Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-06-2005, 02:42 PM   #41 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
If there are no other extenuating circumstances then on the surface it looks like the manager was wrong to pursue the guy outside. I can't imagine why he would though unless he felt it was a him or me situation, and he had a better chance of defending himself outside with less chance of anyone else getting hurt. I guess he could/should have locked the doors and called 911.

Last edited by flstf; 10-06-2005 at 05:09 PM.. Reason: changed persue to pursue
flstf is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 02:57 PM   #42 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
ok, any folks who are against the duty to retreat want to weigh in here? I'll wait awhile before I post the full citation.
I am against the duty to retreat, but that doesn't mean I'm for the right to pursue either
cj2112 is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 01:18 AM   #43 (permalink)
Banned
 
As usual, 8 other things besides the real issue are being brought into the context for no reason.

The issue is not if you can kill someone. The issue is not if "duty to retreat" is the opposite of "pursuing".

Before: If someone attacked you, you were required to extricate yourself from the situation and if, and ONLY if, you could not remove yourself from the altercation, could you then MATCH force to defend yourself. Even if you kicked the person in the shins in defense, you would have to have proved you could not get away from the attacker to justify that simple battery.

When it came down to it, you could only ever match force, this new law does nothing to change that. All it does is says you no longer HAVE TO try and run before defending yourself. So, now if someone kicks you in the shins, you can kick right back to defend yourself.

Everyone immediately wants to go to guns on this topic, but it has fuck all to do with guns, it has only to do with being required to try and run from the attack, vs. now you can defend yourself without first having to try to get away. You can now stand your ground if attacked. Simple, not complicated.

"You shall not stir one foot to seek a foe" - Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet... if the attacker attempts to exit, any further actions to pursue them on your part are now attack, and you will be held responsible for your actions.

I still have NO fucking clue why the hell london and chicago got pulled into this whole bullshit mess of a thread. Totally irrelevant.

There's just no need to complicate matters, and that's all that seems to be happening in this thread.
analog is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 04:30 AM   #44 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Here's the full citation:

Quote:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James SMITH, Appellee

No. 78-2072

Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

376 So. 2d 261; 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16016




October 9, 1979

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]

Rehearing Denied November 26, 1979.

COUNSEL: Janet Reno, State's Atty. and David Waksman, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Rory S. Stein, Asst. Public Defender and Robin Green (Legal Intern), for appellee.

JUDGES: Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHAPPELL, BILL G., Associate Judge.

OPINIONBY: PER CURIAM

OPINION: [*261]

The State of Florida takes this appeal from an order granting the defendant's sworn motion to dismiss an information charging him with second degree murder to which the state demurred.

The defendant was working in a cafe as cashier/manager. About 3:00 A.M. an intoxicated man came into the cafe and caused a disturbance, whereupon defendant asked him to leave. The deceased spoke up in the man's behalf and was also asked to leave. When defendant attempted to grab the man to eject him, the deceased pushed defendant into the juke box and they began struggling. Upon being separated by patrons, the deceased said to defendant, "You just wait, . . . I'm going to kill you," and then ran out the door of the cafe to his truck which was parked about fifteen feet away. Defendant grabbed a gun from behind the counter and ran outside [**2] the cafe. One witness heard defendant asked the deceased if he had a gun but heard no response. Defendant stated that when he got to the truck, the deceased was going into his truck and that he believed he was going for a gun. At this point, defendant opened fire. A metallic wrench was found outside the cafe next to where the truck was [*262] parked. The deceased drove his truck to a clinic, and while being assisted said, "Man, you know he shot me, but I'm wrong, you know, I'm wrong."

As a general rule, where, as here, the material facts are undisputed, the trial court in considering a motion to dismiss must determine whether the undisputed facts raise a jury question, in much the same manner as a judge evaluates a motion for acquittal made at trial. Ellis v. State, 346 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Thus, where, in the opinion of the trial judge the undisputed material facts do not legally constitute the crime charged, or affirmatively establish a valid defense, a motion to dismiss should be granted. Camp v. State, 293 So.2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

The state failed to specifically deny by traverse under oath the allegations that defendant believed the deceased was [**3] going for a gun, and this fact is considered admitted by the state. State v. Giesy, 243 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). As manager of the cafe, defendant was not obligated to retreat from his place of business. See Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 584 (1972). Self defense is a valid defense.

The record in this case clearly demonstrates that the appearance of danger was real to the defendant and that he believed the use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself. It is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence could have been submitted on which a jury could legally find a verdict of guilty. McKnight v. State, 341 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore, the court properly entered its order granting the motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.
raveneye is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 04:34 AM   #45 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
In Florida, there are two situations where there was no duty to retreat even before the new law: in your home, and in your place of business.

SO if we want to understand what the effect of the new law will likely be (everywhere, eg in public places), we can look at case histories of what people were allowed to do in their homes and in their places of business.

That's why I posted that case, and there are several others like it.
raveneye is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 06:19 AM   #46 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
If you read why that decision was made, it had nothing to do with not having the duty to retreat, it had to do with incompetence on the part of the states attorney. The state has the burden of proof, and they dropped the ball.
Quote:
The state failed to specifically deny by traverse under oath the allegations that defendant believed the deceased was [**3] going for a gun, and this fact is considered admitted by the state. State v. Giesy, 243 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). As manager of the cafe, defendant was not obligated to retreat from his place of business. See Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 584 (1972). Self defense is a valid defense.
The fact that the defendant wasn't required to retreat is not what got him a not guilty verdict...it's the fact that the state poorly prosecuted the case by not even questioning what the defendant was thinking at the time, or whether that thought process was reasonable in the eyes of the law.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 07:26 AM   #47 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
If you read why that decision was made, it had nothing to do with not having the duty to retreat, it had to do with incompetence on the part of the states attorney. The state has the burden of proof, and they dropped the ball.
The fact that the defendant wasn't required to retreat is not what got him a not guilty verdict...it's the fact that the state poorly prosecuted the case by not even questioning what the defendant was thinking at the time, or whether that thought process was reasonable in the eyes of the law.
Maybe the state prosecution was just wrong to charge the manager in the first place and he really did think that the deceased was going to get a gun and kill him?
That's why:
Quote:
The state failed to specifically deny by traverse under oath the allegations that defendant believed the deceased was [**3] going for a gun, and this fact is considered admitted by the state.
flstf is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 08:57 AM   #48 (permalink)
Insane
 
joshbaumgartner's Avatar
 
To go back to what Analog said, this case doesn't appear to have relevance to the new law, as the 'duty to retreat' did not factor in the judgement.

If the new law was truly necessary to protect the rights of Floridians to life and liberty, then this need would be demonstrated through either one or both of the following:
1) Significant numbers of citizens being convicted of manslaughter in cases where they were rightly defending themselves or others.
2) Significant cases of citizens being harmed by assailants while attempting to flee the attack instead of responding with force, in order to perform within the law.

Unless these can be demonstrated, the need for the new law remains purely hypothetical, and thus we should be extremely wary of enacting such a law without fully contemplating potential negatives.

Josh
joshbaumgartner is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 09:03 AM   #49 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
The state failed to specifically deny by traverse under oath the allegations that defendant believed the deceased was [**3] going for a gun, and this fact is considered admitted by the state. State v. Giesy, 243 So.2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). As manager of the cafe, defendant was not obligated to retreat from his place of business. See Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 584 (1972). Self defense is a valid defense.
The state admitted that the manager thought the guy was going for a gun. That, plus the fact that he had no duty to retreat, was enough to exonerate him.
raveneye is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 09:17 AM   #50 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
To go back to what Analog said, this case doesn't appear to have relevance to the new law, as the 'duty to retreat' did not factor in the judgement.
If you're talking about the case I posted, see the yellow highlight. Because it was the manager's place of business, he was within his rights to move anywhere within that property, and use force to counter the threat of force.

The relevance to the new law, is that principle now expands to apply everywhere, not just within one's home or place of business.

So what the manager did (assuming that he did so because he reasonably thought his assailant was going for a gun) presumably can now be done legally by anybody anywhere in Florida.

Last edited by raveneye; 10-07-2005 at 09:29 AM.. Reason: added "reasonably"
raveneye is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 09:50 AM   #51 (permalink)
Insane
 
joshbaumgartner's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
If you're talking about the case I posted, see the yellow highlight. Because it was the manager's place of business, he was within his rights to move anywhere within that property, and use force to counter the threat of force.

The relevance to the new law, is that principle now expands to apply everywhere, not just within one's home or place of business.

So what the manager did (assuming that he did so because he reasonably thought his assailant was going for a gun) presumably can now be done legally by anybody anywhere in Florida.
I see your point, and you are right to point this out. This points out the hazard of the law. If we are correct in our assessment, it would now be okay for this to be done by, say, a customer, who pursues a guy out of a bar and kills him in the parking lot after an altercation.

To introduce such a hazard would be understandable if it were correcting a demonstrable failure in the law, but as I cited before, until that failure is demonstrated (and I have yet to see the cases brought forward to do so), it is irresponsible to do so. Introducing a problem to correct a hypothetical one is not generally a basis for good legislation.
joshbaumgartner is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 09:54 AM   #52 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
So what the manager did (assuming that he did so because he reasonably thought his assailant was going for a gun) presumably can now be done legally by anybody anywhere in Florida.
That is a good point. Also, I guess now everyone in Florida will be able to defend themselves against someone who threatens to kill them, no matter where they are, if they give you reason to believe they are reaching for a gun to complete their threat.
flstf is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 11:32 AM   #53 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
The state admitted that the manager thought the guy was going for a gun. That, plus the fact that he had no duty to retreat, was enough to exonerate him.
We don't know that from the information given about this case, we only know that the state failed to even address this issue during the case.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 12:05 PM   #54 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
We don't know that from the information given about this case, we only know that the state failed to even address this issue during the case.
How do you conclude that this:

Quote:
As manager of the cafe, defendant was not obligated to retreat from his place of business. See Annot., 41 A.L.R.3d 584 (1972). Self defense is a valid defense.
doesn't contradict your position?

Quote:
The fact that the defendant wasn't required to retreat is not what got him a not guilty verdict...
besides, he didn't get a "not guilty" verdict; the case was dismissed.


EDIT: cj, do you know what the legal term "deny under traverse of oath" means? If there wasn't any legal basis for the dispute of the material fact that the defendent thought the assailant was going for a gun, then they can't challenge it or may even stipulate it.

On what basis do you think the state could have denied the defendant's belief as a factual matter?
The only way to dispute his belief about the victim obtaining a gun would have been to have witnesses saying that he didn't really believe it, or a confession. Short of either of those, there wasn't much for the prosecutor to do other than state as opinion that the defendant wasn't really in fear of his life. I'm not sure where you got the notion that the state was incompetent.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 10-07-2005 at 12:15 PM..
smooth is offline  
 

Tags
duty, florida, law, retreat


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:15 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360