- 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 3/14/16 at 12:09 am to Clames
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
3
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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News