shooting an intruder

Rich Z said:

Gordon, your reply was pretty predictable......

And it certainly comes as no surprise that Bob is right there by your side.

Click to expand...

Rich Z said:

Gordon, your reply was pretty predictable......

Click to expand...

And it certainly comes as no surprise that Bob is right there by your side

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

Why must you always end with this? ""
There's really no reason for it.



Whatever:shrug01:

I stopped for a quick rest and to do some antiquing with the wife in Micanopy.
Had to pay a couple of bills on line and thought I'd check in.

And this is all that's happening here?
Must be a slow news day:nonod:

There's nothing constructive going on here, just more of the same.
Trying to revive old threads just doesn't seem to be working and the redundant commentary is starting to get boring again.
I really need to be done with it.:thumbsdown:

Going to go enjoy the rest of my day and quit worrying about your comments on the matter.
They simply do not matter to me any longer, and you're going to believe what you're going to believe anyway.

Continuing with this is like swimming up stream.

Unless you're a Salmon, all you get is tired and frustrated:lmao:

Later dude:thumbsup:

Click to expand...

Rich Z said:

Ah, I see. Taking a swipe at the forum, I see. Why is that, I wonder?

Click to expand...

Oh, I will believe the truth. All I ask is that people throw that bone my way.

Click to expand...

So tell me, Gordon, do we or do we not have a private forum here that moderators have access to that you could have brought up this "enough, my friend" discussion in private? Was your private messaging broken?

Click to expand...

When you were a deputy, did you commonly bump heads with your supervisor(s) in front of the other troops? If so, how well was that received? Regardless of whether you did or not, tell me, what would someone's PURPOSE for doing so be, do you suppose?

Click to expand...

Seriously and honestly, what is your motive for trying to make a public spectacle of your disagreements with me? Hmmm?

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

again?
Why so defensive Rich?
It's really not necessary with me.

There was no "swipe" at anything Rich.
Just an attempt at some humor that apparently didn't go well.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

Why must you always end with this? ""
There's really no reason for it.

Whatever:shrug01:

I stopped for a quick rest and to do some antiquing with the wife in Micanopy.
Had to pay a couple of bills on line and thought I'd check in.

And this is all that's happening here?
Must be a slow news day:nonod:

There's nothing constructive going on here, just more of the same.
Trying to revive old threads just doesn't seem to be working and the redundant commentary is starting to get boring again.
I really need to be done with it.:thumbsdown:

Going to go enjoy the rest of my day and quit worrying about your comments on the matter.
They simply do not matter to me any longer, and you're going to believe what you're going to believe anyway.

Continuing with this is like swimming up stream.

Unless you're a Salmon, all you get is tired and frustrated:lmao:

Later dude:thumbsup:

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

Huum?:shrug01:
"Seriously?"

Seriously, there is/was no underlying "motive(s).":nonod:
I've said this repeatedly, but you apparently don't believe it?
Nothing you mentioned in your "rogue Moderator" post, had ever occured to me until you brought them up.

Click to expand...

Rich Z said:

Now understandably and necessarily so, a moderator has quite a bit of power on a site. An admin needs to pick moderators carefully as they are pretty much putting the fate and health of their site into the hands of said moderators. A moderator gone rogue, for any number of reasons, can completely destroy a site of this nature. They can delete posts and messages at will. Like ALL of them if they so choose. They can ban every member. They will likely know the viewing habits of the admin, and will know when they will have the MOST available time to do as much damage as possible before the admin can learn about it. In many cases, the damage can be irreparable. I have seen MANY instances of moderators who had conflicts with not only the administrator, but also other moderators completely destroy websites. I have personally experienced moderators who used the access they had to the memberlist surreptitiously contact other members and advertisers as they built their own website to compete with the one they were moderator on. This often happens when there becomes a conflict between the admin and one or more moderators, and they become convinced that they can do a much better job of the website. Which they decide to do, but of course behind the admin/owner's back. There are normally two ways this sort of damage takes place, although both can and have been used concurrently.

One method is to try to get the current admin/owner so aggravated with the site because of constant strife and headaches that they just simply want to be rid of the site. Sometimes bogus registrations are employed just to provide aggravations and headaches to the admin, but not necessarily. It's not difficult for someone with the knowhow to fake IP addresses to avoid detection, and of course, free anonymous email addresses are a dime a dozen. The idea is to get the admin/owner so tired of dealing with the BS all of the time that they just want to walk away from it all. Which, of course, those mods will be only too happy to take over. A popular ploy is for a bogus registration to be so much of a pain in the butt that they get banned and then another bogus registration strikes up the marching band claiming the admin is overbearing and dictatorial by not allowing free speech and legitimate complaints from the membership. Basically putting the admin in a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" position. Which is actually very effective if the admin isn't aware of what is going on.

Another method a rogue mod will use to undermine an admin and his site is to be building another website all along, secretively, while still maintaining the role of moderator and the appearance of all is cool, regardless of the friction. This gives a rogue mod a lot of time to get all their ducks in a row and contact other members, sponsors, and advertisers to bring them onboard with their new site. Often running the other site secretly while making those contacts. In this scenario, the mod or mods (or even some helpers supporting the mod and the new site) will constantly try to undermine the admin both overly and covertly trying to make the current site appear less attractive to the membership, and therefore make their own new site appear that much more attractive in comparison. Pretty much a sales pitch effort outlining the perceived faults of the "old" site and the changes that will be implemented in the "new" site. Fortunately, it is quite rare that these "spite sites" survive for longer than 6 months.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

You may notice that in the Rick Scott thread, Z06Rocket and I degree on some of the suggestions proposed by Scott.

But he and I have kept it civil, stated our position and point(s), and tried our best to support them with fact.
The way a debate should be.:yesnod:

I'm not attacking his profession or that his denouncement of Scotts proposals "might" be self serving (nothing could be further from the truth I might add-I know Rocket-he's just not that way! About as down to earth as they come!:thumbsup

I still consider him a friend and on the next debate, I may have his back.
One never knows.

What I do know, is that we're not all going to always agree.
It's human nature.

What I fail to understand, is when we (you and I disagree), you take it personally; yet when others disagree, it has no effect?

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

You and I have disagreed on (IIRC?) one (1) thing publically, related to this forum...that being the necessity to place one's entire name to be able to post in the BOI.
I felt there was a better way, you felt otherwise.
I was concerned for the members security, you didn't see a problem.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

As we saw with Harwood, some people, if given the right information, will do what they can to attack a persons family or career (fabum is my example-they went to his and his wifes CO with threats of civil action and complaints).

In the end, agree or not, I supported your decision.:thumbsup:
It's your house and your rules.
Simple as that.
I just chose not to participate in that section.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

Other than that, all of our "disagreements" have been over politics, law enforcement and procedure, and the BP oil spill.

I'm not sure why any of that should be an issue?

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

A for my comment in this thread which lead us here, I've said all I'm going to say about it.
The comments here speak for themselves.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

Take it for what it is was and how it was meant (as a friendly suggestion) or not.
The decision is yours.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

There's really not much reason to continue this if all we're going to do is go back and forth at each other.

Please, have the last word. I'm going to try not to respond again.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

In the meantime, I'll continue to participate as time and duty allow.

Click to expand...

Being a Richard Marcinko, (aka: "The Rogue Warrior") fan, it's halfheartedly flattering

The comments are hurtful and I believe cause grevious damage to my reputation and character both on an off the site

. Your desire at this point, in my opinion, is to try to make myself and this site appear in as negative light as possible to others thinking it will be beneficial to your plans (that you never thought of before).

Click to expand...

And once again, you now have it in writing for eternity)

As for the last comment you made:

I do hate that this is coming to the head that we both know it is, Gordon, but you are the one who has set this ball in motion, you know.

Click to expand...

That sounds more like posturing or a ban to me?

We would use a similar sounding phrase in law enforcement, just before something really bad happened to someone who probably deservedl it:lmao:

I would hope you wouldn't allow your personal feelings to influence that decision.

Finally (for me at least), I've tried to remain professional throught this matter.
We were friends.
I'm sorry you've chosen this path. The friendship is strained to say the least, but not broken, and if you ever needed help, I'd still be there to help you.
Why?
Because that's what people do for each other.
I can't see letting a website alter that.

I belive that furthering this thread, can only result in useless banter back and forth between us and ultimately have a negative ending.
As well, it will lead to more animosity, fulfillment of egos (on both sides) and will be detrimental to the site and it's members as a whole.

Something I'm not willing to see that happen!

As a result, I'm bowing out of the fray.
There will be no further comment from me regarding you or this thread unless you choose to make them.

I think we both can see, by the simple fact that there's only you and I posting in here, that it's become a dead issue.

As you've always said to me, let's let it die on the vine.
Que serra serra and all that happy bull

Have a nice day.

Gordon

Shadow said:

The comments are hurtful and I believe cause grevious damage to my reputation and character both on an off the site

Gordon

Click to expand...

Rich Z said:

Why I do declare, is that a threat of litigation I detect from you Mr. Brainerd?

Click to expand...

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

Click to expand...

"Trespassing (with exception, a misdemeanor in most cases) can not be the basis for "burglary."

When the state is looking at the charge, they're looking for "other charges" such as larceny (theft), assault, Home invasion, etc., combined with the unlawful entry or remaining therein.

Recap:
Burglary= The unlwful entry/remaining in a structure or conveyance (vehicle for short) w/intent to commit some crime other than trespassing therein=FORCIBLE FELONY.
Forcible Felony=The right to the use of deadly force).

And again, there's no need to retreat from the threat!!

Click to expand...

nasajack said:

This 'conversation' should be kept within the realm of private messages.

I'm on the outside looking in and read with wonder on why we're 'off topic' of Corvettes...:shrug01:

Can you imagine what the rest of us that are watching/reading this must be thinking??

Just my .02.

Click to expand...

Shadow said:

:nonod:
...yes...:nonod:

Click to expand...

Rich Z said:

Why I do declare, is that a threat of litigation I detect from you Mr. Brainerd?

Click to expand...

Rich Z said:

Well I guess my question is not going to be answered.

I had said I wasn't going to remain in the wetting contest. That's why you didn't get a response.

Since Bob K chose to take this discussion to another new thread of his creation, I figure it is only fair to point any interested readers following THIS thread to that new one -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56245

Click to expand...

Rich Z said:

Now that the other unpleasantness has moved on to another thread, it's time to put this thread back on topic, I think,


http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm



1) Referencing the above quote, what other reasons except in the above noted examples, would anyone break into someone else's home?
2) Without a specific invite or permission, what would the probably intentions be of someone entering your home unannounced?
3) Does the homeowner need to have some sort of questionnaire at the ready for a trespasser to fill out?
4) Do they first have to secure proof positive the intentions of the trespasser before taking steps to neutralize a threat?
5) According to the Castle Doctrine, the entry must be "forcible". What exactly does that mean? Most the door be locked and that lock breached? Or can the door simply be closed and the trespasser open the door without permission to enter?
6) If someone walks into your house through and open doorway, does that put the home owner at a disadvantage in that they must first attempt to determine the trespasser's INTENT before taking a definitive step to secure their own welfare by neutralizing this potential threat?
7) And if so, how is that INTENT determined that would be satisfactory evidence in a courtroom that the trespass is for the intention of burglary or a more serious reason?
8) Where does the burden of proof lie?
9) My belief is that the Castle Doctrine puts that burden on the trespasser, and not the homeowner.
10) But how can a trespasser prove such a thing?
11) Is there a PRESUMPTION of guilt?

Click to expand...

Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law: Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way​

By ANTHONY J. SEBOK
anthony.sebok@brooklaw.edu

Monday, May. 02, 2005​

Last week, Governor Jeb Bush signed a bill that has become known as the "Stand Your Ground" law. The law immunizes citizens who use deadly force in self-defense against criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Critics of the law are afraid it will promote vigilantism. Supporters say that it merely brings Florida into line with the majority of other states. But the truth is the law goes beyond what other states are doing.

In this column, I'll discuss the new law, and argue that it is an example of a simple reform that was hijacked by the NRA.

What Florida Self-Defense Law Previously Was Like

Until last week, the law in Florida concerning self-defense could be divided into two parts: First, there were the rules that governed when deadly force could be used if one was attacked in one's own home. Second, there were the rules that governed when deadly force could be used if one were attacked outside of one's own home.

To explain the prior Florida rules, I will use the example of Lisa, who is attacked by Bob.

First, imagine Lisa is attacked by Bob in her own home. She could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her. Moreover, even if Bob was a burglar interested only in her property and she had the option of running outside of her house to safety, she could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her if she did not run away. Put simply, she is allowed to "stand her ground."

This is known as the "castle doctrine" -- based on the maxim that "One's home is one's castle" -- and it governs the rules of self-defense for criminal and tort law in almost every state.

Second, imagine, instead, that Lisa is attacked by Bob on the street in Florida. In this instance, she cannot use deadly force if she can retreat safely from Bob. (For instance, suppose a drunken, knife-wielding Bob confronts Lisa in front of a bar featuring armed bouncers, into which Lisa can safely escape.) So even if Lisa knows Bob will kill her if she "stands her ground," she cannot kill him while still being able to retreat.

Florida's retreat doctrine reflected a certain attitude among courts which might seem quaint today, but is easy to understand. Florida courts took the position that life was so precious -- even the lives of people like Bob -- that victims of violent attacks should not kill unless it became absolutely necessary.

The bottom line, then, was that victims had to take advantage of a "safe" retreat except when attacked in their own homes. But what if the victim doesn't retreat? What consequences follow? Could she be prosecuted, sued, or both?

In almost every state except Florida, Lisa could not be criminally prosecuted. In a majority of states, she also cannot be sued in tort.

But some states would allow Lisa to be sued. And the Restatement (Second) of Torts -- a classic statement of tort law principles -- agrees: Its Section 65 would still allow Bob to sue Lisa for personal injuries if she responded to his upturned knife with a gunshot when she could have retreated safely.

How the New "Stand Your Ground" Law Changed the "Castle" Doctrine

Florida's new "Stand Your Ground" law changes Florida's self-defense rules in several ways.

First, it is now very easy to invoke the "castle" doctrine in Florida.

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. 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.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

So let's go back to Lisa and Bob. Under the old law, Lisa would have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality, that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

Second, the new Florida law expands the definition of "castle" to include vehicles -- such as cars and boats. This expansion the castle doctrine was clearly intended to address carjacking.

Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. 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.

Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants. It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in particular cases.

Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely. Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob imminently would.

Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.

It's Not True that the New Law Merely Aligns Florida with Other States

According to Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, the new law brings Florida into line with other states. "We're not breaking ground here. We're catching up," Baxley said.

That is probably more or less true when it comes to the legal standard governing use of deadly force outside the house. But it is very inaccurate when it comes to the legal standard governing killings inside of homes -- and, especially, in vehicles, which now count as a kind of "castle" under the "castle doctrine." Here, the new law has truly radical effects.

Why? Because the new law bulks up the old "castle" doctrine -- once a reasonable rule of law -- until it is a legal monstrosity: a legal Incredible Hulk.

Recall that now, at least according to the Senate Report, there is an irrebuttable presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home -- or, under the new law, a car -- is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. That means that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bob had no intent to physically harm Lisa, his estate will not be able to sue her.

It may, in fact, be the reality, that in almost all cases in which a citizen kills an unlawful intruder, or carjacker, it is because the unlawful intruder, or carjacker, was capable of killing, and willing to kill, the citizen first. (I suppose the "gentleman thief" no longer exists in Florida.) But there is at least a chance of serious miscarriages of justice.

Suppose that a doctor's drug addict brother breaks into his mansion to raid the medicine cabinet. Now, the doctor can kill his brother to ensure that he will be the sole heir to their wealthy parents' estate.

Or suppose a teacher upon entering his SUV, finds a student who has broken in so that he can deface the interior. Though the intent was clearly vandalism, and the boy has no record of violence, the irate teacher guns down the student. According to Florida, this would appear to be legal.

What can proponents say when examples like these are raised? It's hard to imagine. Perhaps they would claim that those who break the law by violating another's "castle" deserve what they get -- even if what they get is death.

The "Stand Your Ground" Law Says Property Is More Important than Life

In this respect, Florida has taken a wrong turn that no other state should emulate.

In effect, its law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.

The principle holding that life is more valuable than the defense of property is deeply embedded in our legal history. The Florida law contravenes this simple principle. (That is does so by hiding behind a legislative "presumption" that all burglars or car thieves are potential killers should not obscure that fact.)

The old version of the castle doctrine told homeowners that they could kill when they reasonably believed that their lives were in danger. Now the law tells average citizens they can kill when they reasonably believe that their homes or vehicles have been illegally and forcibly invaded.

That adds an additional wrinkle -- and an additional way innocents can be killed. Anyone can make a mistake in the heat of the moment, but the margin for error in the new law is unbearably large.

What if Bob is a panhandler who approaches Sue's car and touches it against her wishes? Perhaps it would be obvious to most observers that he had no intention of entering the car, but what if Sue panics and thinks he is a carjacker?

It is of no help to say that the law was not designed to permit her to use deadly force under those circumstances: after Bob is dead and Sue is facing criminal and civil penalties, the damage has already been done.

The only test of laws is their effect in the real world. The castle doctrine, until it was changed by Florida, was a practical compromise between a number of competing interests in life. It was a balance between the state's interest in allowing citizens to protect their own lives, and its interest in minimizing violence in the streets -- ranging from vigilantism to a too-quick trigger finger.

The new "Stand Your Ground" law is likely to produce a number of ugly real-world side effects. Its real purpose seems to be the capital punishment of property-criminals, regardless of whether their deaths help protect the lives of anyone else.

Furthermore, Florida's castle doctrine has now been expanded so that the test for self-defense covers far more circumstances and locations than before.

All in all, the room for error is much larger. In addition, the law sends a very confusing message to the citizens of Florida about when they can use lethal force with impunity.

If my prediction that this law will insulate certain home- or car-owners who kill without good reason to do so turns out to be correct, I hope the Florida legislature will have the courage to revisit this law and fix it. In the meantime, the NRA, flush with their victory in Florida, is lobbying to have the "Stand Your Ground" law adopted in other states, such as New York. Other states should reject the NRA's "help" when it comes to revising their self-defense laws.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Sebok, a FindLaw columnist, is a Professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Click to expand...