• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Disabled Florida Man Shoots Attacker

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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/c...on-county-man-shoots-home-invader-121887.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pPtbI5C4NY&feature=sub
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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?


/* */
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
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.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

ocgso

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
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.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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!
 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
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."
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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!
 

ocgso

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
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
 
Top