101 replies to this topic

[Sol Rosenberg]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

[R Booth]

This story is lacking in detail.....

[Saorsa]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Yes.

[Olsonist]

This story is lacking in detail.....

Florida. Machete.

[R Booth]

This story is lacking in detail.....

Florida. Machete.

No where in that story did I read that he was attacked, ergo it looks like he initiated the violence. So felony assault and/ or attempted murder charges seem like the proper charge(s). SOG isn't in play here....

[Dog]

How he chooses to defend himself has no bearing on the question of whether he should be charged.

[puffyjman]

Is there really a need for chimney sweepers in central Fl.?

[R Booth]

Is there really a need for chimney sweepers in central Fl.?

I think that's actually Dick Van Dyke's 'special' third nephew, nine times removed....

[Point Break]

At 3am.........as I used to tell my kids - nothing good happens out there after midnight. That observation is tripled after 2am.

And he's quite a nice looking young man. I'm sure he's just misunderstood. I like the part where he gets punched in the nose by his girlfriend.

[Sol Rosenberg]

At 3am.........as I used to tell my kids - nothing good happens out there after midnight. That observation is tripled after 2am.

And he's quite a nice looking young man. I'm sure he's just misunderstood. I like the part where he gets punched in the nose by his girlfriend.

I had the impression that he was punched in the nose by fate, as much as anything or anyone else.

Fate can be cruel to the moron.

[Saorsa]

At 3am.........as I used to tell my kids - nothing good happens out there after midnight. That observation is tripled after 2am.

And he's quite a nice looking young man. I'm sure he's just misunderstood. I like the part where he gets punched in the nose by his girlfriend.

I had the impression that he was punched in the nose by fate, as much as anything or anyone else.

Fate can be cruel to the moron.

When sharpening a machete, pay attention to the front edge.

[hobot]

This story is lacking in detail.....

Florida. Machete.

No where in that story did I read that he was attacked, ergo it looks like he initiated the violence. So felony assault and/ or attempted murder charges seem like the proper charge(s). SOG isn't in play here....

When things get too crazy there Boothy, we'll keep the porch light on for ya' here in the PNW.

[R Booth]

This story is lacking in detail.....

Florida. Machete.

No where in that story did I read that he was attacked, ergo it looks like he initiated the violence. So felony assault and/ or attempted murder charges seem like the proper charge(s). SOG isn't in play here....

When things get too crazy there Boothy, we'll keep the porch light on for ya' here in the PNW.

I'm almost f'ng positive that Fellini, John Waters, Kubrick, H.S. Thompson, Tarantino & Caligula all secretly collaborated with Spain to sell Uncle Sam on this place......

[Saorsa]

This story is lacking in detail.....

Florida. Machete.

No where in that story did I read that he was attacked, ergo it looks like he initiated the violence. So felony assault and/ or attempted murder charges seem like the proper charge(s). SOG isn't in play here....

When things get too crazy there Boothy, we'll keep the porch light on for ya' here in the PNW.

I'm almost f'ng positive that Fellini, John Waters, Kubrick, H.S. Thompson, Tarantino & Caligula all secretly collaborated with Spain to sell Uncle Sam on this place......

Wait a minute, you aren't one of those guys that think Hiassen is fiction, are you?

[Bus Driver]

At 3am.........as I used to tell my kids - nothing good happens out there after midnight. That observation is tripled after 2am.

And he's quite a nice looking young man. I'm sure he's just misunderstood. I like the part where he gets punched in the nose by his girlfriend.

I had the impression that he was punched in the nose by fate, as much as anything or anyone else.

Fate can be cruel to the moron.

When sharpening a machete, pay attention to the front edge.

No doubt. He hit the other guy in the abdomen with the machete, but failed to break the skin. A machete in a car? This has dumb written all over it.

Then, he tried to stab his girlfriend, but she punched him in the nose and ran.

Talk about a fail.

[Tom Ray]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Well, let's see... the article says:

A High Springs chimneysweep was arrested early Wednesday morning after police say he attacked a man and woman in a car with a machete.

776.013  Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) 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 when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(  The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.(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.(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.(5) As used in this section, the term:(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(  "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.© "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The bolded section of the law above is the relevant part to what we know about this case.

1. Attacking people with a machete is illegal.

2. He was not attacked, he was attacking.

So anyone who read the article and read 14 words into the relevant part of the law would not ask the question you did, since the answer is obviously yes, he should face charges.

[ease the sheet!]

At 3am.........as I used to tell my kids - nothing good happens out there after midnight. That observation is tripled after 2am.

And he's quite a nice looking young man. I'm sure he's just misunderstood. I like the part where he gets punched in the nose by his girlfriend.

I had the impression that he was punched in the nose by fate, as much as anything or anyone else.

Fate can be cruel to the moron.

i had a tee shirt waiting for a phrase........

[Sol Rosenberg]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Well, let's see... the article says:

A High Springs chimneysweep was arrested early Wednesday morning after police say he attacked a man and woman in a car with a machete.

776.013  Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) 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 when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(  The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.(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.(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.(5) As used in this section, the term:(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(  "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.© "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The bolded section of the law above is the relevant part to what we know about this case.

1. Attacking people with a machete is illegal.

2. He was not attacked, he was attacking.

So anyone who read the article and read 14 words into the relevant part of the law would not ask the question you did, since the answer is obviously yes, he should face charges.

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

[Mark K]

At 3am.........as I used to tell my kids - nothing good happens out there after midnight. That observation is tripled after 2am.

And he's quite a nice looking young man. I'm sure he's just misunderstood. I like the part where he gets punched in the nose by his girlfriend.

I had the impression that he was punched in the nose by fate, as much as anything or anyone else.

Fate can be cruel to the moron.

i had a tee shirt waiting for a phrase........

I'd never wear it. Can't take the chance. Might do something moronic and be enshrined on the internet. Forever.

Not for guys with fat wives either...

[Saorsa]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Well, let's see... the article says:

A High Springs chimneysweep was arrested early Wednesday morning after police say he attacked a man and woman in a car with a machete.

776.013  Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) 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 when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(  The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.(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.(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.(5) As used in this section, the term:(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(  "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.© "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The bolded section of the law above is the relevant part to what we know about this case.

1. Attacking people with a machete is illegal.

2. He was not attacked, he was attacking.

So anyone who read the article and read 14 words into the relevant part of the law would not ask the question you did, since the answer is obviously yes, he should face charges.

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

Were skittles involved?

[ease the sheet!]

At 3am.........as I used to tell my kids - nothing good happens out there after midnight. That observation is tripled after 2am.

And he's quite a nice looking young man. I'm sure he's just misunderstood. I like the part where he gets punched in the nose by his girlfriend.

I had the impression that he was punched in the nose by fate, as much as anything or anyone else.

Fate can be cruel to the moron.

i had a tee shirt waiting for a phrase........

I'd never wear it. Can't take the chance. Might do something moronic and be enshrined on the internet. Forever.

Not for guys with fat wives either...

the front of said tee shirt is an advertisement for the darwin awards.

[Tom Ray]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Well, let's see... the article says:

A High Springs chimneysweep was arrested early Wednesday morning after police say he attacked a man and woman in a car with a machete.

776.013  Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) 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 when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(  The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.(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.(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.(5) As used in this section, the term:(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(  "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.© "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The bolded section of the law above is the relevant part to what we know about this case.

1. Attacking people with a machete is illegal.

2. He was not attacked, he was attacking.

So anyone who read the article and read 14 words into the relevant part of the law would not ask the question you did, since the answer is obviously yes, he should face charges.

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

[Saorsa]

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

But, generlly more effective.

[R Booth]

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

But, generlly more effective.

Only Latinos should be allowed to own machetes.....

[Sol Rosenberg]

If you plan to attack someone, and there is a chance that they might fight back, leaving you with a "stand your ground" defense, use a gun, not a machete.

[Spatial Ed]

Stand your ground only works if you kill your opponent. Your story cannot be challenged by a survivor. It just doesn't work that way.

[R Booth]

If you plan to attack someone, and there is a chance that they might fight back, leaving you with a "stand your ground" defense, use a gun, not a machete.

Using a machete in a car is like using a shotgun in a phone booth....

[Saorsa]

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

But, generlly more effective.

Only Latinos should be allowed to own machetes.....

Better than a shotgun for boat defense and completely legal everywhere as an agricultural tool or emergency line cutter.

Judicious sharpening at the tip of the blade eventually turns it into an effective cutlass capable of slashing or thrusting.

[Tom Ray]

If you plan to attack someone, and there is a chance that they might fight back, leaving you with a "stand your ground" defense, use a gun, not a machete.

...(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....

A premeditated attack on someone, whether using a gun or a machete, is an unlawful activity and thus precludes a stand your ground defense.

[Tom Ray]

Stand your ground only works if you kill your opponent. Your story cannot be challenged by a survivor. It just doesn't work that way.

Already proven false, but Ed will keep repeating it anyway.

[Sol Rosenberg]

The machete swinger is claiming his incident was a stand your ground case. It is interesting to find out that the charges do not mysteriously disappear when such a claim is made.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Not enough info to tell, but, the tone of the article suggests that the chimney sweep pursued the others into a car, in which case it seems that he would be the aggressor.

IF those guesses are correct - my opinion would be that it's not an appropriate application of "stand your ground".

A more pertinent question for you, Esquire, would be whether you have issue with the law, or the application of the law in less-than-clear circumstances.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Not enough info to tell, but, the tone of the article suggests that the chimney sweep pursued the others into a car, in which case it seems that he would be the aggressor.

IF those guesses are correct - my opinion would be that it's not an appropriate application of "stand your ground".

A more pertinent question for you, Esquire, would be whether you have issue with the law, or the application of the law in less-than-clear circumstances.

The reason I find this case interesting, aside from watching people try to contort to make their opinions fit a different conclusion, is that it raises the most basic question about any case where that defense is claimed: who decides whether it applies? I recall plenty of folks suggesting that Zimmerman should face no charges because he claimed the SYG defense.

It is a matter for a judge to decide, not commentators.

[Tom Ray]

Judges decide which charges to pursue? Odd. I seem to remember my mother making those decisions as a prosecutor.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Did someone say that judges decide which charges to pursue? Who said that?

I suggested that Judges, not commentators, are best suited to determine the viability of a SYG defense, as in "affirmative defense."

[Tom Ray]

Did someone say commentators decide which charges to pursue?

The law does not say that, it says stuff about probable cause. The horror. Probable cause of unlawful action prior to an arrest!

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Is your problem really with this section, Counselor?

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages

[Saorsa]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Not enough info to tell, but, the tone of the article suggests that the chimney sweep pursued the others into a car, in which case it seems that he would be the aggressor.

IF those guesses are correct - my opinion would be that it's not an appropriate application of "stand your ground".

A more pertinent question for you, Esquire, would be whether you have issue with the law, or the application of the law in less-than-clear circumstances.

The reason I find this case interesting, aside from watching people try to contort to make their opinions fit a different conclusion, is that it raises the most basic question about any case where that defense is claimed: who decides whether it applies? I recall plenty of folks suggesting that Zimmerman should face no charges because he claimed the SYG defense.

It is a matter for a judge to decide, not commentators.

I thought SYG stood for Skittles, You Goon.

[Sol Rosenberg]

You must be conversing with someone other than me. I hope for their sake that they know how to read the rest of the statutory section instead of the Limbaughian clip presented.

Enjoy the conversation.

[Saorsa]

You must be conversing with someone other than me. I hope for their sake that they know how to read the rest of the statutory section instead of the Limbaughian clip presented.

Enjoy the conversation.

You should perhaps go back to the original zimmerman threads where your only concern seemed to be skittles. Obviously, it still resonates with you.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Not enough info to tell, but, the tone of the article suggests that the chimney sweep pursued the others into a car, in which case it seems that he would be the aggressor.

IF those guesses are correct - my opinion would be that it's not an appropriate application of "stand your ground".

A more pertinent question for you, Esquire, would be whether you have issue with the law, or the application of the law in less-than-clear circumstances.

The reason I find this case interesting, aside from watching people try to contort to make their opinions fit a different conclusion, is that it raises the most basic question about any case where that defense is claimed: who decides whether it applies? I recall plenty of folks suggesting that Zimmerman should face no charges because he claimed the SYG defense.

It is a matter for a judge to decide, not commentators.

Thank you for that - I'd be inclined to agree. It's a matter for the prosecutor's office to decide - NOT the peanut gallery .

[Sol Rosenberg]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Not enough info to tell, but, the tone of the article suggests that the chimney sweep pursued the others into a car, in which case it seems that he would be the aggressor.

IF those guesses are correct - my opinion would be that it's not an appropriate application of "stand your ground".

A more pertinent question for you, Esquire, would be whether you have issue with the law, or the application of the law in less-than-clear circumstances.

The reason I find this case interesting, aside from watching people try to contort to make their opinions fit a different conclusion, is that it raises the most basic question about any case where that defense is claimed: who decides whether it applies? I recall plenty of folks suggesting that Zimmerman should face no charges because he claimed the SYG defense.

It is a matter for a judge to decide, not commentators.

Thank you for that - I'd be inclined to agree. It's a matter for the prosecutor's office to decide - NOT the peanut gallery .

The prosecutor decides to file charges. The defense raises affirmative defenses. The judge can determine the legal sufficiency of the defenses (and the charges, for that matter, as in probable cause).

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Not enough info to tell, but, the tone of the article suggests that the chimney sweep pursued the others into a car, in which case it seems that he would be the aggressor.

IF those guesses are correct - my opinion would be that it's not an appropriate application of "stand your ground".

A more pertinent question for you, Esquire, would be whether you have issue with the law, or the application of the law in less-than-clear circumstances.

The reason I find this case interesting, aside from watching people try to contort to make their opinions fit a different conclusion, is that it raises the most basic question about any case where that defense is claimed: who decides whether it applies? I recall plenty of folks suggesting that Zimmerman should face no charges because he claimed the SYG defense.

It is a matter for a judge to decide, not commentators.

Thank you for that - I'd be inclined to agree. It's a matter for the prosecutor's office to decide - NOT the peanut gallery .

The prosecutor decides to file charges. The defense raises affirmative defenses. The judge can determine the legal sufficiency of the defenses (and the charges, for that matter, as in probable cause).

I think You, Tom and I are mostly agreeing here.

[Sol Rosenberg]

I think You, Tom and I are mostly agreeing here.

Maybe, but the sense I get is that Tom would give a presumption of sufficiency of the affirmative defense, precluding the filing of charges against the person using a gun, but not for the person swinging the machete.

I prefer to let the judge determine the legal sufficiency of the affirmative defense in both cases.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

I think You, Tom and I are mostly agreeing here.

Maybe, but the sense I get is that Tom would give a presumption of sufficiency of the affirmative defense, precluding the filing of charges against the person using a gun, but not for the person swinging the machete.

I prefer to let the judge determine the legal sufficiency of the affirmative defense in both cases.

Umm - I think that you misread Tom's earlier reply, in which he stated that (I'm paraphrasing) regardless of the weapon used in this case, that the article's report indicates that the machete' wielder was the aggressor, and that the aggressor in a situation isn't "covered" under SYG.

As I see it - if you are chasing someone to inflict harm upon them, you are the aggressor (unless, of course, you're coming to the defense of someone else who was being attacked/in peril of being attacked).

I do have another question for you: Your comments imply that SYG is an "after-the-fact" determination, and that the defending party should be arrested, tried, and if the facts of the case warrant, found innocent by reason of SYG.

If this is your perspective, then how does the intent of the law, which I understand to mean that appropriate use prevents unnecessary arrest/prosecution of the person who exercised personal defense, achieve its goal in your paradigm?

If I'm misunderstanding something - I'd enjoy being squared away!

[Saorsa]

I think You, Tom and I are mostly agreeing here.

Maybe, but the sense I get is that Tom would give a presumption of sufficiency of the affirmative defense, precluding the filing of charges against the person using a gun, but not for the person swinging the machete.

I prefer to let the judge determine the legal sufficiency of the affirmative defense in both cases.

Oh, wow, for a guy who demands precise answers from everybody else, it seems the voices in your head are good enough for you.

[Sol Rosenberg]

I think You, Tom and I are mostly agreeing here.

Maybe, but the sense I get is that Tom would give a presumption of sufficiency of the affirmative defense, precluding the filing of charges against the person using a gun, but not for the person swinging the machete.

I prefer to let the judge determine the legal sufficiency of the affirmative defense in both cases.

Umm - I think that you misread Tom's earlier reply, in which he stated that (I'm paraphrasing) regardless of the weapon used in this case, that the article's report indicates that the machete' wielder was the aggressor, and that the aggressor in a situation isn't "covered" under SYG.

As I see it - if you are chasing someone to inflict harm upon them, you are the aggressor (unless, of course, you're coming to the defense of someone else who was being attacked/in peril of being attacked).

I do have another question for you: Your comments imply that SYG is an "after-the-fact" determination, and that the defending party should be arrested, tried, and if the facts of the case warrant, found innocent by reason of SYG.

If this is your perspective, then how does the intent of the law, which I understand to mean that appropriate use prevents unnecessary arrest/prosecution of the person who exercised personal defense, achieve its goal in your paradigm?

If I'm misunderstanding something - I'd enjoy being squared away!

From what I've been reading about other cases applying the law, there is a pre-trial hearing on the SYG issue.

That's what should happen. State accuses me of killing BobbyFred. I say "yes, I did kill BobbyFred, but I did it because..." So I admit doing it, but raise the affirmative defense. A preliminary hearing tests the sufficiency of the affirmative defense right off the bat, and before incurring the expense of a trial. For a case like the machete clown's, it could be dispensed-with in short order. For cases where there are a bunch of witnesses to the incident, and the identity of the aggressor, the prosecutor could exercise his/her discretion as to whether to file charges in the first place. But in cases where there are not a bunch of witnesses as to who the aggressor was, and there is no way to establish conclusively what happened other than a dead body, then the proper forum for the decision is the criminal justice system.

Interesting depository of SYG case information.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

<SNIP for brevity's sake>
From what I've been reading about other cases applying the law, there is a pre-trial hearing on the SYG issue.

That's what should happen. State accuses me of killing BobbyFred. I say "yes, I did kill BobbyFred, but I did it because..." So I admit doing it, but raise the affirmative defense. A preliminary hearing tests the sufficiency of the affirmative defense right off the bat, and before incurring the expense of a trial. For a case like the machete clown's, it could be dispensed-with in short order. For cases where there are a bunch of witnesses to the incident, and the identity of the aggressor, the prosecutor could exercise his/her discretion as to whether to file charges in the first place. But in cases where there are not a bunch of witnesses as to who the aggressor was, and there is no way to establish conclusively what happened other than a dead body, then the proper forum for the decision is the criminal justice system.

Interesting depository of SYG case information.

Thanks - I understand that, and appreciate your thoughts w/r/t the last comment.

On that point, though, how does one determine that the threshold of collected evidence/determined fact is sufficient to permit the prosecutor to make the decision, as is currently codified in the statute?
When does the statute compel the prosecutor to defer the decision to a criminal court?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Thanks - I understand that, and appreciate your thoughts w/r/t the last comment.

On that point, though, how does one determine that the threshold of collected evidence/determined fact is sufficient to permit the prosecutor to make the decision, as is currently codified in the statute?
When does the statute compel the prosecutor to defer the decision to a criminal court?

Prosecutorial discretion is very broad. I suspect it's uniformity of application is probably the inverse.... There is no set threshold for the exercise of that discretion. Some cases are nowhere near the line, some right on it. I'm glad I don't have to make that call.

[Tom Ray]

I think You, Tom and I are mostly agreeing here.

Maybe, but the sense I get is that Tom would give a presumption of sufficiency of the affirmative defense, precluding the filing of charges against the person using a gun, but not for the person swinging the machete.

Did you get that sense from my response to the hypothetical you raised about a gun?

If you plan to attack someone, and there is a chance that they might fight back, leaving you with a "stand your ground" defense, use a gun, not a machete.

...(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....

A premeditated attack on someone, whether using a gun or a machete, is an unlawful activity and thus precludes a stand your ground defense.

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear, but I think that a premeditated attack with a gun would be unlawful and thus excluded by section 3 above. I also think an attack with a machete is unlawful. The hypothetical person with the gun that you brought up should not be allowed a SYG defense for the same reason the actual person with the machete should not be allowed that defense: attacking people is an unlawful activity and the law does not permit people engaged in unlawful activities to avail themselves of a SYG defense.

Where you got the idea that I thought an attack with a gun should preclude filing charges while an attack with a machete should not is beyond me. It could not have been from anything I actually said, unless you can quote something to show otherwise...

[Sol Rosenberg]

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

Where you got the idea that I thought an attack with a gun should preclude filing charges while an attack with a machete should not is beyond me. It could not have been from anything I actually said, unless you can quote something to show otherwise...

[Tom Ray]

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

Where you got the idea that I thought an attack with a gun should preclude filing charges while an attack with a machete should not is beyond me. It could not have been from anything I actually said, unless you can quote something to show otherwise...

You can't really be that dense.

You had asked whether someone who attacked with a machete could avail himself of SYG. I said he could not, since machete attacks are illegal. You then asked whether my answer would be different if a gun were used and I answered that it would be slightly different and noted the difference: gun attacks are illegal. The fact that they are illegal would mean that Section 3 of the law precludes a SYG defense, just like with machete attacks. So it's a slightly different answer: it went from "attacking people with a machete is illegal" to "attacking people with a gun is illegal" which is a slight difference. The bottom line is the same: if it's an unlawful activity, Section 3 says SYG does not apply.

[Saorsa]

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

Where you got the idea that I thought an attack with a gun should preclude filing charges while an attack with a machete should not is beyond me. It could not have been from anything I actually said, unless you can quote something to show otherwise...

You can't really be that dense.

You had asked whether someone who attacked with a machete could avail himself of SYG. I said he could not, since machete attacks are illegal. You then asked whether my answer would be different if a gun were used and I answered that it would be slightly different and noted the difference: gun attacks are illegal. The fact that they are illegal would mean that Section 3 of the law precludes a SYG defense, just like with machete attacks. So it's a slightly different answer: it went from "attacking people with a machete is illegal" to "attacking people with a gun is illegal" which is a slight difference. The bottom line is the same: if it's an unlawful activity, Section 3 says SYG does not apply.

He should probably go with the "the bitch had it coming" defense.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

Where you got the idea that I thought an attack with a gun should preclude filing charges while an attack with a machete should not is beyond me. It could not have been from anything I actually said, unless you can quote something to show otherwise...

You can't really be that dense.

You had asked whether someone who attacked with a machete could avail himself of SYG. I said he could not, since machete attacks are illegal. You then asked whether my answer would be different if a gun were used and I answered that it would be slightly different and noted the difference: gun attacks are illegal. The fact that they are illegal would mean that Section 3 of the law precludes a SYG defense, just like with machete attacks. So it's a slightly different answer: it went from "attacking people with a machete is illegal" to "attacking people with a gun is illegal" which is a slight difference. The bottom line is the same: if it's an unlawful activity, Section 3 says SYG does not apply.

Yeah, the ad hominem is about all you have left, these days. No problem. Enjoy it.

Ps. Machete attacks are illegal too.

[ease the sheet!]

the weapon is irrelevant. and he didn't stand his ground, he got into the car!

case closed. and in less than a 6 minute billing period.

[Sol Rosenberg]

the weapon is irrelevant. and he didn't stand his ground, he got into the car!

case closed. and in less than a 6 minute billing period.

I'm with you there. Getting in or out of the car is pretty indicative of who was the aggressor. (Less than a minute.)

[ease the sheet!]

the weapon is irrelevant. and he didn't stand his ground, he got into the car!

case closed. and in less than a 6 minute billing period.

I'm with you there. Getting in or out of the car is pretty indicative of who was the aggressor. (Less than a minute.)

that is one loaded sentence, sol.and frankly, i agree

[Tom Ray]

Ps. Machete attacks are illegal too.

Ah, so you understand why your topic question was stupid?

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

Well, let's see... the article says:

A High Springs chimneysweep was arrested early Wednesday morning after police say he attacked a man and woman in a car with a machete.

776.013  Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) 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 when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(  The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.(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.(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.(5) As used in this section, the term:(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(  "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.© "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The bolded section of the law above is the relevant part to what we know about this case.

1. Attacking people with a machete is illegal.

2. He was not attacked, he was attacking.

So anyone who read the article and read 14 words into the relevant part of the law would not ask the question you did, since the answer is obviously yes, he should face charges.

[Tom Ray]

The Tampa Bay Times did an interesting analysis of almost 200 SYG cases

Often, the self-defense circumstances were evident: A person was being robbed or beaten.

In other cases, the type that critics of "stand your ground'' consider questionable, people killed and went free when they might have avoided a conflict:

• Damian Niemeyer was standing at the bedroom window of his Royal Palm Beach townhouse in December when he saw three men trying to back his motorcycle onto a truck. He called 911, then yelled at the men. When one pointed a gun at the window, Niemeyer, who is white, fatally shot Benjy Young, a black teenager.

• Hygens Labidou, who is black, was driving in Deerfield Beach in 2007 when two white men jumped out of their pickup, pounded on his truck and yelled racial slurs. Labidou, still inside his car, fired his gun, striking both men and killing 28-year-old Edward Borowsky.

• In Pompano Beach in 2010, Patrick Lavoie, a white man, jumped out of his girlfriend's car and accused Cleveland Murdock, a black man, of tailgating. When Lavoie, who had a cigarette lighter in his hand, tried to reach through Murdock's passenger window, Murdock fatally shot him.

I don't consider that first one all that questionable. Point a gun at me while stealing my stuff and you are likely to be perforated.

I can see how Labidou might have been in fear for his life, at least before firing at the first person. That one is questionable. The second person didn't back off? Who knows, it might have happened very quickly.

Road ragers are extremely dangerous and one reaching in the car is asking to be shot, IMO.

[JBSF]

The Tampa Bay Times did an interesting analysis of almost 200 SYG cases

Often, the self-defense circumstances were evident: A person was being robbed or beaten.

In other cases, the type that critics of "stand your ground'' consider questionable, people killed and went free when they might have avoided a conflict:

• Damian Niemeyer was standing at the bedroom window of his Royal Palm Beach townhouse in December when he saw three men trying to back his motorcycle onto a truck. He called 911, then yelled at the men. When one pointed a gun at the window, Niemeyer, who is white, fatally shot Benjy Young, a black teenager.

• Hygens Labidou, who is black, was driving in Deerfield Beach in 2007 when two white men jumped out of their pickup, pounded on his truck and yelled racial slurs. Labidou, still inside his car, fired his gun, striking both men and killing 28-year-old Edward Borowsky.

• In Pompano Beach in 2010, Patrick Lavoie, a white man, jumped out of his girlfriend's car and accused Cleveland Murdock, a black man, of tailgating. When Lavoie, who had a cigarette lighter in his hand, tried to reach through Murdock's passenger window, Murdock fatally shot him.

I don't consider that first one all that questionable. Point a gun at me while stealing my stuff and you are likely to be perforated.

I can see how Labidou might have been in fear for his life, at least before firing at the first person. That one is questionable. The second person didn't back off? Who knows, it might have happened very quickly.

Road ragers are extremely dangerous and one reaching in the car is asking to be shot, IMO.

Agree with all.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Don't be so humorless, Tom. People will think you are a democRAT.

I crafted the OP (and the follow up) to see if anyone would apply a different standard for dismissing a SYG defense for a case involving a weapon other than a firearm than they would for a SYG claim involving a firearm. I figured that if anyone would have the moral flexibility to do so it would be you. You didn't disappoint.

[Tom Ray]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

1. Attacking people with a machete is illegal.

Would your answer be different if he had shot them to death, and then claimed the shelter of the stand your ground law?

Not knowing any more about your hypothetical question, I'd have to say yes, slightly. Attacking people with a gun is also illegal.

Where is the "different standard" you are imagining? "Illegal" and "also illegal" both mean unlawful, and I already quoted what the law says about unlawful acts. I never said anything about a different standard, just said that my original answer would not work for your hypothetical question since the word "machete" is not applicable to a hypothetical involving a gun.

[Sol Rosenberg]

It's in that post I quoted yesterday, when I asked if your answer would be different if the weapon had been a gun, and you said yes.

Then you got mad and got a case of the Tourette's.

[Tom Ray]

Clinging to your misinterpretation of my words after I have explained them several times is the mark of a troll, but I guess one more will not be noticeable.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Your original answer or two are the ones that are responsive to the questions in this topic. After that, you went off on your own topic. I know better than to waste time following you down that path. Perhaps you should have put more thought into the topic at first, then you wouldn't have to try to distract from it.

[JBSF]

JFC, will the two of you let it go or go get a room? My take is you are BOTH at fault here.....

Tom - you started it by confusing the situation by saying the two hypotheticals are "slightly different". That implies that the situations are different, and not just because of the weapon used. But that wasn't Sol's question: He asked if simply changing the weapon from Machette to gun changed the situation (with the implication that the rest of the scenario was exactly the same) - and you said, "yes slightly". Which means yes. The MORE correct (or at least less confusing) response would have been - "No a gun in place of a machete would not have changed the application of SYG".

And Sol - I think you have become amused with yourself by being so goddamned pedantic of late. Yes its amusing when you use it on trolls like haplarkey - but when Tom later clarified himself that he thought it in fact made no difference between what weapon was used despite his earlier slightly confusing statement.... just move on dude. You're like a kid you keeps poking his little sister in the backseat until either the little girl cries or mom has a complete meltdown.

[Saorsa]

JFC, will the two of you let it go or go get a room? My take is you are BOTH at fault here.....

Tom - you started it by confusing the situation by saying the two hypotheticals are "slightly different". That implies that the situations are different, and not just because of teh weapon used. But that wasn't Sol's question: He asked if simply changing the weapon from Machette to gun changed the situation (with the implication that the rest of the scenario was exactly the same) - and you said, "yes slightly". Which means yes. The MORE correct (or at least less confusing) response would have been - "No a gun in place of a machete would not have changed the application of SYG".

And Sol - I think you have become amused with yourself by being so goddamned pedantic of late. Yes its amusing when you use it on trolls like haplarkey - but when Tom later clarified himself that he thought it in fact made no difference between what weapon was used despite his earlier slightly confusing statement.... just move on dude. You're like a kid you keeps poking his little sister in the backseat until either the little girl cries or mom has a complete meltdown.

Sol is allegedly pretending to be stupid.

[Sol Rosenberg]

JFC, will the two of you let it go or go get a room? My take is you are BOTH at fault here.....

Tom - you started it by confusing the situation by saying the two hypotheticals are "slightly different". That implies that the situations are different, and not just because of the weapon used. But that wasn't Sol's question: He asked if simply changing the weapon from Machette to gun changed the situation (with the implication that the rest of the scenario was exactly the same) - and you said, "yes slightly". Which means yes. The MORE correct (or at least less confusing) response would have been - "No a gun in place of a machete would not have changed the application of SYG".

And Sol - I think you have become amused with yourself by being so goddamned pedantic of late. Yes its amusing when you use it on trolls like haplarkey - but when Tom later clarified himself that he thought it in fact made no difference between what weapon was used despite his earlier slightly confusing statement.... just move on dude. You're like a kid you keeps poking his little sister in the backseat until either the little girl cries or mom has a complete meltdown.

Tom is cranky with me. Angst is a killer. Let him work that out a bit.

nice job with the water-muddy'ers in the "drone" thread, btw. A little bit of knowledge goes a long way; a lot of knowledge goes a long way in style.

[Tom Ray]

JFC, will the two of you let it go or go get a room? My take is you are BOTH at fault here.....

Tom - you started it by confusing the situation by saying the two hypotheticals are "slightly different". That implies that the situations are different, and not just because of the weapon used. But that wasn't Sol's question: He asked if simply changing the weapon from Machette to gun changed the situation (with the implication that the rest of the scenario was exactly the same) - and you said, "yes slightly". Which means yes. The MORE correct (or at least less confusing) response would have been - "No a gun in place of a machete would not have changed the application of SYG".

I was answering the question he asked, which was whether my answer would be the same if, hypothetically, a gun had been used. Since my answer specifically referenced a machete, it could not be the same. I thought Sol's hypothetical was pretty obviously the same legal situation, not a different one, and skipped to the bottom line: attacking with a gun is also illegal. That's a slightly different answer because the question was slightly different, nothing more. I thought the next sentence explained why and how the answer would be slightly different: the word "gun" would replace the word "machete" and everything else would stay the same.

Did anyone besides Sol seriously think I was saying there should be two different standards in those situations?

[elle]

would you rather people address what you write or what they think you mean?

[JBSF]

Did anyone besides Sol seriously think I was saying there should be two different standards in those situations?

Given the answer was "Yes, slightly" - I thought you were saying the situations were not exactly the same. So yes, I thought it was initally confusing. You fixed it, but the 1st answer was not as clear as you had hoped or probably intended. Everyone KNEW his question was simply a hypothetical trade of implements in the same set of circumstances - so yes a "slightly different" implies its different.

Let it go.....

[JBSF]

nice job with the water-muddy'ers in the "drone" thread, btw. A little bit of knowledge goes a long way; a lot of knowledge goes a long way in style.

Thanks, I'm still amazed at how much misinformation there is out there on UAVs and how people's perceptions are they are these automated, unthinking drones that are programed to kill and we send them out to go hunt on their own. WOW!

The reality is they are just airplanes, with human pilots flying them and human eyes looking through the cameras and humans leaders making decisions and human lawyers (yes there are even UAV lawyers) to review the decisions. ALL exactly like any manned platform would do to go through a strike on a HVT. Even fighter pilots are looking through cameras from 20,000 feet to see the target - so what difference does it make if they are in the cockpit over shitholestan or on the ground in Las Vegas? UAV cameras are typically much better anyway. The point is there is still a human in the cockpit actively running the show and pulling the trigger - so whether he/she is overhead or 7000 miles away is somewhat irrelevant.

[Tom Ray]

would you rather people address what you write or what they think you mean?

Either one is OK with me. I still don't see how my statement that gun attacks are also illegal is susceptible to more than one interpretation. For the record, I mean "also illegal and should be treated as such" and I do not mean "also illegal but are special because a gun is involved and so should be held to a different standard." Hope that clears things up for any who may have erroneously assumed the latter interpretation.

[elle]

"ok, with you" because you get to prattle on and on about what you meant, what you said, what we are supposed to assume and what you claim someone erroneously assumed...
take jeff's advise and drop it. you said "yes" to the "are they different" question...i don't need to assume you meant anything other than yes.

[saxdog]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

How much demand is there for chimney sweeps in Florida?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Again.

http://www.gainesvil...ICLES/120539978

The guy swinging the machete is using a stand your ground defense. Should he still face charges?

How much demand is there for chimney sweeps in Florida?

Yes.

Wait, that's not what I meant. Do not distort my answer. Lemme try again.

Gainesville. There's probably a guy who shovels snow off of the sidewalks.

[Saorsa]

As long as you are looking for work, you can collect unemployment.

[Tom Ray]

"ok, with you" because you get to prattle on and on about what you meant, what you said, what we are supposed to assume and what you claim someone erroneously assumed...
take jeff's advise and drop it. you said "yes" to the "are they different" question...i don't need to assume you meant anything other than yes.

It was a bad hypothetical question. Wait, that's redundant. Sometimes.

[Spatial Ed]

nice job with the water-muddy'ers in the "drone" thread, btw. A little bit of knowledge goes a long way; a lot of knowledge goes a long way in style.

Thanks, I'm still amazed at how much misinformation there is out there on UAVs and how people's perceptions are they are these automated, unthinking drones that are programed to kill and we send them out to go hunt on their own. WOW!

The reality is they are just airplanes, with human pilots flying them and human eyes looking through the cameras and humans leaders making decisions and human lawyers (yes there are even UAV lawyers) to review the decisions. ALL exactly like any manned platform would do to go through a strike on a HVT. Even fighter pilots are looking through cameras from 20,000 feet to see the target - so what difference does it make if they are in the cockpit over shitholestan or on the ground in Las Vegas? UAV cameras are typically much better anyway. The point is there is still a human in the cockpit actively running the show and pulling the trigger - so whether he/she is overhead or 7000 miles away is somewhat irrelevant.

Just think about the potential for neighborhood watch captains to be able to stalk unarmed teenagers from the comfort of their trucks with lethal civilian UAVs. Of course, Florida would need to amend the Stand Your Ground law to cover aerial attacks. Hard to stand your ground when you are hovering. Rename it, Stand your Airspace, or something similar.

[Sol Rosenberg]

[Mike G]

Do they have SYG laws in Texas?
This guy felt he was standing his ground too....

[JBSF]

Do they have SYG laws in Texas?
This guy felt he was standing his ground too....

I think that was a fairly clear case of provocation on the shooters part. There are a couple of areas where he is in jeopardy: 1) he seems to be clearly brandishing a weapon (which is a big no no) towards unarmed people. Even if he felt threatened, the confrontation was over after they backed off. SYG was NEVER intended to allow you to continue to provoke an incident. 2) Its hard to see what happened as the camera jerked when the shots were fired. Did he drop the camera as he shot - or did someone jump hom from behind and he fired in SD?

I think the problem here is that EVERYONE on both sides of the debate are misunderstanding what SYG REALLY means. SYG does NOT mean that you get to stand on that piece of ground indefinitely while holding off and/or provoking assailants. It means that if you are attacked or legitimately fear for your life - you can defend yourself without the requirement to first retreat. However, once the confrontation is over and the danger has passed - I believe you have a legal and moral responisbility to exit the scene. THAT is what SYG means.

Just because some gun owners are using the concept incorrectly doesn't mean the law itself is wrong or invalid.

[Tom Ray]

Do they have SYG laws in Texas?
This guy felt he was standing his ground too....

They evidently have clueless reporters...

Texas’ “Castle Doctrine” is similar to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law because it says that gun owners no longer have a “duty to retreat.”

Idiots.

Castle Doctrine means no duty to retreat within your castle, or home if you don't have ramparts on yours.

SYG means no duty to retreat in any place other than within your castle where you have a right to be.

This incident in a driveway seems to me unlikely to be covered by either if it occurred in Florida. Look at the end of the above sentence. Did he have a right to trespass into the neighbor's driveway? I doubt it. SYG doesn't apply. He wasn't in the home, so neither does the Castle Doctrine.

Bottom line: you can't stand your ground on your neighbor's property. That would be his ground. So in addition to the fact that he provoked the situation, this guy has no self defense claim if Texas laws are like FL laws because he had no right to be where he was.

[JBSF]

Do they have SYG laws in Texas?
This guy felt he was standing his ground too....

They evidently have clueless reporters...

Texas' "Castle Doctrine" is similar to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law because it says that gun owners no longer have a "duty to retreat."

Idiots.

Castle Doctrine means no duty to retreat within your castle, or home if you don't have ramparts on yours.

SYG means no duty to retreat in any place other than within your castle where you have a right to be.

This incident in a driveway seems to me unlikely to be covered by either if it occurred in Florida. Look at the end of the above sentence. Did he have a right to trespass into the neighbor's driveway? I doubt it. SYG doesn't apply. He wasn't in the home, so neither does the Castle Doctrine.

Bottom line: you can't stand your ground on your neighbor's property. That would be his ground. So in addition to the fact that he provoked the situation, this guy has no self defense claim if Texas laws are like FL laws because he had no right to be where he was.

I agree with you Tom, but the only sticking point was I don't think he was actually IN the neighbor's driveway. I could be wrong, but it looked like he was on the sidewalk in front of the house - so technically a public easment. Still no justification for SYG based on the incident I witnessed on tape. That one to me seems a much clearer case of provocation than Zimmerman and I think in the end his own tape is going to hang him.

[Tom Ray]

You're right, Jeff. I had only read the article and did not watch the video, but you're right that it appears to be public space.

Standing there pointing a camera at drunk guys who are holding their hands up and saying, "I'm in fear for my life" is not very persuasive at all to me. You're probably right that the tape will hang him.

[Mark K]

Seems to me he was legitimately afraid. Those guys should have gone in and shut off the music like they were told by a man with a gun. Instead, they talked shit to him, like standing in their own driveway gave them the right to ignore his fear. Anybody that mouths off to a man with a gun has to be considered crazy enough to do anything.

Looks to me he's got a hell of a case for SYG. He had no duty to retreat.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Seems to me he was legitimately afraid. Those guys should have gone in and shut off the music like they were told by a man with a gun. Instead, they talked shit to him, like standing in their own driveway gave them the right to ignore his fear. Anybody that mouths off to a man with a gun has to be considered crazy enough to do anything.

Looks to me he's got a hell of a case for SYG. He had no duty to retreat.

They would have been in a much better legal position if the guy was carrying a machete instead of a gun.


Interesting article about the procedures involved in making a Stand Your Ground defense.

[Mark K]

It gives you two chances to get let off, but it seems to me that even if it goes to trial, the jury has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter was not afraid.

[Tom Ray]

Interesting article about the procedures involved in making a Stand Your Ground defense.

The law gives defense lawyers "two bites at the apple," Schwartzreich said. "You can ask the judge for immunity, and you can argue the 'stand your ground' law with the jury."

I thought they had to ask commentators for immunity?

The reason we have the law is that people who legitimately defended themselves wound up spending months facing a possible murder charge before being cleared. A bipartisan majority of our legislators thought this a bad thing and decided to change it. Often, that's a good thing for everyone because...

The Tampa Bay Times did an interesting analysis of almost 200 SYG cases

Often, the self-defense circumstances were evident: A person was being robbed or beaten.

[Saorsa]

Interesting article about the procedures involved in making a Stand Your Ground defense.

The law gives defense lawyers "two bites at the apple," Schwartzreich said. "You can ask the judge for immunity, and you can argue the 'stand your ground' law with the jury."

I thought they had to ask commentators for immunity?

The reason we have the law is that people who legitimately defended themselves wound up spending months facing a possible murder charge before being cleared. A bipartisan majority of our legislators thought this a bad thing and decided to change it. Often, that's a good thing for everyone because...

The Tampa Bay Times did an interesting analysis of almost 200 SYG cases

Often, the self-defense circumstances were evident: A person was being robbed or beaten.

A warning shot is NOT standing your ground.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

Not SYG, but, justifiable?

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

[Sol Rosenberg]

Not SYG, but, justifiable?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/justice/texas-abuser-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Absolutely.

[Tom Ray]

Not SYG, but, justifiable?

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Asked whether they would press charges against the father, the sheriff responded, "You have a right to defend your daughter. He acted in defense of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."

Waiting for the investigation and the DA and the grand jury to decide his fate should help take his mind off seeing his 4 year old daughter get fucked. No reason to take those worries off his mind and leave him suffering with only the crime on his mind. SYG laws would really suck for this guy.

[Mark K]

It's the same under SYG. The police do not make the decision, they just kick ass and take names in our system of law.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

It's the same under SYG. The police do not make the decision, they just kick ass and take names in our system of law.

Am I mistaken in my recollection that this is what happened w/Zimmerman? He was detained, interviewed, and the DA decided at the time not to charge.

The resulting public disagreement w/the DA's decision is what has us in the discussion now, isn't it?

[Saorsa]

It's the same under SYG. The police do not make the decision, they just kick ass and take names in our system of law.

Am I mistaken in my recollection that this is what happened w/Zimmerman? He was detained, interviewed, and the DA decided at the time not to charge.

The resulting public disagreement w/the DA's decision is what has us in the discussion now, isn't it?

Yeah, the governor demanded a do over.

[Sol Rosenberg]

It's the same under SYG. The police do not make the decision, they just kick ass and take names in our system of law.

Am I mistaken in my recollection that this is what happened w/Zimmerman? He was detained, interviewed, and the DA decided at the time not to charge.

The resulting public disagreement w/the DA's decision is what has us in the discussion now, isn't it?

It was exactly like the Zimmerman case, except that this was inside the family house, and the dead guy was molesting the live guy's daughter, there is a live witness to substantiate every horrible detail, the live guy never said that he feared for his life, but he did say that he did not mean to kill the dead guy, and the sheriff is quoted as saying "Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."

Other than those things, it is exactly like the incident in which Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

It's the same under SYG. The police do not make the decision, they just kick ass and take names in our system of law.

Am I mistaken in my recollection that this is what happened w/Zimmerman? He was detained, interviewed, and the DA decided at the time not to charge.

The resulting public disagreement w/the DA's decision is what has us in the discussion now, isn't it?

It was exactly like the Zimmerman case, except that this was inside the family house, and the dead guy was molesting the live guy's daughter, there is a live witness to substantiate every horrible detail, the live guy never said that he feared for his life, but he did say that he did not mean to kill the dead guy, and the sheriff is quoted as saying "Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."

Other than those things, it is exactly like the incident in which Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

Sol - you're stretching the question a bit - I didn't intend at all, and said nothing that could be construed as equating the circumstances of the Martin/Zimmerman case to this one - OTHER than the process that was followed post incident.

My point, simply put, is that there are times that killing someone else is justified - and in the TX case, you agreed. The law was followed in the Martin/Zimmerman case - and emotional displeasure w/the circumstances and outcome of that process is what resulted in Zimmerman being charged.

I sincerely hope that in each case, rational heads are permitted to make the right decision based upon the facts of the case - and that it's not decided by emotion. Unjustly covering for favored friends is just as bad as convening lynch mobs IMHO - and I'd not want to be part of either one.

[Saorsa]

It's the same under SYG. The police do not make the decision, they just kick ass and take names in our system of law.

Am I mistaken in my recollection that this is what happened w/Zimmerman? He was detained, interviewed, and the DA decided at the time not to charge.

The resulting public disagreement w/the DA's decision is what has us in the discussion now, isn't it?

It was exactly like the Zimmerman case, except that this was inside the family house, and the dead guy was molesting the live guy's daughter, there is a live witness to substantiate every horrible detail, the live guy never said that he feared for his life, but he did say that he did not mean to kill the dead guy, and the sheriff is quoted as saying "Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."

Other than those things, it is exactly like the incident in which Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

Except the do-over thingy.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Sol - you're stretching the question a bit - I didn't intend at all, and said nothing that could be construed as equating the circumstances of the Martin/Zimmerman case to this one - OTHER than the process that was followed post incident.

My point, simply put, is that there are times that killing someone else is justified - and in the TX case, you agreed. The law was followed in the Martin/Zimmerman case - and emotional displeasure w/the circumstances and outcome of that process is what resulted in Zimmerman being charged.

I sincerely hope that in each case, rational heads are permitted to make the right decision based upon the facts of the case - and that it's not decided by emotion. Unjustly covering for favored friends is just as bad as convening lynch mobs IMHO - and I'd not want to be part of either one.

I just cannot equate the two cases. In this case, a man is dead; the man who killed him says that he was doing something wrong to a third person, (who is alive to substantiate the claim) and says that he did not intend to use deadly force. I have no problem with that case not being in front of a jury.

In the other case, a child is dead, the man who admits to killing him claims that he was doing something wrong to him, that he was in fear for his life, and that he intended to kill to protect himself, but there is no sure corroboration of the story. That strikes me as exactly the kind of matter that belongs in front of a jury, especially now that we have heard about the other case, where we learned that people are being taught to use the proper buzz words to indicate that they are in fear. I disagree with the original State Attorney's decision not to charge him. This whole case is a slippery slope that a jury should sort out.

[Mark K]

It's the same under SYG. The police do not make the decision, they just kick ass and take names in our system of law.

Am I mistaken in my recollection that this is what happened w/Zimmerman? He was detained, interviewed, and the DA decided at the time not to charge.

The resulting public disagreement w/the DA's decision is what has us in the discussion now, isn't it?

I was just commenting on what Tom stated, should have quoted him to make that clear.

As with Zimmerman, I guess, there is no reason to expect absolution from the police at the scene when there is a dead body, SYG or no SYG. The officers comment Tom quoted is a poor foundation for outrage.