- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Homeowner for the win
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:47 pm to TigernMS12
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:47 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
My argument was always that she simply couldn't say she was defending her property in response to a previous post.
Your argument has no basis, you cited Mississippi statutes for something that occurred in another state. Had you framed your argument "Had this occurred in Mississippi..." you'd have a slightly better point here. She could very well defend her property and that is because other states not named Mississippi have such statutes and/or case histories to offer in defense of such an action.
0
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:49 pm to vodkacop
quote:
There was only 2 people there and one ain't no longer speaking.
THAT along with the reported "confrontation" are the reasons why this lady won't be found guilty.
She probably won't ever be put in cuffs, IMO.
I say give her enough bullets to load her gun back up and send her on her way.
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:52 pm to Real Pirate
It SHOULD be legal to shoot a thief ANYWHERE on your property! Thin the thug herd.
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:52 pm to vodkacop
Here's the thing , there were two of us there , he's dead , my story is the only one that's going to be heard ....
Btw more people need to shoot these animals then maybe they would think twice about stealing shite .....
Btw more people need to shoot these animals then maybe they would think twice about stealing shite .....
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:55 pm to Real Pirate
quote:
If he's shot in the front, I'm not concerned. I've never seen a dead man testify.
You never know who is watching, who is near, who has a smartphone running, which neighbors security cam caught the confrontation. Maybe the only witness says the burglar had his hands up before you shot? (remember Michael Brown)
It's a pretty big gamble in my book if you aren't damn sure you are being threatened. People can and do end up doing time in these situations.
I sure as hell wouldn't risk my freedom for a TV.
This post was edited on 3/13/16 at 11:57 pm
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:55 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 776.031 (West)
Quote the whole statute next time. Then read those notes and look up the cases to get a better idea of how the law is actually applied.
quote:
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
If she was attacked then that forcible felony part comes into play under 776.031.
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:55 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
so if im out to eat, and i pull up in my driveway, and i see some guy running out my front door with my new tv in his arms, people in this thread are saying i cant cap this dude? am i taking crazy pills?
"He raised the TV as though to strike me with it. I shot him in the face."
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:58 pm to AndyCBR
quote:
I sure as hell wouldn't risk my freedom for a TV.
That LED tho...
quote:
You never know who is watching, who is near, who has a smartphone running, which neighbors security cam caught the confrontation. Maybe the only witness says the burglar had his hands up before you shot? (remember Michael Brown)
It's a pretty big gamble in my book if you aren't damn sure you are being threatened. People can and do end up in doing time in these situations.
I know what you're saying, but none of those apply to my situation. I don't live in a subdivision, I don't have neighbors, and I don't have surveillance camera.
It's my word against a dead man's presence on my property.
I win that 10 out of 10 times.
Posted on 3/13/16 at 11:59 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
found the teen climbing out of a window.
She's going to have a bad time
it wasn't self defense, that's for sure.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:01 am to CelticDog
quote:
it wasn't self defense, that's for sure.
You're fricking stupid. That's guaranteed. There's more to the story than those two lines.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:09 am to Clames
quote:
If she was attacked
Do you not read? My argument is simply that you cannot use deadly force as means to protect solely property. I stated a long time ago that if the confrontation rose to the level of self-defense then obviously that changes things. Subsection 2 of the statute is not applicable in this situation if the perp was leaving the scene when she arrived, which is the situation that everyone seems to think its ok to still use deadly force. Subsection 2 clearly only applies to "prevent the imminent commission." If the perp were leaving the scene in this situation or any other situation, then she is not preventing anything from happening. Furthermore, under SYG laws in FL. a person does not have to retreat, but they cannot use more force than necessary to prevent danger to themselves.
Edit
quote:LINK Yes, the link is to a law firm. I don't feel like getting on lexis at the moment.
Under Florida law, “defense of property” is an affirmative defense that justifies the use of non-deadly force to protect a person’s land, home, vehicle, or other personal property. Florida does not recognize a right to use deadly force in the protection of property interests alone.
This post was edited on 3/14/16 at 12:14 am
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:20 am to TigernMS12
TEXAS
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
LINK
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
LINK
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:21 am to TigernMS12
â?¢ A Donald Aaron was found guilty of negligent homicide in the 2005 shooting death of Ronald Jamison in Caddo Parish. Upon arriving home, Aaron found Jamison in his driveway. Aaron said he believed Jamison had burglarized his home. When Jamison reached into his pocket to grab a beer bottle, Aaron opened fire, shooting him seven times.
Aaron said he was in the right to shoot Jamison under the state's castle laws. The grand jury disagreed, charging him with manslaughter. A trial jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of negligent homicide and a gun offense. He was sentenced to five years hard labor without parole.
LINK
Wtf... There has to be more to that story. Reaching in his back pocket in front of me would have got him shot too.
Aaron said he was in the right to shoot Jamison under the state's castle laws. The grand jury disagreed, charging him with manslaughter. A trial jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of negligent homicide and a gun offense. He was sentenced to five years hard labor without parole.
LINK
Wtf... There has to be more to that story. Reaching in his back pocket in front of me would have got him shot too.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:29 am to TigernMS12
quote:
Do you not read? My argument is simply that you cannot use deadly force as means to protect solely property.
And you are fricking wrong. There are such cases and your argument is moot because of them.
quote:
Subsection 2 clearly only applies to "prevent the imminent commission."
Case history says otherwise. Wrong again.
Your whole argument stemmed from your poor understanding of this situation and the law in Florida (otherwise you would not have quoted Mississippi laws). You don't have an argument here, this lady did the right thing and there are clearly places and situations where one can use lethal force to protect property.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:31 am to Clames
Clames putting in work tonight on y'all! Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:36 am to Real Pirate
quote:
Wtf... There has to be more to that story. Reaching in his back pocket in front of me would have got him shot too.
It sucks, but that's how the law functions here in MS too. Stand your ground means just that; not escalate or confront the situation. Castle Doctrine (to make another poster happy this is limited to MS jurisdiction although it is the majority rule) only applies if you are physically in your dwelling or vehicle and that property is the one having the crime being committed upon. This guy got out of his car and confronted the suspect and used deadly force. A prosector or judge is going to tell him he should have remained in his car and called authorities. Obviously in this case, the jury found it was not objectively reasonable to believe his life was in danger when the suspect reached in his pocket. Had they found that he would have gotten off on self defense. In essence he was found guilty of imperfect self defense.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:38 am to Clames
quote:
Clames
quote:
My argument is simply that you cannot use deadly force as means to protect solely property.
quote:
Florida does not recognize a right to use deadly force in the protection of property interests alone.
How does this not make sense?
This post was edited on 3/14/16 at 12:41 am
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:39 am to TigernMS12
Wrong. There is obviously more to the story. Even going off your ramblings, the home owner had the right to THREATEN to shoot the burglar to stop him outside his house while on his property.
At that point, if he reached in his back pocket, the home owner is fearing for his life. He shot him. He gets away every time.
That's why I said there is more to this story.
At that point, if he reached in his back pocket, the home owner is fearing for his life. He shot him. He gets away every time.
That's why I said there is more to this story.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:44 am to Real Pirate
quote:
the home owner had the right to THREATEN to shoot the burglar to stop him outside his house while on his property.
This is correct; however, you do not have the right to use deadly force.
quote:
if he reached in his back pocket, the home owner is fearing for his life. He shot him. He gets away every time.
I would agree with this also; however, in this case the jury did not. You never know how a jury will see things. Your belief that your life is in danger for the purposes of self-defense is determined objectively, not subjectively, which is why I am assuming the jury convicted.
Posted on 3/14/16 at 12:51 am to TigernMS12
quote:
This is correct; however, you do not have the right to use deadly force.
I didn't say you did. We agreed there.
But, if I point a gun at you and tell you to stop, putting your hands in your back pockets is going to tell me you're reaching for a gun. Then, I'm fearing for my life. I shoot. I go home, no problems.
There's more to that case than we're arguing about. Without the rest of the details, it's impossible to decipher what caused his guilty verdict.
From the little info we have, he was actually in the right.
That's why I'm saying there is more to that story than the info I could find so far.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News