3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,209
Fox News
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground
- Thread starter This is The End
- Start date
Fox News
Thermal
August Member
Can I show you the new line of Glocks?
Thermal
August Member
Why should their legal marital status affect anything?
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
It would appear that question is better asked to the person who keeps claiming it, would it not?
It would appear that the person who keeps claiming it is raising it as some sort of mitigation for or an excuse for the fact that attacker sent the victim sprawling on the concrete (which he appears to believe did not happen at all or something, got lost with all the factual errors being made).
Thermal
August Member
S/he is saying spouse as a covienient shorthand for 'domestic/romantic partner and mother of his children'. Why would you feel the need to correct this inconsequential detail?
rdwight
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 1,288
Can anyone that is defending the shooting explain to my why there are 2 parts to the SYG law in Florida, one that includes deadly force and one that does not? If any physical altercation can 'reasonably' allow deadly force, why were they segmented out separately? This seems like something that had a purpose that is no longer actually followed.
I hate this 'could have' or 'what if' justifications. Objectively looking at the law, there is a distinction and one that really should be followed. If someone has a weapon, is continuing an assault or something of that nature, than that is a situation where the second portion of SYG should be applied.
A situation like this where a single shove/punch/kick etc has occurred but no further attack is continuing, no weapon is brandished etc, the justification that 'maybe he was about to strike/he could have a gun/blah blah blah' nonsense obviously doesn't apply. A deadly threat is not imminent, no action at this point reaches a level beyond simple battery.
I hate this 'could have' or 'what if' justifications. Objectively looking at the law, there is a distinction and one that really should be followed. If someone has a weapon, is continuing an assault or something of that nature, than that is a situation where the second portion of SYG should be applied.
A situation like this where a single shove/punch/kick etc has occurred but no further attack is continuing, no weapon is brandished etc, the justification that 'maybe he was about to strike/he could have a gun/blah blah blah' nonsense obviously doesn't apply. A deadly threat is not imminent, no action at this point reaches a level beyond simple battery.
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
Discrediting the larger point by focusing on the minutiae.
It is really all there is at this point. We are down to leasing degrees and legal relationships because dealing with the plain truth got too hard after it was admitted: the attack was over, as any reasonable person can see form the video evidence.
Wait, if the woman needs protecting why is she getting out of the car seconds before the "push"?
I hope they check her cel phone records, I would not be surprised if she called boyfriend to come out and do a beat down on this annoying MF.
Does shoving someone to the ground constituit felony assault?
I hope they check her cel phone records, I would not be surprised if she called boyfriend to come out and do a beat down on this annoying MF.
Does shoving someone to the ground constituit felony assault?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,285
That is not true. The sheriff is wrong. They would arrest him.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Actually, as shown repeatedly in this thread, it is symptomatic of a much larger issue with people deliberately fudging and coloring the facts, so much so that we had someone denying that the shooter ended up sprawled on the ground.
In fact, i should not have to be the one to point this out.
When someone is deliberately repeating false statements as facts, don't be shy: step up and say something.
Like here: your subjective declaration that the "attack was over" is not a fact, it might be an opinion, it certainly is wrong, but not a fact.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,285
That is not the relevant legal standard.
I was relying entirely on your reporting for that fact. Please tell me I can continue to do so.
It is if you ignore enough of the words. Just gloss over them. It's easy.
You got it right already. Why does this thread continue?
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Because some of us think it is funny when people try to deliberately mislead by taking a clause out of context.
WorldStar style stomping was stopped by a guy with a gun
Thermal
August Member
Speculation, but if she was feeling threatened and felt the severity of the threat was escalating, wouldn't being out of the car be more advantageous than being in it? Sitting duck and whatnot.
Thermal
August Member
You followed that first sentence with the second???
You need a permanent display in the Guggenheim for talent of this magnitude.
You keep saying this without any evidence that this was the case.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
It is a direct inference from the video.