What Do You Think Of This Ad? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-03-2005, 03:11 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Murder involves premeditation (an intent) to kill.

Self-defense requires a showing by the defendant that the average reasonable person in the same situation would fear imminent threat of physical harm.
And who can collaborate/contradict the evidence as showed by the defendant. Not the person who has been killed. So it's only the word of the defendant. What he or she might suggest as being self-defense could thus easily be murder.

Quote:
There is substantial law supporting the self-defense doctrine and the Florida law only expands the doctrine to (i) people in public who are given no opportunity to retreat or (ii) people confronted in their own home when faced with physical harm.
If you read that article posted by Dreadsox you see that's not the case. What you're saying was the old situation. Now, the criteria are even more lax.

__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:13 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Two of your quotes contriadict each other.

this quote
Quote:
But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others
clearly states that a threat of physical harm must exist, not that someone simply "force" their way into your home.

The reasonable belief standard is the most common standard for evaluating a persons action, and is the current standard for determining if a person feels threatened with physical harm. It is well established in our jurisprudence, so I'm not quite sure why this got a .
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:19 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Two of your quotes contriadict each other.

this quote
Quote:
But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others
clearly states that a threat of physical harm must exist, not that someone simply "force" their way into your home.
If you read my post correctly, you could see that the section you just quoted was about the part of the new law that deals with the subject being outside the house. You could've seen in the paragraph above when a person is allowed to shoot someone in his/her own home. Let me repeat that section for you:
Quote:
Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.
Please show me where it mentions (threat of) physical harm?
It does explicitly mention that someone only has to simply "force" their way into your home.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:24 PM   #34
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,420
Local Time: 11:55 PM
based on that description... i can only agree with half the law.

the part about standing one's ground in public sounds like a reasonable enough law. one still has to prove that the person they shot was willing and able to use deadly force. agree with that part of the law 100%

the other part... the reenforcement of the castle law... is very sketchy to me. it baisicly gives carte blanche to shoot anyone who is in your house or car without your permission... which to me sounds a bit hard to prove.

so someone can bring home a lady/man friend from a bar, and later shoot and kill them, claiming that the person illegaly followed the person home and got into his/her car/house, and could get away with it?

think the improved castle law is bullshit, think the improved stand your ground law pretaining to outside your house is a good and just law.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:30 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Again, we are dealing with an editorial summary of the law, not the text of the law.

I would say if there is an "imminent use of deadly force" is a subset of threat of physical harm.

The legistlature has simply added a presumption that if someone is in your home (illegally or forcibly), the resident can reasonably believe that there is a threat of harm.

This changes little in practice, as the article notes, juries tend to believe the living defendant instead of the dead intruder, when it comes to what constitutes a reasonable fear.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:33 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
so someone can bring home a lady/man friend from a bar, and later shoot and kill them, claiming that the person illegaly followed the person home and got into his/her car/house, and could get away with it?
We certainly can get lost on senarios that take the defense and use it as a cover for premeditated murder. But, that is no different than with current laws.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 04:37 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Removing any burden or proof is dangerous. I can't see how anyone can see it any other way.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 04:48 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Carek1230
Damn Bush family at it again, they are all IDIOTS!
Well, what me scares me the most that the democrates are suporting the killbill because they are afraid to lose votes.

there was a big item about this law on dutch tv 3 months ago. They had a case about a young kid shot into the back because he was ringing a doorbell and did run away. The man wh shoot went to jail but under this killbill he would be a free man.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:06 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
there was a big item about this law on dutch tv 3 months ago. They had a case about a young kid shot into the back because he was ringing a doorbell and did run away. The man wh shoot went to jail but under this killbill he would be a free man.
See, this is a prime example of sesationalistic interpretation of the law. The law would not create a valid defense for shooting someone outside the home who is running away.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:07 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Removing any burden or proof is dangerous. I can't see how anyone can see it any other way.
I believe they are shifting a presumption (as reflected by reality), not removing a burden of proof.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:11 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Better yet...a link to the actual law...

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view...billtext/html/
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:30 PM   #42
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I believe they are shifting a presumption (as reflected by reality), not removing a burden of proof.
Well in reading the law I don't see a difference. If the presumption is automatically on the dweller, then there is no questioning or investigation?

I think it's especially dangerous when applied to your car, boat, etc.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:31 PM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Better yet...a link to the actual law...

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view...billtext/html/
Thanks.

Quote:
Section 1. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, is created
57 to read:
58 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption
59 of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
60 (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of
61 imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself,
62 herself, or another when using defensive force that is intended
63 or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
64 (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used
65 was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had
66 unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or
67 occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
68 attempting to remove another against that person's will from the
69 dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
70 (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason
71 to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and
72 forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(emphasis is mine)


So a person doesn't even have to unlawfully enter a house to be killed, but if the resident even believes it is occuring then he may shoot to kill. This is even worse than reported.
So Rono was right, under the new law the man who shot a boy running away after ringing a doorbell would go free. He would only have to say that he believed the boy would try to unlawfully enter his house and he would free because of section b highlighted above. This isn't a sensasionalistic interpretation of the law, it is the law.

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:50 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
So a person doesn't even have to unlawfully enter a house to be killed, but if the resident even believes it is occuring then he may shoot to kill. This is even worse than reported.
So Rono was right, under the new law the man who shot a boy running away after ringing a doorbell would go free. He would only have to say that he believed the boy would try to unlawfully enter his house and he would free because of section b highlighted above. This isn't a sensasionalistic interpretation of the law, it is the law.

No, you miss an important part in your comment. It is not a belief that someone has unlawfully entered the house, but has "reason to believe". This goes to factual context. It is not left to subjective interpretation.


Also, some element of unlawful entry have occured or is in the process of occurring. It does not give the righ to shoot someone because you think they may enter your house. Rono's example is completely wrong.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:55 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
No, you miss an important part in your comment. It is not a belief that someone has unlawfully entered the house, but has "reason to believe". This goes to factual context. It is not left to subjective interpretation.
How do you find out the truth about the factual context when one of the prime eyewitnesses is dead. Then it's the word of the owner against the dead person.

Quote:
Also, some element of unlawful entry have occured or is in the process of occurring. It does not give the righ to shoot someone because you think they may enter your house. Rono's example is completely wrong.
Yes you do have that 'right'. There's that line 'knew or had reason to believe' again. So Rono's example isn't completely wrong.
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com