Florida, where murder is legal

Post Reply New Topic

If you're going to make the assertion that it's possible - then back it up. I'm not interested in dealing with the theoretical.

I quoted the part of the law. BUt since you've called me stupid repeatedly why would I listen to any suggestion you make?

You seem to want to fight. Sorry, not interested.

Hi sliqua-jcooter,

Don't try to give your advice to the Florida appeals court, as I don't think Justice C.J. Lewis will be very receptive.

Did you search all the linked cases???

Here's another case, with diametrical results for some "unforeseeable" reason (yeah, SURE!! !):

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2011/0 ... 089.op.pdf

How Hot Will the "Hot Topic" GET????: http://appealattorneylaw.com/2011/09/07 ... section-7/

Please correct me where I'm wrong - as I'm at this point convinced you're making some grand point that is simply going over my head. Here's my interpretation of what you linked:

- Defendant enters his house, sees someone he doesn't want to be there - demands he leaves. This is not instigating a conflict, because the defendant has every right to expel unwanted persons from his property.

- Victim does not want to leave, starts fight with homeowner (conflict begins).

- During course of fight, Defendant gets knocked to floor - Defendant hit the victim with a stick to stop the attack

- Based on the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim outside the home, one presumes the victim then left the property.

The state asserted that Defendant failed to provide factual basis, but it's unclear from the text of what you submitted whether or not the state asserted that it was the Defendant who instigated the conflict.

Even assuming that, all this judgement does is force the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether there is or is not factual basis to assert immunity from prosecution - sounds like a long ways from a done deal.

EDIT: Furthermore, this example deals with an aspect of the law that I have stated (many times) that I *do not* agree with (the "immunity from prosecution" clause). I absolutely *do* believe this is bad law.

Quoting statute does not an argument make. Find legal president for your argument, just like all the lawyers do.

This isnt law school, it's an internet forum where people are having a discussion. You quoted the law, I highlighted a section of your own quote. I don't have to go find a gd thing. I'm not writing a paper.

You put forward a legal argument. That requires defending your argument with president. If you don't want to - then don't be surprised when I call you an idiot and ignore you

No, I did not make a legal argument. I made a forum argument based on something you posted. I thought it was funny that you didnt read your own quote to be honest.

Now, unlke you apparently, I'm not Nostrodamus and don't play him on the internet. I don't know how this will be resolved. Ive read several theories of how a prosecution could go forward or not.

Hi sliqua-jcooter,

Jury instructions tend to explain the law to the jury. The explanation to the jury works as an explanation of the law to most people competent to read the jury instructions subsequently put in print. Higher courts often rule on whether the jury instructions were within certain standards, and these rulings on jury instructions further clarify the explanation of the laws the instructions cover.

Your realm of understanding seems stuck in that often cited as: " As explained in Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the instruction is 'circular and confusing to the jury' because it improperly instructs the jury that the very act that the defendant seeks to justify as an act of self-defense prevents that same act from being an act of self-defense. Id. at 1266." http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 5&as_vis=1 (multiple aggressions, retreats, defenses, more aggressions, retreats, & extreme defenses) " Self-defense was the only defense Smith asserted at trial. There was evidence to support that defense, and it was the sole focus of the closing arguments at trial..... Reversed and remanded".

The germinal seed of much of the confusion, (3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony), seemingly results from the created "legal justification" for engaging in "an unlawful activity" , that is simultaneously excluded from coverage, as many of the appeal court's decision have cited as a source confusion to the courts themselves (hence, another aspect of the spirit of an undesirable, and probably unconstitutional, law). The re-worked wordings in State Laws have all failed standards for legal clarity, and are failing protection requirements. The bombastic Madison-Avenue PR campaigns of "New & Improved Castle Doctrine (with menthol next?)" continue from the corporate propaganda mills.
http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/7e/7J ... Exposed.PD

The courts generally follow the legislation as codified in statues, so, again: "Although the wisdom of such legislation is not for us to decide, it cannot be disputed that the immunity created by section 18-1-704.5(3) is an extraordinary protection which, so far as we know, has no analogue in Colorado statutory or decisional law" is the legal wisdom for Florida courts working with Florida laws also, with "precedents" being the exceptions, especially with the conservative babble stopping supposed "legislating from the bench" (except when it works for conservative advantages).

Tadzio

In the military you are normally firing at armed combatants. You shoot more than once because incapacitation and/or death isn't always instantaneous and the enemy may still be able to fire back even after being mortally wounded. Shooting an unarmed person just once in the stomach or chest is more than enough to kill them.

a young man ws recently brought into my ED after having been shot by the local PD. I didn't see this one myself, but the RN/MICN who helped the EMTs when he first arrived described him as being 'slick with pepper spray, with multiple sets of tazer prongs, and one gunshot to the chest.' He arrived in a pool of blood (the transport guerneys are somewhat concave) and essentially already dead.

Did the RN give anymore details than that? For all she knew, the guy could have been under the influence of PCP.

I can't help but notice that there is a real divide in this thread between people screaming for blood and people wanting to look at all the facts before passing judgment, and the split isn't where most people would likely think it would be...

Yeah, not enough information. It could be perfectly justified escalating force; the police attempted to subdue the guy with pepper spray and a taser but were forced to resort to lethal force, or it could be evidence of police overkill. Without the surrounding circumstances it's impossible to judge.

What I was describing was armed guard watches in the continental U.S., very far from combat. I don't know anything about the rules of engagement in an actual combat zone.

There was a rule that you always shoot for center of mass, not because it has vital organs and could kill, but because it's a big target. You weren't supposed to shoot for the head, because the goal is to stop them, not kill them per se, and it's a smaller target.

There was no rule about the specific number of shots fired, but if the problem that made you shoot in the first place went away, you stopped shooting.

Just found this nice little bit of irony...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/f ... index.html

So, in opposition to what they seem to see as a vigilante killing, the response is... vigilantism. Great.

Last edited by Dox47 on 26 Mar 2012, 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.