From Findlaw.com - specific to FL.



Types of Self-Defense

Defendants can use deadly or non-deadly force as an affirmative defense to justify their actions:

Non-Deadly Force: This refers to force that is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, such as hitting or shoving someone. A person is justified in using non-deadly force where they reasonably believe that it is necessary to defend against another's imminent use of unlawful force. There is no duty to retreat.

Deadly Force: According to Florida law, a person can use or threaten to use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of "forcible felonies" such as assault, burglary, or kidnapping. It is also allowable to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Remember, your bail may vary.
 
Messages
13,512
Reactions
22,707
In a state where Statutory Laws are the rule. Example: Hawaii. A Law has to be written in the books (Hawaii Revised Statutes). Common Law is NOT recognized.

With an Assault charge (in Hawaii).....there must be pain and/or injury. IMHO.....it makes it easier to understand. Versus....."He touched me, that's an ASSAULT!"

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,598
In a state where Statutory Laws are the rule. Example: Hawaii. A Law has to be written in the books (Hawaii Revised Statutes). Common Law is NOT recognized.

With an Assault charge (in Hawaii).....there must be pain and/or injury. IMHO.....it makes it easier to understand. Versus....."He touched me, that's an ASSAULT!"

Aloha, Mark

I can see this in two directions. One, you're walking out of a fast food joint and accidentally bump someone -- that shouldn't be assault and is easily handled with an intent element. But when I see people screaming at other people literally inches from their face -- but not touching -- and there are no consequences for that behavior, I feel like assault laws should be made very broad and harshly punished. That's an emotional reaction to seeing these things and so if it were to pass, would probably have a lot of unintended consequences, but I've seen so many videos of cops standing stone faced while a lunatic is spittle-screaming in their face -- or diners where someone is screaming at them too -- it's just effing wrong and if you don't know that, you deserve some time in hoosegow to contemplate social etiquette.
 
More BLM/antifa baiting... It’s why I stay away from locations BLM/antifa are routinely found.

What we’re seeing is systematic attacks by these rioters on peaceful conservatives. They’re trying to provoke a street war, and it’s coming. These insurgents need to be put down. Period...
 
I can see this in two directions. One, you're walking out of a fast food joint and accidentally bump someone -- that shouldn't be assault and is easily handled with an intent element. But when I see people screaming at other people literally inches from their face -- but not touching -- and there are no consequences for that behavior, I feel like assault laws should be made very broad and harshly punished. That's an emotional reaction to seeing these things and so if it were to pass, would probably have a lot of unintended consequences, but I've seen so many videos of cops standing stone faced while a lunatic is spittle-screaming in their face -- or diners where someone is screaming at them too -- it's just effing wrong and if you don't know that, you deserve some time in hoosegow to contemplate social etiquette.
The problem is some in our society have lost all civility. Then you have politicians condoning this behavior. The good citizens have no choice but to protect themselves. With lethal force if necessary.

Otherwise your gonna see a lot of Charles Bronson type of vigilantism being practiced against BLM/antifa.... So stock up on socks and rolls of quarters...
 
Messages
2,171
Reactions
4,086
But when I see people screaming at other people literally inches from their face -- but not touching -- and there are no consequences for that behavior, I feel like assault laws should be made very broad and harshly punished.
Most places consider that assault, and even in Oregon where we apparently don't consider it assault we have a crime that applies.
 
I can see this in two directions. One, you're walking out of a fast food joint and accidentally bump someone -- that shouldn't be assault and is easily handled with an intent element. But when I see people screaming at other people literally inches from their face -- but not touching -- and there are no consequences for that behavior, I feel like assault laws should be made very broad and harshly punished. That's an emotional reaction to seeing these things and so if it were to pass, would probably have a lot of unintended consequences, but I've seen so many videos of cops standing stone faced while a lunatic is spittle-screaming in their face -- or diners where someone is screaming at them too -- it's just effing wrong and if you don't know that, you deserve some time in hoosegow to contemplate social etiquette.
"Let them contemplate proper social etiquette on the Tree Of Woe"...
 
Messages
3,544
Reactions
9,345
Sooo... the application of an appropriately pulled throat-punch (more of a jab, really) to a person who is blocking your route and screaming in your face should be within the boundries of the law, correct?

I mean, it seems like a reasonable reaction to extreme anti-social behavior. The bigger problem is dealing with the violent mob that comes next. In close, absent edged weapons, putting down 3 or even 4 is doable... then it gets real.

Stay away from these people, mobs are dangerous and stupid. When the time for pushback comes it wont be in the form of lopsided street brawls or paintballs.
 
Yet, it happens on a daily basis...
Funny, I don't go to where people are protesting, and I never run into this kind of issue. Who knew?
Funny, I don't go to where people are protesting, and I never run into this kind of issue, either. I know... :rolleyes:

My original comment (which you quoted) was an observation of the now-daily activities of the "protesters", which is as plain as day to anyone that can see.
 
Last Edited:
The PDX video has me seething. In my time as an LEO, with that video we would be doing everything possible to arrest and charge anyone on the video, especially bat boy, with assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy, rioting, and anything else in the code (except the four victims of course). With that video if one of them would have put a bullet in the head of bat boy, we would have conducted an investigation and based on the video no charges would have been filed; we would have apologized to him for being victimized in our jurisdiction. If one of our deputies would have seen bat boy, and he didn't drop said bat, he would have been shot until he did drop the bat.

Pretty simple.

Except we are living in different times. We are no longer headed to a civil war, we are very clearly in one.
 

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top