Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-29-2012, 04:35 PM   #16
Veteran Member
Tom S.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,317
QuoteOriginally posted by Medium FormatPro Quote
And some people call f-stop - aperature. Yet few people also know what f-stop stands for.

And in my almost forty years of firing more guns than I can count… Most people throughout the world call the device which hold the ammunition in a semi-automatic (or even a fully automatic one) a clip. Up until very recently even the USMC has that exact word (clip) in most of it's training manuals - from the basic training guide to also numerous other training guides about specific models of weapons
In keeping with your tradition of demeaning America, shouldn't that be the usmc? The Marines, Army, Navy and even Air Force used the M1 Garand, which did take a clip. A clip is a device that hold more than one round of ammo. Some, like the one used for the M1 could be inserted into the firearm's magazine. Others, like the ones used on the M1 predecessor hold the cartridges in place so they can be forced into the rifle's magazine after which, the clip falls out. In any event neither was a pistol. A magazine on the other hand is the device within the firearm that holds the ammunition. While many people, like yourself, mistakenly use the terms interchangeably, they in fact are not and do not mean the same. And if time has anything to do with being right in this discussion, be aware that I have been involved in shooting sports more than a decade longer than you. I learned from a Marine Master Sargent, who also happened to be my father. Don't however take my word for it, go to any firearm forum and pose the question and see what the response is. If you like, I can list several links for you. I would however caution you from referring to America with a small a, as 99% of the folks who hang out on gun boards are very patriotic and not likely to take kindly to you.

So call it as you like, but do knowing you have been told which is proper and which is not.

11-29-2012, 04:45 PM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,960
Here, for anyone that is not clear about the difference, clip vs. magazine.
Clip vs. magazine - Google Search
11-29-2012, 08:50 PM   #18
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
Actually, I have to take back my earlier post. I reread the article and a bit more, and it will be a SYG case, rightly or wrongly. His lawyer claims he saw a gun.
11-29-2012, 09:03 PM   #19
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Actually, I have to take back my earlier post. I reread the article and a bit more, and it will be a SYG case, rightly or wrongly. His lawyer claims he saw a gun.
That doesn't mean that the SYG will fly and will have to "heard."

11-30-2012, 06:11 AM   #20
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
That doesn't mean that the SYG will fly and will have to "heard."
Whether it should or shouldn't fly, it sounds like, contrary to my first impression, that question will be heard by the judge. Dunn is pleading not guilty and says he will be claiming that defense. Here is what his lawyer claims Dunn saw and heard:
QuoteQuote:
“Kill that mother**er, that mother**er dead, you dead bi**h, and then he sees that much of the shotgun coming up over the rim of the SUV which is up higher than his Jetta, Lemonidis told reporters. And it’s-all he sees are heavily tinted windows, which are up and the back windows which are down, and the car has at least four black men in it. And he doesn’t know how old anybody is, he doesn’t know anything, but he knows a shotgun when he sees one.”

Read more: Michael Dunn Pleads Not Guilty, Uses "Stand Your Ground" In Defense Of Shooting Jordan Davis (DETAILS) | Global Grind
It will be interesting to see if his lawyer, who is also claiming that the police just didn't do a good search for the "weapon," will be able to get this defense in front of a jury. There is no specific provision in the law requiring that there be a real weapon produced, just "reasonably" feeling threatened. I suspect we will now have an examination of the vehicle for anything which could possibly have looked like the barrel of a shotgun (his claim) in a fleeting instant, in the dark.
11-30-2012, 06:28 AM   #21
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Whether it should or shouldn't fly, it sounds like, contrary to my first impression, that question will be heard by the judge. Dunn is pleading not guilty and says he will be claiming that defense. Here is what his lawyer claims Dunn saw and heard:

It will be interesting to see if his lawyer, who is also claiming that the police just didn't do a good search for the "weapon," will be able to get this defense in front of a jury. There is no specific provision in the law requiring that there be a real weapon produced, just "reasonably" feeling threatened. I suspect we will now have an examination of the vehicle for anything which could possibly have looked like the barrel of a shotgun (his claim) in a fleeting instant, in the dark.
The part in yellow is incorrect and the Statute has been posted in many threads. Once again, here is the SYG part of the statute. You have to actually be attacked before that "feeling" part as you put it comes into play.

QuoteQuote:
(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.
This guy is going to have to prove he was under attack before the "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death." These statutes are specifically about firearms either. The fact that this guy has had to get a lawyer indicates that the SYG and the rest of the Castle Doctrine didn't do him much good based on evidence at the scene. The intent was to keep people that had to defend themselves from spending 10s of thousands on lawyers and legal fees and prevent civil suites by felons and family when they are injured or killed in the commission of a felony. That is the biggest changes the Castle Doctrine made in Florida law.

Last edited by Blue; 11-30-2012 at 06:35 AM.
11-30-2012, 06:46 AM   #22
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
The part in yellow is incorrect and the Statute has been posted in many threads. Once again, here is the SYG part of the statute. You have to actually be attacked before that "feeling" part as you put it comes into play.

This guy is going to have to prove he was under attack.
I apologize. I should have said "believes" rather than "feels," but you keep ignoring in all these threads, the fact that the statute has multiple parts. It is either is attacked OR believes such force is necessary. The portion on attack is in the presumption section, but the statute also proclaims this general right:

QuoteQuote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—...... 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]
(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.

Read more: This Is The Florida Law That Let George Zimmerman Shoot Trayvon Martin Without Getting Charged For Murder - Business Insider
Delete that language in section 776.012 (1) and only leave section 776.013 (3), and I am with you on this. It would also improve the statute. However the statute allows the defendant to use the defense in either the "belief" provision OR the attack. The only difference is whether there is a presumption.


Last edited by GeneV; 11-30-2012 at 06:51 AM.
11-30-2012, 06:52 AM   #23
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I apologize. I should have said "believes" rather than "feels," but you keep ignoring, in all these threads, the fact that the statute has multiple parts. The portion on attack is in the presumption section, but it also has this general statement:



Delete that language in section 776.012 (1) and only leave section 776.013 (3), and I am with you on this. It would also improve the statute. However the statute allows the defendant to use the defense in either the "belief" provision OR the attack. The only difference is whether there is a presumption.
Gene, the link you provide is NOT FLRIDA LAW. It conveniently leaves at the first part of 776.012. in otherwords, it deleted the first part of the law as well as re-wrote it. Furthermore, 776.012 is NOT the Castle Doctrine, nor the SYG.

Here is 776.012 in its entirety.

QuoteQuote:
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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Here is the link to the official statute site, but again, 776.012 is NOT the SYG.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The site you linked is from people like our local douche bag Benjamin Crumped-up. Dougherty the other of that is in the same mold.

Edit: BTW, 'reasonable' has legal meaning in jurisprudence.

Last edited by Blue; 11-30-2012 at 07:07 AM.
11-30-2012, 07:07 AM   #24
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Gene, the link you provide conveniently leaves at the first part of 776.012. in otherwords, it deleted the first part of the law. Furthermore, 776.012 is NOT the Castle Doctrine, nor the SYG.

Here is 776.012 in its entirety.

Here is the link to the official statute site, but again, 776.012 is NOT the SYG.
I've read it multiple times. No one is "conveniently" leaving out anything. The part you quoted is no different from the part I quoted in any way that is relevant. Neither require an "attack." They just require that the person reasonably "believe" they are in imminent danger. That difference is exactly where Dunn's lawyer is headed. She is saying that the black teenagers in an SUV with tinted windows yelled obscene threats, and Dunn got a glance and what he thought was a shotgun. I'm not saying he should win in the end, but the judge will have to decide whether that is enough evidence of "imminent danger" to get to a jury.

Section 776.012 is part of SYG, because it expressly deletes the requirement of retreat found in the previous law. This is peculiarly an SYG case because he clearly could have retreated. Without the SYG, he is toast regardless of what he believed.

Response to edit: You telling me that "reasonable" has a meaning in jurisprudence is about like MFP talking to Tom about clips and magazines. I've been litigating "reasonable" for more than 30 years.

Last edited by GeneV; 11-30-2012 at 07:18 AM.
11-30-2012, 07:12 AM   #25
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I've read it multiple times. No one is "conveniently" leaving out anything. 776.012 is part of SYG, because it expressly deletes the requirement of retreat found in the previous law. The part you quoted is no different from the part I quoted. Neither require an "attack." They just require that the person reasonably believe they are in imminent danger. That difference is exactly where Dunn's lawyer is headed. She is saying that the black teenagers in an SUV with tinted windows yelled obscene threats, and Dunn got a glance and what he thought was a shotgun. I'm not saying he should win, but the judge will have to decide whether that is enough evidence of "imminent danger" to get to a jury.

This is peculiarly an SYG case because he clearly could have retreated. Section 776.012 expressly says he does not have to retreat, and that is the change that portion of the statute brought about.
You apparently didn't go look at the link you posted and compare it to 776.012 on the State site and see where Dougherty left out the first part of 776.012 and re-wrote part of it. Furthermore, the SYG is the section of 776.013. Either way:

776.012 has this part the Dougherty conveniently skipped.

QuoteQuote:
against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
and section 3 of 776.013 always gets this part skipped by fools like him.

QuoteQuote:
and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be
This is why I said that the SYG isn't going to fly in this case because apparently he wasn't attacked or in the process of being attacked. Plus, the fact that he was arrested without bond means that there wasn't anything found at the time to support his story.

You don't have to "retreat" under Cali law either if you are attacked and put in harms way. Its the Civil and legal fees the will cream you out there. These laws were written in Florida because some jurisdictions required people to run redlights to get away from armed car jackers or jump out of their bed room windows to get away from rapists and murders. The overzealous prosecutors and pandering agencies are responsible for the need of 776.013 and the related civil statute.

Last edited by Blue; 11-30-2012 at 07:21 AM.
11-30-2012, 08:04 AM   #26
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
You apparently didn't go look at the link you posted and compare it to 776.012 on the State site and see where Dougherty left out the first part of 776.012 and re-wrote part of it. Furthermore, the SYG is the section of 776.013. Either way:

776.012 has this part the Dougherty conveniently skipped.

and section 3 of 776.013 always gets this part skipped by fools like him.
The law is written that you can have a defense under 776.012 (1) OR 776.013. You don't have to have both. Under 776.012, " 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 (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013." If I were Dunn's lawyer, I'd skip 776.013 and stick to the first part. Under the rules of interpretation that are commonly applied to statutes, the fact that an attack was expressly mentioned in 776.013, but not in the alternative 776.012 (1) arguably means that "imminent harm" is something other than or less than an actual attack.

Look, I don't think his claim is legitimate, but I do think there is a good chance this law will let him get further with it than he should. If he had a duty to retreat, this is over, because there is no question that he could have just driven away. For purposes of submitting a defense to a jury, courts are often required to assume that the defendant's story is true and let the jury decide his credibility. I think it will be fascinating to see how far the "I saw what I thought was a gun after they threatened me" defense gets.
11-30-2012, 08:15 AM   #27
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I apologize. I should have said "believes" rather than "feels," but you keep ignoring in all these threads, the fact that the statute has multiple parts. It is either is attacked OR believes such force is necessary. The portion on attack is in the presumption section, but the statute also proclaims this general right:



Delete that language in section 776.012 (1) and only leave section 776.013 (3), and I am with you on this. It would also improve the statute. However the statute allows the defendant to use the defense in either the "belief" provision OR the attack. The only difference is whether there is a presumption.
You know that section is the meat of their 'out" How to remove ones "inalienable right" without tooooo much hassle as to "proving" reality...

As usual it's not "lawyers" that are the problem but the law................. "give a man a fish feed him for a day.. Give him the loophole and feed a lawyer for life."..
11-30-2012, 08:24 AM   #28
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
The law is written that you can have a defense under 776.012 (1) OR 776.013. You don't have to have both. Under 776.012, " 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 (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013." If I were Dunn's lawyer, I'd skip 776.013 and stick to the first part. Under the rules of interpretation that are commonly applied to statutes, the fact that an attack was expressly mentioned in 776.013, but not in the alternative 776.012 (1) arguably means that "imminent harm" is something other than or less than an actual attack.

Look, I don't think his claim is legitimate, but I do think there is a good chance this law will let him get further with it than he should. If he had a duty to retreat, this is over, because there is no question that he could have just driven away. For purposes of submitting a defense to a jury, courts are often required to assume that the defendant's story is true and let the jury decide his credibility. I think it will be fascinating to see how far the "I saw what I thought was a gun after they threatened me" defense gets.
Once again, you keep leaving out the parts of the law that I have high lighted twice before. I am not sure why you are perseverating on the "doesn't have to retreat part." He wasn't apparently attacked. This part precedes the "retreat", against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. (776.012) or
and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be (776.013).



IF these guys had attacked him, I doubt he could have out ran them anyway. However, whether one decides to run away etc. or not is a moot point if there isn't an attack or threat of an attack present.

Last edited by Blue; 11-30-2012 at 08:39 AM.
11-30-2012, 09:39 AM   #29
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Once again, you keep leaving out the parts of the law that I have high lighted twice before. I am not sure why you are perseverating on the "doesn't have to retreat part." He wasn't apparently attacked. This part precedes the "retreat", against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. (776.012) or
and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be (776.013).
IF these guys had attacked him, I doubt he could have out ran them anyway. However, whether one decides to run away etc. or not is a moot point if there isn't an attack or threat of an attack present.
I can't state it any more clearly. To me, the word "or" does not mean "and." We'll agree to disagree and see what the court says.
11-30-2012, 09:43 AM   #30
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I can't state it any more clearly. To me, the word "or" does not mean "and." We'll agree to disagree and see what the court says.
We aren't discussing about OR here Gene. It is about being attacked. Both laws have that at the very beginning. Obviously the police arrested him so they think the same thing. Neither law is going to do him any good if he can't demonstrate that. As far as the court goes, so far the court is holding him on murder charges without bail.

Edit: It isn't about disagreeing. The fact is the site you linked had part only part of 776.012 and taken out of context making it flat wrong. "Against the other's imminent use of unlawful force" is a big deal. The fact that he left the scene is also a big problem for him.

Last edited by Blue; 11-30-2012 at 10:03 AM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
davis, dunn, florida, friday, girlfriend, music, police, reason, wednesday
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Tornado watch in Ma.Here we go again. charliezap Post Your Photos! 9 08-11-2012 06:36 PM
Here we go again.... grhazelton General Talk 2 01-19-2012 04:49 PM
Not Work-Safe PUNTA CANA -- Here we go :)....again. D4rknezz Post Your Photos! 11 12-07-2010 10:08 PM
Here we go again.. fractal General Talk 5 01-12-2010 07:43 PM
Here we go again. Photo Tramp Post Your Photos! 2 09-09-2006 12:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:37 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top