Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.
FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.
A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.
26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches
29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof
The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Stand Your Ground

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stand Your Ground

    I wasn't really sure which forum was best suited for this thread. If a moderator thinks it should belong in a different one please feel free to move it.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There seems to be a recurring sentiment among many law-and-order conservatives that excessive force can be used with impunity. That any physical confrontation is best dealt with in as violently as possible. In other words, do unto others before they have an opportunity to do it unto you. This is even true with women and the handicapped.

    What is quickly becoming the epitome of this philosophy of violence and mayhem is the new "stand your ground" law in Florida and a few of the other more backward states. Recently, a 20-something had a road rage confrontation with a 60-something. This resulted in the 60-something nearly killing him with an ice pick that he just happened to have in his car.

    'Stand your ground' law may factor in Tampa road rage incident

    TAMPA — A man who stabbed another in the head with an ice pick in a road rage confrontation Monday may be protected under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

    Authorities haven't determined that for sure, but said Tuesday they are investigating all angles. And one of the factors they have to consider is the 6-year-old law, said Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office spokesman Larry McKinnon.

    Prosecutors will make the final decision.

    It all started, deputies say, when Alcisviades Polanco, 62, cut off Wathson Adelson, 20, while driving on Manhattan Avenue.

    Adelson then sped around Polanco and stopped his car. Adelson got out and walked toward the older man.

    The argument became physical between Adelson — a 6-foot-3, 260-pound former Middleton High School offensive tackle — and Polanco, who is 6 feet tall and 150 pounds.

    Just what happened during the confrontation isn't clear. Deputies wouldn't elaborate, and neither man could be reached for comment Tuesday.

    But at some point, deputies say, Polanco grabbed an ice pick he had in his car and stabbed Adelson in the head and arm.

    Adelson was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital, where he remained in critical condition Tuesday.
    Of course, the police think this is preposterous. They realize that the only reason they don't have far more dead people cluttering up their morgues is that rational human beings do all they can to not have deadly physical confrontations with total strangers.

    What do you think? Are we actually encouraging far more acts of violence by giving people the right to kill each other in physical confrontations when they previously had to do everything possible to avoid it?
    Florida is the Mecca of rednecks. No offense to Mecca. Stephen Colbert

  • #2
    Re: Stand Your Ground

    A 6'3", 250 young man may well be a deadly threat to a 60 year old man 100 pounds smaller. There is not enough detail to know from the article, IMHO.

    Absent the facts, I think I'll reserve judgment about the physical fight. I'd also suggest that the blanket generalization / insinuations on the first paragraph are gratuitous and detract from any reasonable discussion.

    One thing about the story seems pretty clear, though. Had the 20 year old not gotten out of his car, none of this would have happened. There might just be a moral to the story there.
    You might hope to keep your insurance plan, your doctor, your premium, and your deductible, but Obamacare is going to change all of that for you.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Stand Your Ground

      Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
      A 6'3", 250 young man may well be a deadly threat to a 60 year old man 100 pounds smaller. There is not enough detail to know from the article, IMHO.

      Absent the facts, I think I'll reserve judgment about the physical fight. I'd also suggest that the blanket generalization / insinuations on the first paragraph are gratuitous and detract from any reasonable discussion.

      One thing about the story seems pretty clear, though. Had the 20 year old not gotten out of his car, none of this would have happened. There might just be a moral to the story there.
      I'm gonna have to agree with you on this. If someone is willing to inflict or threaten to inflict bodily harm on someone else because he/she can't control their temper on the road, they have every right to accept the consequences for their own actions. This "stand your ground" law in Florida may actually save more lives than destroy. I think that ultimately, it may make for a more polite, courteous and selfless society... at least in Florida.
      "If swearing is so immature, why is it referred to as... adult language?" - Philosoraptor

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Stand Your Ground

        I don't know the law in Florida, but I'm guessing it's pretty similar to TX. In TX, your car is equivalent to your house. If someone is forcing their way into an occupied car, the person in the car has the right to respond with deadly force.

        TX CHL laws support this, but removes the defense to prosecution if it is determined that you encouraged the confrontation by verbal insults or gestures.

        I don't know if FL is any different, but it works for me. I know I keep my mouth shut and drive much less aggressively since I got my CHL 2 years ago.
        Hope and Change = Bait and Switch

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Stand Your Ground

          Originally posted by Formaldehyde View Post
          I wasn't really sure which forum was best suited for this thread. If a moderator thinks it should belong in a different one please feel free to move it.

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          There seems to be a recurring sentiment among many law-and-order conservatives that excessive force can be used with impunity. That any physical confrontation is best dealt with in as violently as possible. In other words, do unto others before they have an opportunity to do it unto you. This is even true with women and the handicapped.

          What is quickly becoming the epitome of this philosophy of violence and mayhem is the new "stand your ground" law in Florida and a few of the other more backward states. Recently, a 20-something had a road rage confrontation with a 60-something. This resulted in the 60-something nearly killing him with an ice pick that he just happened to have in his car.

          'Stand your ground' law may factor in Tampa road rage incident



          Of course, the police think this is preposterous. They realize that the only reason they don't have far more dead people cluttering up their morgues is that rational human beings do all they can to not have deadly physical confrontations with total strangers.

          What do you think? Are we actually encouraging far more acts of violence by giving people the right to kill each other in physical confrontations when they previously had to do everything possible to avoid it?
          If the kid was stabbed in his arm and head, chances are very good that he was reaching into the car which in many states is considered an extension of your home and in those states, it's perfectly acceptable to protect yourself by whatever means are necessary. My son was sitting in a parking lot about to back out when he was approached by a man asking for a cigarette. As he reached to get one, the guy reached into the car to grab my son so since he was sitting there with the car in reverse, he accelerated and cut his wheel, rolling over the guys legs. When the cops came, they took my son's statement and sent him on his way. Why? Because he had a right to protect himself, just as that older man did.
          sigpic




          When life takes you to the end of the road, kick it into four wheel drive and make your own.


          For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.

          Click HERE to subscribe now!!!

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Stand Your Ground

            So what's the problem?
            Thank you God for my rights Please Protect us from and forgive the liberals for trying to steal them they know not what they do.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Stand Your Ground

              They were both apparently outside their cars arguing with each other when Polanco reached into the car and got the ice pick.

              Here's an article by a columnist about the incident from the same source which has a few more details:

              The 'stand your ground' law's sad Florida legacy

              It sounds like classic road rage. On what should have been a routine Monday, according to Hillsborough County sheriff's officials, 62-year-old Alcisviades Polanco was driving down Manhattan Avenue when he cut off Wathson Adelson, 20. The younger man then sped around him, stopped and got out. They argued. At some point, the older man grabbed an ice pick from his car. Deputies say he stabbed the younger, larger man in the head and arm. Adelson was in critical condition this week.

              And, really, an ice pick? These days, I guess we carry around all kinds of things to protect us from the world.


              It's early in the investigation, and details haven't been released, but this will soon land in the lap of the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office. Prosecutors will probably consider whether what Polanco did falls under the "stand your ground" law.

              Though Florida already had a perfectly good law on when people could use deadly force to protect themselves, the 2005 law said you can stand your ground and meet force with force just about anywhere, taking away the sensible part about retreating if you can reasonably and safely do so.

              Sheriff's spokesman Larry McKinnon, a police officer for 30 years, put it this way: "It used to be there was at least some mental safety mechanism, some pause for people before they would resort to the ultimate use of force. That one barrier seems to have disappeared."

              By the way, there was no evidence before this of a trend of prosecuting people for defending themselves. But this is Florida, where there is almost no right we won't try to bestow upon gun owners — like that recent attempt at open-carry legislation that would have had people packing in plain sight in public.

              "Stand your ground" says you need only to "reasonably believe" shooting, stabbing or otherwise using force is necessary to protect yourself from great harm or death. Last year, a Times review of major Florida newspapers showed the law has been a factor in at least 93 cases since it went into effect. People weren't charged or had charges dropped or dismissed in 57 of them. Seven were acquitted.

              Not that the defense always works. Last year a guy in Land O'Lakes on his way to jail after shooting and killing a friend told a detective, "I'm going to stand my ground, dude. Jeb Bush said I could." He got 30 years.

              But it's hard to argue with critics who say a law like this has the potential to cheapen human life.
              Here's a photo of the intersection where it occurred:

              http://www.baynews9.com/article/news...-stabbing.html



              If Polenco had stayed in his car with the windows up and the doors lpcked I could certainly understand him defending himself if he was physically attacked under those conditions. I could even understand it if Polenco had tried to flee and was stopped from doing so. In fact, the existing laws already covered those situations. But instead he apparently "stood his ground" and took on someone 40 years younger and 100 lbs heavier with a weapon he carried in his car apparently for that purpose.

              This is a very redneck state with a lot of violent people. There have already been 64 cases where the "stand your ground' statute has allowed people who would have likely otherwise faced serious criminal charges being set free. AFAIK every single police department is adamantly opposed to the new law.
              Last edited by Formaldehyde; 11-28-2011, 09:40 PM.
              Florida is the Mecca of rednecks. No offense to Mecca. Stephen Colbert

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Stand Your Ground

                The 2nd amendment isn't just about guns. We have a fundamental right to defend ourselves, and that right does not mean a proportional response.

                If the state requires you to retreat, that's a violation of your rights.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Stand Your Ground

                  Fortunately, all but a handful of states disagree with that position. And so do the police.

                  Eventually, I think this law will be struck down. It is just an issue of how many people who die or are seriously injured before it finally is.
                  Last edited by Formaldehyde; 11-28-2011, 09:54 PM.
                  Florida is the Mecca of rednecks. No offense to Mecca. Stephen Colbert

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Stand Your Ground

                    Originally posted by Formaldehyde View Post
                    They were both apparently outside their cars arguing with each other when Polanco reached into the car and got the ice pick.


                    If Polenco had stayed in his car with the windows up and the doors lpcked I could certainly understand him defending himself if he was physically attacked under those conditions. I could even understand it if Polenco had tried to flee and was stopped from doing so. In fact, the existing laws already covered those situations. But instead he apparently "stood his ground" and took on someone 40 years younger and 100 lbs heavier with a weapon he carried in his car apparently for that purpose.

                    This is a very redneck state with a lot of violent people. There have already been 64 cases where the "stand your ground' statute has allowed people who would have likely otherwise faced serious criminal charges being set free. AFAIK every single police department is adamantly opposed to the new law.
                    I've seen nothing that says the older man got out of his car. This is from the Hillborough County Sheriff's Office and even they don't say one way or the other:

                    Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office detectives are investigating what appears to be a case of Road Rage that occurred in the area of Waters Avenue and Manhattan Avenue this morning, November 21, 2011 at approximately 9:30 a.m.

                    According to witnesses, two vehicles (1994 Honda Accord and 1995 Hyundai Accent)were traveling south on Manhattan Avenue when the 1994 Honda driven by Wathson Adelson accelerated into oncoming traffic and went around the 1995 Hyundai Accent driven by Alcisviades Polanco. After Adelson went around Polanco he got in front of Polanco and slammed on brakes blocking the roadway. Adelson then walked back to Polanco's vehicle where a verbal altercation took place, the verbal then turned physical. Polanco armed himself with a sharp object (ice pick) and stabbed Adelson in the head and arm. Adelson was transported to St. Joseph's Hospital where he is listed in critical condition. Preliminary information is that the incident occurred because Polanco cut in front of Adelson in traffic.

                    The investigation continues and there are no charges at this time.
                    Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office - 11-393

                    If the older man got out of the car, he was crazy to do so. If he was in his car, his use of the ice pick was justified. And yes, many people carry things like ice picks instead of guns because they can easily stab someone in the arm, hands, head, etc. if the person tries reaching in their car.
                    sigpic




                    When life takes you to the end of the road, kick it into four wheel drive and make your own.


                    For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.

                    Click HERE to subscribe now!!!

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Stand Your Ground

                      Both the St Pete Times articles claim he reached into the car to retrieve the ice pick. This seems to be a critical aspect of the case, especially since the existing laws would have clearly covered it under those circumstances. There would have been no need to invoke the new law.

                      Besides, he could have easly just rolled up his windows and locked the doors or even engaged reverse and driven away.
                      Florida is the Mecca of rednecks. No offense to Mecca. Stephen Colbert

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Stand Your Ground

                        I think the "backwards" people in the "backward" states like our "backward" laws. I sure have been getting a lot of new neighbors from "forward" states. I think they like our "backward" laws.

                        In this case, I don't know if the old guy has a leg to stand on. He didn't just stand his ground. He got out of his car and most likely encouraged the confrontation. I'm not going to convict the guy without the facts, but if he can run back to his car and safely get in, there is no reason to get out and stab the big dude. If the big dude followed him and tried to get into his car, we're back to a grey area. I would think ice pick's defense would depend on where the stabbing took place and what he may have done to escalate the situation previously.

                        Formaldehyde - I'm glad you can speak for all of the police departments. Are police departments actually speaking out against laws now? I'm pretty sure their job is to just enforce the law.
                        Hope and Change = Bait and Switch

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Stand Your Ground

                          Originally posted by Formaldehyde View Post
                          They were both apparently outside their cars arguing with each other when Polanco reached into the car and got the ice pick.

                          Here's an article by a columnist about the incident from the same source which has a few more details:

                          The 'stand your ground' law's sad Florida legacy



                          Here's a photo of the intersection where it occurred:

                          'Stand Your Ground' may cover road rage stabbing



                          If Polenco had stayed in his car with the windows up and the doors lpcked I could certainly understand him defending himself if he was physically attacked under those conditions. I could even understand it if Polenco had tried to flee and was stopped from doing so. In fact, the existing laws already covered those situations. But instead he apparently "stood his ground" and took on someone 40 years younger and 100 lbs heavier with a weapon he carried in his car apparently for that purpose.

                          This is a very redneck state with a lot of violent people. There have already been 64 cases where the "stand your ground' statute has allowed people who would have likely otherwise faced serious criminal charges being set free. AFAIK every single police department is adamantly opposed to the new law.
                          You seem to be reading a lot into both the law and the articles here.

                          We still know next to nothing about the physical altercation. We do not know what happened before, during or after the stabbing. The police have not provided any details, nor has either participant.

                          We do know, from the articles, that the 20 year old who was stabbed is the one who got out of his car and started the confrontation with a much smaller 60 year old man. We can say with absolute certainty that had the 20 year old not gotten all pissed off about being "cut off" in traffic and gotten out of his car to start a fight, none of this would have happened.

                          Now, about the law. First of all, this is not a "new" law - it was enacted over half a decade ago. The change that was made in 2005 was that there is no longer a duty to retreat from a threat to life or limb. That is all. The circumstances where one can defende themselves with deadly force did not change one iota. One can only use deadly force to defend themselves against the imminent commission of a forceable felony. No other time. That was true before 2005 and it is true now.

                          I'd suggest, if you are interested in this topic, that you obtain a copy of Jon Gutmacher's book "Florida Firearms", or check it out from the library. Mr. Gutmacher is an attorney here in central Florida who is very well versed in the Florida laws covering the use of force for self-defense, and the sections on that topic are not limited to firearms. His book is used in several law enforcement training schools.

                          As far as the police disagreeing with this law, I don't think the opposition to it is widespread at all.
                          You might hope to keep your insurance plan, your doctor, your premium, and your deductible, but Obamacare is going to change all of that for you.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Stand Your Ground

                            Originally posted by Formaldehyde View Post
                            Both the St Pete Times articles claim he reached into the car to retrieve the ice pick. This seems to be a critical aspect of the case, especially since the existing laws would have clearly covered it under those circumstances. There would have been no need to invoke the new law.

                            Besides, he could have easly just rolled up his windows and locked the doors or even engaged reverse and driven away.
                            He was outside the vehicle. Perhaps (and this is conjecture just as your statement is) he tried to get back into his car and was being physically attacked. Neither of us knows.

                            It seems likely, if your version of events is correct, that he will be charged.

                            I do completely fault the older guy for getting out of his car in the first place. Just because some 20 year old who can't control his anger invites you to join him in his idiocy on the side of the road does not mean you have toi oblige.

                            But again, as far as the physical altercation goes, neither of us knows what happened. It seems to me you have a particular political position you are seeking to advance here, and that is leading you to assume quite a lot about the incident.

                            The 60 year old should have just driven off and called the police. But the much larger 20 year old who started the confrontation because he was unable to control his anger over a traffic situation clearly caused the entire thing.

                            Had he not been ruled by his temper, he would not be in the hospital. That - not a bunch of hand wringing over a law many people don't actually understand - is the takeaway message here, IMHO.
                            You might hope to keep your insurance plan, your doctor, your premium, and your deductible, but Obamacare is going to change all of that for you.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Stand Your Ground

                              Originally posted by Formaldehyde View Post
                              What is quickly becoming the epitome of this philosophy of violence and mayhem is the new "stand your ground" law in Florida and a few of the othermore backward states.
                              Nothing makes a serious political point like using bigotry in a discussion.

                              Recently, a 20-something had a road rage confrontation with a 60-something. This resulted in the 60-something nearly killing him with an ice pick that he just happened to have in his car.

                              ......

                              Of course, the police think this is preposterous. They realize that the only reason they don't have far more dead people cluttering up their morgues is that rational human beings do all they can to not have deadly physical confrontations with total strangers.

                              What do you think? Are we actually encouraging far more acts of violence by giving people the right to kill each other in physical confrontations when they previously had to do everything possible to avoid it?
                              As you yourself just stated the police feel rational people aren't going to assault each over petty incidents. I have no idea why you would think a rational person shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from an irrational person.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X