On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 15:03:18 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 09:01:17 -0500, John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 23:26:26 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 22:35:26 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 14:25:15 -0500, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:09:56 -0500, John wrote:



All that said, I'd be very surprised if the cop even gets a reprimand
let alone prosecuted or convicted.

Have any of you "law and order" types considered the irony of your
defense of this womans behavior?

I just want the same standards to apply. If they can shoot a woman
trying to get into an empty office, shop owners should be able to
shoot looters.

===

In a "stand your ground" state you are allowed to use deadly force to
prevent a forcible felony. You may very well have to defend that
position in court however if the case becomes politicized or the facts
are in doubt.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html



Shame on you, Wayne. The phrase was "... imminent commission of a forcible
felony". That word 'imminent' keeps rearing it's ugly head.

There is another poster here who tends to quote only the parts he likes. I hope
your commission was just a mistake.

===

I think you meant omission rather than commission, and I feel no need
for shame whatsoever.

That said, here is the exact wording of the statute that I referenced:

(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or
threatening to use 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.

I'm not a lawyer, and I try to avoid playing one on the internet, but
I see nothing that conflicts with our previous discussion. To me
"imminent" means something that is likely about to happen. "Forcible
Felony" is also fairly clear and includes a broad range of activities
from assault to armed tresspass. Certainly assault on a federal law
enforcement officer falls into that category. Do you disagree?


Yup, 'omission' is the correct word. If the assault was 'imminent', then I agree
to the use of deadly force.

In the case under discussion, there was no imminent expectation of death or
great bodily harm. The f'ing woman was only halfway through the window with a
barricade in front of her.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!