Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Update: Right wing heroes charged (McCloskey‘s)

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by citygator, Jul 11, 2020.

  1. Crusher

    Crusher GC Hall of Fame

    4,742
    981
    2,143
    Apr 19, 2007
    Are you new to SwampGas? Jumping to conclusions would be an Olympic sport if people on this site had a say.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  2. RIP

    RIP I like touchdowns Premium Member

    6,422
    1,840
    3,313
    Feb 2, 2015
    Without video evidence it's going to be pretty hard to disprove their claims. You'd pretty much need drone footage.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    11,410
    1,424
    2,868
    Jan 6, 2009
    This is a problem with some gun owners. The issue is when you have a gun, you feel compelled to use it. I would think it should only used, drawn, displayed or pointed whenever the owner is truly in physical danger. Instead some gun owners flash their gun at first sign of uncertainty which needlessly escalates the situation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Crusher

    Crusher GC Hall of Fame

    4,742
    981
    2,143
    Apr 19, 2007
    Agreed, and it appears that some folks on here have forgotten that its the State's burden to prove that they should not have felt threatened. Good luck finding a jury in St. Louis where you couldn't convince at least 1 juror that given everything we have seen on TV around the country for the last few weeks, particularly in St. Louis, that their fear that their property and lives were potentially threatened by a mob of chanting protestors marching up to their home was unreasonable. I wouldn't have done what they did without further provocation, and I think they completely overreacted, but only a person that has lived under a rock for the last month or so while our cities have been burning wouldn't be at least a little uneasy if a large group that might have contained violent individuals came marching up toward their house.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 2
  5. Crusher

    Crusher GC Hall of Fame

    4,742
    981
    2,143
    Apr 19, 2007
    "Which needlessly escalates the situation."? Not claiming that this couple was right in doing what they did, but you are discounting by a very large factor of the situations that are "de-escalated" by the possession and display of a firearm, which doesn't even include the situations where potential grievous bodily harm wasn't prevented by the actual use of a firearm.
     
  6. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    22,370
    2,030
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    You are simply not correct. Merely feeling threatened or that your property was threatened isn't enough to threaten the use of deadly force.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  7. Crusher

    Crusher GC Hall of Fame

    4,742
    981
    2,143
    Apr 19, 2007
    The threshold would be that a "reasonable" person would feel that their life or property was threatened. We will see if a jury agrees that they were not being "reasonable," or are you too impatient to let our legal system do its work?
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  8. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    22,370
    2,030
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    You still don't understand the distinction between using reasonable force to protect your property and threatening the use of deadly force. I'm not impatient about anything...I'm just correcting bad information.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Crusher

    Crusher GC Hall of Fame

    4,742
    981
    2,143
    Apr 19, 2007
    Now you are just parsing words. It means the same thing. They threatened the use of deadly force for what they say was a reasonable concern for bodily and/or property damage. I don't agree or disagree with them. I need more information. I'm not as comfortable hanging up people by their short hairs as you appear to be. Again, I'm happy to let the legal system run its course.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  10. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    22,370
    2,030
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    No, I'm not parsing words and they don't mean the same thing. You are throwing out legal terms without an understanding of what they mean in a legal proceeding. You definitely need to let the legal system run its course because you're simply not following permitted uses of force in differing situations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Blazergator

    Blazergator Senior

    Apr 10, 2007
    I don't know the answer to this, or I wouldn't be asking. Does an individual have the right to use deadly force to protect property, independent of bodily harm?
     
  12. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    22,370
    2,030
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida's statute:

    776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—

    (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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 the 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. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

    (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; 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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Blazergator

    Blazergator Senior

    Apr 10, 2007
    Thanks. I thought it would pretty much what is there. I note the absence of trespassing.
     
  14. RealGatorFan

    RealGatorFan Premium Member

    14,341
    7,551
    2,893
    Apr 3, 2007
    Yeah I read it too and came away confused as to what their final verdict was. Did the protesters in fact break through the gate or not?

    Yet another ambulance-chasing lawyer trying to side with the most votes. If said protesters did in fact break down a gate, they no longer are considered peaceful. Yet, she turns around and says the protesters were met with "violent assault". Standing on your lawn armed with guns is not a violent assault. Opening fire on the protesters is. Huge difference and one I'm surprised an educated person would know. But again, she might be getting ready to run for a higher office and she's drumming up votes.

    And she should know as a defense lawyer, I'd tell her this - "Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their Second Amendment rights in addition to the Castle Doctrine, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people and city officials accountable."
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  15. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    22,370
    2,030
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    You're welcome. Trespassing is generally only a misdemeanor and is mentioned in FS 761.031(1), the non-deadly force section.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    22,370
    2,030
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    There is so much wrong with this it's pointless to even try to correct it.
    I hope you feel better.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,143
    5,096
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    No. There is a video clearly showing that they opened the gate, which was intact, and walked through it. It got broken sometime after Rambo decided to point his gun and make threats.

    There's so much wrong with this post, but I'll focus on one thing. Did you actually just call a prosecutor an "ambulance-chasing lawyer"? Do you not realize how silly that sounds?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  18. metalcoater

    metalcoater All American

    487
    32
    253
    May 30, 2007
    Not sure any crime was commit
    “Senator Hawley, who believes in the Constitution, is usurping the will of the voters. I thought the Republican Party was all about states’ rights and local control. What happened?” That is literally why we have a constitution to protect an individual from mob rule, but if you are on the right side of the mob then screw the constitution.
     
  19. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,143
    5,096
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    Yet again, you have yet to allege a constitutional violation.
     
  20. metalcoater

    metalcoater All American

    487
    32
    253
    May 30, 2007
    Maybe they saw Target and Wendy's burning, and did not want their house to make the news.