- 37,825
- 15,634
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
they trying to troll dude on Skype?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
His Pops is NOT I reapet NOT a judge, He was a magistrates,magistrates are judicial officers, with no power that judges have nor do they do trials.If not 2nd degree
It should be manslaughter
If not manslaughter it should be perjury
But watch this fool walk on all counts cuz his pops is a judge
End of story
Zimmy ain't put on a defense yet and you already throwing in the towel? lol
dude is on vacation... he went hiking or some ****This is bizarre. Almost embarrassing. Why can't this guy appear in court again?
His Pops is NOT I reapet NOT a judge, He was a magistrates,magistrates are judicial officers, with no power that judges have nor do they do trials.
They are like the security officers to police officers
it was gloriousis this real life?
Once they got it working, people saw him on tv and started calling non-stopHad to step away.... I take it the skype call was a fail?
Well, then you get into what is "equal" force? How do you objectify "equal force". You can kill someone punching someone in the nose once by the bone hitting the brain, but you can shoot someone 10 times and they survive. That part is very vague (like all of the laws).
dad was not a judge he was a retired magistrate. last time he worked was 2006. he have no pull what so everWorking for the law is working for the law
You really sound ignorant thinking 1 title is greater than the other
They protect they own
Miss me with that technical marlarchy
His dad was a judge
Cuz I say so now what
That was some grade A trolling right thereit was gloriousis this real life?
I agree. But going back to the claim of reasonable doubt. Does that only apply when you have been physically injured, or can you have reasonable doubt that you're in danger if someone is following you? Therefore you have the right to defend or protect yourself?
776.013 Home protection; 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 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 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 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 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
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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 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 not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(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.
true but I think ppl are saying his dad could provide counsel, insight, and perspective to the law and how to handle this situation, more then the average citizen.dad was not a judge he was a retired magistrate. last time he worked was 2006. he have no pull what so ever
dad was not a judge he was a retired magistrate. last time he worked was 2006. he have no pull what so ever