Asp Forum - Problems with replacing text

Sam C.

1/23/2007 2:17:00 AM

I am creating a small chatbot program in Ruby, and I need it to be able
to change the word "I" to "You" when it is reading the user input. this
is the code I am using:

uinput['I'] = 'you'

The problem is, whenever I enter text that doesn't include the word "I",
an error is printed out and the program terminates. I am looking for a
way to work around this, possibly a command that ignores the error, or
an If-Then statement that checks to see if "I" exists before replacing
it.

Thank you!

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

9 Answers

Dan Uznanski

1/23/2007 2:41:00 AM

On Jan 22, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Sam C. wrote:

> I am creating a small chatbot program in Ruby, and I need it to be able
> to change the word "I" to "You" when it is reading the user input. this
> is the code I am using:
>
> uinput['I'] = 'you'
>
> The problem is, whenever I enter text that doesn't include the word
> "I",
> an error is printed out and the program terminates. I am looking for a
> way to work around this, possibly a command that ignores the error, or
> an If-Then statement that checks to see if "I" exists before replacing
> it.

Try using uinput.gsub!(/I', 'you')

alternatively, you can wrap your command in do/rescue/end, but that's
usually more work than you really want to do.

Dan

William James

1/23/2007 2:59:00 AM

Sam C. wrote:
> I am creating a small chatbot program in Ruby, and I need it to be able
> to change the word "I" to "You" when it is reading the user input. this
> is the code I am using:
>
> uinput['I'] = 'you'
>
> The problem is, whenever I enter text that doesn't include the word "I",
> an error is printed out and the program terminates. I am looking for a
> way to work around this, possibly a command that ignores the error, or
> an If-Then statement that checks to see if "I" exists before replacing
> it.

irb(main):005:0> input = "I see. In fact, I understand."
=> "I see. In fact, I understand."
irb(main):006:0> input.gsub!( /\bI\b/, "you" )
=> "you see. In fact, you understand."

Sam C.

1/23/2007 2:59:00 AM

Dan Uznanski wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Sam C. wrote:
>
>> an If-Then statement that checks to see if "I" exists before replacing
>> it.
>
> Try using uinput.gsub!(/I', 'you')
>
> alternatively, you can wrap your command in do/rescue/end, but that's
> usually more work than you really want to do.
>
> Dan

Thank you so much, I now have it working!

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Glen Pfeiffer

1/23/2007 3:04:00 AM

--- Sam C. wrote:
> I am creating a small chatbot program in Ruby, and I need it
> to be able to change the word "I" to "You" when it is reading
> the user input. this is the code I am using:
>
> uinput['I'] = 'you'

You want to perform a "substitution" on the text contained in the
variable. You can call the 'gsub!' method of the string object to
perform a substitution. Here is an example from an irb session:

irb(main):001:0> x = 'I love Perl'
=> "I love Perl"
irb(main):002:0> x.gsub!('Perl', 'Ruby')
=> "I love Ruby"
irb(main):003:0> puts x
I love Perl

The code only version is:

x = 'I love Perl'
x.gsub!('Perl', 'Ruby')
puts x

There are several other problems you may run into with this as
well. For example, what are you going to do when the user enters
a lowercase i? Or what if a word contains the letter i? I
recommend using a regular expression.

Regular Expressions:
http://www.rubycentral.com/book/tut_stdtyp...

Pattern-Based Substitution
http://www.rubycentral.com/book/tut_stdtyp...

Here is another irb session:

irb(main):004:0> x = 'I will eat pizza for dinner!'
=> "I will eat pizza for dinner!"
irb(main):005:0> x.gsub!(/\bi\b/i, 'You')
=> "You will eat pizza for dinner!"
irb(main):006:0> puts x
You will eat pizza for dinner!
=> nil

Again, the code only version:

x = 'I will eat pizza for dinner!'
x.gsub!(/\bi\b/i, 'You')
puts x

--
Glen

JohnJohnsn

7/8/2013 9:02:00 PM

In article <krcr98$3bl$1@dont-email.me>, Scout <me4guns@verizon.net> says...
>
> "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
>>> 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?
>
Like the FACT that despite being shown that the Wyche case he cites is from the
11th Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, he _still_ tries to claim it's a
[Florida] "Supreme Court judgment":

"...try to second guess Supreme Court judgments and settled case law..."

RD Sandman

7/8/2013 9:16:00 PM

Johnny Johnson <TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2c44e4a0b0d202f1989820@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <krcr98$3bl$1@dont-email.me>, Scout <me4guns@verizon.net>
> says...
>>
>> "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-c...
>>>>ntin- 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
>>>> 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?
>>
> Like the FACT that despite being shown that the Wyche case he cites is
> from the 11th Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, he _still_ tries to
> claim it's a [Florida] "Supreme Court judgment":
>
> "...try to second guess Supreme Court judgments and settled case
> law..."

To add:

Florida Criminal Law Defenses
Affirmative Defenses and Legal Defenses in Florida

In any Florida criminal case, the preeminent issue is whether the whether
the State can prove each and every element of the alleged crime beyond
and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. A ?defense? in a Florida
criminal proceeding is where there is some factual, legal, or procedural
obstacle, which stands in the way of the State?s effort to meet its
burden of proof.

There are innumerable defenses that may be available to an accused in a
Florida criminal prosecution. These defenses can be roughly summarized as
follows:
Affirmative Defenses
Procedural Defenses
Factual Defenses
Legal Defenses

SNIP-----

Florida Affirmative Defenses - Justification and Excuse

Under Florida law, an Affirmative Defense is a defense that operates to
avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a criminal act, which would
ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In an affirmative
defense, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (the act
forming the basis of the prosecutor?s allegations), but justifies or
excuses the act so as to avoid being subjected to criminal punishment.
In effect, the defendant says: ?Yes, I committed the act. However, I am
not subject to criminal liability because, under the facts and
circumstances of my case, the act was justifiable or excusable.?

For affirmative defenses raised in the course of a Florida jury trial,
the defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative
defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense.
If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the
jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider
the defense during their deliberations.

There are numerous affirmative defenses available in a Florida criminal
case. The most common defenses of this type include the following:
Self-Defense
Defense of Others
Defense of Property
Necessity or Duress
Involuntary Intoxication
Voluntary Intoxication (abolished)
Entrapment
Abandonment / Withdrawal / Renunciation
Insanity
Independent Act

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Old Air Force adage..The only time you have too
much fuel is when you are on fire!!

JohnJohnsn

7/8/2013 9:17:00 PM

In article <v40kt8p85p50ddib0q4ps7loh00kp8hg2f@4ax.com>, Slippy the Lib
<Dev@null.net> says...
>
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:54:47 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.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
>>>> 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...
>
[ Watch Slippy _ignore_ that the fact above "SYG" case was _ignored_
[ by the lamestream media because it was "blck-on-black"
>
>>>> 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.
>
Slippy; "immunity from prosecution" means that charges CANNOT be brought
(witness: "diplomatic immunity"), which is most certainly not the case WRT
776.012, which provides a "defense to prosecution" which occurs AFTER criminal
charges are brought.

Don't argue with a "wannabe lawyer"! <sarcastic chuckle> ;)

JohnJohnsn

7/8/2013 9:31:00 PM

In article <bpqkt8lju1ijhvi2g2h6bfm0hmao711gdk@4ax.com>, Slippy the Lib
<Dev@null.net> says...
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 02:54:57 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>"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.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <Dev@null.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:v40kt8p85p50ddib0q4ps7loh00kp8hg2f@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> SYG isn't a defense against charges but a claim to immunity from such
> charges.
>
> A claim that originally Chief Lee cited as reason not to even arrest
> Zimmerman.
>
>http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/22/10808864-police-chief-s...
temporarily-over-handling-of-trayvon-martin-case
>
> The man who fatally shot Miami Gardens teen Martin was not arrested
> the night of the incident because his self-defense claim "was
> supported by physical evidence and testimony," according to Lee.
>
> Zimmerman told police that Martin attacked him after he had given up
> on chasing the teenager and was returning to his sport utility
> vehicle.
>
> In his explanation, Lee referred to the "stand your ground" provisions
> of state law. They say that Floridians have the right "to stand his or
> her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force" if they
> feel threatened. Lee pointed to a part of the statute that says "the
> agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines
> that there is probable cause that the force that was used was
> unlawful."
>
OK, Slippy; here's the law -- point out that "part of the statute that says
"the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that
there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."

2012 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.?s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...
App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-
0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or
great bodily harm.
[snip]
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...
App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-
0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

GOP_Decline_and_Fall

7/8/2013 10:16:00 PM

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:17:07 -0500, Johnny Johnson
<TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <v40kt8p85p50ddib0q4ps7loh00kp8hg2f@4ax.com>, Slippy the Lib
><Dev@null.net> says...
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:54:47 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.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
>>>>> 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...
>>
>[ Watch Slippy _ignore_ that the fact above "SYG" case was _ignored_
>[ by the lamestream media because it was "blck-on-black"
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>Slippy; "immunity from prosecution" means that charges CANNOT be brought
>(witness: "diplomatic immunity"), which is most certainly not the case WRT
>776.012, which provides a "defense to prosecution" which occurs AFTER criminal
>charges are brought
>
>Don't argue with a "wannabe lawyer"! <sarcastic chuckle> ;)

Sorry, I grant you your firm grasp of gun law legislation,but it seems
it certainly is the case with 776.012 as 776.032 clearly states.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/arti...

The ?Stand your ground? law is covered in Florida, by Florida Statute
776.032 "Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for
justifiable use of force." This law states:

"(1) A person who uses force as permitted in
----------->s.776.012<-------
s776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is
------>immune from criminal prosecution<----------------

and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against
whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s.
943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As
used in this subsection, the term ?criminal prosecution? includes
arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the
defendant."

Under Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, a person who uses force as
permitted in Section 776.013 " is immune from criminal prosecution and
civil action" (with certain limited exceptions pertaining to law
enforcement officers).

In the event that civil action is brought against the person who used
the deadly force, a court must award reasonable attorney's fees, court
costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred in
the defense of the case if the court finds that the defendant is
entitled to immunity from prosecution as provided in 776.013.

The grant of prosecutorial immunity provided by Florida's "Stand Your
Ground" Law is a powerful tool for a criminal defendant. The immunity
can apply in any case involving the use of force, including assaults,
batteries, and homicides.

Typically, the issue is raised pre-trial through the filing if a
Motion for a declaration of immunity. To obtain such a declaration by
the trial court, a hearing is held where the defendant must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence his or her
qualifications for immunity. This essentially reverses the burden of
proof traditionally at play in a criminal case. The defense presents
the evidence, shows that he or she meets the statutory prerequisites,
and requests the court grant the motion and appropriate relief. If the
Motion is granted, the defense then files a Motion to Dismiss the
case, as there are no longer any justiciable issues for a jury to
resolve.

Troy J. Webber is a Jacksonville, Florida criminal defense attorney
and managing member of the law firm of Hussein & Webber, PL. Mr.
Webber is a graduate of the University of Florida, Levin College of
Law, and a former Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial
Circuit of Brevard County, Florida. His practice experience includes
over 1,500 criminal cases, twenty five jury trials, and numerous
circuit court criminal appeals. For additional information, visit
http://www.husseinand....

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.c...

comp.lang.ruby

Problems with replacing text

Sam C.

Dan Uznanski

William James

Sam C.

Glen Pfeiffer

JohnJohnsn

RD Sandman

JohnJohnsn

JohnJohnsn

GOP_Decline_and_Fall

x Login to ForumsZone