hogeaterf6
Regular Member
Why is it ileagal to carry on school property?
Why is it ileagal to carry on school property?
...i would like to see the few more minutes after he went down
I wonder how it misses at that range???
If you listen to what they say in the video, you hear someone say he had caps! (Blanks)
I wonder if that was the truth or if it was on the tape to make it sound good?
His whole manner and handling of the weapon stunk of learning how to use a firearm by watching action TV shows.
6) A lack of verbal threat or lack of discharging the firearm does negate intent after the weapon has been drawn and pointed.
In my opinion of reading Florida's guidelines, and the totality of the actions of the criminal,
Ability, Opportunity, and Intent are satisfied, and a innocent third party or a school board member would have been justified in shooting the suspect the moment the gun was drawn.
since9: I thought I was the lone member of your ignore list.
snip...
I'm not very familiar with the self-defense laws in Florida, but from the reasonable, rational man point of view, you're batting 1,000.
Since9 and Eye95,
I enjoy reading the posts from both of you because they are always rational and based on fact.
Just thought I'd pass that on along to you both.
Unfortunately waiting for that triad to present itself clearly squanders time that could be used to eliminate a clear threat. In this instance, considering the location and the type of meeting, somebody drawing a weapon would cover the AOI triangle.
SNIP The major lesson to be gleaned that its not just ONE factor that establishes intent. The totality of the circumstance determines the legality of a self defense situation. In this situation, I counted 5 different things that were coming together to paint a picture of intent.
I saw that! Leave me out of the compliment will you? OK. I was being nice. Now, I'm gonna haveta tighten the screws a little. Serves me right for thinkin' you was a nice cop 'cause you talked all pro-freedom and so forth.
snip...x3
(the "poking" below is being done playfully )
That's your reasoning? Wait. First let me thank you for explaining your rationale, that which I have been asking all posters for while now. Thank you.
Now. That's your reasoning? There is nothing there that makes drawing the gun Jeopardy/Intent. At most we have brandishing, which is not a lethal force situation under AOJ/I. It could very easily have been that such a brandisher did not intend to use it.
I appreciate you too Citizen.
I differ in my understanding in regards to brandishing. A sane person could and would reasonably believe that the person brandishing the weapon intends to do them harm. The overt act of brandishing would satisfy intent. A verbal threat is not needed to convey intent, though it would only strengthen the claim of self defense. The question is what does a reasonable and prudent person believe to be happening.
The Florida laws that apply to this situation:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Brandishing a firearm would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that imminent death or great bodily harm was present, and an active threat. Jeopardy/Intent is satisfied by brandishing a weapon at someone. Actions convey intent.
I respectfully submit this back for your consideration.
One of the best write ups I have seen is on this website:
http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/
I'll jump in here...please excuse me for offering my two cents!
'Brandishing' a firearm (Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.) in Florida in and of itself would not warrant shooting the offender. If the weapon was pointed at you, that MAY provide the reasonable fear required, based on the circumstances. In this situation (especially since it was filmed) would easily support the victim's reasonable fear. An opposite example would be getting swept at the range - you may not be able to establish the reasonable fear requirement.
In the absence of any spoken/implied threat, the situation may not rise to the level of Aggravated Assault, which is a Forcible Felony in Florida.
It all boils down to the totality of the circumstances.