DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus How to destroy a family

J/C

Ladies and gentleman, if I may have your attention!!!!

It has taken years, heck decades now. But it has finally happened. By Thors hammer and Zeus' bolt, a poster has brought together those on the left and the right in solidarity on an issue - that Nelson may just be out his of his mind. There is still some studying to do, exams to be taken, but I believe we have taken a great stride together today Dters. Great stride.

It's premeditated murder lol

But no one answered me: Isn't nelson a genius? Or am a not remembering correctly?

First, I was a week out of surgery and still on Oxy, with a dozen or so staples in my abdomen, at that time I could barely walk to the end of the driveway.

You clowns tried the same thing years ago. NO THREAT to life or well-being is necessary. The threat is presumed from the forcible and illegal entry.

Florida statutes, Castle Doctrine. Stand Your Ground is derived from this, for outside the home, but a place where you are legally allowed to be.

Look it up and learn something instead of just whining about things you are totally ignorant about.

100 bucks says I am right on the law. Any takers?

Being on drugs explains a lot of this.

Kill your ex's ex and let us know.

Prove I am wrong, for one hundred dollars. The law is what I said, just like many years ago when you all insisted I was wrong then.

Back up your MOUTH with some money, or SHUT IT.

Dog, you did not recite the castle doctrine to him, you only think you did.

The purpose of counting the beer cans in the garbage was to obtain some accurate information on rate of alcohol consumption. I know that is a foreign concept to you, but IMO is better than just taking someone's word for it, when all you have to do is count.

Is that the part you are having trouble with, the counting? It's in Florida, you can take off your shoes.

Not one of you has the guts to put up some money, or the gumption to look it up yourselves, right? Gutless AND clueless is a bad combination.

You are still entertaining, though. Like watching monkeys at the zoo flinging poop at each other.

Pit the entire Florida revised code is available online.

If a man buys a 12 pack a day and the trash was taken out on Thursday. On Friday you find 9 empty cans in his trash and 15 beers in his fridge, how many beers a day does the man drink?

There's no real way to know. All you know is that over time he's accumulated 15 beers and that Thursday night he drank 9.

Winged monkeys (often referred to in adaptations and popular culture as flying monkeys) are fictional characters created by American author L. Frank Baum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_monkeys

Anyone can add information to wikipedia. It means nothing.

Well, there, Pit, if you were actually paying attention, you would know immediately that the man was lying.

Appreciate you demonstrating convincingly the usefulness of counting the empties in the garbage. That was very helpful. Now I will not have to waste any time explaining to the whiners why this just MIGHT be worthwhile.

Since apparently you don't know, Frank Baum wrote the Wizard of Oz.

I should note that the book makes some mention of flying monkeys.

I'm fairly certain I understand OHIO'S castle doctrine. If florida's is different, please enlighten me.


I also understand 'stand your ground" laws. I'm not a lawyer.

I thik you missed the point entirely.

The trash is taken by the waste collection company once a week. At no point in time will you have enough of a body of evidence to indicate how much a person drinks on a daily basis based on less than one week of evidence.

If a person buys a 12 pack a day, which is 84 beers a week, having 8-15 beers in his frige doesn't really tell you anything either. Because buying one 12 pack a day is assuming he never buys more or less than a 12 pack a day.

Um, uh.... You insisted Ohio did not have a Castle Doctrine.

The twelve pack a day was the wife's statement. DRINKING it, not buying it. You stated, in your own words, that he drank 9 beers the day before. He said 3-4 a day. So he was lying, like I said before.

At no time was the quantity purchased mentioned. AT NO TIME. You are mis-stating the situation. Read more carefully.

Who did?

For being a genius, you don't know how to use the quote thing correctly.

The 2018 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(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.
(2) 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.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) 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.
(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.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77.


This is a LOT longer than it used to be, but still says the same thing. My proposed action was legal at the time, and still would be today.

So, why didn't you do it?

Guy illegally, and forcibly broke into your home AND threatened you.

Oh, you had a surgery. So you said "next time...."?

Holy Bejeesus Gawd, you are telling me you do not remember telling me that Ohio did not have a Castle doctrine, with me saying not having one is still a castle doctrine, I also never mentioned Ohio gun law and you swore I did?

I explained this, did you fail to read it?
Or did you not understand what all the words mean?

Well he is having trouble with the word "leak", so it's a possibility.

The long version is that my ex said he could enter my house any time he wanted to, which is when I looked up the law and informed her of my rights.

No. I do not remember telling you that Ohio did not have a castle doctrine. Tell me the date I said that. Because it's possible that I did say that - back when Ohio still had a 'duty to retreat' policy.

But, I'd like to know when I told you Ohio didn't have a castle doctrine policy. If I said that at a time Ohio didn't have that.............?

Ah.

You'd better learn the law better. At least in Ohio, let's put it that way. If someone has permission from you or anyone that dwells in your house, to enter at will, they can.

If they do, AND physically threaten you with death or great bodily harm - game on.

This is simple stuff that I learned in my cc class.

And note: I'm talking Ohio. I'm not talking Florida laws.

Unneeded. I'll just chalk it up to you being you.

No one gave this man permission, he is a convicted child molester and not wanted in my home, well before this incident.

I just posted the Florida statute, read it. In Florida, forcible and illegal entry is all you need.

our discussion took place less than a few months ago. You insisted Ohio had no Castle Doctrine. We discussed the duty to retreat. You also insisted I had mentioned Ohio gun law when I never did any such thing. I just assumed your Geritol had not yet kicked in.

It sounded like the dude had permission to be at his house the entire time. Threatening him about it and then killing the dude would've been premeditated murder.

Arch, I explained to you at the time that Castle Doctrine is a legal concept, not a specific law. If there is no specific law on home defense, then your state's Castle Doctrine is that there is no specific law on home defense.

CHS, have you suffered a recent stroke or blow to the head?

Well, not premeditated, but possibly murder.

Let me see: Illegal, forced entry, and physical threat.

Well, I am reading your posts.

Did you forget this part:

The long version is that my ex said he could enter my house any time he wanted to

Is this not permission? Didn't you say that your ex-wife did not say her ex was trespassing?