Headlines
Florida law backs shooter in Pompano road rage case
Because Florida law backs shooter in Pompano self-defense case just doesn’t have any zing.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 17th, 2010 at 9:05 am
The editorializing at the end of the spokesmans’ statement is kinda lefty-thinking as well, since they still have to do their investigation, or something.
September 17th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Complete with “itchy trigger fingers” references.
September 17th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Only one media outlet (Channel 4 Miami) was even in its report of the incident. The rest basically insinuated or outright condemned this guy for defending himself. And I do see the media’s point of view: Road Rage incidents will drop immediately and they will have nothing to report. The Miami Herald is laying off 100+ more people as of yesterday. News organizations are suffering, how dare we to cut off their news supply?
September 17th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Hey, look at that, the law worked EXACTLY as it was supposed to! The theory is simple, if you are enraged enough to physically enter someone elses car for the purpose of attacking them, then they have the right to assume that you are there to cause bodily harm (because you are), and they have the right to defend themselves. People don’t get enraged and physically bust into a perfect strangers car for the purpose of calling them yucky names.
First, I am not a lawyer, so don’t take this as gospel until you verify it with a lawyer. However, I live here in Florida and, as a gun owner and CCW holder, I pay attention to the law so I know a thing or two. The article is totally mis-representing the Stand Your Ground law. It doesn’t extend the Castle Doctrine to everywhere, that would make no sence. The Castle Doctrine here in Florida basicly says that if someone breaks into your house while you are there, you have the right to assume that they are there to cause bodily harm, and therefore you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. How could this version of the Castle Doctrine possibly be applied to public places? DUH, there is no such thing as “breaking and entering” onto a public sidewalk. What the Stand Your Ground law did was remove the requirement to “run away” if someone is threatening your life. Yes, it was once law here in Florida that everyone was forced to be a complete coward or face the consequences. Oh, ok, it really just said you had to attempt to retreat before using deadly force. Still… COWARD! That doesn’t mean you can shoot anyone you like and get off scott free by saying “I was in fear”. The article quotes William Cervone, president of Florida’s Prosecuting Attorneys Association, as basicly saying this. It is complete bunk. Journalists (and I use the term loosely), If you are going to quote what someone says about the law, please verify that it is true, you are just making an ass out of yourself if you don’t (the quoted person is already an ass for spewing this crap). An attacker has to be ACTUALLY PHYSICLLY threatening your life (knife, gun, disparity of force, something like that). Stand Your Ground DID extend the Castle Doctrine to your car. Which is why it applies in this case. The article specifically states that the attacker in this case “reached into” the victim’s car (Personally, I think that is impossible. When a person is enraged and breaking into someone’s car to attack them, they aren’t doing anything as calm as “reaching into” anything. My bet is it was something rather more violent than merely “reaching into” the car). As stated above, if someone busts into your car while you are in it, he is not busting in to give you cookies, he is there to do bodily harm. The law gives you the right to assume so, and therefore the right to defend yourself.
At some point, those opposed to Stand Your Ground really need to READ it and quit just repeating the (false) claims that were used to try to defeat it. Far be it for lil old anarchist me to say we need a new law, BUT (and I do have a big butt) maybe we should look into a law saying that prosecutors who mis-quote the law to newspapers should be emediately fired. Yea… thats the ticket.
s
September 17th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“Prosecutors everywhere have rallied against the “Stand Your Ground” law, saying it might be misinterpreted by citizens who think they have the right to use deadly force,”
We do have the right to use deadly force, under certain circumstances.
“William Cervone, president of Florida’s Prosecuting Attorneys Association, said the law often leaves people settling cases on the streets instead of in a courtroom.”
Often?? Really ?!?! I guess all of the others never made it to the news, because I certainly haven’t seen any indication of “often” being the case.
September 17th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
The ruling class, as represented by that prosecutor, sure don’t like it when the people are empowered.
September 17th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
SPQR,
Unfortuneately, that is who gets to decide if charges are to be brought or not, and while the charges may not stick, it’s still life ruiningly expensive to defend against such charges. Elections have consequences.
s
September 17th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Stand-your-ground laws mean that “I was in fear for my life” is just as valid a defense outside your home as it was inside your home. How does geography alter your right to defend yourself?