Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-30-2012, 11:05 AM   #31
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
So the lesson is, a) don't have anything, anything at all that may even slightly resemble a weapon or part thereof inside your car and b) if someone tells you to turn it down, remember this instance and decide you are being threatened by imminent use of firearm fire against you, so shoot first.

11-30-2012, 11:27 AM   #32
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
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.
It does seem to be about disagreeing. As seems to happen too often, we are just talking past each other. You keep talking about an attack that is not mentioned in 776.012. Only the second section after the "OR" mentions an attack. Section 776.012 expressly mentions there is no duty to "retreat" without mentioning an "attack." "Imminent use of unlawful force" may or may not be an actual "attack" in progress.

It would be a better statute if it said "attack." Because "attack" is mentioned in the second section and not in the first, "context" under rules of statutory construction may imply that imminent use of force is something other than an attack in progress. It is often presumed that the legislature intended two different meanings when it used two different terms in the same law.

The question (for the nth time) is whether what he claims happened (verbal death threat plus seeing what he thinks is a weapon) is a reasonable belief that there is a threat of imminent harm. His story may be a lie, but it may get to a jury. I don't know why this description is so hard to understand.

Last edited by GeneV; 11-30-2012 at 11:46 AM.
11-30-2012, 11:29 AM   #33
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
So the lesson is, a) don't have anything, anything at all that may even slightly resemble a weapon or part thereof inside your car and b) if someone tells you to turn it down, remember this instance and decide you are being threatened by imminent use of firearm fire against you, so shoot first.
Interesting lesson, actually.
11-30-2012, 12:28 PM   #34
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
So the lesson is, a) don't have anything, anything at all that may even slightly resemble a weapon or part thereof inside your car and b) if someone tells you to turn it down, remember this instance and decide you are being threatened by imminent use of firearm fire against you, so shoot first.
No. That is why he is in jail without bond. Furthermore, he left the scene and was arrested the next day. There wasn't evidence of use of unlawful force or attack by the other party.

QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
It does seem to be about disagreeing. As seems to happen too often, we are just talking past each other. You keep talking about an attack that is not mentioned in 776.012. Only the second section after the "OR" mentions an attack. Section 776.012 expressly mentions there is no duty to "retreat" without mentioning an "attack." "Imminent use of unlawful force" may or may not be an actual "attack" in progress.

It would be a better statute if it said "attack." Because "attack" is mentioned in the second section and not in the first, "context" under rules of statutory construction may imply that imminent use of force is something other than an attack in progress. It is often presumed that the legislature intended two different meanings when it used two different terms in the same law.

The question (for the nth time) is whether what he claims happened (verbal death threat plus seeing what he thinks is a weapon) is a reasonable belief that there is a threat of imminent harm. His story may be a lie, but it may get to a jury. I don't know why this description is so hard to understand.
There is an attack mentioned in 776.012, you just insist on not reading the entire statute. What do you think "the other's use of unlawful force" is?

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.

The only thing he has going for him is there is no surveillance video. However, there were witnesses that reported his plate # and car description which is how they found they guy.


Last edited by Blue; 11-30-2012 at 12:39 PM.
11-30-2012, 04:16 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
This isn't me wanting to dive into this one, but if you read LGBT news sources involved, 'Stand your Ground' laws apparently don't apply to transsexual people, either: there's been a prominent case where a transsexual person shot an assailant in her own home and once out of the hospital is now serving time in men's prison. In a 'stand your ground state.' (With no hate crimes protections that would let the federal government investigate the matter.) (She also doesn't happen to be white.)


It's one reason I'm not so sure a firearm would be a good investment for just me, here in a state where it's very easy to get even a carry permit. I mean, I'm white, not really involved in anything dangerous, but non-Christian and non-straight, even if I live alone. If I had to use the thing would even 'stand your ground' laws or 'Second Amendment rights' come into play or should I take my chances with a stick? I mean, how far does this 'States Rights' thing go when you happen to be someone that 'State' has pssed resolutions about civil rights not applying to you? Who am I gonna be treated like, y'know? if it doesn't apply to some minorities like trans people and black people, well, does that go to me? I don't know. Do I have to find out? I mean, I'm not actually *doing* anything, just a regular queer living alone. Bein' non-Christian. If someone busted in here and I 'stood my ground' with a sabre, it'd probably be all over the news and the NRA wouldn't care. I just dunno.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 11-30-2012 at 04:26 PM.
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 04:05 PM. | 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