Steve...

Thank you... I plan to live through it.

Kentucky protest today
Live stream.



.

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
For criminal lawyers on the forum;

When does the Castle doctrine apply to entry into your home? Does it apply when an entryway (door, window) is breached or when the criminal actually makes physical entry?

I have also seen the videos of Molotov incendiary devices lighted and ready to throw... same quandary applies.
< snip >

Castle doctrine applies as stipulated in your state law.

I am not a lawyer and this is not intended as lekgal advice, but Florida has one of the most protective Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws in the country.

The Castle Doctrine statute states:

quote:

76.013 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.

I take the bold part as the answer to your question.

If you reasonably believe an assailant is going to cause you grievous bodily harm or will kill you, then you can use a firearm or other means to defend yourself inside your home and against assailants attempting unlawful entry into your home.

The Stand Your Ground law states:

quote:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly 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. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
[/b](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.[/b] 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 and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.

Again, the bold portion is the key provision.

If you are in a place where you have a right to be, and you reasonably believe an assailant is going to cause you grievous bodily harm or will kill you, then you can use a firearm or other means to defend yourself against assailants attempting harm or who are in the commission of a forcible felony.

Hope this helps.

Sig2340-

Thank you!

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
For criminal lawyers on the forum;

When does the Castle doctrine apply to entry into your home? Does it apply when an entryway (door, window) is breached or when the criminal actually makes physical entry?

It's been a long time since I studied criminal law (in fact, I'm retired), but IIRC, it's not a question of where the aggressor is located (driveway, front lawn, coming through the front door), but at what point you reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent or end a forcible entry into your dwelling.

Here in Illinois, the statute reads: "A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling."

The way I read it was that peaceful protestors wouldn't be subject to the batons and the tear gas. Then the top cop in Detroit said something like if its not peaceful then all bets are off

quote:

Originally posted by XinTX:
Judge must've gotten into Pelosi's Scotch cabinet.

quote:

Judge bans Detroit police from using batons, gas, chokeholds on protesters — for now
M.L. Elrick Detroit Free Press
Published 8:18 p.m. ET Sep. 4, 2020 | Updated 12:46 a.m. ET Sep. 5, 2020

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters .

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Detroit had been keeping a lid on this bullshit

quote:

Judge bans Detroit police from using batons, gas, chokeholds on protesters — for now
M.L. Elrick Detroit Free Press
Published 8:18 p.m. ET Sep. 4, 2020 | Updated 12:46 a.m. ET Sep. 5, 2020

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters .

U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Michelson partially granted a temporary restraining order Detroit Will Breathe sought when it sued the city of Detroit on Monday, alleging that police were using excessive force to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. The order will be in effect for at least 14 days and forbids police from using force without probable cause.

Full article: Judge bans Detroit police from using batons, gas, chokeholds on protesters — for now

Tell me again, who are the real enemies of this country. The judiciary does more damage to this country annually than any protesters ever could.

Not for nothing but did you all actually read the article, or just the crappy headline????
As the Chief noted it changes nothing. They will still carry them and use them.
I am not sure the point of the ruling honestly it says they can’t be used WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

I am not sure of a time where even prior to the ruling one could use these options without PROBABLE CAUSE.

Yep, the Detroit Chief has said the Judge's ruling only applies to "peaceful protestors", not rioters.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Detroit had been keeping a lid on this bullshit

quote:

Judge bans Detroit police from using batons, gas, chokeholds on protesters — for now
M.L. Elrick Detroit Free Press
Published 8:18 p.m. ET Sep. 4, 2020 | Updated 12:46 a.m. ET Sep. 5, 2020

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters .

U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Michelson partially granted a temporary restraining order Detroit Will Breathe sought when it sued the city of Detroit on Monday, alleging that police were using excessive force to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. The order will be in effect for at least 14 days and forbids police from using force without probable cause.

Full article: Judge bans Detroit police from using batons, gas, chokeholds on protesters — for now

Probable cause is the legal standard for arrest. I.e. if police could arrest someone [if they: 1) subjectively believe that more-likely-than-not that a crime has been committed, and 2) A reasonable objective observer without subjective knowledge of the officer involved, would also come to the same conclusion that a crime more-likely-than-not had been committed], they can also use batons, gas etc. PC is a totality of the circumstances test so the inquiry is very fact and circumstance intensive.

The only issue with the ruling that I can see is that some argument might be made against AOE type munitions. For instance, if you have someone holding a sign only, standing next to someone throwing rocks that are hitting officers, and LE response is to shoot a CS canister into the area, LE have probable cause against the rock thrower, but maybe not against the sign-holder.

quote:

Originally posted by Greymann:
Kentucky protest today
Live stream.



.

“......Completely peaceful. It’s a big barbecue until the police show up.”

An actual quote from an Antifa member towards the end of the clip.

article by shipwreckedcrew

https://www.redstate.com/shipw...-oregon-us-attorney/

Shooting a Portland Firefighter With a “Wrist Rocket” Sling-Shot Now A Path To Federal Court Says Oregon US Attorney

Yesterday I noted reports in Oregon media about the growing reliance on federal charges under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 231 being used to prosecute rioters in Portland based on any actions taken by them directed at local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies engaged in the performance of their duties during an episode of “civil disorder.”

A “civil disorder” is defined as a public disturbance involving acts of violence or property damage by assemblages of three or more persons. The statute also covers interference with the efforts of firefighters to do their jobs during any “civil disorder.

The US Attorney’s Office in Portland issued a press release earlier this week on one such case, and the details are instructive on how the local and federal police agencies — working with the FBI and US Attorney in Portland –are going to use this statute to positive effect against the protesters in an effort to “thin their ranks” over time.

Jesse Herman Bates, 38, of Seattle, Washington, has been charged by criminal complaint with civil disorder after shooting a firefighter with a ball bearing during a protest in Portland on July 13, 2020, announced Billy J. Williams, U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.

in the early morning hours of July 13, 2020, a firefighting crew was working to put out a fire burning in the middle of an intersection in downtown Portland that was blocking traffic. A crowd of approximately 300 people were in the immediate area, some of whom were assaulting police officers and committing acts of vandalism and property damage. A firefighter, who was wearing a grey uniform with a large medic patch, was walking across the street to brief his team when he was shot in the chest with a round metal ball bearing.

The firefighter said the shot came from a protester armed with a “wrist rocket” style slingshot. A Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office deputy saw the suspect on camera and identified Bates as the slingshot shooter.

….

On August 25, 2020, detectives from Seattle Police Department’s Robbery Unit received Bates’ outstanding federal arrest warrant and promptly issued a department-wide notice…. On September 1, 2020, bicycle officers spotted Bates on East Broadway Avenue near the park and arrested him without incident. He was then transferred to the District of Oregon by the FBI.

This case was investigated by the FBI. It is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon.

As I noted in the earlier article, this statute is a felon and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison.

The US Attorney’s Office does not function like the local district attorney’s office. The US Attorney is not what I call a “prosecutor of last resort.” The US Attorney’s Office only files cases it intends to pursue. A district attorney receives stacks of paperwork regarding recent arrests by police and must make “charging” decisions on each case. A substantial volume of cases gets closed with no charges being filed for any number of reasons. After those cases are closed, there is no other option for pursuing those individuals who were arrested.

In federal court, a case begins with either a Criminal Complaint or an Indictment. As noted in the Bates case, he was charged by way of Criminal Complaint in order to get an arrest warrant for him issued by a federal judge. Those complaints are filed by federal prosecutors. That step only happens after the prosecutor has accepted the case for filing based on a determination that there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain a conviction at trial. These cases don’t evaporate because the Assistant US Attorney who filed the case changes his or her mind. Bates is likely headed for federal prison before it’s all done.

Weeks ago it was being reported that among the “bail” conditions being imposed on defendants being charged in federal court was the requirement that they no longer participate in illegal protests. If that condition still being enforced, the ranks of the protesters will grow thinner with each “wave” of federal charges filed using this “civil disorder” statute.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Not for nothing but did you all actually read the article, or just the crappy headline????
As the Chief noted it changes nothing. They will still carry them and use them.
I am not sure the point of the ruling honestly it says they can’t be used WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

I am not sure of a time where even prior to the ruling one could use these options without PROBABLE CAUSE.

If I gaze into my crystal ball a bit, I'd likely see that this judge has opted to further muddy the water (for the benefit of the 'protesters') on what probable cause is and when it should or shouldn't come into play. If the status quo was to be the way this was going to play out, the judge could (and should) have simply dismissed the case. He didn't, so you know there's more to this.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Detroit had been keeping a lid on this bullshit

quote:

Judge bans Detroit police from using batons, gas, chokeholds on protesters — for now
M.L. Elrick Detroit Free Press
Published 8:18 p.m. ET Sep. 4, 2020 | Updated 12:46 a.m. ET Sep. 5, 2020

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters .

U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Michelson partially granted a temporary restraining order Detroit Will Breathe sought when it sued the city of Detroit on Monday, alleging that police were using excessive force to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. The order will be in effect for at least 14 days and forbids police from using force without probable cause.

Full article: Judge bans Detroit police from using batons, gas, chokeholds on protesters — for now

Probable cause is the legal standard for arrest. I.e. if police could arrest someone [if they: 1) subjectively believe that more-likely-than-not that a crime has been committed, and 2) A reasonable objective observer without subjective knowledge of the officer involved, would also come to the same conclusion that a crime more-likely-than-not had been committed], they can also use batons, gas etc. PC is a totality of the circumstances test so the inquiry is very fact and circumstance intensive.

The only issue with the ruling that I can see is that some argument might be made against AOE type munitions. For instance, if you have someone holding a sign only, standing next to someone throwing rocks that are hitting officers, and LE response is to shoot a CS canister into the area, LE have probable cause against the rock thrower, but maybe not against the sign-holder.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Not for nothing but did you all actually read the article, or just the crappy headline????
As the Chief noted it changes nothing. They will still carry them and use them.
I am not sure the point of the ruling honestly it says they can’t be used WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

I am not sure of a time where even prior to the ruling one could use these options without PROBABLE CAUSE.

If I gaze into my crystal ball a bit, I'd likely see that this judge has opted to further muddy the water (for the benefit of the 'protesters') on what probable cause is and when it should or shouldn't come into play. If the status quo was to be the way this was going to play out, the judge could (and should) have simply dismissed the case. He didn't, so you know there's more to this.

All true but they are still what if scenarios. One can always bring in some sort of argument based upon interpretation. The order changes nothing the way I read it Probable Cause was always needed any way.

It appears The Chief interprets it in the same way I do and makes it clear in the article he is not changing a single thing about how they handled things.

Now if the Judge were to say these options could not be carried or used under any circumstances I think it would be different.

This is nothing more than a Judge trying to appease and kick the can down the road by not actually doing anything but issuing “an order” that was actually already in place according to law, as they don’t want these folks showing up at their house.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:
What amazes me is that it seems there's as many whites as there are blacks along with the blm bullshit. Do they really believe that bullshit or are they just along for the mayhem?

In a word: Yes.
Some believe the bullshit, some are there to cause trouble, some are there for both.

And some of them are just loose spirits with no real ties to anything and are there just to be part of something.

flashguy

like most thugs in gangs...

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
An article on commie tactics, a bit long to post but very good.

As we already know they use swarm tactics but the way they set up lines of attack their use of strobes to disorient are interesting.

Don't take the commies lightly

Reading the article I want back and forth: We need a new law, No we don’t we just need to enforce the ones we have. I finally landed on needing a new law, the HOPE act, which I’ll detail later.

The first thought was with the tactics the mob was using where it was hard to identify a specific assailant, we need a new law that if you are part of the mob assaulting someone, you are guilty of everything that that comes out of that assault. Kinda like the law some states have where if you and one or more accompliceS do a crime and someone is killed in the commission of that crime (perp or victim), all of the (surviving) perps are criminally liable for murder charges in the death of that individual. This would solve their issue with identifying specific assailants, but surely there would be some bad consequences from this law.

Nope, we just need to enforce the laws we have and support LE in arresting and jailing those who misbehave.

Ah, but what about jurisdictions like Portland where public officials like the mayor and perhaps the governor fail to do their duty to enforce the laws and maintain order?

I give you the HOPE act - Holding Officials Publicly Accountable. Any publicc official who blatantly fails to do his duty enforce the laws to maintain order loses any immunity and becomes personally civilly and criminally liable for the actions of those he or she refuses to stop. Applies to Mayors holding police back, applies to police chiefs when ordered to enforce the law who refuse to do so, absolutely applies to district attorneys refusing to prosecute. Clearly, there needs to be some metric/limit. There may be a legitimate case for declining to prosecute someone for spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking, but it is hard to imagine any justification for rioting, burning, looting, and murdering.

I know, there would be some unintended negative effects of this law too, not that it would ever be passed. Still, we can dream...

quote:

originally posted by LDD
The only issue with the ruling that I can see is that some argument might be made against AOE type munitions. For instance, if you have someone holding a sign only, standing next to someone throwing rocks that are hitting officers, and LE response is to shoot a CS canister into the area, LE have probable cause against the rock thrower, but maybe not against the sign-holder.

At this point I have a hard time understanding how every single person participating in these riots isn't treated as guilty for acting as cover for the violent elements. These riots may be a mix of violent actors among a merely noisy crowd but the noisy participants are clearly just there to support the violent ones. These riots are clearly highly organized violent crime sprees. Everyone participating should be rounded up and charged under RICO and any force necessary should be used to do the rounding.

What I'm saying is holding a sign while a buddy throws a brick shouldn't entitle the sign holder to not receive a rubber shotgun ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Kook:
Edmund,

BLM/ANTIFA are Marxist organizations dedicated to seizing power by any means necessary. The goombas in the streets are the useful idiots with a strong emphasis on idiots. These people don't think much beyond their "grievance" that they're not rich and powerful. They intend to destroy stuff and hurt people until they become rich and powerful.

Yes. Many folks are confused (deliberately by the BLM folks). BLM does *NOT* stand for “Black Lives Matter”, no matter how many times they repeat that lie. BLM stands for Belligerent Lying Marxists, and it is just that simple.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
The arrest warrant for Michael Reinhold

What a shame that the victim had a way to defend himself and wasn't able to.