy and an ice tea.
Agreed; he did.


MMarciano wrote:
And I believe if he hadn’t been a young black man he would be alive today.
Fights can break out among whites and among blacks.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 06:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
When your "logic" leaves you speechless, Om, even a guy as dumb as you should be able to grasp that your "logic" just isn't what you think it is.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 06:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Into & over private property??????????
By that reasoning, we have the right to march thru your bedroom


I have never bought the argument that ownership rights justify America's apartheid system...I will allow you the right to control access to your house, but not to the street in front of your house, or to what you consider to be your section of the city. America's wrong turn into gated communities is a major contributor to what went wrong on this day.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 06:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,


I don't think it is my reasoning that is in error David. It's your attempt to redefine the circumstances of what can be perceived as a threat that defies reason.
MontereyJack
 
  5  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 09:24 pm
Here is the complete text of the Florida law. It's got loopholes big enough to drive an 18-wheeler thru. Basically it looks like, even if you're engaged in something illegal, even if you start something completely unprovoked, if youy kill the other guy and survive, all you have to do is say you weren't involved in anything illegal and you feared for your life, and your home free, b ecause there's no one left (alive) that can prove you wrong. Which is why prosecutors and police are pissed because the news reports say they've seen it used in gang wars, drug deals, and road rage, and their hands were tied

Quote:
Florida2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(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.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 09:27 pm
@hawkeye10,

DAVID wrote:
Into & over private property??????????
By that reasoning, we have the right to march thru your bedroom
hawkeye10 wrote:
I have never bought the argument that ownership rights justify America's apartheid system...I will allow you the right to control access to your house, but not to the street in front of your house, or to what you consider to be your section of the city.
I dunno whether that is private property
in gated communities.
If it IS, then thay have as much moral right to privacy there.


hawkeye10 wrote:
America's wrong turn into gated communities
is a major contributor to what went wrong on this day.
I have not chosen to buy real estate therein,
but I see nothing rong with gated communities.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 09:30 pm
@parados,
Following someone, without more,
is not a threat.

It seems odd that u believe that it IS.





David
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 09:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Following someone, without more,
is not a threat.

It seems odd that u believe that it IS.





David


Wow, just how out of touch are you? If an "unwelcomed advance" is considered threatening then surely unwelcomed following is. You rights have already been greatly restricted in America, threats to your ability to own and carry guns is just the tip of the iceberg of where your freedom is under threat.
msolga
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 09:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Persistently following somebody (as this fellow in Florida did, in his car) is generally considered stalking, David.

And he continued stalking after the police advised him to stop following the young man.

If he had followed police advice & simply allowed the police investigate his "complaint", that unarmed young man, just walking back from a convenience store, would not have been killed.

What is so "odd" to you about those circumstances?
Zimmerman was behaving in a very threatening manner for absolutely no good reason.


You are grasping at straws.

OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2012 10:39 pm
@MontereyJack,
Thank u, Jack.

This statute does not apply to the case at hand,
as per Section 776.013, because the presumption of innocence
set forth in its subsection 1, is not applicable if:
"The person against whom the . . . defensive force is used [Trayvon]
has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle. . . .

" . . . “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance (a) of any kind, . . . .
“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either . . .
temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest."
[All emfasis and colored font has been added by David.]

I 'm pretty sure that a trial court woud correctly interpret
the statutory intendment to be that the gated community
was a dwelling & residence to which decedent was invited.

Therefore, the same law applies as before
the Stand Your Ground Statute was enacted.

The most important thing for us all to remember
is that we, as decent people (as distinct from predatory criminals),
shud not have our employee (government) create rules
that will backfire on us.

If any of us is so unfortunate as to become the victims
of the violent depredations of man or beast,
we need to defend ourselves immediately,
and without hesitation (after ascertaining what the hell is going on).
We don' t want our employee (government) to attack us for a SECOND time,
because we succeeded in defeating the predator.
"He who hestitates is lost."

Loss of tens of $1,OOOs of dollars in lawyers' fees
is no better than paying big fines, for defending your life,
or the life of your mom or your child.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 09:07:06