shooting an intruder

[Rich Z]

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

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

 

[Bob K]

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

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

I'm not on collusion with anyone Rich and I have simply just expressed my opinion. Am I right? Maybe not, maybe I am. I do think it's important to note that I have been by your side for about a year now. Many of us are opinionated and hard headed and like I said we just need to drop this.

I am a member of other sites but I consider this place to be home. I will continue to create threads and post often to help to support your site and I will continue to bring in new members when possible.

My last opinion is that we should agree to disagree without taking it to a personal leval. I'll publicly apologize for anything I have posted that has caused you heart burn.

 

[Shadow]

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

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

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

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:

 

[Rich Z]

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:

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

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

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? 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?

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

 

[Shadow]

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

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.

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

A wise old Sergeant once informed this young, very green deputy:
"when more than one person tells you there's a problem, there's probably a problem"
It took a bit of self reflection to finally understand that.
And more than a little humility to make use of it.

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?

So are you saying that the true reason behind your actions, was because the suggestion "embarrased you", rather than the originally stated suggestion that it was rude and disrepectful (or whatever that was you said at the time?)

As you know, I'm not a big one on PM's.
Heck, I haven't cleaned my PM box out in how many years now?
Private forum?
Heck, I could just as easily have called you.
Honestly, I don't think the result would have been much different.
BTW- That whole telephone thing works both ways you know:thumbsup:

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?

I had a response typed out but for some reason I couldn't post it?
They say God looks out for drunks and fools...and I'm stone cold sober:lmao:

In any event, any such commentary would likely be in an effort to save a life or in response to some other stupid action (I don't do stupid well)

Here's as close as I can get to the Readers digest versions:

1) New inexperienced Cpl. wanted to walk in on a known armed suspect at a crowed pool (children andother innocents crowding the area.)
I (and some others) disagreed and left her no way out but to use the U/C assets we had at our disposal to get close to the suspect, then take him down at close range.
She wasn't happy with my "public" objection to her plan (when she refused to listen to those with more experience).
End result- We did it with the U/C people, took him down, uniforms swarmed in as support, and all was well.
Removed 2 large caliber weapons and 4 magazines from his person.
She wanted to write us up for insubordination.
Instead, she was transferred to a "less critical" assignment


2) Defensive tactics instructor shows up at a huge bar fight already in progress!
Myself and 2 other deputies, not unscathed, have or are in the process of, arresting more people than we have restraints (including tie straps) and room for!!

He never enters the building, and when all is over, states (loudly) among the other deputies "we really took care of thier problem!"

You can imagine what came next (*HINT* I"ve never been once for political correctness):lmao:
Anyway, later he informs me he's going to "write me up" for "insubordiation."

I tell him to get to it and grab a memo form from my trunk.
What are you doing?

I'm writing YOU up for COWARDICE!
Now, lets see how this works out for you!

Knowing that all I'll get is "maybe" a day or 2 off, and that if proven (we have more than enough witnesses to support our case), he'll be unemployed and unemployable in law enforcement forever, he decides to take "other action."
(*NOTE*-you have to be CJSTC to be a cop. He knows he'll lose it forever over cowardice)

I get transferred to a "quiet zone,"
Best move ever!!:dancer01:

I end up on a ball busting great squad, eventually get transferred to the newly formed motor unit as the 1st "enformement" motor officer in the County, and go on to become the coordinator (supervisor) and instructor for the team until I retired:thumbsup:

He spent the rest of his chicken chit career as a sergeant (couldn't buy a promotion) in a dead end squad.
Sometimes, life just sucks that way:rofl1:

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

In the meantime, I'll continue to participate as time and duty allow.
Speaking of which, I just got home a short time ago and have more paperwork to do.

later yall.:wavey:

 

[Rich Z]

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.

So I guess this is like the fact that you claim a frisk or pat down is NOT a search..... That telling someone "enough!" doesn't mean to "shut up"? You simply redefine the terms to suit you?

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:

No, no REASONABLE person would EVER interpret those words as "swipes" and merely humor...... (BTW, those little graphics are called smilies, which are graphic icons used to represent some body language and facial feedback that can't be express just in words easily. You did ask why I use them....)


<< some stuff deleted that was pretty much what I expected. You really don't like not being the lead dog pulling the sled. >>>

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.

Huum?:shrug01:
"Seriously?"

None of those things I mentioned about what rogue moderators will do EVER occured to you? Let me refresh your memory in case you forgot those details.

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.

You are claiming that NOT ONE of those points mentioned above have ever crossed your mind before my post mentioning them?

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?

Umm, perhaps because YOU make it personal with your little digs? But they are all just joking or "f**king with me", right?

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.

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. There are legal liabilities involved with accepting anonymous postings that could be considered as libelous towards another party. Members making claims against someone else need to be willing to accept responsibility and ownership for those statements, otherwise those sorts of statements are not going to be allowed here. THAT was the crux of my argument.

And, of course, there have been PRIVATE disagreements concerning how I run this site. You argued that I should make this site more commercial and restrict postings by sellers unless they are paid members. I want this site to be FOR the members and have them freely able to get any and all information they can from vendors without those vendors being forced to pay to display their wares. You have argued with me about my being too lenient concerning banning members and deleted posts and threads. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt and allow a member the opportunity to simmer down and perhaps see the error in their ways. You are obviously much more hard line about things than I am, and I suppose that does pluck at your nerves that I run this site the way I do, contrary to how you would choose to run it.

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.

And as a moderator, your choosing to not participate there at all was really not "supportive" in any reasonable definition of that word. Matter of fact for a while you pointedly had a disparaging comment in your profile about refusing to participate in the BOI forum. Choosing to boycott that forum really isn't what I would call "supportive".

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?

As they say, it's not what you say, it's HOW you say it. And your comments have often been condescending and belittling. It has gotten to the point that anytime you replied to any comment I made I was SURPRISED if it was not condescending. I'm sure you will say that you were just "f**king around with me" or "joking". We had had this discussion before when I removed you from being a moderator here and I thought I was clear about your public display of attitude towards me. But apparently not.

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.

Yes, I believe that is very true.

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

I do know how it was meant. And my decisions are based on that understanding. I really wouldn't call your current motives as being exactly "friendly", however.

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.

As long as you continue needing corrections on details and redefinitions of words, then I will feel it necessary to reply. Seriously, Gordon, I DO know what is going on. I've watched people do this dance before, you know...

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

If that is in the capacity of continuing to belittle this site and/or myself, please don't do me any favors. Saying afterwards that it was a joke or you were misunderstood is in itself belittling to readers who can see your posts for what they are. Seriously, I DO know why you want to continue posting here, and I am truly disappointed that you think I am so stupid that I really don't know.... 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).

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.

 

[Shadow]

I'm sorry you feel the way you do Rich.
I can assure you your concerns and suspicions are unfounded.
Anything that may arise later, will/would have been an afterthough predicated upon those actions and allegations, and never considered prior to them.

And regardless, nothing that is done will detrimentally impact "your site" or it's members.
Now, instead of speculation, you have it publically in writing:thumbsup:

I've kind of gotten a kick out of the whole "rogue mod" thing.
Being a Richard Marcinko, (aka: "The Rogue Warrior") fan, it's halfheartedly flattering
But the whole internet "spook" thing is weird and simply makes no sense.

As far as the allegations tossed about above, and in previous posts, I'm going to consider the rationale behind them and am not going to respond other than to say that the references you've alluded to were either misstated, taken out of context, or otherwise incorrect.

You make several of the topics sound as though I was working alone, when in reality, there were several of us who were responding to your concerns over the cost of maintaining the site.

The remainder regarding member and bannings, all I can say is:nonod:
(psst! I like the fact that we dont ban a lot of folks here:thumbsup

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).

While realizing that the above statement is your "opinion", and ignoring the sarcasm at the end, I can assure you that you have no idea why I intend to continue to post here.

Any speculation you may have I'm sure is 180 degrees off reality.

My "intent" or "Desires" are as follows:

1) to enjoy the friendship and comaradarie of others I consider friends on the site.
2) Learn more about the cars we enjoy.
3) Check out the roadhouse:dancer01:
Anything else is simply nonsense.

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.

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

 

[Rich Z]

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

Gordon

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

 

[Rich Z]

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

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

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

 

[Rich Z]

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

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.

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

"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!!

Referencing the above quote, what other reasons except in the above noted examples, would anyone break into someone else's home? Without a specific invite or permission, what would the probably intentions be of someone entering your home unannounced? Does the homeowner need to have some sort of questionnaire at the ready for a trespasser to fill out? Do they first have to secure proof positive the intentions of the trespasser before taking steps to neutralize a threat? 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? 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? 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? Where does the burden of proof lie? My belief is that the Castle Doctrine puts that burden on the trespasser, and not the homeowner. But how can a trespasser prove such a thing? Is there a PRESUMPTION of guilt?

 

[vettejack]

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.

 

[Shadow]

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.

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

 

[vettejack]

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

I'm truely saddened by the conversational turbulence here...breaks my heart...:nonod:

 

[Shadow]

Here you go Jack....we're back on track

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

No

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

:nonod:
Now that the thread is back on topic....

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?

You have a multitude of questions.

In order:

1) Self explanitory.
2) You'd need to be a mindreader to answer that.
3) Ludicrous.
4) Resonableness.
5) No, Yes, and be carefule with the term "trespasser." You can't use deadly force on a misdemeanor trespassing.
6) Unfortunately yes. This is where it's going to be a judgment call. When you say "walks through" and "open doorway" you change the scenario somewhat.
Do they appear to be entering aggressively or are they simply staggering in?
Are they lost or bent on violence.
All questions you're going to have to be ready to answer, all in milliseconds...just like a cop in many cases.
7) The evidence I believe will be self evident. Again, one more reason we teach (when applicable) locking oneself in a secure area and letting the bad guy come to you.
You reduce your field of fire, increase the level of probable cause and evidentiary factors, and, provide a less open target. You allow the offender to formulate the intent instead of trying to figure it out on the move.
8) With the state
9) If it's merely a tresspasser, the castle doctrine doesn't really protect you.
10) Depends on if they're still in one piece? Defense attorneys can do some interesting things
11) There are standards.

HTH?

 

[Rich Z]

Here's a rather interesting view of Florida's Castle Doctrine, even though it is apparently by someone who is against that law:

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.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

I guess an issue that could be raised that the author seems to choke on concerning property being of more value than a life, is that perhaps some people look at it from the perspective that the owner might feel that HIS or HER property is worth more to them than the life of the person trying to steal it and perhaps intent on escalating the criminal intrusion. But perhaps the real issue is that is someone is robbing your dwelling while it is occupied by you, is the burglar going to stop with just the burglary? He has already exhibited a distain for the law and your rights to your own possessions, so what does he feel about your health or welfare? How is the perp going to feel about leaving behind witnesses to the crime? It would be a simple matter to blind the witnesses so they could never participate in picking out someone in a lineup. If someone is going to come out of this criminal encounter being safe rather than sorry, wouldn't the preference be (and the purpose behind the law be) that the home owner be the one coming away feeling safe and the perp being the one who is sorry?