Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DOOM arrested per CBS4

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MH Stampede View Post
    If the vehicle is occupied, then it IS assault.

    And again, (and again) I am not defending Elvis acting stupidly by getting out of his car and then lying to the cop.

    I think at this point, you are just arguing to argue....
    We're getting into semantics here, but assault has to do with a threat - not physical contact. You can't assault an inanimate object.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MH Stampede View Post
      Let me put it this way...

      If I walked up to you in your car, keyed the side, you would be guilty of assault by showing me a gun and telling me to back off? And the fact that I keyed your car is completely irrelevant?

      Well, had the circumstance been that this women got out of her car, walked up to Dumervil's car, and vandalized it while he was behind the wheel, I imagine he could have remained in his car (Stood His Ground) and brandished his gun in an attempt to stop the vandalization, I highly doubt he would have found himself arrested or in violation of the law (although I imagine there is a handful of states in which that would still be illegal).

      But it seems, according to the witnesses, that he advanced upon her and threatened her with brandished guns sometime after she threw something at his car and had gotten back in hers. That's a completely difference set of circumstances.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ramanboy33 View Post
        Well, had the circumstance been that this women got out of her car, walked up to Dumervil's car, and vandalized it while he was behind the wheel, I imagine he could have remained in his car (Stood His Ground) and brandished his gun in an attempt to stop the vandalization, I highly doubt he would have found himself arrested or in violation of the law (although I imagine there is a handful of states in which that would still be illegal).

        But it seems, according to the witnesses, that he advanced upon her and threatened her with brandished guns sometime after she threw something at his car and had gotten back in hers. That's a completely difference set of circumstances.
        You guys are confusing all the stand your ground stuff pretty badly here. It only applies in the case of someone threatening someone's life. To make it clearer, if I came at your car with a can of spray paint and violently sprayed paint all over the place, there are no circumstances under which you could pull a gun and be in the clear.

        If I came at your car with a baseball bat, you might have an argument, but again, it has to do with fearing for one's life.

        Unless whatever they threw was something potentially deadly, stand your ground has absolutely nothing to do with this.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
          Just a little fuel to this fire. This a a portion of a 2005 article when the castle doctrine was signed into law in Florida:



          It appears the defence of ones vehicle is covered by that law. Now we wait and see if this is applicable in this case.
          So this means that Doom is innocent, as long as he can prove that his car was in danger. Shouldn't be too difficult for Harvey.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DaFace View Post
            You guys are confusing all the stand your ground stuff pretty badly here. It only applies in the case of someone threatening someone's life. To make it clearer, if I came at your car with a can of spray paint and violently sprayed paint all over the place, there are no circumstances under which you could pull a gun and be in the clear.

            If I came at your car with a baseball bat, you might have an argument, but again, it has to do with fearing for one's life.

            Unless whatever they threw was something potentially deadly, stand your ground has absolutely nothing to do with this.
            Aye... I was going to say something a long those lines. good stuff sir.


            Not related whatsoever but 10 posts in 6 years and you made like 7 of them today. impressive. haha

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MH Stampede View Post
              What is threatening or not, is a very subjective thing. What isn't threatening to me, might be to you.

              Now dont get me wrong here, Elvis getting out of his vehicle was stupid, as was lying to the cop.

              But lets not pretend that the "victims" here had absolutely nothing to do with how this incident played out.
              Nobody's pretending the "victims" didn't have anything to do with the incident. The whole thing seemingly started with some idiot women cutting Dumervil off. Horns then blared, insults were hurled - I'd bet dollars to donuts her husband was mouthing off big time to Dumervil and his buddies. I have little doubt the Victoria Secret witness is correct when she says the women threw something at Dumervil's car.

              This here is pure speculation on my part, but she probably threw some handy piece of trash (a McDonald's cup or something). But I don't care if she threw a car seat with her kid in it causing a huge dent to Dumervil's Range Rover. That is no legal or moral justification to then get out of your car, advance upon her, and threaten her with a brandished gun. That's not the prevention of an assault or defense of property - it's an assault against her.

              How far do you see his "rights" in that regard extending? After brandishing his gun, could he have drawn it and shot her through her car window?
              Last edited by ramanboy33; 07-16-2012, 04:34 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Remedy View Post
                Aye... I was going to say something a long those lines. good stuff sir.


                Not related whatsoever but 10 posts in 6 years and you made like 7 of them today. impressive. haha
                Eh, full disclosure, I'm a frequent poster (and former admin) of a Chiefs site. I live in Denver, so I follow Broncos news pretty closely. I created an account a long time ago, but only drop by on rare occasions. I just find stuff like this fascinating, so I dropped by to see what the discussion was like around here.
                Last edited by DaFace; 07-16-2012, 04:35 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DaFace View Post
                  You guys are confusing all the stand your ground stuff pretty badly here. It only applies in the case of someone threatening someone's life. To make it clearer, if I came at your car with a can of spray paint and violently sprayed paint all over the place, there are no circumstances under which you could pull a gun and be in the clear.

                  If I came at your car with a baseball bat, you might have an argument, but again, it has to do with fearing for one's life.

                  Unless whatever they threw was something potentially deadly, stand your ground has absolutely nothing to do with this.
                  This is true in Colorado, but I'm not sure how Florida's law reads.

                  In any case it doesn't matter if what the witnesses are saying his true. He was neither defending his life nor his property. If he had stayed in his car and she had approached him that might be a different story depending on the specifics of Florida's law, and the actions of the woman approaching his car (i.e. was she carrying a weapon).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ramanboy33 View Post
                    Nobody's pretending the "victims" didn't have anything to do with the incident. The whole thing seemingly started with some idiot women cutting Dumervil off. Horns then blared, insults were hurled - I'd bet dollars to donuts her husband was mouthing off big time to Dumervil and his buddies. I have little doubt the Victoria Secret witness is correct when she says the women threw something at Dumervil's car.

                    This here is pure speculation on my part, but she probably threw some handy piece of trash (a McDonald's cup or something). But I don't care if she threw a car seat with her kid in it causing a huge dent to Dumervil's Range Rover. That is no legal or moral justification to then get out of your car, advance upon her, and threaten her with a brandished gun. That's not the prevention of an assault or defense of property - it's an assault against her.

                    How far do you see his "rights" in that regard extending? After brandishing his gun, could he have drawn it and shot her through her car window?
                    This is exactly what I was trying to say. He may have the right to defend his property under Florida law, but I'm sure that was possible without exiting the vehicle and brandishing a gun.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DaFace View Post
                      Eh, full disclosure, I'm a frequent poster (and former admin) of a Chiefs site. I live in Denver, so I follow Broncos news pretty closely. I created an account a long time ago, but only drop by on rare occasions. I just find stuff like this fascinating, so I dropped by to see what the discussion was like around here.
                      we all can't be perfect hahahaha..... I just found it/find it funny when you have someone with a older join date with so few posts all of a sudden come alive.

                      good stuff either way sir(or mam)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MajorFriend View Post
                        This is exactly what I was trying to say. He may have the right to defend his property under Florida law, but I'm sure that was possible without exiting the vehicle and brandishing a gun.
                        What other posters have been saying about the right to defend your vehicle under Florida law is incorrect. That came from a poster (EddieMac) who was quoting an article about the extension of Florida's castle doctrine. He quoted it out of context. The law basically considers your car, when you're in it, to be your home and allows for one to use up to deadly force if their car is intruded while they are in it. Here's the actual text of the Florida law:


                        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.


                        This doesn't seem to even remotely apply to this incident.
                        Last edited by ramanboy33; 07-16-2012, 04:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ramanboy33 View Post
                          What other posters have been saying about the right to defend your vehicle under Florida law is incorrect. That came from a poster (EddieMac) who was quoting an article about the extension of Florida's castle doctrine. He quoted it out of context. The law basically considers your car, when you're in it, to be your home and allows for one to use up to deadly force if their car is intruded while they are in it. Here's the actual text of the Florida law:


                          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.


                          This doesn't seem to even remotely apply to this incident.
                          He was in his car when it was attacked so without having significant law experience you can't say if he's allowed to go out of that to defend his property. The whole thing doesn't matter because no defensive force was used.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Broncos2024 View Post
                            He was in his car when it was attacked so without having significant law experience you can't say if he's allowed to go out of that to defend his property.
                            Having someone throw something at your car is not the same as someone trying to enter your car while you are in it.

                            Comment


                            • Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi
                              There's also the matter of a third person arrested, which did not show up on police report. Who is that third person?
                              Expand
                              Reply Retweet Favorite

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ramanboy33 View Post
                                What other posters have been saying about the right to defend your vehicle under Florida law is incorrect. That came from a poster (EddieMac) who was quoting an article about the extension of Florida's castle doctrine. He quoted it out of context. The law basically considers your car, when you're in it, to be your home and allows for one to use up to deadly force if their car is intruded while they are in it. Here's the actual text of the Florida law:


                                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.


                                This doesn't seem to even remotely apply to this incident.
                                exactly - it's just saying that car invasion is the same as home invasion. Defending your property doesn't mean you can use or threaten violence if someone hurts your property.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X