tshile Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Reading this http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/self-defense-florida/ i could see see a good case that the dad was using justifiable non deadly force I didn’t know they distinguished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 13 minutes ago, twa said: certainly, but force of either kind was not justifiable by anyone until after the guy was knocked down. And even then, still wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 7 minutes ago, bearrock said: Once the onus on proving lack of justification beyond reasonable doubt is put on the prosecution, it may be difficult to prove in both cases. shouldn't the onus be on the prosecution? the onus on the prosecution to bring charges in affirmative defense cases is more likely than not.....correct? 3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: And even then, still wasn't. I agree personally, but under the law it was probably within reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, twa said: you seemed to think histories mattered a minute ago. Yeah, when they're relevant. Example 1: A guy who shot somebody over an altercation regarding a handicap spot has a history of starting altercations over handicap parking spots and threatening to shoot people. -RELEVANT Example 2: The legal history of a guy who was just shot and killed by a stranger with no knowledge of said legal history and therefore could not feel any more or less threatened because of it. -IRRELEVANT Edited July 24, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, twa said: shouldn't the onus be on the prosecution? I see pros and cons to each. If forced I tend to lean under punish the guilty over punish the innocent it’s not an easy decision Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Yeah, when they're relevant. Example 1: A guy who shot somebody over an altercation regarding a handicap spot has a history of starting altercations over handicap parking spots and threatening to shoot people over them. -RELEVANT Example 2: The legal history of a guy who was just shot and killed by a stranger with no knowledge of said legal history and therefore could not feel any more or less threatened because of it. -IRRELEVANT You forgot something in example 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, twa said: I agree personally, but under the law it was probably within reason. The only debate is whether or not it was within reason according to the law. These things are not up for debate. -It wasn't actually within reason -If this is how the law is going to be used, then it's a stupid ****ing law 3 minutes ago, tshile said: You forgot something in example 2 What's that? Edited July 24, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, tshile said: see pros and cons to each. If forced I tend to lean under punish the guilty over punish the innocent it’s not an easy decision I agree. I like the onus to be on the prosecution. But then I realize I could invite my neighbor over, shoot him, and say he threatened me (or have the opposite happen to me). That makes me want to shooter to have some level of proof. Is there a middle of the road here? Edited July 24, 2018 by TheGreatBuzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Yeah, when they're relevant. Example 1: A guy who shot somebody over an altercation regarding a handicap spot has a history of starting altercations over handicap parking spots and threatening to shoot people. -RELEVANT Example 2: The legal history of a guy who was just shot and killed by a stranger with no knowledge of said legal history and therefore could not feel any more or less threatened because of it. -IRRELEVANT is that fact or hearsay? Did he threaten to shoot after someone threatened him with harm or someone used force? need more than just somebody said to say relevant or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Is there a middle of the road here? I don’t see one assuming they don’t cut their investigation off early simply because dude said he was defending himself. You can either charge them for the shooting and force them to defend themselvss or investigate it and charge when you can prove it wasn’t defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, twa said: need more than just somebody said to say relevant or not. Oh yeah. I forgot that about you. I swear, I don't know why I put up with you sometimes twa. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 26 minutes ago, tshile said: Reading this http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/self-defense-florida/ i could see see a good case that the dad was using justifiable non deadly force I didn’t know they distinguished What did you see that justified it? I agree it is possible, but possible is not the standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, twa said: What did you see that justified it? I agree it is possible, but possible is not the standard Using non deadly force to deal with someone remaining at your vehicle Quote If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 I believe the remain relates to the unlawfully entered.(home or vehicle) a persons presence in a public area is not justification. I did not see him even reach thru the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 1 hour ago, twa said: shouldn't the onus be on the prosecution? the onus on the prosecution to bring charges in affirmative defense cases is more likely than not.....correct? I think most if not all states puts the onus of proving the self defense on the defendant. I'm not aware of any other state that does it like Florida. Not sure how the preliminary hearing works in Florida now after the changes. Apparently, prosecution's burden at trial is to prove lack of self defense by clear and convincing, not beyond reasonable, so I was wrong on that. Still, it's much harder to prove a negative than prove a positive. 6 minutes ago, twa said: I believe the remain relates to the unlawfully entered.(home or vehicle) a persons presence in a public area is not justification. I did not see him even reach thru the window. The statute tshile cited would justify deadly force. The justification for non deadly force only requires reasonable fear of unlawful force. If a guy is yelling and berating at you at a parking lot, would the prosecution be able to successfully convince 12 jurors by clear and convincing evidence that the person in the car didn't have reasonable fear of unlawful force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 15 minutes ago, bearrock said: The statute tshile cited would justify deadly force. The justification for non deadly force only requires reasonable fear of unlawful force. If a guy is yelling and berating at you at a parking lot, would the prosecution be able to successfully convince 12 jurors by clear and convincing evidence that the person in the car didn't have reasonable fear of unlawful force? If your reading is correct then people harassing politicians and such are putting themselves at risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 16 minutes ago, twa said: If your reading is correct then people harassing politicians and such are putting themselves at risk. Hence my apprehension at the kind of environment Florida's law creates. Law has to strike a difficult balance between right to self defense and de-escalating conflict. I think Florida's laws go too far in empowering people who defend themselves to the point of almost encouraging conflict resolution by violence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I know they tell them that. I meant do they have police at the range practice firing 10 rounds in rapid succession. That I don't know. Even if the instruction given by the judge on the law of the area may say otherwise? Like would you ignore the law just because you feel it SHOULD BE illegal? Honest question. I figure given the law, it's not getting to a jury. But hypothetically if it does go to trial for anything, and i was there, i'd vote on the max i could. He straight up shot that guy, unarmed and backing away. If the charge is not murder, i can't very well vote for that, jurors can only decide on the charges that are presented. . But if it was, i'd go for it. Unless there was something else that we can't see or don't know that may come out... basing hypothetical off of what we can see. ~Bang 9 hours ago, bearrock said: Hence my apprehension at the kind of environment Florida's law creates. Law has to strike a difficult balance between right to self defense and de-escalating conflict. I think Florida's laws go too far in empowering people who defend themselves to the point of almost encouraging conflict resolution by violence. The wet dream of the National Russia.. er.. Rifle Association. Let the peasants kill each other. ~Bang Edited July 24, 2018 by Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 For some levity, I present the owning of the year, and yes, the full thread is necessary to get the true depth of the burn. Shots... Chaser: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 On 7/24/2018 at 8:02 AM, Bang said: Unless there was something else that we can't see or don't know that may come out... basing hypothetical off of what we can see. What if they had a bunch of firearms experts testify that the way the sequence of determining to draw, take aim, and fire lines up perfectly with the time gap in the video? The 2-3 seconds you were saying shows the person backing away that should have caused him to not fire? The thing me and buzz have been talking about. Would that weigh on your decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Are we still debating this? There was zero reason to shoot. The guy's life wasn't in danger. I am 100% confident that any expert or anyone who has been properly trained in the fields of law enforcement or self defense would agree. This guy is quite obviously, at the least, incapable of making sound judgements for when to use deadly force. At worst, he's a nut whose mind has been warped by the gun nuttery going on in America today (guns and warped minds does not sound like a good combination to me) and was just dying for an excuse to shoot someone. Either way, he should never have been allowed to walk around with a gun in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Were only debating the legal point of it. He shouldnt have had a gun to begin with. He shouldnt have shot the guy regardless of what happened prior to him shooting. Bu Florida law probably protects him. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 17 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Are we still debating this? There was zero reason to shoot. The guy's life wasn't in danger. I am 100% confident that any expert or anyone who has been properly trained in the fields of law enforcement or self defense would agree. This guy is quite obviously, at the least, incapable of making sound judgements for when to use deadly force. At worst, he's a nut whose mind has been warped by the gun nuttery going on in America today (guns and warped minds does not sound like a good combination to me) and was just dying for an excuse to shoot someone. Either way, he should never have been allowed to walk around with a gun in the first place. Yea I already said I think he was morally wrong. We are talking about legally because @Bang was talking about if he were on the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Just now, TheGreatBuzz said: Yea I already said I think he was morally wrong. We are talking about legally because @Bang was talking about if he were on the jury. Oh, sorry. Yeah well I'll bow out then because I don't think there is a clear answer to that question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Oh, sorry. Yeah well I'll bow out then because I don't think there is a clear answer to that question. Sadly, I think there IS a clear answer in Florida. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts