(Florida) STAND your GROUND--Part 2

[Ms Tree]

Giving up on this particular conversation ! You have beat me into submission, with your stupidity !

You beat your self in nearly every argument due to your ignorance on the issue and unwillingness to research anything to change that fact. You are giving up here because you have never read the law and you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[southwind]

You beat your self in nearly every argument due to your ignorance on the issue and unwillingness to research anything to change that fact. You are giving up here because you have never read the law and you have no idea what you are talking about.

My last reply to your ignorance : My intention in this thread was never about the SYG law !!! Get it ? It was whether or not you could shoot someone in the kneecap, within a 50 ft. radius, whether it be in Fla. Ga. or NY. I could give a rat's ass about the SYG law in Fla.............................I don't live there.................do you ?

Geez !

 

[Ms Tree]

The post in question was the 5th post. All previous posts pertained the the SYG law and the case being discussed. You can try and lie to cover up your incompetence but everyone here can read what you posted. Everyone here knows what you wrote. Trying to change what you meant does not changes the facts. Trying to change history does not change the fact that you are ignorant on the facts surrounding the SYG law and the cases involving it. Lying about what you posted does not change the facts.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Regarding the use of deadly force and "stand your ground" laws, do not come to the same understanding of the law as Ms. Tree does in post #28, you could needlessly spend the rest of your life in prison.

What the law does state is that you 'castle' is portable. What it says is that so long as you are in a public place and acting in a legal manner, should you feel 'threatened' you have no obligation to retreat and that you are authorized to use deadly force.

Being "threatened" in public does not justifiy the use of deadly force. If anyone needs research and study on the subject, it's Ms Tree.

 

[eolesen]

I'll take wounding for $200, Alex.

I don't shoot to kill. I shoot to defend, and it all depends on the situation.

Aiming for the biggest target?... That's what you do with paintball, airsoft and other imprecise toy weapons which may or may not respond the same shot after shot...

But anyone who is good enough to score a paper target inside 50' is going to be able to pick and choose what they're aiming at, be it a leg, arm, head, or torso. With a rifle, there's no doubt I'd hit a leg:

My instructor said a leg shot comes along with a higher guarantee they're not going to run away should you hit, and a shoulder shot means they won't be able to aim back... Firing in their general direction will also serve as a damn good deterrent, especially if you know what you have for shots remaining.

But a torso shot? They can still run, and they can still shoot, unless you've hit something substantial like the heart or the spine, and then you probably will have to live with the fact you've killed someone in self defense after you've stood scrutiny and possibly trial for homicide...

 

[muff daddy]

Not sure why you are fixated on this knee cap and SYG relationship. The law makes no specifications on where or how you may shoot someone.

What the law does state is that you 'castle' is portable. What it says is that so long as you are in a public place and acting in a legal manner, should you feel 'threatened' you have no obligation to retreat and that you are authorized to use deadly force.

The issue of you trying to shoot someoone in the knee cap is just a humorous side issue that is silly on it's face

Your portable castle is any confine you would be in such as a phone booth, vehicle, bathroom stall.....and for you to be able to use deadly force, someone would have to be attempting to enter your 'confine or castle'. Someone shows a gun isn't necessarily a direct threat that would justify the use of deadly force. Neither is you feeling 'threatened'.....what you are saying is a big burly guy makes a move on your girl and you think you might get your butt kicked by doing something.....that isn't a SYG qualifier.

 

[southwind]

Tree goes for the headshot !

 

[Ms Tree]

If you read the SYG law in FL it does not make any qualifications regarding what constitutes a threat. The biggest issue with the law is that it eliminates the duty to retreat. You exams of a phone booth or something similar are valid k of where the duty to retreat would be void due to the fact that you can't. In the cases of Martin and Jordan the shooters had the ability to retreat and chose not to.

The FL law is posted on the Fl government web site. Section three is what is at issue. Not sure why none of you have read it. According to the way the law is written, if you feel threatened, you may use deadly force to defend your self. This the defense Zimmer is using and will probably be the defense for Dunn.

 

[eolesen]

This shows yet again that there are too many people carrying weapons who have no training

I finally got around to reading the ignored posts...

1) Dunn was in the military. Which branch of the military doesn't train on how to use a firearm? Even the Coasties go thru weapons qualifications.
2) Dunn had a concealed carry permit, which requires training under Florida law

Since Tree tends to only focus on what can be proven scientifically, it would seem that if he hada valid permit, either he provided proof of having been in the military, or he attended a class.

Just how does this incident prove that there are too people carrying firearms who have no training?

It might prove that even people with training can do stupid things, but being stupid isn't against the law. Yet.

 

[muff daddy]

If you read the SYG law in FL it does not make any qualifications regarding what constitutes a threat. The biggest issue with the law is that it eliminates the duty to retreat. You exams of a phone booth or something similar are valid k of where the duty to retreat would be void due to the fact that you can't. In the cases of Martin and Jordan the shooters had the ability to retreat and chose not to.

The FL law is posted on the Fl government web site. Section three is what is at issue. Not sure why none of you have read it. According to the way the law is written, if you feel threatened, you may use deadly force to defend your self. This the defense Zimmer is using and will probably be the defense for Dunn.

I don't know about any chapter three or reference to being threatened. The law I looked at was:

CHAPTER 776


JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 and 776.013 are what is known as the SYG statutes.
No mention of being threatened only things like "A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another ".

I'd say a threat of that kind is what Fla law describes.

 

[Ms Tree]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Here is the full statute. Section three is what is at issue.

 

[muff daddy]

http://www.leg.state...s/0776.013.html

Here is the full statute. Section three is what is at issue.

Yes and its exactly one of the chapters I quoted. There is no mention of 'threat or threatened' as you imply in any of the law.
I'd say section three applies to that latino kid but this case both parties were in vehicles and no one made an attempt to access the others castle, if you will. I'd say Dunn exercised poor judgment as nothing of a deadly force nature had happened to the point where he fired.
But where does it say if you are threatened? I find many other references and they all deal with imminent harm, death and such.

 

[muff daddy]

I finally got around to reading the ignored posts...

1) Dunn was in the military. Which branch of the military doesn't train on how to use a firearm? Even the Coasties go thru weapons qualifications.
2) Dunn had a concealed carry permit, which requires training under Florida law

Since Tree tends to only focus on what can be proven scientifically, it would seem that if he hada valid permit, either he provided proof of having been in the military, or he attended a class.

Just how does this incident prove that there are too people carrying firearms who have no training?

It might prove that even people with training can do stupid things, but being stupid isn't against the law. Yet.

Part of the problem is he makes one believe all you have to do is feel threatened. That is a door wide enough to drive a 747 through. Feeling threatened in most states doesn't justify the use of deadly force. Using deadly force is one of the most specific definitions given in law as far as I know. Use it and you had better be able to convince the DA and most likely a jury of your exact state of mind at the moment you exercised the use of deadly force.

 

[Ms Tree]

And that is the problem with the law. The law states that if you fear death or great bodily harm. If I feel threatened how am I supposed to determin the level of tour threat? If someone threatens me I assume worst case scenario.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

http://www.leg.state...s/0776.013.html

Here is the full statute. Section three is what is at issue.

That's not the full statute, try reading Fla.Stat. 776.012. We've already been through this before and you obviously learned nothing.