Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Disabled Florida Man Shoots Attacker

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    A wheelchair-bound Florida man became suspicious when two men asked for help jump-starting a car. The homeowner armed himself and politely declined to come out. The thugs then invaded his home and knocked him out of his wheelchair. The homeowner fired his weapon, killing one invader and sending the other fleeing. The video gives you more info then most media reports ever do.
    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cr...er-121887.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pPtb...mp;feature=sub
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Why did they have to add this? Why is it a knee-jerk pinko compulsion to do this EVERYTIME somone defends themselves"

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    They always need to insert some sort of a hint of wrongdoing... even when they know there is none. 'Likely protected'? Well... you journalistic jeenyus... if you knew there was Castle Doctrine... then why write it like that?


    /* */



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Why did they have to add this? Why is it a knee-jerk pinko compulsion to do this EVERY TIME someone defends themselves"

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    They always need to insert some sort of a hint of wrongdoing... even when they know there is none. 'Likely protected'? Well... you journalistic jeenyus... if you knew there was Castle Doctrine... then why write it like that?


    /* */

    It makes it sell the idea.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Why did they have to add this? Why is it a knee-jerk pinko compulsion to do this EVERYTIME somone defends themselves"

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    They always need to insert some sort of a hint of wrongdoing... even when they know there is none. 'Likely protected'? Well... you journalistic jeenyus... if you knew there was Castle Doctrine... then why write it like that?


    /* */

    Anti gun propaganda is furthered in the press not only blatantly but also insidiously with carefully crafted wording to allow the reader/watcher to "catch" the implication subconsciously.

    Words intentionally and carefully strung together can produce the desired subconscious implantation of what appears to be an idea the reader thought of themselves. It is the cunning media's modern day method of brain washing the masses.

    The statement about the sheriff's offices in the quote above is a perfectly, and carefully, worded example:

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    Really? Did anyone actually contact the Sheriff's office at all? Or did the reporter just say that since he/she hasn't heard of any charges then apparently the Sheriff's office didn't say any charges would be brought.

    And... who said "He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."... the Sheriff's office? Or was that just the reporter's guess?

    But the casual reader won't think about those things and will take what was written at face value... absorbing the intentionally implied guilt of the wheelchair bound homeowner.

    Words are very powerful things. The ability to think about what the words mean... and how those words are used... seems to have been lost by the general public. And that loss is being used by the media (and politicians) to their best advantage.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I attended a course 'long time ago delivered by SEAL instructors at NOB Coronado on disinformation, propaganda and agitation propaganda (agit-prop). It really opened my eyes to the subliminal messages inserted in even the most innocuous of things. Consequently I pick up on that stuff still... 'n this is an example.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."
    The way this should have been worded is

    Protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine, the shooting death of the attacker will likely be ruled a justified homicide.

    At least the reporter DID mention the Castle Doctrine.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."
    The way this should have been worded is

    Protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine, the shooting death of the attacker will likely be ruled a justified homicide.

    At least the reporter DID mention the Castle Doctrine.
    While I understand what you are saying, your idea of what the journalist, in my opinion would be incorrect. In fact their original statement, the news did what they were supposed to do, stay impartial and quote an official involved in investigation of the case. To assert an assumption that the person would be protected without knowing all of the facts of the investigation and the situation would be improper, especially if their assertion ended up being wrong. Of course, to us, the case does look clear cut and simple, but one must always wait.

  8. #8
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."
    The way this should have been worded is

    Protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine, the shooting death of the attacker will likely be ruled a justified homicide.

    At least the reporter DID mention the Castle Doctrine.
    Saying he is 'protected' by Florida's castle doctrine is misleading because it alludes that what he did would be criminal otherwise. It's like he is being shielded from scrutiny or something. Castle doctrine doesn't even apply here because they knocked him out of his chair and it wouldn't be possible for him to retreat.

    Castle doctrine doesn't protect or shield anyone. It enumerates rights.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."
    The way this should have been worded is

    Protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine, the shooting death of the attacker will likely be ruled a justified homicide.

    At least the reporter DID mention the Castle Doctrine.
    Saying he is 'protected' by Florida's castle doctrine is misleading because it alludes that what he did would be criminal otherwise. It's like he is being shielded from scrutiny or something. Castle doctrine doesn't even apply here because they knocked him out of his chair and it wouldn't be possible for him to retreat.

    Castle doctrine doesn't protect or shield anyone. It enumerates rights.
    Forida and Tennessee Castle Doctrines are almost identical. When the BG's forced their way in to the victems home, they became fair game. The victem reasonably perceived a threat of serious bodily harm or death to himself, which justified his use of deadly force, according to both Fl and TN state statutes.

    Both Doctrines provide immunity from civil liability for injuries/death inflicted on persons during their committing of a criminal act.

    Without the Castle Doctrine, some A**hole PA could have charge the wheel chair guy with at least manslaughter. And even if the jury let the man off, he'd still be looking at a civil suit.

    Castle Doctrine DOES apply. It's been invalueable in reducing crime and saving inoccent lives.

  10. #10
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."
    The way this should have been worded is

    Protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine, the shooting death of the attacker will likely be ruled a justified homicide.

    At least the reporter DID mention the Castle Doctrine.
    Saying he is 'protected' by Florida's castle doctrine is misleading because it alludes that what he did would be criminal otherwise. It's like he is being shielded from scrutiny or something. Castle doctrine doesn't even apply here because they knocked him out of his chair and it wouldn't be possible for him to retreat.

    Castle doctrine doesn't protect or shield anyone. It enumerates rights.
    Forida and Tennessee Castle Doctrines are almost identical. When the BG's forced their way in to the victems home, they became fair game. The victem reasonably perceived a threat of serious bodily harm or death to himself, which justified his use of deadly force, according to both Fl and TN state statutes.

    Both Doctrines provide immunity from civil liability for injuries/death inflicted on persons during their committing of a criminal act.

    Without the Castle Doctrine, some A**hole PA could have charge the wheel chair guy with at least manslaughter. And even if the jury let the man off, he'd still be looking at a civil suit.

    Castle Doctrine DOES apply. It's been invalueable in reducing crime and saving inoccent lives.
    Civil Immunity and Castle Doctrine are two separate things. This could have occurred in the middle of a wal-mart and it would still be a kosher shoot. Castle doctrine would have applied before they knocked him out of the chair, but after they knocked him out of the chair castle doctrine, while helpful, is superfluous to this case.
    Self-Defense is an affirmative defense regardless of Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine mostly deals with standing your ground (removing the Self-Defense requirement of retreat). Obviously retreat is a non issue for a person unable to move.


    In FL
    .."the killing of a human being by the act,procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification..., is
    manslaughter, a felony of the second degree."
    Self-Defense is lawful justification. You can't get "let off" if your not guilty of anything.

    Castle Doctrine is good stuff, and I support it for certain states. I'm not speaking against Castle Doctrine.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."
    The way this should have been worded is

    Protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine, the shooting death of the attacker will likely be ruled a justified homicide.

    At least the reporter DID mention the Castle Doctrine.
    Saying he is 'protected' by Florida's castle doctrine is misleading because it alludes that what he did would be criminal otherwise. It's like he is being shielded from scrutiny or something. Castle doctrine doesn't even apply here because they knocked him out of his chair and it wouldn't be possible for him to retreat.

    Castle doctrine doesn't protect or shield anyone. It enumerates rights.
    Forida and Tennessee Castle Doctrines are almost identical. When the BG's forced their way in to the victems home, they became fair game. The victem reasonably perceived a threat of serious bodily harm or death to himself, which justified his use of deadly force, according to both Fl and TN state statutes.

    Both Doctrines provide immunity from civil liability for injuries/death inflicted on persons during their committing of a criminal act.

    Without the Castle Doctrine, some A**hole PA could have charge the wheel chair guy with at least manslaughter. And even if the jury let the man off, he'd still be looking at a civil suit.

    Castle Doctrine DOES apply. It's been invalueable in reducing crime and saving inoccent lives.
    Civil Immunity and Castle Doctrine are two separate things. This could have occurred in the middle of a wal-mart and it would still be a kosher shoot. Castle doctrine would have applied before they knocked him out of the chair, but after they knocked him out of the chair castle doctrine, while helpful, is superfluous to this case.
    Self-Defense is an affirmative defense regardless of Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine mostly deals with standing your ground (removing the Self-Defense requirement of retreat). Obviously retreat is a non issue for a person unable to move.


    In FL
    .."the killing of a human being by the act,procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification..., is
    manslaughter, a felony of the second degree."
    Self-Defense is lawful justification. You can't get "let off" if your not guilty of anything.

    Castle Doctrine is good stuff, and I support it for certain states. I'm not speaking against Castle Doctrine.
    What you added is true, I don't dispute it.

    However, had this incident ocurred in Chicago, wheelchair guy would have been charged with unlawful possession of a handgun, and possibly manslaughter. Chicagoans don't seem to have a "Right of Self-defense". Not yet, anyway.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Why did they have to add this? Why is it a knee-jerk pinko compulsion to do this EVERYTIME somone defends themselves"

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    They always need to insert some sort of a hint of wrongdoing... even when they know there is none. 'Likely protected'? Well... you journalistic jeenyus... if you knew there was Castle Doctrine... then why write it like that?


    /* */

    +1 to that.....

    These reporters imply things like this that makes a casual reader wonder about the legality of defending themselves.....

    My life is more important than theirs, we will sort the legality out later.

  13. #13
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."
    The way this should have been worded is

    Protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine, the shooting death of the attacker will likely be ruled a justified homicide.

    At least the reporter DID mention the Castle Doctrine.
    Saying he is 'protected' by Florida's castle doctrine is misleading because it alludes that what he did would be criminal otherwise. It's like he is being shielded from scrutiny or something. Castle doctrine doesn't even apply here because they knocked him out of his chair and it wouldn't be possible for him to retreat.

    Castle doctrine doesn't protect or shield anyone. It enumerates rights.
    Forida and Tennessee Castle Doctrines are almost identical. When the BG's forced their way in to the victems home, they became fair game. The victem reasonably perceived a threat of serious bodily harm or death to himself, which justified his use of deadly force, according to both Fl and TN state statutes.

    Both Doctrines provide immunity from civil liability for injuries/death inflicted on persons during their committing of a criminal act.

    Without the Castle Doctrine, some A**hole PA could have charge the wheel chair guy with at least manslaughter. And even if the jury let the man off, he'd still be looking at a civil suit.

    Castle Doctrine DOES apply. It's been invalueable in reducing crime and saving inoccent lives.
    Civil Immunity and Castle Doctrine are two separate things. This could have occurred in the middle of a wal-mart and it would still be a kosher shoot. Castle doctrine would have applied before they knocked him out of the chair, but after they knocked him out of the chair castle doctrine, while helpful, is superfluous to this case.
    Self-Defense is an affirmative defense regardless of Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine mostly deals with standing your ground (removing the Self-Defense requirement of retreat). Obviously retreat is a non issue for a person unable to move.


    In FL
    .."the killing of a human being by the act,procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification..., is
    manslaughter, a felony of the second degree."
    Self-Defense is lawful justification. You can't get "let off" if your not guilty of anything.

    Castle Doctrine is good stuff, and I support it for certain states. I'm not speaking against Castle Doctrine.
    What you added is true, I don't dispute it.

    However, had this incident ocurred in Chicago, wheelchair guy would have been charged with unlawful possession of a handgun, and possibly manslaughter. Chicagoans don't seem to have a "Right of Self-defense". Not yet, anyway.
    WWW.CHICAGOGUNCASE.COM

    But soon we hope!
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Why did they have to add this? Why is it a knee-jerk pinko compulsion to do this EVERYTIME somone defends themselves"

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    They always need to insert some sort of a hint of wrongdoing... even when they know there is none. 'Likely protected'? Well... you journalistic jeenyus... if you knew there was Castle Doctrine... then why write it like that?


    /* */

    So true... It often looks like this - "there is no evidence as the whether the homeowner will face any charges". Anytime I see that 'there is no evidence' disclaimer my skin crawls.

    'There is no evidence...' is such a meaningless statement designed to head-fake the reader into believing an investigation took place and nothing could be discovered. Just as likely that no investigation took place and there still is 'no evidence'.

    "There is no evidence..." is not the same as "there is evidence of no...", although many writers expect their readers to make that leap.

    Carry on.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Why did they have to add this? Why is it a knee-jerk pinko compulsion to do this EVERYTIME somone defends themselves"

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    They always need to insert some sort of a hint of wrongdoing... even when they know there is none. 'Likely protected'? Well... you journalistic jeenyus... if you knew there was Castle Doctrine... then why write it like that?


    /* */

    Hmm, I wonder if the reported actually ASKED the sheriff's office if there will be charges??? Because I could just as easilygo around quoting, "The reporter has yet to comment on his sexual preferencesfor children" without having actually asked the reporter.

    Though if he sincerely asked the Sheriff's office for a quality report which I hope he did, I would have worded it, "He is likely protected under edit: Florida's self defense laws/Castile Doctirine although the Sheriff's office has declined to comment officially until the investigation is completed."

  16. #16
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Streetbikerr6 wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Why did they have to add this? Why is it a knee-jerk pinko compulsion to do this EVERYTIME somone defends themselves"

    "The sheriff's office has not said whether the homeowner will face any charges. He is likely protected by Florida's Castle Doctrine."

    They always need to insert some sort of a hint of wrongdoing... even when they know there is none. 'Likely protected'? Well... you journalistic jeenyus... if you knew there was Castle Doctrine... then why write it like that?


    /* */

    Hmm, I wonder if the reported actually ASKED the sheriff's office if there will be charges??? Because I could just as easilygo around quoting, "The reporter has yet to comment on his sexual preferencesfor children" without having actually asked the reporter.

    Though if he sincerely asked the Sheriff's office for a quality report which I hope he did, I would have worded it, "He is likely protected under edit: Florida's self defense laws/Castile Doctirine although the Sheriff's office has declined to comment officially until the investigation is completed."
    Nice point!
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    Streetbikerr6 wrote:

    Hmm, I wonder if the reported actually ASKED the sheriff's office if there will be charges??? Because I could just as easilygo around quoting, "The reporter has yet to comment on his sexual preferencesfor children" without having actually asked the reporter.

    Though if he sincerely asked the Sheriff's office for a quality report which I hope he did, I would have worded it, "He is likely protected under edit: Florida's self defense laws/Castile Doctirine although the Sheriff's office has declined to comment officially until the investigation is completed."
    Maybe people should start doing that to reporters......you think they might get the message then??:celebrate

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •