America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 months ago by El Roberto. 927 replies replies.
19 Pages<123456789>»
Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman/Sanford, FL...
FuzzNJ Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
TMCTLT wrote:
Ya people like Al and Jesse who are only looking out for her best interest......LMAO.
I'm certain neither will get a cut.......Whistle



You wouldn't be the same person who just said innocent before proven guilty are you? Couldn't be. It's just too obvious an idiotic double standard. Crap:

TMCTLT wrote:
Yupper....innocent until proven guilty, at least that's the way it's suppose to go......


It was you. Wow. Now go ahead and call me another name.
HockeyDad Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
^

********

Happy now?!
FuzzNJ Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
Of course you don't trust the cops!

You need to watch Law & Order......they explain it at the beginning.....we got the police and the district attorneys. That is how the legal system works. I don't think a racially motivated lynch mob has legal standing to present to the grand jury.



This wasn't even being brought to the grand jury until the 'mob' demanded it.
bloody spaniard Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 37,922
HockeyDad wrote:
You might be basque. You blew this thread up!


LOL!!! Btw, I may have some Catalan afterall now that I think about it- mom's from Barcelona... Jeeeezzze.
I gotta think before I post.
Brick wall d'oh!


Ok, on with the show.
The jester departs...Frying pan
ZRX1200 Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 27,724
Nice work dad!
TMCTLT Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
[quote=FuzzNJ]You wouldn't be the same person who just said innocent before proven guilty are you? Couldn't be. It's just too obvious an idiotic double standard. Crap:


both of these **** have a history of this **** and apparently everyone but YOU knows it...this is standard practice for these "race baiters"
Buckwheat Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 6,915
ZRX1200 wrote:
.......frigging country is filled with idiots on all sides.



Nailhead...you hit it. fog
FuzzNJ Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
TMCTLT wrote:
[quote=FuzzNJ]You wouldn't be the same person who just said innocent before proven guilty are you? Couldn't be. It's just too obvious an idiotic double standard. Crap:


both of these **** have a history of this **** and apparently everyone but YOU knows it...this is standard practice for these "race baiters"


No explanation needed. It's obvious what you are motivated by. To say that there is a 'history' of Sharpton and Jackson to make money off of the people they focus on with merchandise is BS. Simply not true. You make a past history and accuse this woman of something on that made up crap and then demand that we wait for more facts on the shooting? It's so illogical it can only be motivated by prejudice.
bloody spaniard Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 37,922
ZRX1200 wrote:
Nice work dad!



Love you too, son.
...and your real mom was Negro/Peruvian/White btw. Glad I got that off my chest.d'oh!
HockeyDad Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
FuzzNJ wrote:
No explanation needed. It's obvious what you are motivated by. To say that there is a 'history' of Sharpton and Jackson to make money off of the people they focus on with merchandise is BS. Simply not true. You make a past history and accuse this woman of something on that made up crap and then demand that we wait for more facts on the shooting? It's so illogical it can only be motivated by prejudice.




RACE CARD!
rfenst Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
HockeyDad wrote:
I'm waiting for the police investigation to conclude before releasing my outrage.



Ding! Ding! Ding!!!
Laies and gentlemen, we have the winning post!!!
rfenst Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
TMCTLT wrote:
[quote=FuzzNJ]... both of these **** have a history of this **** and apparently everyone but YOU knows it...this is standard practice for these "race baiters"


I tend to agree. But, I also believe there is some important social benefit to their extremism that goes unnoticed. At the very least, a minority group "feels" it has spokes people advocating their concerns. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. It also helps raise issues in the media for all Americans to consider- like this very case. Whether one agrees with what they have to say and what they do or not, we all benefit in some way from their activities in the long run .
ZRX1200 Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 27,724
So much fun on the ride to the finish.
FuzzNJ Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
rfenst wrote:
Ding! Ding! Ding!!!
Laies and gentlemen, we have the winning post!!!


The investigation had been done already. It was determined that it was self-defense. The case is only open again now because the Justice Department started looking into it and the 'mob' demanded it. It wasn't even going to the grand jury.
ZRX1200 Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 27,724
Robert then having a vocal rep is fine, the media soft pawing them constantly is the part the tends to piss me off. Jackson is a bitter fool and Sharpton is a clever dirty POS.
dubleuhb Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 10,899
FuzzNJ wrote:
No explanation needed. It's obvious what you are motivated by. To say that there is a 'history' of Sharpton and Jackson to make money off of the people they focus on with merchandise is BS. Simply not true. You make a past history and accuse this woman of something on that made up crap and then demand that we wait for more facts on the shooting? It's so illogical it can only be motivated by prejudice.

Nice leap, you can't seriously believe that, or maybe you could.Frying pan
TMCTLT Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
FuzzNJ wrote:
The investigation had been done already. It was determined that it was self-defense. The case is only open again now because the Justice Department started looking into it and the 'mob' demanded it. It wasn't even going to the grand jury.



Yes that's right.....and the Justice Dept. Is only looking into it because the Prez told them to......after all " If the president had a son " he would look like Trayvon". What a load of CRAP......Brick wall And the mob part just comes with the territory.....
FuzzNJ Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
RACE CARD!


That 'card' was played long before my post.
FuzzNJ Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
TMCTLT wrote:
Yes that's right.....and the Justice Dept. Is only looking into it because the Prez told them to......after all " If the president had a son " he would look like Trayvon". What a load of CRAP......Brick wall And the mob part just comes with the territory.....


And . . . . . thanks for continuing to show just how right I am.
TMCTLT Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
FuzzNJ wrote:
And . . . . . thanks for continuing to show just how right I am.



About what you moron? They had already found the man NOT GUILTY!!! From the president on down this IS being turned in to a racially motivated incident...period


On a separate note, anyone ever check out Fuzz's profile? He doesn't have one.....no gender specified and by his choice of words for another post...." ick " I'm betting he's a GAL.......anyone??
FuzzNJ Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
TMCTLT wrote:
About what you moron? They had already found the man NOT GUILTY!!! From the president on down this IS being turned in to a racially motivated incident...period


Found 'NOT GUILTY'? lmao. Just fyi, last time I direct a post to you.


I'm sure you will say you are happy about that.
TMCTLT Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
FuzzNJ wrote:
Found 'NOT GUILTY'? lmao. Just fyi, last time I direct a post to you.


I'm sure you will say you are happy about that.



I understand it's gets frustrating when your just wrong.........fog
rfenst Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
FuzzNJ wrote:
The investigation had been done already. It was determined that it was self-defense. The case is only open again now because the Justice Department started looking into it and the 'mob' demanded it. It wasn't even going to the grand jury.


Autopsy report and details of findings have NOT been released. Feds are still investigating. Special prosecutor from another part of the state, appointed by the governor, just got the case. Cops may have completed their investigation at the scene, but I will bet there is a lot more info to come out: drug screen, photos of the scene and both Zimmerman and Trayvon, witness statement(s), 911 tapes, verification whether the person screaming for help was Zimmerman or Trayvon, etc. etc. Some of this stuff may not come out for a long time for strategic reasons. It is only up to the police whether to arrest right then and there. The decision to prosecute belongs solely within the discretion of the prosecutor. I think I said it in my first post. I don't think the investigation is complete.








(Oh, and btw, you are an ignorant slut, idiot, ass hole, jerk, and moron- and that proves I am right!!!)
rfenst Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
TMCTLT wrote:
On a separate note, anyone ever check out Fuzz's profile? He doesn't have one.....no gender specified and by his choice of words for another post...." ick " I'm betting he's a GAL.......anyone??


Ad homonym abusive!!!
FuzzNJ Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
rfenst wrote:
Autopsy report and details of findings have NOT been released. Feds are still investigating. Special prosecutor from another part of the state, appointed by the governor, just got the case. Cops may have completed their investigation at the scene, but I will bet there is a lot more info to come out: drug screen, photos of the scene and both Zimmerman and Trayvon, witness statement(s), 911 tapes, verification whether the person screaming for help was Zimmerman or Trayvon, etc. etc. Some of this stuff may not come out for a long time for strategic reasons. It is only up to the police whether to arrest right then and there. The decision to prosecute belongs solely within the discretion of the prosecutor. I think I said it in my first post. I don't think the investigation is complete.








(Oh, and btw, you are an ignorant slut, idiot, ass hole, jerk, and moron- and that proves I am right!!!)


Yes. You are correct that there is a lot left to be done. But the point is the DA or whomever dealt with this at the prosecutor's office did not refer the case to a grand jury. The investigation on whether or not it was justified self defense had already been determined. With the pressure from the feds and others that question is now being asked again.
Rclay Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
Rfenst - what is confusing about my previous post? The three previously mentioned "reverends" are tragedy vultures. They show up after the fact a stir up anger and racial division, get themselves on TV, take ownership of something they have nothing to do with, & pick over the remains. I want to know if they "fund raise" at these tragedies.
TMCTLT Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
rfenst wrote:
Ad homonym abusive!!!



How did we as a society EVER get by before attorneys came along?? It's unfortunate that your profession has done every bit as much to bring us to where we are as a society today as any other source, but your all very eloquent about it......Applause
herfidore Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 02-21-2008
Posts: 4,001
TMCTLT wrote:
About what you moron? They had already found the man NOT GUILTY!!! From the president on down this IS being turned in to a racially motivated incident...period


On a separate note, anyone ever check out Fuzz's profile? He doesn't have one.....no gender specified and by his choice of words for another post...." ick " I'm betting he's a GAL.......anyone??



Found NOT Guilty! HAHA. This post would be laughable if it weren't just so sad. And the rest of it, well again, just sad.
HockeyDad Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
TMCTLT wrote:
I understand it's gets frustrating when your just wrong.........fog




He put you on "talk to the hand" probation!
TMCTLT Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
HockeyDad wrote:
He put you on "talk to the hand" probation!



That I can live with......
ZRX1200 Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 27,724
OBAMA 2012 HOODIES NOW AVAILABLE FOR SALE!
rfenst Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
ZRX1200 wrote:
Robert then having a vocal rep is fine, the media soft pawing them constantly is the part the tends to piss me off. Jackson is a bitter fool and Sharpton is a clever dirty POS.


I agree. There was a day when Jackson, like it/him or not, was valuable to our society in certain ways. Sharpton started off like a chicken with its head cut-off. But, over time and with age, and with Jackson's influence in such decline, he has IMO, improved some- not enough for my liking, but some. Still not good or great, but I stand by my prior assertion that he spoke well and did a decent job for all in front of the Mayor and City Counsel.

As to the Media, I have stopped getting angry with it. It is a profit making, amorphous entity we have no direct control over. The only thing we can do is ignore some or all of it. The slants of the Media on the different sides of the socio-political issues are inevitable. IMO, it is best to obtain info from all of them, then try to make sense of it on my own. The only group that can possibly, really change it is its source of income- Advertisers.
TMCTLT Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
herfidore wrote:
Found NOT Guilty! HAHA. This post would be laughable if it weren't just so sad. And the rest of it, well again, just sad.




That's it? Nothing to add? Answer me something....why does the media portray this young man using a 3-4 yr old photo while putting his shooter in a dim light by showing a photo in an orange jump suit at his current age?
bloody spaniard Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 37,922
TMCTLT wrote:
That's it? Nothing to add? Answer me something....why does the media portray this young man using a 3-4 yr old photo while putting his shooter in a dim light by showing a photo in an orange jump suit at his current age?


good point
rfenst Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
TMCTLT wrote:
How did we as a society EVER get by before attorneys came along?? It's unfortunate that your profession has done every bit as much to bring us to where we are as a society today as any other source, but your all very eloquent about it......=d>


Oh, so now you turn around and attack and blame my profession and by extension myself? Ad homonym abusive!!!
Want to convey info, thoughts and ideas? Stop directly insulting people. You will gain a hell of a lot more credibility with substance over name calling.

BTW, what do you do for a living?
rfenst Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
bloody spaniard wrote:
good point


Great point.
Don't you just love how things can be so subtly slanted in life?
HockeyDad Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
Maybe the Hispanic community should just offer this Zimmerman guy up as a sacrifice to appease the mob.
MikeyRavioli Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 10-10-2005
Posts: 2,105
Robert, you are a lawyer and from Florida.
Can you clarify the "stand your ground" statute as it relates to this case?
Being a LI NY'er I do not think I fully understand it.

From my uneducated opinion it sounds like Zimmerman made some really terrible decisions, but there is no law against being a dumb ass.
And while it may seem like a terrible law, based on what I have read, it doesn't seem like a law was broken.
Of course its the survivor of the situation that gets to tell the tale but if he was actually arrested it would be the states burden to prove otherwise.
I don't see how the state can do that.
HockeyDad Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
Florida State Law 790 Weapons and Firearms
Florida State Law 776 Justifiable Use of Force
rfenst Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
Rclay wrote:
Rfenst - what is confusing about my previous post? The three previously mentioned "reverends" are tragedy vultures. They show up after the fact a stir up anger and racial division, get themselves on TV, take ownership of something they have nothing to do with, & pick over the remains. I want to know if they "fund raise" at these tragedies.


Nothing is confusing.
HockeyDad Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
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
(b) 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
(b) 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
(c) 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.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(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.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.
776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.
TMCTLT Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 11,402
rfenst wrote:
Oh, so now you turn around and attack and blame my profession and by extension myself? Ad homonym abusive!!!
Want to convey info, thoughts and ideas? Stop directly insulting people. You will gain a hell of a lot more credibility with substance over name calling.

BTW, what do you do for a living?




I'm an ignorant residential home remodeler Robert why? And your point is taken, I'll admit that folks like him tend to piss me off because no matter how hard you try to get them to see things logically it will never happen. Look I'm not gonna sit here and say that things have not been done in this country that were/are racially motivated and that they never happen anymore. But this stuff of the black community turning it into a black / white race thing and blowing it up into a National issue is just rediculous!! My apologies for not holding your profession in a brighter light as I am certain there are many good folks like yourself in the profession....like mine it's the rest who give it a bad rap.
MikeyRavioli Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 10-10-2005
Posts: 2,105
So to make a long story short.......

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.


The question to me is did he have reasonable belief that the kid was there to commit a home invasion robbery or burglary?
Its hard to prove he didn't.
HockeyDad Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
The "Stand Your Ground" law as coined by the media actually made pretty much just two changes to existing law.

1. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

2. You do not have a duty and obligation to retreat first before using force.


In some states, if you are attacked or even if an intruder is coming through your front door, your duty is to run out the back door if possible before defending yourself.
Stinkdyr Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 8,830
Can't we white-hispanic people and white-black people all just get along??


fog
HockeyDad Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
Stinkdyr wrote:
Can't we white-hispanic people and white-black people all just get along??


fog



No need to drag the whites into this!
BuckyB93 Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 6,883
MikeyRavioli wrote:
So to make a long story short.......

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.


The question to me is did he have reasonable belief that the kid was there to commit a home invasion robbery or burglary?
Its hard to prove he didn't.



WTF is that?
HockeyDad Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 34,468
BuckyB93 wrote:
WTF is that?



You can't throw bombs underhand in Florida. Only overhead motion is allowed.
rfenst Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 25,287
TMCTLT wrote:
I'm an ignorant residential home remodeler Robert why? And your point is taken, I'll admit that folks like him tend to piss me off because no matter how hard you try to get them to see things logically it will never happen. Look I'm not gonna sit here and say that things have not been done in this country that were/are racially motivated and that they never happen anymore. But this stuff of the black community turning it into a black / white race thing and blowing it up into a National issue is just rediculous!! My apologies for not holding your profession in a brighter light as I am certain there are many good folks like yourself in the profession....like mine it's the rest who give it a bad rap.


I was curious about what you do because it sometimes gives a contextual background to where people are "coming from". Also, certain professions have a negative stereotype that gets broadly applied to all individuals in that profession. This is, IMO, a form of non-racial/ethnic prejudice that many can relate to.

Don't let people who don't see things your way piss you off. Keep explaining until you conclude it is impossible for them to consider your point. And then, don't take it personally. At the same time, keep listening to their opposing opinion and keep your mind open. That keeps the discussion friendly and far more productive- at least that is the way I see it as one who spends a lot of time negotiating, debating and "arguing".



BuckyB93 Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 6,883
HockeyDad wrote:
You can't throw bombs underhand in Florida. Only overhead motion is allowed.



S#i+. Guess I have to resize my bombs then. If I have to lob all my bombs at the darkies and left wing mobs overhand, I'll need Tommy John surgery in no time.

{I wonder if ObamaCare covers Tommy John surgery?}
Users browsing this topic
Guest
19 Pages<123456789>»