Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Ahhhhhhh Brother Hrodey, Consider all possibilities . . .

Expand Messages
  • oracleintl@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/4/2005 5:13:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rth@hrodey.com writes: The law is living, breathing dynamic thing. It s constantly changing
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 4 3:21 PM
      In a message dated 10/4/2005 5:13:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      rth@... writes:

      The law is living, breathing dynamic thing. It's constantly changing
      and being fine-tuned (Thank God, would you really want the bozo's we
      send to the legislature to run unchecked?) Case law is THE law. The
      statute means nothing in light of case law to the contrary.



      I know you meant what you said but I'm thinking that you framed an erroneous
      generalization based upon the specifics of your argument - although were I
      you, I know what I would argue in order to make your generalization work.

      Here's the problem with what you said.

      Sometimes, a posture will be adopted based upon statutory, or common law -
      "My home is my castle; come assault me here and you'll die crossing the door
      step" for example. I think that pretty much is the law of the land, except in
      California where you have to run out the back door, and heaven help you if
      the wannabe murderer gets sick drinking spoiled milk from your fridge.

      Then you have the liberals, lawyers, and panty waist judges get involved.
      In Florida, these nitwits established an obligation to retreat, even in your
      own home, and that was the law here in Florida. If Mikey the Murdering Rapist
      broke in your home stark nekkid, sporting nothing but a knife in one hand
      and his Willy in the other, you could not shoot him so long as you could
      retreat.

      Case Law did indeed develop to undermine common law, the home owner's
      statutory (and, in fact, Constitutionally protected) right to defend himself and
      common sense.

      What your post failed to take into consideration is the fact that the
      Legislature has the latitude to defeat bullshit Case Law by statute - which is
      exactly what happened here in Florida with the passage of the "Castle Doctrine,"
      HB-249/SB-436, embracing by statute the long standing principles of Common
      Law and thereby statutorily rendering the Case Law moot.

      As of last Sunday, "My home is my castle; come assault me here and you'll
      die crossing the door step" - and the law agrees with me.

      All that Case Law means nothing in light of our statute to the contrary.

      Now, tell me why it is that you are still correct.

      Bill




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bob Hrodey
      ... The key word is generalization, I guess, and to that I must plead guilty as charged. How about I just say that that when dealing with the law, never
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 5 4:39 AM
        oracleintl@... wrote:

        >
        > In a message dated 10/4/2005 5:13:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        > rth@... writes:
        >
        > The law is living, breathing dynamic thing. It's constantly changing
        > and being fine-tuned (Thank God, would you really want the bozo's we
        > send to the legislature to run unchecked?) Case law is THE law. The
        > statute means nothing in light of case law to the contrary.
        >
        > I know you meant what you said but I'm thinking that you framed an
        > erroneous
        > generalization based upon the specifics of your argument - although
        > were I
        > you, I know what I would argue in order to make your generalization work.


        The key word is "generalization," I guess, and to that I must plead
        "guilty as charged." How about I just say that that when dealing with
        the law, "never say never and never say always?"

        > Here's the problem with what you said.
        >
        > Sometimes, a posture will be adopted based upon statutory, or common
        > law -
        > "My home is my castle; come assault me here and you'll die crossing
        > the door
        > step" for example. I think that pretty much is the law of the land,
        > except in
        > California where you have to run out the back door, and heaven help
        > you if
        > the wannabe murderer gets sick drinking spoiled milk from your fridge.
        >
        > Then you have the liberals, lawyers, and panty waist judges get
        > involved.
        > In Florida, these nitwits established an obligation to retreat, even
        > in your
        > own home, and that was the law here in Florida. If Mikey the
        > Murdering Rapist
        > broke in your home stark nekkid, sporting nothing but a knife in one
        > hand
        > and his Willy in the other, you could not shoot him so long as you could
        > retreat.
        >
        > Case Law did indeed develop to undermine common law, the home owner's
        > statutory (and, in fact, Constitutionally protected) right to defend
        > himself and
        > common sense.


        I believe that is pretty much what I argued...

        > What your post failed to take into consideration is the fact that the
        > Legislature has the latitude to defeat bullshit Case Law by statute -
        > which is
        > exactly what happened here in Florida with the passage of the "Castle
        > Doctrine,"
        > HB-249/SB-436, embracing by statute the long standing principles of
        > Common
        > Law and thereby statutorily rendering the Case Law moot.

        Well, yes they do and I acknowledge that. But without commenting on the
        appropriateness of HB-249/SB-436, what happens when a case involving the
        "Castle Doctrine" goes up and the Florida Supreme Court rules it
        "unconstitutional?" Not saying that they will but "what if?" They make
        their ruling on, say, November 1, 2005 and along about December 24-25,
        2005 you blow Santa out of his socks as he enters Casa Branscum? Seems
        to me that you're in deep doo-doo at that point notwithstanding the
        existence of HB-249/SB-436, no?



        > As of last Sunday, "My home is my castle; come assault me here and
        > you'll
        > die crossing the door step" - and the law agrees with me.
        >
        > All that Case Law means nothing in light of our statute to the contrary.
        >
        > Now, tell me why it is that you are still correct.


        I've got a response that will probably cover that. Prepared it as
        response to Ricky Gurley's follow-up post. Again, perhaps we should
        look to the comment made by the original poster regarding case law, it
        does indeed "depend" upon a number of things.

        Thanks for chiming in here. This, I think, is a good spin off from what
        was probably a troll.

        --

        Enjoy,

        Bob
        ________________________________________________________________
        Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
        Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
        Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
        Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
        email: inquiry@... or rth@...
        Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
      • oracleintl@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/5/2005 8:59:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rth@hrodey.com writes: They make their ruling on, say, November 1, 2005 and along about
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 5 7:34 AM
          In a message dated 10/5/2005 8:59:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
          rth@... writes:

          They make
          their ruling on, say, November 1, 2005 and along about December 24-25,
          2005 you blow Santa out of his socks as he enters Casa Branscum? Seems
          to me that you're in deep doo-doo at that point notwithstanding the
          existence of HB-249/SB-436, no?




          Exactly -- and that's the point I am trying to make.

          Specifically, one cannot say that A trumps B without knowing which came last.

          It's like the military - follow your last order.

          Bill


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bob Hrodey
          ... Perzactly! Ran into that problem with an investigator I hired in the prosecutor s office. He came to me from Chicago PD (CPD) and was sharp (worked
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 5 9:04 AM
            on 10/5/2005 9:34 AM oracleintl@... said the following:

            >
            > In a message dated 10/5/2005 8:59:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
            > rth@... writes:
            >
            > They make
            > their ruling on, say, November 1, 2005 and along about December 24-25,
            > 2005 you blow Santa out of his socks as he enters Casa Branscum? Seems
            > to me that you're in deep doo-doo at that point notwithstanding the
            > existence of HB-249/SB-436, no?
            >
            >
            > Exactly -- and that's the point I am trying to make.
            >
            > Specifically, one cannot say that A trumps B without knowing which
            > came last.
            >
            > It's like the military - follow your last order.
            >

            Perzactly! <g>

            Ran into that problem with an investigator I hired in the prosecutor's
            office. He came to me from Chicago PD (CPD) and was sharp (worked
            Robbery and later with a joint FBI/CPD unit investigating corruption in
            city government) but very set in his ways. I sent him out on a fraud
            case to cut his teeth and he came back and explained that when he went
            to interview one of the guys we were looking at (at the subject's house
            or business, I forget which), he lawyered up as soon as he was read his
            Miranda warning.

            This guy had it erroneously drilled into his head early on at CPD that
            Miranda applied to a target of an investigation rather than custodial
            situations. Even after I argued with him that that was NOT the holding
            of the courts and gave him a copy of Beckwith vs. U.S. (which is about
            as "on point" as you could get) to look over, he wanted to Mirandize
            every mother's son he spoke to. I finally got through to him by
            explaining ground rules and that he was no longer playing in
            Chicago/Cook County and that if he persisted in Mirandizing everyone,
            he'd find himself having no one to speak to but reluctant witnesses as
            he served them subpoenas - in which case I didn't mind if he gave them
            all a Miranda warning<g>

            I realize this isn't the best example but it IS a good example of the
            problems which can arise when you don't keep up with the case law on a
            particular area of the law. THAT did get through to him but I'm not
            entirely sure the underlying principle has dawned on him to this day.
            Sometimes you're just not allowed to use a big enough stick to beat it
            into someone.<g>

            --
            Enjoy,

            Bob
            ________________________________________________________________
            Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
            Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
            Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
            Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
            email: inquiry@... or rth@...
            Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
          • oracleintl@aol.com
            In a message dated 10/5/2005 12:39:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rth@hrodey.com writes: Sometimes you re just not allowed to use a big enough stick to beat it
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 5 9:41 AM
              In a message dated 10/5/2005 12:39:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
              rth@... writes:

              Sometimes you're just not allowed to use a big enough stick to beat it
              into someone.<g>




              Yeah, I know -- frustrating isn't it!

              LOL

              Bill


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.