insiduous calm,
again your entire theory hinges strongly upon nothing more than an assumption, and further, upon other falsehoods and misnomers.
the "drug dealers" as you state, were police officers involved in undercover operations. for some reason you do not seem to accurately and objectively see reality.
reality is there were not drug dealers. they were police officers. calling them drug dealers when they are in fact not, only makes your credibility
lessened, since it appears that you are not looking at the situation objectively for what it really is. there is a huge difference between a drug dealer and a police officer posing as a drug dealer in undercover operations. it is apparent that you are having difficulty discerning the two.
futher, it appears that you are having difficulty discerning the difference between making death threats as a use of force, and making death threats
while holding a gun in plain view as a use of force. again there is a huge difference.
you constantly defend, and with little application of a "reasonable man's standard," of what the citizen did to protect his property
under the assumption that the undercover police officers were tresepassing. you however fail to see the other half of the coin, that the police officers had a right to defend themselves against the imminent threat of the use of deadly force while exhibiting a firearm, regardless of whether or not they were indeed trespassing. you fail to understand that criminal trespass is a nonviolent misdemeanor and that the available option to call 911 was there but the man chose not to call 911 and chose to take matters into his own hands and in fact return to something that was nothing more than an argument at best over perceived trespassing (from the evidence that is currently available) and introduce a firearm into the situation to escalate the situation.
i do not think a reasonable 81-year-old man would return to a situation to confront two possibly armed drug dealers. that is beyond the realm of what a reasonable and logical person would be thinking. he had the opportunity to call 911 and did not. there was no exigency of self defense. the use of force, the brandishing of a firearm to protect what he believed was trespassing, was not reasonable or prudent.
i disagree that Florida law allows someone to brandish a firearm and make a death threat at someone, and under the same law, does not allow that other person to take reasonable steps to defend themselves.
the law has to be written to ensure that two armed citizens aren't clearly in the right and end up shooting each other.
I also admit that it has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the dealers were in fact on his property, although I am leaning in that direction based upon what I have seen so far.
we're not even at "beyond a reasonable doubt yet." there is little to no evidence to prove that the officers were trespassing. there is not one witness statement of someone who was actually there (i.e. not a family member of the dead man who was not present) that actually confirms that the officers were indeed trespassing. leaning in that direction again is nothing more than an
assumption.
However in this situation, and practically all deadly force encounters, there is only one person acting within the law, possibly noone. Florida, like my home state of Kansas, has codified a concrete set of rules regarding when you can legally use force and deadly force to defend yourself. In both Florida and Kansas you must be legally present where you are before you are legally able to use force or deadly force to defend yourself without first attempting to retreat.
some interesting tidbits on the webpage of the Florida agency who issues their CCW's:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?
A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
sounds like justification to use deadly force against the old man to me.
Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?
A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
Q. What if I see a crime being committed?
A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.
in regards to Florida law, where it says that a person is not justified in using deadly force to defend themselves if they are in the wrong:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
again your entire statement hinges strongly on where the officers were. unless that fact has been proven i'd say the officers are innocent until proven guilty.
noeyedeer wrote:
What has people mad is that this man was actively pursued and shot after he disengaged. The original story never said the police identified themselves.
source cite please. where does it say that this man was pursued and shot after he disengaged? the original story never said the police
did not identify themselves either. the original story never said the police were not trespassing, so does that mean that they were clearly trespassing?
your logic is clearly flawed and biased.
What the heck was this guy suppose to do? Call the police about drug activity in his yard and maybe 4 hours later someone might show up?
that is what a reasonable person would have done, called 911, and not return to the situation to escalate it into a deadly force situation. please provide proof that JSO has an average 4 hour response time for responding to trespassing calls, please. or is this just some random number you put out there?
He goes out to defend his property, and the people he thinks are drug dealers either don't identify themselves as police, or he may not have heard them, but they knew he wanted them to stop. So now the undercover see a man with a gun, who probably shot the tree to scare them off, and the shooting starts. The're not hurt, but this guy gets shot, goes to his back yard, and do the agents call for a uniformed officer to disarm the guy... No, they go shoot him some more.
im not sure this is how it actually unfolded, but if the man discharged his firearm, then the officers are clearly justified in defending themselves at that time.
glocktoberfest wrote:
It's just some people feel the cops do not have the right to murder honest hard working citizens on there own property and disagree with the "cop's can do no wrong" crowd
please provide a legal source cite that says police officers cannot use deadly force on someone's private property. also please review the definition of murder before labelling it as such.
:banghead:
