Homeowner Shoots, Kills Intruder

[rd_kent]

CHANNELVIEW, Texas - A man shot and killed someone he said was a stranger trying to steal his belongings at his Channelview home, KPRC Local 2 reported.

A father in his 30s was home with his teenage daughter, who was sick. Harris County sheriff's deputies said he saw a red car pull up and he went outside to see what a stranger was doing on his family's property on Cedar Lane near Avenue C shortly before 4 p.m.
"The suspect approached him with a tire iron, so the homeowner pulls out his gun and orders him to stop. The suspect approached and the homeowner shot once. He was coming at him still, so the homeowner shoots again," said Sgt. Felipe Rivera of the Harris County Sheriff's Office.



Another fine example of an armed citizen defending himself, his family and his property from criminals. There is plenty more where that came from.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/101707dnmetintruder.347b80b.html

http://www.news4jax.com/news/13661941/detail.html

[napi21]

1. So what's wrong with what he did? I'd do thye same thing! nt

[rd_kent]

5. Nothing at all. I am posting this in defense of the 2nd Amendment.

[sharp_stick]

2. One from October 2007 and the other from July this year

Is that it?

These are from this week and a single Google News Search, just sayin. Nothing wrong with protecting yourself, unfortunately there are a lot of people too stupid to breed and they always seem to manage to hurt someone else.


http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-teen-accidentally-shot-by-friend,0,6827697.story

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=10859183&nav=0RY5bO8W

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13022063?source=most_viewed

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Accidental-Shooting-Wounds-Child/tOWnigd8iUOLEKSGq5eG9w.cspx

http://newstalkradiowhio.com/localnews/2009/08/father-arrested-in-5yearolds-a.html

http://www.gantdaily.com/news/43/ARTICLE/58298/2009-08-03.html

[rd_kent]

6. You are right about that!

The will never be a way to legislate stupidity. Because someone is stupid does not mean I should lose my 2A rights.

[sharesunited]

3. Something's wrong with this story. It sounds too contrived.

Car pulls up in the afternoon? Homeowner goes out with a gun to investigate? Driver is carrying a tire iron with intent to assault?

Let's dig a little deeper into this one to find out what REALLY was going on here.

[rd_kent]

7. OK, let me know what you find.

[iverglas]

11. hmm

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6937129<[br />

The homeowner confronted the man he says was taking items from his garage. During that fight, he ended up shooting that man.

According to the sheriff's department, no charges are pending and the case will be sent to a grand jury.

Investigators tell us the same homeowner dealt with burglars the day before, but it's unclear if the two cases are related.

They stole the crossbows, they came back for the cases.

Now, where I'm at, a crossbow is a prohibited weapon.

The idea of leaving crossbows lying around in a garage ... beggars belief.

[Peregrine Took]

4. We found a strange man sleeping on our downstairs sofa!

Turns out he was a drunken yuppie who was in the wrong identical building and identical apt. He "popped" the lock on the deck door, walked to the living room and flopped on the sofa.

Our little dog heard him flush the toilet when he awakened from his sleep to use the bathroom.

He left the keys for his BMW on the deck.

Glad we didn't SHOOT him - he was just a totally inebriated yuppie kid who was mortified the next day.

[PavePusher]

8. Was he walking towards you while brandishing a tire iron?

No? Then you are correct, no justification to shoot him. Simply call the police and keep an eye on him until they get there. Now, if he woke up and tried to harm you, that could have a different ending.

You have tried to compare two non-analogous situations.

[rd_kent]

9. HE should be glad you didnt shoot him.

I think its a bit different to find someone passed out on your couch and finding someone ransacking your belongings though.

[iverglas]

10. if you lived in Florida

or any of the other states that have followed suit with the "castle law" (complete misnomer) legislation, you could not have been prosecuted if you did shoot - and kill - him.

As long as you saw the evidence of forced entry, you would have benefited from two presumptions:

- that he had entered with the intention of committing a serious crime
- that you reasonably feared for your or someone else's life

These presumptions make it illegal to prosecute you if you use force, to the point of causing death. Even though both points would have been 100% false in your situation.

As far as I know, this vicious idiocy hasn't migrated to your state, but you'll want to watch out for it - or your neighbour will, anyhow!

[Statistical]

17. "These presumptions make it illegal to prosecute you if you use force" = false

Not true at all.

Presumption is just that a presumption of innocence.

There is nothing in any state CASTLE DOCTRINE that prevents a prosecutor from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2 presumptions are invalid.

Castle Doctrine simply shifts the burden of proof from the shooter (self defense must be proven to avoid homicide charge) to the prosecutor (intent must be proven to avoid incident being considered self defense).

Of course you are knowledgable enough to know that so you simply made a strawman to knock it down. Castle Doctrine = bad because it is a license to kill and no matter what you do you can never be prosecuted or it will be "illegal".

[iverglas]

21. get a fucking law degree

You may call my correct representation "false" WHEN YOU PROVE what you are saying.


Castle Doctrine simply shifts the burden of proof from the shooter (self defense must be proven to avoid homicide charge) to the prosecutor (intent must be proven to avoid incident being considered self defense).

I don't give a shit about the fucking "Castle Doctrine".

I was talking about the LAWS that I was talking about.

They create IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS. If you weren't here the sixty-two times this has been discussed already, that's your problem, not the viewing audience's.

Take your false accusations of falsehood and do something with them that will benefit the public.

[Statistical]

23. "They create IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS." in your mind but nowhere else.

There are many other laws that create a presumption of innocence and places the burden of proof on the prosecutor.

They create IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS.

Nothing in the FL statute states IRREUBTTABLE (caps or not).

Is it your contention that if I lived in Flordia and was caught on video tape, with a backup eye witness placing a gun to the head of an injured intruder telling him I am going to execute him because I don't like his race and then shoot him 10 times at point blank range the Prosecutor would say oh well the burden of proof is on me so I guess I will let this one go.

You are sad.

Flordia statute doesn't nothing more than place the burden of proof on the Prosecutor.

If Prosecutor can prove it was not self defense it will go to trial.
If the Prosecutor can't it won't.

Will some potential criminals go free as a result? Yes but our entire legal system is based on that premise. Our legal system lets thousands of criminals go free every day to reduce (but not eliminate) the likelyhood that an innocent person is wrongly convicted.

With the burden of proof on the shooter some will be wrongly convicted. Shifting the burden to the Prosecutor is the right thing to do.

[iverglas]

30. cite your authority

Flordia statute doesn't nothing more than place the burden of proof on the Prosecutor.
If Prosecutor can prove it was not self defense it will go to trial.
If the Prosecutor can't it won't.

Direct me to this law, and the relevant provision thereof.



You are sad.

You are sad, but also disgusting.


Because I can't stand arguing with ignoramuses, and have a natural urge to enlighten:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=189251&mesg_id=189549

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html
<emphasis in original>

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

... Under the old law, Lisa would have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality, that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

... It's Not True that the New Law Merely Aligns Florida with Other States

... That is probably more or less true when it comes to the legal standard governing use of deadly force outside the house. But it is very inaccurate when it comes to the legal standard governing killings inside of homes ... . Here, the new law has truly radical effects.

Why? Because the new law bulks up the old "castle" doctrine -- once a reasonable rule of law -- until it is a legal monstrosity: a legal Incredible Hulk.

and especially:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

If you post again in less than an hour, we will all know how little respect you have for anyone reading your uninformed words.


html fixed

[iverglas]

46. still reading?

It is good to educate yourself.

When you're done, I'll be waiting for directions to the portion of the legislation that substantiates your claims.

Or your retraction.

[iverglas]

67. Any substantiation for that claim yet?

I'll be back.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Yes you were talking about the "castle laws". Do you have a license to practice law in Florida?

[Statistical]

27. "Castle Laws" is that the statute covering the permits required before digging a moat? n/t

[iverglas]

29. blah blah yada yada yackety yack?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22castle+laws%22

[iverglas]

28. can you read yet, Dave?

Can you see the difference between "castle doctrine" and "castle laws"?

Do you really want to walk all unarmed into a dispute about the meaning of words, not to mention laws?

[Statistical]

32. Yeah one is made up and one is real.

There was self defense statutes (or as Florida defines them "Justified use of Force" statutes) based on the castle doctrine but there is no such thing as "castle laws".

Pretty bad a lawyer didn't know that. Also in reference to your other post a lawyer relying on the media. The friggin media for statutory definitions. Really? The media rarely gets anything right. "semiautomatic machineguns", "cop killer bullets", "assault rifles far powerful rounds", calling virtually every scary looking rifle an "assault weapon". The media which normally can't get the details of a story right if your "proof" of Castle Law.

The term "castle doctrine" is used to refer to the states that base self defense statutes on the legal concept arising from English Common Law that ones home is a place where one is protected from illegal trespass or violent crimes. There is no such thing as "castle law" at least not in the United States. The word "castle" doesn't appear in a single one of the 28 states that base their self defense statutes on the "Castle Doctrine" concept.

A portion of Florida's statute of Justified use of force for example:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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.

[iverglas]

35. too bad, so sad

(a) http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q="castle+laws"

(b) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

for the second time now.


I admire your copying and pasting skills.

Will you now identify the portion of the Florida legislation that supports your assertion?

[Statistical]

38. Because an incorrect word appears in google it is "proof"?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=holocaust+never+happened

By your "logic" the 544,000 references to the phrase "holocaust never happened" means the holocaust never happened?

[iverglas]

39. yeah, it is proof

Proof that a shorthand term is used by credible sources to describe something that actually exists.

Find me something along that line for your little "example".

[iverglas]

48. let me help you out

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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.

... (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.

Does that assist you?

I would certainly hope so.



html fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. I can read and easily tell that you are full of it. Here's a great example.

I don't give a shit about the fucking "Castle Doctrine".

I was talking about the LAWS that I was talking about.

in a previous post you wrote

or any of the other states that have followed suit with the "castle law" (complete misnomer) legislation


It's pretty easy to see that you and Statistical were actually talking about the exact same set of laws. You were obviously ignorant of the actual title of the statutes so you called them "castle laws" even putting them in quotes so as to acknowledge that wasn't technically the correct name. Then you act as if the "Castle Doctrine" had nothing to do with the laws you had ignorantly called the "castle laws". It's laughable and does the legal profession in Canada a huge disservice.

[iverglas]

57. do your research, chum

What is called "castle doctrine" in the United States of America has precisely FUCK ALL with the "Englishman's home is his castle" maxim it is portrayed as deriving from.

"Castle doctrine" is the misnomer, and like many misnomers used by the right wing it is used knowingly and intentionally in order to persuade the ignorant listener that it is something it is not.

And I won't play their game or dignify legalized murder by giving it cutesy names that make it sound like something honourable.

You know as well as I do that anyone who claims that "castle law" is not a recognized way of referring to these statutes is not speaking candidly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

Castle Doctrine in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law

'Castle law' arms Texas homeowners with right to shoot | News for ...
20 Jan 2008 ... But the spate of shootings begs the question: Did the castle law – which gives people the right to use whatever means necessary to protect ...
www.dallasnews.com/.../012008dnmetfightingback.6a8cbd.html

PA NEEDS A CASTLE LAW Petition
PA NEEDS A CASTLE LAW Petition, hosted at PetitionOnline.com.
www.petitiononline.com/PNACL/petition.html

The Castle Law
A site that describes the castle law and provides information concerning different states legislation. Also a place to purchase yard signs and window ...
www.protectedbythecastlelaw.com

The Castle Law
30 Jun 2009 ... The Castle Law is one of the most interesting Self-Defense laws that exists in the United States but is largely derived from the English ...
www.articlesbase.com/...articles/the-castle-law-1002404.html

RiteOn Blog: WILL MISSOURIANS GET A NEW CASTLE LAW THIS YEAR?
A committee of the Missouri House debated House Bill 189 yesterday. According to an Article published in the Kansas City Star (last year) one aspect of last ...
riteon.typepad.com/riteon_blog/2007/.../will_missourian.html

John Lott's Website: An interesting older article on the Castle Law's enforcement in Texas
'Castle law' arms Texas homeowners with right to shoot ... Certainly the castle law has become a high-profile addition to the Texas statutes ...
johnrlott.blogspot.com/.../interesting-older-article-on-castle.html


OMIDOG!!! It's JOHN LOTT!!!! Recognized expert in all things gun!!!!!

Now you go right there -- here's the url --
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/01/interesting-older-article-on-castle.html
-- and tell him right off right now.


You were obviously ignorant of the actual title of the statutes so you called them "castle laws" even putting them in quotes so as to acknowledge that wasn't technically the correct name.

The statutes are generally called things like "Penal Code" or "Penal Law" or "Criminal Code", I would expect. Different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What the fuck is to be ignorant of? Who doesn't know that??


Then you act as if the "Castle Doctrine" had nothing to do with the laws you had ignorantly called the "castle laws".

What the christ are you talking about?

READ:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

First, imagine Lisa is attacked by Bob in her own home. She could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her. Moreover, even if Bob was a burglar interested only in her property and she had the option of running outside of her house to safety, she could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her if she did not run away. Put simply, she is allowed to "stand her ground."

This is known as the "castle doctrine" -- based on the maxim that "One's home is one's castle" -- and it governs the rules of self-defense for criminal and tort law in almost every state.

... How the New "Stand Your Ground" Law
Changed the "Castle" Doctrine

... Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

So let's go back to Lisa and Bob. Under the old law, Lisa would have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality, that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

Do you get it AT ALL?

Perverted though the "castle doctrine" itself is, these laws are NOT "castle doctrine". They are licences to murder.


This is the author of that:

Anthony J. Sebok, a FindLaw columnist, is a Professor at Brooklyn Law School. His other columns on tort issues may be found in the archive of his columns on this site.

One o' yr real 'Murikan real lawyers.

His email address is at that webpage. Give him a shout. Let me know how it works out for you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. How about you do yours? We were talking about Florida in particular not Texas, Penn, or Missouri.

Seems like if you had done your research in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion. I appreciate your efforts to cover your tracks with other states and google, nice try.

David

[iverglas]

59. you portray yourself as an atrocity of nature, Dave

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245535&mesg_id=245960

I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to do, but if it's make an ass of yourself, you are succeeding admirably.

You might even want to read ALL of the post you just "replied" to.

Here. You get a second chance.

Oh, I see your problem. You thought that in a discussion of the Florida legislation, I'd decided to go talk about, oh, I dunno, Arkansas. That's what you get for not clicking links, Dave.

Go back and read the excerpts I included from this article by the law professor:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

If you actually click the link, you'll see that it starts out like this:

Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law:
Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way
By ANTHONY J. SEBOK
anthony.sebok@
----
Monday, May. 02, 2005

Last week, Governor Jeb Bush signed a bill that has become known as the "Stand Your Ground" law. The law immunizes citizens who use deadly force in self-defense against criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Critics of the law are afraid it will promote vigilantism. Supporters say that it merely brings Florida into line with the majority of other states. But the truth is the law goes beyond what other states are doing.

In this column, I'll discuss the new law, and argue that it is an example of a simple reform that was hijacked by the NRA.

See all that FLORIDA-type stuff there? Like, "Florida", and "Florida", and "Jeb Bush"?

What in the fucking fuck did you think we were talking about, DAVE?



html fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. And somehow in all the bullshit, Florida's law is never called the "castle law". You fail.

[iverglas]

61. it's actually kind of fun

to follow one of your unimaginably ignorant / unspeakably deceitful (who knows??) idiocies down its natural path.



Of Arms and the Law: Florida self-defense bills spreading
Earlier, I noted that a variation of the Florida "castle law" had been introduced in Michigan. Word now is that a Mississippi shooting of a ...
armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/12/florida_selfdef_1.php

HoodaThunk?: Florida's Castle Law analysis
Earlier this month, I wrote about the newly-passed "Castle Law" in Florida. Eugene Volokh has an excellent analysis of that law up on his site and I ...
hoodathunk.blogspot.com/.../floridas-castle-law-analysis.html

Texas Castle Law - TheFiringLine Forums
10 posts - 6 authors - Last post: 21 Jan 2008
The state attorney's office declined to charge her, citing a provision in Florida's Castle Law that removed a requirement to retreat if ...
www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276853

Texas to vote on Florida Style Castle Law in 2007
This was the first week for State Senators and Representatives to prefile bills for the 2007 session of the Texas Legislature. Several TSRA-backed leg.
www.aagunsales.com/?startnum=45

Print Page - Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
That would be sort of like the Florida "Castle Law'. ...... by the recent anti-Atlasia rebellion in the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. ...
uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=printpage

Question on CCW and situation - Police Forums & Law Enforcement ...
Many states are finally establishing laws that negate that rule, the first to be the Florida “Castle Law”. The charges may be reduced, or ultimately dropped ...
forums.officer.com/showthread.php?p=1482797

Castle law - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums ...
Can someone post the exact castle law for Florida, because I remember my dad telling me and it sounds like JTShooter said the same thing that it applies to ...
forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.../t-119374.html

Gun Control: Brady Misfires on Castle Doctrine | NewsBusters.org
We've had a great Castle law here in Florida for over a year now, and shockingly there has been no rush of Floridians to run out and shoot ...
newsbusters.org/node/10830

|| - Welcome to Ready To Defend - ||
castle law California castle law Colorado castle law Connecticut http://www.cga.ct.gov/ castle law D.C. castle law Delaware castle law Florida ...
readytodefend.com/index.php?main_page=page_



Can you explain your difficulty, maybe in 25 words or less? So far, I have seen no sign of any intelligible speech.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. and then you go back to google as your almighty source of authority. It's hysterical.

[iverglas]

63. you do understand the google, do you Dave?

The google isn't the SOURCE of any of those things. Those things are sources of themselves. Google found them for me.

Is the shopping cart the source of your carrots?

You need to go to all those sites -- gun lovers to a one, methinks -- and tell them your trouble, and see what they can do to help you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Somehow it just missed the Florida Legislature and the actual name of the law. Amazing.

Somehow statistical was able to find them, why don't you ask him what search engine to use for SOURCES in the future.

[iverglas]

66. Statistical didn't need a search engine

All he had to do was ask me.

One. More. Time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x125237

iverglas
Sun May-21-06 05:21 AM

About that Florida stand-yer-ground law ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127275&mesg_id=127291

iverglas
Sat Jul-29-06 08:02 PM

2. yuk yuk yuk

It looks just about exactly like that Floridian dog's breakfast in its relevant bits (with my usual emphasis):

You were not yet a glint in Skinner's eye, Davey. Nor was Statistical. And there I was, delivering the news and the goods on the Florida CASTLE LAW.


Have you figured out what that mouse thing of yours is? When you click on it, it takes you sailing across the internet to another place. If you're like me, you have to go find it at the tail end of the tabs in the window you're using. Maybe it's in another window. Is this your problem? You don't know how to find the things you're supposed to read? Maybe that will help now.



html fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. So you knew the actual name of the law you chose not to use it. MMMMkay.

[iverglas]

69. what is the actual name of the law, Dave?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Come now you are the "lawyer". I'll give you a hint though.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM

[iverglas]

71. you don't know, do you Dave?

But thanks for the link to what I've been posting here in this forum SINCE 2006.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Yet you never referred to it by it's actual name or linked to it. MMMMkay.

[SteveM]

74. Yeah, sort of like the "gun show loop hole" label -- paste it on later (nt)

[iverglas]

75. * & $ % ) @ ^

[rd_kent]

76. Hey, you posted a pcture of yourself!

[SteveM]

79. You should keep the bunny around for your mascot! (nt)

[JonQ]

33. According the florida law

regarding the use of lethal force against a home invader one assumption that must be met is:

(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.

You'd have a hard time claiming he was using force or violence when passed out on the couch.

I wish I had that "the more you know" picture to post here. That would be perfect, as we all learned something today: you learned a little about american laws, and I learned how woefully ignorant you are about american laws.

[iverglas]

37. you should probably sit this one out

You'd have a hard time claiming he was using force or violence when passed out on the couch.

Yeah, eh?

Lucky you wouldn't have to.

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.

[JonQ]

40. Yeah, try to sell that one to the court

Even in states with the castle doctrine you would still be prosecuted for shooting a sleeping man.

You really shouldn't believe all the propaganda the other gun grabbers have cooked up, about being free to shoot everyone for any reason at any time.

[iverglas]

41. having a know-nothing attempt to condescend to one

causes one no end of giggle fits.

[slackmaster]

12. Never bring a tire iron to a gunfight

RIP, dumbass.

[iverglas]

13. and they say

my posts have no point.


Doesn't anybody find it odd that someone holding a tire iron would advance on someone holding a firearm?

Is anybody really that much of a dumbass?

[Katya Mullethov]

14. Absolutely

I have known people like that . You are correct that a drunken rage has little tactical advantage . They just dont care when they are really wasted .

[iverglas]

15. I'm what, now?

You are correct that a drunken rage has little tactical advantage .

If I'd said such a thing, I might be.

Is there evidence of drunken rage here?

[Katya Mullethov]

16. You are correct

They set him up and killed him for sport .

[iverglas]

19. you are distasteful

And your statement is a blatant falsehood.

But what would one expect?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. and you accuse people of not recognizing sarcasm when it's used. LOL.

[Katya Mullethov]

65. Yes , I certainly do have a flavor

You just havent developed a taste for it yet .

[Statistical]

18. maybe the dumbass believed the VPC & Brady Campaign.

"Everyone" knows that a home owner will never be able to use a gun, and it will be taken by the criminal.

VPC loves the talking point that a firearm will more likely be used against the owner then to protect the owner.

With odds like that maybe the criminal was just rolling the dice. Too bad nobody explained to him that the study was flawed, and then VPC intentionally misinterpreted the results to create a soundbite.

See firearm education is important. If he had known how many people successfully use a firearm defensively to prevent a crime he might be alive today.

[iverglas]

20. you quoting someone, or just coining a phrase?

"Everyone" knows that a home owner will never be able to use a gun, and it will be taken by the criminal.

Believe everything you invent, do you?


Isn't the false stat something like your firearm will more likely be used against you then used to protect you.

I dunno. Is it? How many suicides, attempted suicides, homicides, murder-suicides and assaults by firearm occur in homes in the US in a year? We won't even count the intimidation by firearm, if you like. Even though that is an assault.

more often then not the law abiding are able to use their weapon effectively in self defense.

How many "defensive gun uses" occur in homes in the US in a year? Oh, I know. Seventy hundred gazillion.


http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/4/263

Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Summary
Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.

Misrepresenting the studies intentionally, or innocently?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. So the next time someone says...

The gun nuts say people with concealed cary permits never commit any crime. You are going to run right out there and correct them, eh?

[rd_kent]

42. Dont hold your breath, Dave.

[iverglas]

44. find me one

I'll do it immediately.

Of course, if I happen to detect hyperbole being employed, I might not. If I did, I'd just look disingenuous, deceitful and dishonest. Or at the very least dimwitted.

[slackmaster]

22. Naw, he was just another dumb, hapless crook trying to steal other peoples' stuff

He probably never thought about the possibility of his victim fighting back. His stupidity led directly to his death.

[JonQ]

36. Heh

I was about to make this exact point.

Every legally owned gun will at some point be taken away from the owner and used against him. Everyone knows that, including this guy.

[JonQ]

34. Absolutely bizarre

as well all know, all people act rationally all the time, and never do anything foolish that may endanger their lives.


That's why no one smokes or sky dives, ever.

[Hangingon]

31. You are right there is plenty more where that came from...

there are lots of home robberies and lots of irate home owners. Stealing is a high risk career choice.

Why did you have to go back two years to get examples. Even then you have one in Texas and one in Florida. All three accounts sound like legal responses from the homeowner.

[rd_kent]

43. Here's another one.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/29/woman-intruder-shot-during-home-invasion-attempt/


Not sure why the intruder was not arrested......

[iverglas]

45. yeah, interesting

Officers were dispatched to the home at 11:52 p.m. and upon arrival found a 31-year-old North Las Vegas resident with gunshot wounds to her leg. The injured woman said she had exchanged gunfire with unidentified men who had entered her home and threatened to shoot her 14-year-old son.

... Sgt. Tim Bedwell of the North Las Vegas Police Department said he isn't sure who fired first.

He said the woman suffered a minor non-life threatening gunshot wound and was transported to University Medical Center. At the hospital, officers were notified a male gunshot victim had recently arrived to be treated who matched the description of one of the suspects.

His injuries are described as serious but non-life threatening.

Authorities said they do not know if the woman knew the intruder. Bedwell said an arrest hasn’t been made in the case.

Hang your collective hat on that one if you want. Shall we keep an eye on it?

An arrest hasn't been made *yet*, you might think.

One reason might be that the police are still trying to figure out what it was all about, and whom to arrest for what. It would perhaps be wise for you to do the same.

It happened on Karma Drive ...

[rd_kent]

47. Oh I'm sorry, were you saying something?

All I heard was that irritating buzzing sound.

[iverglas]

49. yeah, the sound of

tales of righteous shootings collapsing in a heap of dust.


Bzzzzzt. That one's on the loser list.

[rd_kent]

50. You are on the loser list? But we already knew that.

[teranchala]

51. It's just insolent noise

:D
:rofl:

[iverglas]

52. Oh my goodness! A new fan club member?!

I don't recall receiving the application.

Would you like a life membership, or will a trial membership be sufficient, just in case things don't work out?

[teranchala]

53. It's a humorous line from a movie.

...

[iverglas]

54. and it was needed here because

... ?

[rd_kent]

55. and you are needed here because

...?

[eridani]

72. How would a requirement that he register the gun have stopped this? n/t

[iverglas]

73. I'll tell you that

When you tell me how a requirement that he (he who?) register the gun would have stopped global warming.

You could also explain what the point of your question was intended to be.

Maybe you can take a shot at this one.

If he had not had a gun, would he have confronted the individual attempting the theft?

If not, what would the outcome have been?

What would your opinion of that outcome have been?

Be sure to explain clearly why you prefer a dead human being to some stolen stuff, if that happens to be the case.

[rd_kent]

77. An honest question, yet you dance around it, unable to give a straight answer

Why not just answer the question you were asked? Im sure you will come back and tell me how I misguidied I am and yada,yada, yada, and still not answer the question.

[iverglas]

78. that piece of shit was as far from an honest question

as you are from Diogenes.

You know it, I know it, the person who penned it knows it ...

[rd_kent]

80. A stand up philosopher? Oh, a bullshit artist.

You certainly would know about that.



BTW, THATS a movie reference.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. I'll answer those questions when...

you can tell me if the criminal approaching him with a tire iron would have stopped if he didn't have a firearm for self defense? If he hadn't had a firearm for self defense and the criminal hadn't stopped how bad would his injuries have been? Maybe everyone can get some answers here.