Stay out of Florida if your name is Trevon
- Thread starter wolfe
- Start date
it didn't sound like beep beep boop my alarm went off, my silly cat does it all the time. it sounds like she saw someone on video, then went home. so not in danger, then chose to put herself into a situation with potential danger, arguably a high degree of likelihood that some shit was gonna go down.
maybe she won't have problems in florida, but it doesn't look good to me when you are in zero danger than purposefully choose to put yourself into a dangerous situation, particularly if you are carrying a gun.
So say you have a DIY home alarm and a motion sensor goes off and you check your phone to view the video and some guy is now in your house....
You're at a friends house 2-3 minutes away from home, and the average police response in your area is 10+ minutes, would you not go home to try to stop the guy from robbing your house? Would you just say "meh, let me watch this guy take all my personal belongings..." ??? Curious to see how you'll answer this scenario.
I get the whole "sometimes leave things to police" stance, but if its between me losing a ton of my personal belongings or going and confronting the guy I'd likely be in the same boat as this lady.
ok so assuming it's not a bunch of friends over that i can't take with me and i was just feeding my cat, i'd still probably just go over and observe/follow him on foot. my personal belongings are insured, and at this point i'm expecting to be able to follow him for the law to ultimately deal with him. i would not be looking to escalate the confrontation, what if they guy has a gun himself? i go from feeding my friend's cat to dead because i was going to be inconvenienced by him taking let's say a grand worth of stuff? no thanks.
Fair enough. What if you couldn't afford to have insurance?
You're armed and obviously know how to handle the firearm, so do you go and try to confront him now? Maybe have him wait at gun point for police to arrive, or do you still just let him leave with all your stuff while following him?
I guess what I'm getting at is her instance might be far different to justify what she's done....
If it were my house, I was armed and knew how to handle my gun, I had been robbed in the past with nobody ever being caught, didn't have insurance on my stuff because I couldn't afford it, etc. I would be more likely to go and confront him.
All she has to say is "I came home to check on my house. As I walked up to it, the perp violently came through the window towards me. I was in fear of my life and fired to defend myself."
Let's see any jury in America convict her if it even got that far. I still don't think she will get charged with anything.
Let's see any jury in America convict her if it even got that far. I still don't think she will get charged with anything.
They outline it pretty well.
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Yep there are some states that require you to flee if the opportunity exists so I wouldn't go as far as anywhere in america.
Following some asshole that you saw break into your home is a fucking stupid idea.
1. You have no way to really notify the cops that you are the good guy.
2. You have to be nonchalant with your new detective skills.
3. You run the risk of having the confrontation farther away from the scene of the real crime.
Pass
1. You have no way to really notify the cops that you are the good guy.
2. You have to be nonchalant with your new detective skills.
3. You run the risk of having the confrontation farther away from the scene of the real crime.
Pass
i think by law while you have a mortgage you have to have homeowner's insurance, but i get what you are saying. for some reason this person has no home insurance, no rental insurance, and this stuff is a lot to me. would i confront them? maybe/maybe not - the stuff is still not worth losing my life over, and i still don't know if they have a gun. i might want to do it earlier but probably wouldn't until it was a last resort, like them getting away somehow that i wouldn't be able to follow nor identify later (license plates or something)
all of this is preferable to a confrontation where i end up dead, isn't it? couldn't this woman just as easily have been killed in many alternate scenarios? she went from being in not in harm's way at all to quite potentially in serious harm's way.
Easily. My shit is overall not worth my life though. That being said you're talking to someone who has the means to afford replacement whatever, and insurance for it too.
That did not look like "the great part" of town, so it's plausible she didn't have such means. At the point you're living check to check and don't have anything left from paying your bills, someone stealing from you could have a direct impact on your way of life in the hunter gatherer sense of things. Not hating on her or justify actions but it is a plausible explanation.
Some people, maybe most of the people down here believe protecting what they have is more important than being scared of what might happen. You see old ladies beat off alligators to save their little dogs or others attack people who have weapons because they feel that's the right thing to do. I won't go so far as to say people have more guts than Chicago people. Maybe it's a lack of sophistication. Somebody goes after your shit and you go after them. There's more of a wild, wild west attitude in Florida than in Illinois.
she apparently has a bunch of cameras set up with a remote way to view them and was paying attention enough to see something going on - agree it seems she's on the poorer end of the income scale but that's quite the set up on the other hand. still hard to imagine for me a scenario where my stuff is great enough to risk my life but i guess some people may see it that way.
these are totally different scenarios though. do the old ladies purposefully walk their little doggies right up to the alligator's face? cuz that's what happened here.
what does being "liberal" have to do with anything, as if it's remotely political?
and sorry, i don't think the confrontation makes you brave, just stupid and poor at assessing risk. she could still go to jail. she could have been killed. for a minimal loss of stuff. if the reward is not worth the risk, you don't take the risk. has nothing to do with being brave or a pussy, just a basic calculation to me. the negatives drastically outweigh the positives in this scenario IMHO.
Thread Info
-
Created -
81Replies
-
3KViews
-
Participants list
