South Florida residents strike back at intruders

This is a discussion on South Florida residents strike back at intruders within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 'Stand Your Ground' law: South Florida residents use 'Stand Your Ground' law to strke back at intruders -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com South ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: South Florida residents strike back at intruders

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,724

    Exclamation South Florida residents strike back at intruders

    'Stand Your Ground' law: South Florida residents use 'Stand Your Ground' law to strke back at intruders -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
    South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

    South Florida residents strike back at intruders

    By Robert Nolin and C. Ron Allen

    South Florida Sun Sentinel

    September 11, 2009


    With handguns and baseball bats, South Florida residents in recent days have been striking back at home invaders, beating and even killing those who violate the sanctity of their homes.

    Two cases occurred in Palm Beach County. Thursday night, during a struggle, a Wellington homeowner shot and wounded one of two men who broke into his home. On Sept. 5, a group of men in a Lake Worth home turned the tables on a burglar, seizing his baseball bat and using it to break his arm.

    And early Thursday in Miami, a man who jumped a fence and entered a home's yard ended up dead after a confrontation with the father and son who lived there. His manner of death has not been released by police, who still are investigating.

    Such instances are hardly a trend, experts say, but rather a fluke of circumstances. And they probably don't represent an increase in frustrated homeowners fighting back.

    "You have to look at each case individually," said George L. Kirkham, a criminologist at Florida State University. "There's a lot of tension right now in people's lives generally because of the economy. I don't know to what extent those kinds of factors may play into it."

    Use of deadly force against intruders is allowed under Florida law, but prosecutors and criminologists caution homeowners that there are limits to when they can harm an intruder.

    Florida's Castle Doctrine has long provided that homeowners can use deadly force against intruders, but the homeowner must have a reasonable belief that he or she is in danger of death or great bodily harm. When acting within the limits of the law, homeowners who kill or injure intruders typically are not charged.

    "You can use reasonable force in self-defense or to protect your property," said Bruce Winick, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Miami. However, he said, "I don't think you can use this as a license to kill."

    For example, if an intruder surrenders or is incapacitated, a homeowner cannot use deadly force; to do so would risk criminal charges.

    "We still have a bit of frontier mentality here in Florida, this idea of 'Yes, you can shoot to kill,' " Winick said. "I wouldn't advise people to kill people just because someone comes on your property."

    In 2005, the "Stand Your Ground" law went into effect. It expands the Castle Doctrine to say a person can respond to an attack with deadly force not only in the home but anywhere in public.

    Winick fears the law can send the wrong message. "To the extent homeowners understand that law, it may give them a signal that they can do anything," he said.

    Brian Cavanagh, veteran homicide prosecutor with the Broward State Attorney's Office, shares that view.

    "The 'Stand Your Ground' law, I hate it, and I think I can speak for most prosecutors and law enforcement officers," he said. "It's a dangerous, dangerous law, especially if it's misinterpreted by citizens who think it gives them the right to use unbridled force. It doesn't give you or anybody a carte blanche right to use force. Anybody who thinks that way better read the law."

    Cavanagh, who makes decisions on whether to charge people in self-defense cases, said the threshold is whether people have a reasonable belief they are in immediate danger. If they don't, they shouldn't respond with deadly force, he said.

    But in the heat of a confrontation with an invader, homeowners often don't have the luxury of examining their emotions.

    "People react in these situations," said Jeff Marcus, chief of the felony division at the Broward State Attorney's Office. "I doubt that they're stopping to ponder the Castle Doctrine."

    Robert Nolin can be reached at rnolin@SunSentinel.com or 954-356-4525.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Psyched-Out Psych Prof.
    "You can use reasonable force in self-defense or to protect your property," said Bruce Winick, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Miami. However, he said, "I don't think you can use this as a license to kill."
    You're not thinking very clearly, there, bub, if you're still uncertain on that score.

    Citizens can use every bit of force they deem necessary to stop a violent, deadly attack on themselves or their families.

    And, yes, the criminal who gets ejected probably (erroneously) chooses to think that this is a license to kill.

    Tough.

    Listening to calming platitudes from bureaucrats such as this has gotten folks nowhere except up a creek without a paddle. It's time for another approach, one that doesn't involve lipstick.

    Kudos on citizens, though. Kudos for pulling the head out. Kudos for forcing bureaucrats to take it and deal with it, 'cause we've all had enough bending over for seemingly well-protected criminals and being legally attacked as if we had a damned thing to do with crime.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Dr. Spin trying to masquerade as News
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    There's the Sun-Sentinel for you.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Array gimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    Brian Cavanagh, veteran homicide prosecutor with the Broward State Attorney's Office, shares that view.

    "The 'Stand Your Ground' law, I hate it, and I think I can speak for most prosecutors and law enforcement officers," he said. "It's a dangerous, dangerous law, especially if it's misinterpreted by citizens who think it gives them the right to use unbridled force. It doesn't give you or anybody a carte blanche right to use force. Anybody who thinks that way better read the law."
    Cavanagh, who makes decisions on whether to charge people in self-defense cases, said the threshold is whether people have a reasonable belief they are in immediate danger.
    I think any normal, sane thinking citizen would have more than reasonable belief that anyone who invades his/her home represent an immediate danger to his/her life.

    Prosecutors such as Cavanagh would require more restraint from ordinary citizens when it comes to defending their lives than he would a police officer who in the course of performing his duty uses his firearm to eliminate a perceived threat to his life. Here in the Jacksonville area of Florida there are several instances every year when police use deadly force in situations less threatening to them than an act of home invasion would be to a private citizen. Why should the police officer's life be deemed more valuable than mine?
    "Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual change; but this change is not [an improvement]. For everything that is given, something is taken."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,232
    Brian Cavanagh, veteran homicide prosecutor with the Broward State Attorney's Office ...
    ... who earns "points" by putting people behind bars (justified or not) ...

    "The 'Stand Your Ground' law, I hate it, and I think I can speak for most prosecutors and law enforcement officers," he said. "It's a dangerous, dangerous law, especially if it's misinterpreted by citizens who think it gives them the right to use unbridled force.
    He dares think he speaks for most DA's and LEO's? Holy Hubris, Batman.

    No statute in the USA gives citizens "unbridled" anything. Citizens have the right to defend themselves. They have the right to decide how much is enough. It's the "reasonable man" standard of justice, acknowledgment that every citizen has every right to be where he chooses, so long as he's not harming anyone, and specifying the presumption of innocence, in which prosecutors who dare claim such a person wasn't justified in defending himself must bear the responsibility of proving such accusations.

    God help us if we ever slide into a mommy-may-I approach to self-defense. The places that have are sorry shadows of what they used to be.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,836
    Quote:
    Brian Cavanagh, veteran homicide prosecutor with the Broward State Attorney's Office ...

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    ... who earns "points" by putting people behind bars (justified or not) ...
    Cavanaugh Quote:
    "The 'Stand Your Ground' law, I hate it, and I think I can speak for most prosecutors and law enforcement officers," he said. "It's a dangerous, dangerous law, especially if it's misinterpreted by citizens who think it gives them the right to use unbridled force...."

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    ... He dares think he speaks for most DA's and LEO's? Holy Hubris, Batman.

    No statute in the USA gives citizens "unbridled" anything. Citizens have the right to defend themselves. They have the right to decide how much is enough. It's the "reasonable man" standard of justice, acknowledgment that every citizen has every right to be where he chooses, so long as he's not harming anyone, and specifying the presumption of innocence, in which prosecutors who dare claim such a person wasn't justified in defending himself must bear the responsibility of proving such accusations.

    God help us if we ever slide into a mommy-may-I approach to self-defense. The places that have are sorry shadows of what they used to be.
    Well said, ccw9mm Governement doesn't give us the right to anything. Know what fear of grave bodily injury means, play the hand you're dealt and let the chips fall where they may. "Better to be judged by 12...."
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  9. #8
    Member Array jsnole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jacksonville, Fl.
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by gimpy View Post
    I think any normal, sane thinking citizen would have more than reasonable belief that anyone who invades his/her home represent an immediate danger to his/her life.

    Prosecutors such as Cavanagh would require more restraint from ordinary citizens when it comes to defending their lives than he would a police officer who in the course of performing his duty uses his firearm to eliminate a perceived threat to his life. Here in the Jacksonville area of Florida there are several instances every year when police use deadly force in situations less threatening to them than an act of home invasion would be to a private citizen. Why should the police officer's life be deemed more valuable than mine?
    I agree with you on the statement above Gimpy! (Nice to see someone else in Jax as well!)
    Jamie

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,724
    Brian Cavanagh, veteran homicide prosecutor with the Broward State Attorney's Office, shares that view.

    "The 'Stand Your Ground' law, I hate it, and I think I can speak for most prosecutors and law enforcement officers," he said. "It's a dangerous, dangerous law, especially if it's misinterpreted by citizens who think it gives them the right to use unbridled force. It doesn't give you or anybody a carte blanche right to use force. Anybody who thinks that way better read the law."

    This guy, he's angry because HE like the cohorts of his in Miami Dade State Attorney's Office of Katherine Fernandez Rundle (who was a DISCIPLE of Janet Reno) are restrained by this law from filing frivolous prosecutions they know they're going to lose. Thus costing the county millions but do so anyway because they send a chilling antigun message to the community.

    The message: Use a gun in self defense and we'll bankrupt you in defense attorney's fees. Yet Reno herself was renowned for letting convicted felons walk on a technicality while prosecuting the law abiding gun owners to the MAX. State Attorney Rundle is the exact same way but now she is cuffed by the new Castle Doctrine Law that has already been tested and held. It should, it was the first of the new breed gun laws that actually work with the Second Amendment instead of against it. Just as Florida was the first to make ccw SHALL ISSUE (although the folks in Washington State are constantly decrying this fact saying THEY had it long before anybody else). I know I had a WA State ccw permit from 1981 to 1984 while I was stationed there and it was no problem for me to obtain and very inexpensive, too. The FL law was crafted in 1987.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  11. #10
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    'Stand Your Ground' law: South Florida residents use 'Stand Your Ground' law to strke back at intruders -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
    South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


    But in the heat of a confrontation with an invader, homeowners often don't have the luxury of examining their emotions.

    "People react in these situations," said Jeff Marcus, chief of the felony division at the Broward State Attorney's Office. "I doubt that they're stopping to ponder the Castle Doctrine."


    Robert Nolin can be reached at rnolin@SunSentinel.com or 954-356-4525.
    Thank god, a voice of sanity in support of the "good guys!"
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    If someone breaks into my home he's just demonstrated disregard for the law. I'm not a mind-reader and have no way of instantly knowing what other laws he's prepared to ignore. I'm not about to bet my life (or the lives of my family) on the chance that his intentions are less-than-lethal particularly when: A) People don't always follow their original intentions, and B) it only takes an instant to lose that bet.

    My home is the wrong house to break into, pure and simple.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  13. #12
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    In Missouri our law while not (yet) extending outside your home or vehicle clearly states you can use deadly force on an intruder....PERIOD. If someone comes into your home the law automatically assumes you are at risk of injury or death.

    Yea they will investigate to make sure it wasn’t a set up etc, but burden of proof is on them.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,068
    Good for the citizens!

    The Sun-Sentinel sounds like a pinko rag to me.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  15. #14
    Member Array GHFLRLTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    234

    The Essence of Florida Law

    Either the LEOs/DAs in this piece were misquoted, or they are just plain stupid.

    The structure of the law is not only fear of death or serious bodily injury - that is the limit of meeting force with equal force - but being in a place where you have a legal right to be and dealing with an immediate forceable felony.

    The real test is in the forceable felony and meeting force with equal force because it is the most clear and objective - fear is subjective. See the law below:

    CHAPTER 776

    JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

    776.031 Use of force in defense of others.

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

    776.08 Forcible felony.

    776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

    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.

    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

    (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

    (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

    (5) As used in this section, the term:

    (a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

    (b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

    (c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

    History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

    776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, 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.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but 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.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

    776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasionrobbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

    History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

    776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.--

    (1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, the term "forcible felony" shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.

    (3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.

    (4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:

    (a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:

    1. Canteen purchases;

    2. Telephone access;

    3. Outdoor exercise;

    4. Use of the library; and

    5. Visitation.

    (b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney; however, the losing party's attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.

    (c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.

    History.--s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.

    Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : flsenate.gov
    George H. Foster
    Orlando, Florida

  16. #15
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    43,837
    Quote Originally Posted by TN_Mike View Post
    Good for the citizens!

    The Sun-Sentinel sounds like a pinko rag to me.
    A agree...
    ...for the homeowners.
    ...to the paper...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Robbers strike 4 South Florida banks in two days
    By DUNDEM in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 16th, 2010, 08:35 AM
  2. Florida residents, we've been robbed
    By tag in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: June 25th, 2009, 02:52 PM
  3. Attention ALL Northeast Florida residents!
    By goldshellback in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 30th, 2008, 12:38 PM
  4. One Florida City Calls for a State Split: North Florida and South Florida
    By deadeye72 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 7th, 2008, 08:47 PM
  5. Question for South Florida Residents
    By iamnoone in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 29th, 2008, 08:43 AM

Search tags for this page

florida castle doctrine porch

,

florida laws against striking someone on your property

,

threshold gun laws tn intruders

Click on a term to search for related topics.