She took DV abuser's guns to police, and was arrested. - Page 7 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2019, 06:43 PM
hawk55732's Avatar
hawk55732 hawk55732 is online now
The Hawks Nest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13,186
Thanks: 12,605
Thanked 22,881 Times in 8,231 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by vivisky View Post
If the firearms were acquired during the couple's marriage then in Florida that is "marital property" so the wife had some sort of rights to go and procure those items. In other states once you're married everything you own (including debt) becomes "community property." I am not a lawyer but perhaps the firearms were acquired **before** the marriage and this meant (in Florida) they were the husband's property, not "marital" property.
But still I cannot condone anyone ramming their truck into someone's car.
If they had been in "their house" or "her house" you would be correct. However, they were in "his house". Hence, breaking and entering.
__________________
Father, husband, son, Marine.

"A terrorist is only as strong as the fear he creates."

"Things you own end up owning you"
- Tyler Durban
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hawk55732 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 07:05 PM
clc79092's Avatar
clc79092 clc79092 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: TEXAS
Age: 54
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 201
Thanked 3,095 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleKitty View Post
My abusive husband was recently talking about getting a shotgun. I told him I would not help him, and how would he feel if he woke up from a blackout and found his favorite cat dead on the floor? That stopped him for a while.

If I were on the jury, I would not convict. It's not a "she said he was abusive" he ran her off the road and tried to kill her. That is pretty clear intent of wanting to hurt her.

I know some of you have run afoul of DV charges but it is a natural instinct to protect oneself. She does not want to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair, or force her family to buy her coffin in a week.

There are a lot of women killed by current/ex partner every year. 114 just in Texas, in 2012.

I looked up some statistics: The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%

Why wouldn't she try to get rid of them? You all are so eager to defend a wife beater and accuse HER of being a criminal.
That the ran her off the road is her charge against him with no evidence that it occurred. Just her word. Then while he was in jail she broke into his house.....
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to clc79092 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 07:17 PM
PurpleKitty PurpleKitty is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,061
Thanks: 7,861
Thanked 23,492 Times in 8,221 Posts
Default

Took one thing, and gave that to the police, volunteering what she had done with no prompting or interrogation.

Like I said, I'd have a hard time convicting her, but I will never serve on a jury in TX as long as my husband lives because I have the "care of an invalid" exemption. I truly doubt he could get out of the house if it caught on fire. Much less go shop for groceries, feed the cats, take care of his own personal needs, etc.

It is kind of like this: you know a man next door is sexually abusing his daughter. You caught him at it, once. You reported him to the authorities but he is well connected and skated. One night you are coming home in your old, seldom used, pickup truck. You find him jogging on the road. You know he will never go to prison or be stopped from molesting his daughter and who knows who else.

So you run him over. Who is going to convict you? Maybe on Law and Order but in a real life situation you will walk.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PurpleKitty For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 07:23 PM
ForgedInTheFlame's Avatar
ForgedInTheFlame ForgedInTheFlame is offline
Fix Bayonets!
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 5,046
Thanks: 18,808
Thanked 7,566 Times in 3,335 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hick Industries View Post
Several of you are forgetting that Americans are presumed inocent until proven guilty.
Further, we have civil rights that may not be taken without due process.

This story is a clear example of the misdeeds that will ocure if Red Flag laws are passed.
Gun owners will be targeted by any person that does not like them, or by anti gun activists.

Ps, since these two persons are in the middle of a divorce, my guess is the womens claims about him forcing her off the road is a lie.
Well said

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ForgedInTheFlame For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 07:27 PM
ForgedInTheFlame's Avatar
ForgedInTheFlame ForgedInTheFlame is offline
Fix Bayonets!
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 5,046
Thanks: 18,808
Thanked 7,566 Times in 3,335 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snyper708 View Post
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "arsenal".

It's not anything to do with numbers.

Here's a hint:
So because I "acquired" some gear upon separation years back, I have an "arsenal"?

Lol.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ForgedInTheFlame For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 07:30 PM
Snyper708's Avatar
Snyper708 Snyper708 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,898
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3,028 Times in 1,141 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForgedInTheFlame View Post
So because I "acquired" some gear upon separation years back, I have an "arsenal"?

Lol.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Yes, if you use the correct definition of the word.
How you acquired it is irrelevant.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-27-2019, 07:37 PM
ForgedInTheFlame's Avatar
ForgedInTheFlame ForgedInTheFlame is offline
Fix Bayonets!
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 5,046
Thanks: 18,808
Thanked 7,566 Times in 3,335 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snyper708 View Post
Yes, if you use the correct definition of the word.

How you acquired it is irrelevant.
Clearly a case of people taking a literal definition and running away with it. Why else would the overwhelming majority think of more than 3 or 4 when the term comes to mind.

I won't argue you are wrong, but it's not a good thing, especially in a court setting, that the term carries weight and give the idea of a massive cache, whether true to the definition or not.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ForgedInTheFlame For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 08:06 PM
homelandsecurityham homelandsecurityham is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tn
Posts: 751
Thanks: 15
Thanked 741 Times in 371 Posts
Default

We are a country of laws. Her life was not in ANY danger. She burglarized his home. She got what she deserved. Most of us here would be upset if someone broke into their home and stole their guns. The man had the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It is the ultimate violation to be the victim of a burglary.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to homelandsecurityham For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 08:52 PM
Ankylus's Avatar
Ankylus Ankylus is offline
Listen to the ghosts
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 4,890
Thanks: 5,206
Thanked 8,596 Times in 3,239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sockpuppet View Post
Criminal intent is necessary for conviction. Her intent wasn't criminal as such, but rather that of self preservation.
That's not how intent works in a criminal statute. "Intent" means that she intended to commit the act, as opposed to accidentally or unknowingly.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ankylus For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 08:55 PM
Ankylus's Avatar
Ankylus Ankylus is offline
Listen to the ghosts
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 4,890
Thanks: 5,206
Thanked 8,596 Times in 3,239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Fire View Post
So, the woman was afraid of her husband, yet went to his house? A fly in the oinment here. Theft is still theft, no matter the reasoning. She is a thief.
Unless she knew he hadn't been release yet. She apparently went straight to his residence after the hearing.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ankylus For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 08:58 PM
Ankylus's Avatar
Ankylus Ankylus is offline
Listen to the ghosts
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 4,890
Thanks: 5,206
Thanked 8,596 Times in 3,239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sockpuppet View Post
It is not. Read the Florida statute.

Or better yet, read the article.
No. It is better to read the statute. But the story is a good starting point. For example, it states this:

Quote:
Police arrested her and she was charged with armed burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of a firearm.
So she has been charged with two crimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdog67 View Post
As a former Florida LEO and a current Florida lawyer, I can tell you that she did commit armed burglary and theft.

She did not have the right to take the law into her own hands, enter someone else's home and take his property, no matter what her intentions were. In the end I doubt the State Attorney will prosecute her, but the arrest was justified.

Florida's theft statute provides:

812.014 Theft.—
(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
There are missing facts but….the case for theft is that she knowingly obtained the property (firearms) of another (her husband) with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the other person of a right to the property (i.e., possession until such time as he turned them in) appropriated the property to her own use (i.e., to turn them in to the police). The argument against is that the husband had no right to the property or benefit from the property once the judge entered the order. I like both sides of that issue without the benefit of case law. That is why they have trials and juries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdog67 View Post
Florida's burglary statute provides:

810.02 Burglary.—
(1)(a) For offenses committed on or before July 1, 2001, “burglary” means entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.
(b) For offenses committed after July 1, 2001, “burglary” means:
1. Entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter; or
2. Notwithstanding a licensed or invited entry, remaining in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance:
a. Surreptitiously, with the intent to commit an offense therein;
b. After permission to remain therein has been withdrawn, with the intent to commit an offense therein; or
c. To commit or attempt to commit a forcible felony, as defined in s. 776.08.
(2) Burglary is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender:
(a) Makes an assault or battery upon any person; or
(b) Is or becomes armed within the dwelling, structure, or conveyance, with explosives or a dangerous weapon; or
She undoubtedly did all that the statute lists in 1(b)1. Presumably, though, the “offense” was the theft, which is not a lock as discussed above. I would also argue that she committed a criminal trespass therein and intended to do so.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ankylus For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 09:01 PM
Ankylus's Avatar
Ankylus Ankylus is offline
Listen to the ghosts
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 4,890
Thanks: 5,206
Thanked 8,596 Times in 3,239 Posts
Default

So what. (10 letters)
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Ankylus For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 09:05 PM
Ankylus's Avatar
Ankylus Ankylus is offline
Listen to the ghosts
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 4,890
Thanks: 5,206
Thanked 8,596 Times in 3,239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleKitty View Post
...but I will never serve on a jury in TX as long as my husband lives because I have the "care of an invalid" exemption.
Just because you are entitled to the exemption does not mean you have to claim it. You can waive it any time you are summoned.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ankylus For This Useful Post:
Old 06-27-2019, 09:18 PM
Nomad, 2nd Nomad, 2nd is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Gulf coast and/or Nomadically
Posts: 29,328
Thanks: 25,166
Thanked 59,634 Times in 19,347 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleKitty View Post
Took one thing, and gave that to the police, volunteering what she had done with no prompting or interrogation.

Like I said, I'd have a hard time convicting her, but I will never serve on a jury in TX as long as my husband lives because I have the "care of an invalid" exemption. I truly doubt he could get out of the house if it caught on fire. Much less go shop for groceries, feed the cats, take care of his own personal needs, etc.

It is kind of like this: you know a man next door is sexually abusing his daughter. You caught him at it, once. You reported him to the authorities but he is well connected and skated. One night you are coming home in your old, seldom used, pickup truck. You find him jogging on the road. You know he will never go to prison or be stopped from molesting his daughter and who knows who else.

So you run him over. Who is going to convict you? Maybe on Law and Order but in a real life situation you will walk.
No.

It is nothing like that.

Now if you had said the Ex wife accused him of molesting, but there was no evidence and you took your truck and ran over 2 people in order to "get him".... That might be similar.

It's a good thing you'll never serve on a jury
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nomad, 2nd For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2019, 03:52 AM
Cuteandfuzzybunnies's Avatar
Cuteandfuzzybunnies Cuteandfuzzybunnies is online now
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,038
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,404 Times in 603 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankylus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sockpuppet View Post
It is not. Read the Florida statute.

Or better yet, read the article.
No. It is better to read the statute. But the story is a good starting point. For example, it states this:

Quote:
Police arrested her and she was charged with armed burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of a firearm.
So she has been charged with two crimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdog67 View Post
As a former Florida LEO and a current Florida lawyer, I can tell you that she did commit armed burglary and theft.

She did not have the right to take the law into her own hands, enter someone else's home and take his property, no matter what her intentions were. In the end I doubt the State Attorney will prosecute her, but the arrest was justified.

Florida's theft statute provides:

812.014 Theft.—
(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
There are missing facts but….the case for theft is that she knowingly obtained the property (firearms) of another (her husband) with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the other person of a right to the property (i.e., possession until such time as he turned them in) appropriated the property to her own use (i.e., to turn them in to the police). The argument against is that the husband had no right to the property or benefit from the property once the judge entered the order. I like both sides of that issue without the benefit of case law. That is why they have trials and juries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdog67 View Post
Florida's burglary statute provides:

810.02 Burglary.—
(1)(a) For offenses committed on or before July 1, 2001, “burglary” means entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.
(b) For offenses committed after July 1, 2001, “burglary” means:
1. Entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter; or
2. Notwithstanding a licensed or invited entry, remaining in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance:
a. Surreptitiously, with the intent to commit an offense therein;
b. After permission to remain therein has been withdrawn, with the intent to commit an offense therein; or
c. To commit or attempt to commit a forcible felony, as defined in s. 776.08.
(2) Burglary is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender:
(a) Makes an assault or battery upon any person; or
(b) Is or becomes armed within the dwelling, structure, or conveyance, with explosives or a dangerous weapon; or
She undoubtedly did all that the statute lists in 1(b)1. Presumably, though, the “offense” was the theft, which is not a lock as discussed above. I would also argue that she committed a criminal trespass therein and intended to do so.
She broke and entered his residence. That’s a felony most places. And b and e with intent to take any property is burglary. She took fire arms so that’s another crime and can be a federal crime. We don’t know if she was a prohibited person. She certainly sounds crazy.

And orders to relinquish fire arms usually give the defendant a time limit. They can sell , store , surrender or even give them to a family member etc.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cuteandfuzzybunnies For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2019, 06:47 AM
Snyper708's Avatar
Snyper708 Snyper708 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,898
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3,028 Times in 1,141 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForgedInTheFlame View Post
Clearly a case of people taking a literal definition and running away with it. Why else would the overwhelming majority think of more than 3 or 4 when the term comes to mind.

I won't argue you are wrong, but it's not a good thing, especially in a court setting, that the term carries weight and give the idea of a massive cache, whether true to the definition or not.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
The majority thinks it means a large number of weapons because the media promotes ignorance and melodrama.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-28-2019, 10:18 AM
ForgedInTheFlame's Avatar
ForgedInTheFlame ForgedInTheFlame is offline
Fix Bayonets!
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 5,046
Thanks: 18,808
Thanked 7,566 Times in 3,335 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snyper708 View Post
The majority thinks it means a large number of weapons because the media promotes ignorance and melodrama.
I don't disagree, but that has a negative effect and people pay for that rhetoric.

Same as the term "assault rifle". Wasn't uttered once around my during active duty but civilians are supposed to educate me on what an assault rifle is and how worse they are than "non assault rifles"? Please.



Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ForgedInTheFlame For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2019, 04:14 PM
PurpleKitty PurpleKitty is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,061
Thanks: 7,861
Thanked 23,492 Times in 8,221 Posts
Default

Nomad, when he was better I was actually called for jury duty. My marriage is the end result of an underage dating situation. He is 20 years older.

I was called for jury duty - underage relations. They disqualified me, probably because I would have seen it on the defense side of things.

He tried to serve on a jury once and everyone at the courthouse (this was a small town in another state) freaked out. They kept telling him to take the exemption and he kept saying no, I want to serve. They ended up pleading it out while he sat in the hallway with the other jurors.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-01-2019, 03:19 AM
Mr. Sockpuppet Mr. Sockpuppet is offline
✝️🗽🏹🗡️🔥🥓💰🛠️💉📻
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 12,194
Thanks: 4,352
Thanked 29,176 Times in 8,465 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankylus View Post
That's not how intent works in a criminal statute. "Intent" means that she intended to commit the act, as opposed to accidentally or unknowingly.
It most certainly does work that way. I've seen it firsthand more than a few times.

If I am stranded during a blizzard and break into someone's home in order to survive, criminal intent doesn't attach for the obvious reason.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-01-2019, 03:20 AM
Mr. Sockpuppet Mr. Sockpuppet is offline
✝️🗽🏹🗡️🔥🥓💰🛠️💉📻
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 12,194
Thanks: 4,352
Thanked 29,176 Times in 8,465 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankylus View Post
So what. (10 letters)
I am predicting that the prosecutor will, if not already, come to the same conclusion.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net