comp.lang.ruby

Scout

7/8/2013 6:55:00 AM

"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <Dev@null.net> wrote in message
news:dlnkt8lrrel1ntm1lclb7m3ud1mpidpmr1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:17:44 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <Dev@null.net> wrote in message
>>news:v40kt8p85p50ddib0q4ps7loh00kp8hg2f@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:54:47 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <Dev@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:9onjt81r9u50s5e08lebhk6bhnel8gndoa@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 12:29:40 -0500, Johnny Johnson
>>>>> <TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <087it8pvd73hs7noadsd3dmpbrb6rp9pm5@4ax.com>, Slippy the
>>>>>>Left-Wing
>>>>>>Lib <Dev@null.net> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[Cut to the chase]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stand your ground is not a defense, but an immunity statute,
>>>>>>>>> providing immunity from criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>>> It is a bar to prosecution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me the "bar to prosecution", Slippy:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what it is a bar to prosecution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You didn't look up "affirmative defense to prosecution," did you,
>>>>>>Slippy?
>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 776.012 Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> not have a duty to retreat if:
>>>>>>>> (1) He or she reasonably believes that 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In legal parlance it's known as "a defense to prosecution," but you
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> trying to make it an "affirmative defense to prosecution."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Florida Supreme Court makes it quite clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, Slippy, that's a lower appellate court decision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
>>>>>>MIAMI-DADE
>>>>>>COUNTY, FLORIDA"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff vs. QUENTIN WYCHE, Defendant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>CASE NUMBER: F10-9090
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.talkleft.com/legal/Wyche-...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>"TalkLeft.com" <chuckle> :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"These statutes...do not purport to justify the use of deadly force
>>>>>>> in response to shows of force in any or every kind. In ordinary
>>>>>>> circumstances a push or slap may be met with a push or slap,
>>>>>>> perhaps with a punch--but not with a bullet, whether under "
>>>>>>> Stand Your Ground" or any other provision of Florida law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An act of deadly force is the gravest act upon which the law can
>>>>>>> put it's imprimatur. The defendant who claims the law's protection
>>>>>>> for his use of deadly force must show that his conduct comes within
>>>>>>> the narrow limits to which that protection extends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>So the 11th Florida Circuit Court has ruled that 776.012 is an
>>>>>>"affirmative
>>>>>>defense to prosecution."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Intersesting interpretation on their part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Q: What does "It is a defense to prosecution" mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A: In the legal fraternity, 'affirmative defense to prosecution' means
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>defense by the defense lawyers against a criminal charge that claims
>>>>>>vindicating facts instead of contesting the main fact of the criminal
>>>>>>charge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's the way it's spelled out specifically in the Texas Penal Code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>? 2.04. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense
>>>>>>in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative
>>>>>>defense to prosecution . . . ."
>>>>>> (b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate
>>>>>>the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging
>>>>>>commission of the offense.
>>>>>> (c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense
>>>>>>is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting
>>>>>>the defense.
>>>>>> (d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense
>>>>>>is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant
>>>>>>must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
>>>>>>Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While the 11th has turned a statutory "defense" into an "affirmative
>>>>>>defense"
>>>>>>WRT FS ?776.012, it's interesting where the Florida Legislature
>>>>>>actually
>>>>>>applied it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Florida Statute. Title XLVI. 775.027 Insanity Defense. (1) AFFIRMATIVE
>>>>>>DEFENSE.?All persons are presumed to be sane. It is an affirmative
>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>to a
>>>>>>criminal prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts
>>>>>>constituting the offense, the defendant was insane. Insanity is
>>>>>>established
>>>>>>when: (a) The defendant had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect;
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>(b)
>>>>>>Because of this condition, the defendant: 1. Did not know what he or
>>>>>>she
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>doing or its consequences; or 2. Although the defendant knew what he
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>she was
>>>>>>doing and its consequences, the defendant did not know that what he or
>>>>>>she
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>doing was wrong. Mental infirmity, disease, or defect does not
>>>>>>constitute
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>defense of insanity except as provided in this subsection. (2) BURDEN
>>>>>>OF
>>>>>>PROOF.?The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>clear
>>>>>>and convincing evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And "Now for the rest of the story" re: Wyche:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The case of Quentin Wyche. Lessons to be learned.
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>Lesson One: Do Not Trust The Traditional Media. They are in the News
>>>>>>business,
>>>>>>not in the truth business and will tailor any story the way that a)
>>>>>>Makes
>>>>>>more
>>>>>>money, b) Cost less. c) fits their political agenda.
>>>>>>...
>>>>>>http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2012/01/27/the-case-o...
>>>>>>wyche-lessons-to-be-learned/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And here's a parrallel to the case at bar you didn't figure upon:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
>>>>>>MIAMI-DADE
>>>>>>COUNTY, FLORIDA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. EMIN ROSALES RAMIREZ, Defendant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>CASE NO: FI2-019854
>>>>>>JUDGE: Hirsch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/11/12/18/50/hPi7A...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now _where_ did we just read about a case involving Judge Milton
>>>>>>Hirsch?
>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's a "hint" from the case:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"In addition, the State is concerned about the facts in the Wyche
>>>>>>case.
>>>>>>There
>>>>>>Judge
>>>>>>Hirsch believed that an unsolicited ex parte letter from a defendant
>>>>>>cnticizing
>>>>>>the manner in which he is handling his case and ruling on his motions,
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>sufficient to sua sponte require him to recuse himself, meaning that
>>>>>>just
>>>>>>because of that ex parte letter, he now believes there is reason for
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>parties (who have not asked for the recusal) to believe he will be
>>>>>>unfair.
>>>>>>An
>>>>>>ex parte letter from a defendant criticizing the judge would not in
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>itself give the State a reason to believe that Judge Hirsch would have
>>>>>>been
>>>>>>unfair in the Wyche case. It also could not have created such a fear
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>defendant, Wyche, since he was the one who wrote the letter and never
>>>>>>asked the
>>>>>>judge to recuse himself. This leaves the State in this case with the
>>>>>>belief
>>>>>>that because the victim's family, like the defendant in Wvche,
>>>>>>criticized
>>>>>>Judge
>>>>>>Hirsch, in Judge Hirsch's mind, there is now created an inability to
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>fair."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"As such, based on all of the above, the State reasonably believes
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>has
>>>>>>a wellgrounded
>>>>>>fear that it will not receive a fair hearing or trial before the
>>>>>>Honorable
>>>>>>Milton Hirsch."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the State respectfully requests
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>Court enter an
>>>>>>order disqualiffing itself from further consideration of the
>>>>>>proceedings
>>>>>>in the
>>>>>>above styled case."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-Ibid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does the name "Judge Lester" ring any bells here? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, BTW: wonder why this "SYG" case, still pending in the Florida
>>>>>>court
>>>>>>system,
>>>>>>didn't receive the nationwide coverage, and the ire of Al Sharpton, et
>>>>>>al.,
>>>>>>against the Defendant like the Zimmerman case has?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Simple enough to see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kendall Berry
>>>>>>Black male
>>>>>>Age at time: 22
>>>>>>Weapon: unarmed
>>>>>>Victim photo: Miami Herald
>>>>>>http://watchlite.s3.amazonaws.com/person%2Fmugs%2FBerry-K...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Quentin Wyche
>>>>>>Black male
>>>>>>Age at time: 22
>>>>>>Weapon: scissors
>>>>>>Defendant photo: Miami-Dade County Jail, 2010
>>>>>>http://watchlite.s3.amazonaws.com/person%2Fmugs%2...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Source:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cas...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anything else need be said?
>>>>>
>>>>> You an argue until the cows come home
>>>>
>>>>...but you're not going to be persuaded with facts?
>>>
>>> That SYG concerns immunity to prosecution not a defense against a
>>> charge is indisputable whatever text mangling you indulge in.
>>
>>??? "immunity to prosecution" = "not a defense against a charge" ???
>>
>>If one is immune to prosecution then that means it is a defense against
>>such
>>a charge.
>>
>
> No, if successful there are no charges to defend against.

Sorry, but you can't offer a defense until charges are brought.

You're attempting to put the cart before the horse.