Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[Suddenly]

In Florida, merely entering the building is considered burglary. You don't have to take anything or attempt to take anything. The mere fact of stealthily entering the building makes you a burglar.

That doesn't appear to be precisely true according to the below, I'll illustrate here in a second what I mean...

Burglary also applies to cars in Florida.

As I recall they maybe have a seperate statute? I do recall O.J. being charged and acquitted of burglary of an automobile a few years ago...

810.07 Prima facie evidence of intent.--

(1) In a trial on the charge of burglary, proof of the entering of such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense.

(2) In a trial on the charge of attempted burglary, proof of the attempt to enter such structure or conveyance at any time stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of attempting to enter with intent to commit an offense.

Reading closely, this suggests that the intent to commit an offense therein is still an element of burglary in Florida. What this statue does is allow the entry itself to suffice as proof of the intent to commit an offense, which as a practical matter shifts the burden to the defense to produce evidence otherwise, that maybe the defendant just wanted to get out of the rain.

So they still have to prove it, but the legislature gives them a hand by making the entry serve as evidence of intent. "Prima Facie Evidence" can be loosely translated into English as "Evidence good enough to not require an appeals court to overturn the verdict for lack of evidence if the jury buys it and convicts."

Im my State, unlike Florida, the state has to come up with something that indicates intent in addition to the entry. Usually this isn't a problem, but sometimes it is important. Consider a case where some stupid kid broke into a house and the only real defense was that he did it just for fun (thus no intent to commit a further crime). If the state has trouble identifying anything stolen, or any other proof of intent to commit a crime while inside, they will struggle to meet their burden to prove a prima facie case, that is supply evidence competent to prove all the elements of a burglary. If they cannot meet this burden, a judge will dismiss after the state's portion of the case.

In Florida, the state has no such problem. The break in is proof of intent enough to meet the burden, so it is up to the defendant to present counter-evidence to convince a jury that intent is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[crimresearch]

I wondered how long it would be between the time that Shanek ran away, and Suddenly's sock puppet showed up trying to pass lawyering off as honesty.

"A punch in the nose can be aggrevated assault under that definition:"

No ◊◊◊◊ Sock...did you come up with that all on your own, or did you have to pay a law school to teach you the painfully obvious?
A punch in the nose can be anything from homicide to a legal sporting event, depending on the outcome and circumstances.

Your point?


Not correct as a general statement, looking to basic common law.

Which of course, is again beside the point, since it was a categorical explanation, and a correct one in that context.

Are you saying that the offer to perform a harmful or offensive contact can never be categorized as any form of assault?
Or are you saying that whenever *no* harmful or offensive touching takes place, that it is categorized as a battery?

Or are you just being duplicitious about the basics?


Ah, yes, it wouldn't be a real crimresearch legal argument without an ill-defined and naked claim of expertise.

And it wouldn't be a fantasy without the sock puppet pretending that I actually made such a claim.
Good thing that everyone else can scroll up and read the actual exchange between Shanek attacking my professional reputation, and my pointing out the obvious.

Say Sock...when you took that psych exam that the state bar requires before letting you take people's lives in your hands, what did it say...

Oh, wait a minute, there *is* no screening for psychopathy among lawyers...just among cops.

Suddenly everything starts to make perfect sense.

 

[shanek]

A man successfully defends himself, his son, and incidentally makes the neighborhood a lot safer as two armed robbers are taken out of circulation.

Is it cool? Well, a man did die. Then again, had he been allowed to continue his crime spree, odds are someone would have died sooner or later, and it's a good chance it would have been an innocent.

Naturally Shanek would be interested in this article.

I meant it was cool that the man will not be persecuted for defending himself. Of course it would be more desirable for him not to have ever even been put in that position, but the fact is that crime has always been with us and always will be.

 

[Suddenly]

I wondered how long it would be between the time that Shanek ran away, and Suddenly's sock puppet showed up trying to pass lawyering off as honesty.

"A punch in the nose can be aggrevated assault under that definition:"

No ◊◊◊◊ Sock...did you come up with that all on your own, or did you have to pay a law school to teach you the painfully obvious?
A punch in the nose can be anything from homicide to a legal sporting event, depending on the outcome and circumstances.

Your point?

Just curious to see if I was on ignore. Guess not. Plus, you are the one that said it wasn't w/r/t your attack on shanek on the same point, strongly suggested you disagreed with him, but I forgot that you are never wrong...

Not correct as a general statement, looking to basic common law.

Which of course, is again beside the point, since it was a categorical explanation, and a correct one in that context.

Are you saying that the offer to perform a harmful or offensive contact can never be categorized as any form of assault?

I gave the definition. A simple offer or threat, standing alone, is not an assault as you claimed. More is required, the bare minimmum that the threat can be carried out. This was explicitly mentioned in the previous post.

Or are you saying that whenever *no* harmful or offensive touching takes place, that it is categorized as a battery?

The plain text of this suggests that all situations where there is no "harmful or offensive" touching are batteries. That is absurd.

If you mean, can there be a battery without "harmful or offensive..." You are just mucking about with terms there.

I posted the defintion in general. A legal "expert" like yourself should be able to identify that these are common law doctrines and thus will vary in detail from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, somewimes because of judical decision, sometimes because the legislature encodes them. As a result, some specify "illegal" some "offensive" and so on.

Or are you just being duplicitious about the basics?

[ About a threat not being an assault? Not really. Threats are neither sufficent nor essential for an assault.

Ah, yes, it wouldn't be a real crimresearch legal argument without an ill-defined and naked claim of expertise.

And it wouldn't be a fantasy without the sock puppet pretending that I actually made such a claim.
Good thing that everyone else can scroll up and read the actual exchange between Shanek attacking my professional reputation, and my pointing out the obvious.

Is that not a claim? Just because you are easily put on tilt when anyone questions your level of expertise is just a deeper example.

Say Sock...when you took that psych exam that the state bar requires before letting you take people's lives in your hands, what did it say...

The extensive background check? I dunno. It appears nothing too alarming....

Oh, wait a minute, there *is* no screening for psychopathy among lawyers...just among cops.

Suddenly everything starts to make perfect sense.

What, your obsession with silly ad hominems?

Anyway, as much fun as it is to rattle your cage, I'll be likely letting this go as the real world beckons...

 

[shanek]

I don't think you have responded to my question about how you're cheating even when quoting yourself

As I have continually said, I specifically didn't use the word burglary, and I had thought people here would at least have been honest and intelligent enough to understand what was meant given that in the situation given they would be meeting an armed resident.

Silly me. I'll never give you credit for honesty and intelligence any more.

 

[shanek]

Who among us does that?

When did I attach any kind of "significance" to it, anyway? I just said that it was cool that he won't face persecution for defending himself, and asked for a link to the story.

This is why I have Claus the lying pseudo-skeptic on ignore. He is out to discredit me in any way he can, and no lie is too big, no twisting too much when it suits his agenda.

 

[shanek]

In Florida, merely entering the building is considered burglary. You don't have to take anything or attempt to take anything.

Bully for Florida. But when we're comparing numbers from the FBI, shouldn't we use the definition of burglary supplied by the FBI?

 

[shanek]

So as long as the attack was for the purpose of inflicting severe or exxagerated bodily injury, a punch in the nose can be aggrevated assault.

Actually, a punch in the nose can kill. It doesn't even have to be that hard; just at the right angle so that the nose breaks and the bone pushes up into the brain.

 

[Kerberos]

No, just that it's not worth responding to. Just as I didn't respond to Bjorn's post above yours since it's merely reiterating a point that I've already refuted.

I ran this through Bablefishs Shanek to English function and got: "I couldn't refute your or Bjorn's points. so I ignored them.

No, that was Kleck.

OK

The point of this discussion, and the subject of this entire thread, is the effect that people who are free to defend themselves without prosecution or persecution will have. I gave an example of that, and as I've shown, all of the statistics show that it works really well.

No Shanek the point of this thread was a specific law about self-defence, through ordinary thread drift it has spawned a discussion of gun laws in Mississippi, but that was not the original point of the discussion. Of course if you disagree you should feel free to quote the part of the OP that mentions jury’s in Mississippi. To insist that you thread drifting takes priority over mine, when you commented on my point, is simply the usual dishonesty we've all come to expect from you when you're backed into a corner.

Speaking of your statistics would you care to explain why did not include Burglary statistics from Mississippi, because "Burglaries are in a class of crime where "there is no force or threat of force against the victims."" and yet included Motor vehicle theft which according to the very same quote you posted in that post also doesn't include force? I mean it couldn’t be because Burglaries were higher and Motor vehicle theft was lower.
From you own post:
""In the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. " [Emphasis added.]

Nope, sorry, you don't get to move the goalposts or derail the thread. I know that's a favorite tactic employed when people start to lose the argument, but that doesn't make it right. The discussion is what it is. You want to talk about something else, start another thread.

Yes, as mentioned above. I've noticed you're fond of it.

 

[CFLarsen]

When did I attach any kind of "significance" to it, anyway? I just said that it was cool that he won't face persecution for defending himself, and asked for a link to the story.

Backpedalling.....backpedalling...

This is why I have Claus the lying pseudo-skeptic on ignore. He is out to discredit me in any way he can, and no lie is too big, no twisting too much when it suits his agenda.

And, since you have chosen to put this "lying pseudo-skeptic" on ignore, there is not a thing I could possibly say that could have any impact on your argumentation.

But, hey, I could be wrong....

 

[crimresearch]

"Actually, a punch in the nose can kill. It doesn't even have to be that hard; just at the right angle so that the nose breaks and the bone pushes up into the brain."



OK, I know when I've been had...there can't be anyone dumb enough to fall for this one, not even the JREF trolls.

 

[crimresearch]

Just curious to see if I was on ignore....

Anyway, as much fun as it is to rattle your cage, I'll be likely letting this go as the real world beckons... [/B]

Thanks for admitting that you had no other point, your forgeries and lies are noted in service of that trollage.

But don't let a bunch of skeptics chase you away with mere facts...

 

[shanek]

I ran this through Bablefishs Shanek to English function and got: "I couldn't refute your or Bjorn's points. so I ignored them.

The points in Bjorn's post are points I have refuted over and over and over again in this thread. You people do this to me all the time, and it's quite dishonest.

No Shanek the point of this thread was a specific law about self-defence,

Which basically results in people being able to use a gun in self-defense without fear of persecution.

through ordinary thread drift it has spawned a discussion of gun laws in Mississippi,

Because Mississippi is in a similar situation. That isn't "drift," it's examining the results of the very same effect. People had posted all sorts of FUD about what the law in Florida will do. Mississippi is a realistic example of what we can expect to happen.

but that was not the original point of the discussion. Of course if you disagree you should feel free to quote the part of the OP that mentions jury’s in Mississippi.

More intellectual dishonesty.

To insist that you thread drifting takes priority over mine, when you commented on my point, is simply the usual dishonesty we've all come to expect from you when you're backed into a corner.

No, it's because you moved the goalposts because you couldn't refute my points.

Speaking of your statistics would you care to explain why did not include Burglary statistics from Mississippi, because "Burglaries are in a class of crime where "there is no force or threat of force against the victims."" and yet included Motor vehicle theft which according to the very same quote you posted in that post also doesn't include force?

That was a mistake. Motor vehicle theft isn't relevant to my point, and you're right, I shouldn't have included it. Such happens sometimes when you're copying and pasting and deleting.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Actually, a punch in the nose can kill. It doesn't even have to be that hard; just at the right angle so that the nose breaks and the bone pushes up into the brain."

I think this statement might qualify you to win the JREF million if you can simply prove that such a bone exists.

 

[Bjorn]

The points in Bjorn's post are points I have refuted over and over and over again in this thread. You people do this to me all the time, and it's quite dishonest.

Have you ever wondered why?

 

[shanek]

I think this statement might qualify you to win the JREF million if you can simply prove that such a bone exists.

Actually, I looked it up, and I was mistaken. It isn't that the bone breaks and goes into the brain, it's that the nose breaks and causes the sinuses to fill with blood, resulting in death.

Still, the main point remains: a punch in the nose just the right way can kill you.

 

[shanek]

Have you ever wondered why?

Because you can't deal with the refutations? That's the only reason I can think of that someone would restate the claim over and over again with no regard for the arguments refuting it.

 

[Bjorn]

Because you can't deal with the refutations? That's the only reason I can think of that someone would restate the claim over and over again with no regard for the arguments refuting it.

I think "refute" is the wrong word - maybe you should say "argued against", or "discussed" ..... denying isn't refuting.

My asking "have you ever wondered why" was to your statement that "You people do this to me all the time, and it's quite dishonest" - I interpreted "you people" as lots of people.

So again: Have you ever wondered why?

 

[shanek]

I think "refute" is the wrong word - maybe you should say "argued against", or "discussed" ..... denying isn't refuting.

Call it whatever you like. I made points you never responded to.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, I looked it up, and I was mistaken. It isn't that the bone breaks and goes into the brain, it's that the nose breaks and causes the sinuses to fill with blood, resulting in death.

Still, the main point remains: a punch in the nose just the right way can kill you.

I doubt the blood in sinus "theory" as well. A punch in the nose rare, if ever, results in death. Even if it's done "the right way". I wonder if second hand smoke causes more death than nose punches.