Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8
Results 71 to 75 of 75
  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,367

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting KK1968
    View Post
    so you say, we'll see what the outcome actually is

    I see what you say is the True Man Doctrine while you choose to ignore how our courts and legislators have interpreted it for years

    The doctrine relates to the principle of self defense, particularly in the law of homicide, and it is to the effect that a true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to flee from an assailant who, by violence or surprise , maliciously seeks to take his life or do him great bodily harm. The victim of an aggressor has no invariable duty to retire to a place of safety. See state v Haakenson, (N.D.J213 N. W.2d 394)

    So as far as you are concerned, you or any other man has a right to go accost a woman with her small kids and well beyond simply mentioning, "hey, that is a handicap parking spot and the only one in this lot, next time try to park somewhere else please, good day madam"

    Because that loud mouth instigator did indeed go well beyond civility and far in excess of that any reasonable person would have the energy to expend on such a petty nothing, but, a reasonable person would have simply called the police had her parking there harmed anyone.

    So again, we'll see how this works out and good luck exercising your entitlement belief that it's fine for you to run about and faultlessly accost people up close and in person, regardless if male or female and with our without small children in tow.


    You still do not know what indecent words Drejka spoke to the woman and in the presence of their small children, do you?

    Is it really ok to use indecent and offensive language in a menacing and threatening manner in any circumstance you wish and around anyone you choose?

    No, it really isn't.
    The discussion at hand really has nothing to do with the eventual outcome of the drejka situation. There is only one issue there; does the timing of the shooting still fall within a time period where it is viewed drejka had a right to use lethal force to defend himself.


    It doesn’t matter what indecent words were or weren’t said to jones. Only if there was a valid threat of physical attack is a physical defense justified. No matter how it turns out for drejka, what mcglocklin did was absolutely improper and unlawful.


    Youree reallly stretching it with your statement about drejka menacing or threatening jones. His physical actions suggest absolutely nothing of the sort took place so unless you have a valid report of him threatening jones, all you are doing is making up crap to further your agenda

    The doctrine relates to the principle of self defense, particularly in the law of homicide, and it is to the effect that a true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to flee from an assailant who, by violence or surprise , maliciously seeks to take his life or do him great bodily harm. The victim of an aggressor has no invariable duty to retire to a place of safety. See state v Haakenson, (N.D.J213 N. W.2d 394)




    That doesn’t say what you think it says. There was no basis for a claim of self defense in regards to jones or mcglocklin. Neither was physically attacked or assaulted therefore there is no right to act, let alone claim it was self defense. Drejka was the only one eloglble to make a claim of self defense here. Drejka was not threatening to take anybody’s life nor do them great bodily harm which if you read your own citation, is a requirement for the true man doctrine to apply.

    and our US Constitution does in fact make it lawful to use indecent speech. So, is it ok to use such speech? That isn’t a legal question but a moral question based on one’s personal opinion. It is LEGAL to use such speech and its use does not justify a physical attack in response.

    The law cannot mandate civility nor can it alllow vigilante attacks against one being uncivil.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    you also thought the sheriff not arresting him was the last word

    no matter how hard you work to refuse to see the shooter instigated and put himself in the situation, it would appear since the shooter is now facing charges you and others were certain would not manifest, that many disagree with you on multiple points and not limited to that which is obvious, the decedant was backing away when shot

    I don't think anyone believes the skinhead was over there having a prayer meeting with the woman and her small children

    perhaps you again wish to review fighting words and reevaluate what kind of person you are; one that will allow a thug to conduct himself in highly inflammatory manners and offensive ways children should not be subjected (we won't even insult you with the premise of anything remotely based in genteel civility or chivalry) or one that might have walked over and joined the shooter in talking to the children's mother like she was zoo escapee sitting in that parking place trying to sell diseased ass contigent on her children supervising the entire transaction and exchange and all while knowingly forcing every handicapped person to walk miles to get inside that store............ up hill the whole way and knee deep in snow

    my guess is you would likely be closer akin to the latter

    good luck with your belief system far departed from decency and again, we'll see what the outcome is and how what "that" says has additional years of case law solidifying it and speaking to other doctrines I'm certain you'll never understand either


    PS. "The law cannot mandate civility nor can it alllow vigilante attacks against one being uncivil. "

    Tell that to all 50 states that seemingly disagree with you and I present for your dismissive poo pooing Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes 877.03. Breach of the peace;  disorderly conduct

    Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083 .


    Here is another one, keep in mind there is nothing evil or uncivil about nudity, is there? I mean we're all born naked.

    800.03 Exposure of sexual organs.—It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one’s sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

    ask yourself although I do not expect an honest answer from you, IF Drejka had been lording over the woman, with or without her children present in the car exposing his privates, would his stomping have been bought and paid for?

    Here, peek at this one since it sure seems to contradict your position that the law cannot allow attacks upon uncivil people

    "Nor can we say that the application of the statute to the facts disclosed by the record substantially or unreasonably impinges upon the privilege of free speech. Argument is unnecessary to demonstrate that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace."

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,60

    I believe this one has been cited at least 10,000 times.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

    (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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. 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 Can you say True Man Doctrine folks? Sure, I knew you could! and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    Why aren't the people making the qualifying language of Florida's SYG clear when they discuss this case?

    Disorderly Conduct criminal statute remains standing in Florida despite recent challenges to rewrite parts of it that wouldn't have any bering on Drejka's criminal activity which created the situation.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0877.03.html

    Was he impersonating a police officer?

    Who knows, but many were unable to avoid hearing the breach of the peace.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,367

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting KK1968
    View Post
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

    (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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. 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 Can you say True Man Doctrine folks? Sure, I knew you could! and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    Why aren't the people making the qualifying language of Florida's SYG clear when they discuss this case?

    Disorderly Conduct criminal statute remains standing in Florida despite recent challenges to rewrite parts of it that wouldn't have any bering on Drejka's criminal activity which created the situation.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0877.03.html

    Was he impersonating a police officer?

    Who knows, but many were unable to avoid hearing the breach of the peace.

    from the Tampa Bay Times;

    But whether that part of the law comes into play in this case is iffy. According to legal experts, it generally doesn’t apply when the confrontation is just verbal, barring any threats of violence.
    "Initiation of conduct that’s offensive, annoying, sticking your nose into somebody else’s business — those actions don’t preclude stand your ground protection from the person that did it," said Clearwater defense attorney Stephen Romine.
    Or, in the words of Stetson University College of Law professor Charles Rose: "The law is set up to allow you to be as big an ass as you want to be, as long as it’s just with words."
    Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who has said the stand your ground law precludes his agency from arresting Drejka, has taken a similar stance. At a recent news conference, the sheriff, who is a lawyer, said what was "merely a discussion about why she’s parked there … didn’t provoke the attack." His agency has forwarded the case to the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office to decide whether to press charges.


    and suggestion he was impersonating an officer? Seriously? You’ll toss out any crap to try to make your argument valid. So far you’re failing

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    177

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting KK1968
    View Post
    so you say, we'll see what the outcome actually is

    I see what you say is the True Man Doctrine while you choose to ignore how our courts and legislators have interpreted it for years

    The doctrine relates to the principle of self defense, particularly in the law of homicide, and it is to the effect that a true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to flee from an assailant who, by violence or surprise , maliciously seeks to take his life or do him great bodily harm. The victim of an aggressor has no invariable duty to retire to a place of safety. See state v Haakenson, (N.D.J213 N. W.2d 394)
    That citation is NON relevant. You cite the North West reporter series. Florida is in the Southern Reporter series.

    Quote Quoting KK1968
    View Post

    The rule requiring accused to retreat is especially applicable where he was at fault in getting himself in the dangerous situation. 40 C.J.S. Homicide 127, p. 1012.
    C.J.S. is an encyclopedia of case law from all over the U.S. like American Jurisprudence. What state is that citation from?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8

Similar Threads

  1. Would Sending Out an Email Be Ground to Be Let Go
    By Dallen in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-08-2010, 01:02 PM
  2. A Mosque Near Ground Zero
    By Guilty Or Not Guilty in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 06:36 PM
  3. Ground for Termination of Easement
    By piney in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 01:14 PM
  4. Do I Have Legal Ground to Sue
    By chechmate32 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:30 PM
  5. Debt Collectors: Preparing Ground of Defense
    By usvajs in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 09:12 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources