[mike_1950]

I do believe there is something...maybe not a law but ...something, that addresses intent to harm a senior citizen and their perspective on the potential harm that they face. Am I correct or did I dream this?

 

[Shark1007]

No, you are correct. It’s like the game of Jeopardy when the dollar values are doubled. When your victim is a senior or a disabled person, the punishment increases.

 

[BeerHunter]

I believe skeletal fractures are one definition of grievous bodily harm. I'll look up that reference I'm remembering where I read that and report back here. . .

 

[Shark1007]

The Florida jury instruction on great bodily harm is pretty vague. It says something like “not trivial harm, slight, minor or moderate harm and does not include mere bruising”

 

[BeerHunter]

As Shark posted in post #24, it seems Florida does not provide a statutory definition of "great/grievous bodily harm" and relies on the Courts and case law to define GBH. I was able to find some sites that attempted to clarify GBH, such as this one, where they explain how Florida courts have defined GBH:

Great bodily harm is any harm more severe than minor or slight harm and could include wounds that bleed profusely or require stitches, broken bones, and injuries requiring surgery.

That seems kind of mushy. I also found this, where it mentions Florida case law that says GBH:

"distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in simple assault and battery." T.W. v. State, 98 So.3d 238, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Brown v. State, 86 So.3d 569, 571-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Gordon v. State, 126 So.3d 292, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Smith v. State, 969 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)

Perhaps this is one of those times where Florida courts rely on a rather vague definition of BGH similar to what Shark once posted about a Judge once saying something to the effect of, "I can't define it for you, but I know it when I see it." That's not exactly comforting to me but such is the case in Florida Statutes; GBH is not clearly defined but at least there is enough Florida case law that provides some fairly good guidance on what a reasonable person might consider as GBH in terms of justifiable use of force in Self Defense.

 

[Shark1007]

I agree, the best we have is the jury instruction that gives that loosey-goosey definition.

 

[Coops]

Not really,
Do you remember the guy who shot the guy over the handicaps parking spot.

Shooter was knocked on the ground and attacker was shot by him.
Shooter probably still in jail
Anybody know the outcome of that ????

Ronnie

That guy was not being kicked and the attacker was several feet away. Speculation here was MAYBE the attacker was hiding his strong side and about to draw.

Prison inmate attacked Michael Drejka over death of Markeis McGlockton, report says

Prison officials and McGlockton’s family say the inmate, Benjamin Martin, is not a relative of the man killed over a parking space in 2018.

www.tampabay.com

The man, Michael Drejka, was sentenced to 20 years for manslaughter and was subsequently (Feb 2020) attacked in prison by a black man using a combination lock inside a sock. Drejka required 5 stiches and was placed in protective custody. The attacker got solitary confinement.

 

[Domin8]

We all know who the guy on the pavement is and I don't want this thread to go off track on the trial.

The question I want to pose is, under Florida law does this attempt to kick the head of a person on the ground reach the level of great bodily harm justifying the use of deadly force?

View attachment 73123

Kick to the head in the context of skateboard guy and gathering horde (disparity of force) equals imminent lethal threat and loud booming sound.

 

[joecarry]

Video here…(no sound) Backstory…Customer called to complain soup was so hot it melted the plastic lid. Per the employee, she offered multiple avenues to remedy but only asked the customer to refrain from cursing her out. Customer wasn’t happy with that request and showed up in person. Again, employee requested customer to stop with the abusive language while offering remedies. Culminating in the customer tossing soup on employee.

I saw a interview or video from the employee. The soup had cooled fortunately. Still warm though. It’s a spicy soup though. She said it burned her eyes and caused a nosebleed.

If that soup had indeed been hot enough to melt the lid, can you imagine the facial burns she’d have suffered. That’s the kind of burns that can be life changing.
Note..apparently YouTube is restricting the video. You’ll have to click over to the app unless someone knows how to bypass YouTube.

Also of note, reportedly the assailant has been identified. Charges are pending.

Shark, would it be a stretch to claim the soup was a “deadly weapon” if it was hot enough to actually disfigure and wouldn’t that meet the “aggravated battery” requirement ? Or would it be the person would have to be disfigured first for that to apply? And no…it wouldn’t count if the person was already disfigured, only disfigured as the result of the soup. 🤭

What says you on this?

 

[Shark1007]

I think if you can prove the soup was so hot it melted the lid, it would meet the agg. assault standard. On aggravated battery I think the person would have to be burned or disfigured because just an offer to do it would be assault.

 

[RadTek]

UPDATE on the soup nazi.

Amanda Martinez has been arrested charged with assault causing bodily injury.

UPDATE: Temple woman accused of throwing soup at Temple restaurant employee makes bond, deputies say

Amanda Martinez was arrested on a charge of assault causing bodily injury.

www.kcentv.com

 

[Anduril]

^ Thanks for that RadTek.
I will sleep better tonight knowing that soup-wielding a-hole will have to face some consequences!!

Plus, having her ugly mug and demeanor spread semi-viral online (thus far) is icing on the cake!!
I hope she gets several months in the county jail, at least, and a nice hefty fine to pay.
And maybe some community service on top of that -- but having her work a soup line could be problematic.

 

[RadTek]

^^^Unfortunately, if I’m not mistaken, the current charge is a misdemeanor. Carrying 60 days on ice and/or a few thousand in fines.

I don’t know if there’s a civil exposure. But even if so, I read somewhere she’s pretty much a retail employee. Not a lot of meat on that bone for a lawyer to use to help the victim. There was rumor she was a nurse at one point, but that turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. There’s another Amanda Martinez in Temple, TX who is a nurse. Sadly, she is another victim in this weird saga. In a rush to dox and go after the assailant, social media went after the wrong Amanda. Causing a whole boatload of trouble for her reportedly.

 

[usrmesarge7]

We all know who the guy on the pavement is and I don't want this thread to go off track on the trial.

The question I want to pose is, under Florida law does this attempt to kick the head of a person on the ground reach the level of great bodily harm justifying the use of deadly force?

View attachment 73123

Yes, under Florida law if you put the boots to anyone who has been knocked down that is attempted murder.

 

[Derrick1971]

^^^Unfortunately, if I’m not mistaken, the current charge is a misdemeanor. Carrying 60 days on ice and/or a few thousand in fines.

I don’t know if there’s a civil exposure. But even if so, I read somewhere she’s pretty much a retail employee. Not a lot of meat on that bone for a lawyer to use to help the victim. There was rumor she was a nurse at one point, but that turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. There’s another Amanda Martinez in Temple, TX who is a nurse. Sadly, she is another victim in this weird saga. In a rush to dox and go after the assailant, social media went after the wrong Amanda. Causing a whole boatload of trouble for her reportedly.

It seems more and more that the media wants to play judge and jury with the brainwashed idiots carrying out the role of executioner.

 

[Shark1007]

RadTek

Not every case is about a dollar. Somebody should go after this lady civilly and let her make monthly payments on a judgment that might remind her how she should act in a civilized society. It’s the kind of case some lawyer should take just as a public service.

If it was in Florida, I would take that case just on general principles.

 

[RadTek]

RadTek

Not every case is about a dollar. Somebody should go after this lady civilly and let her make monthly payments on a judgment that might remind her how she should act in a civilized society. It’s the kind of case some lawyer should take just as a public service.

If it was in Florida, I would take that case just on general principles.

I‘d agree completely she needs to learn some manners. Which is why I brought up civil liability as potentially a “punishment“ she’d respond to more than the slap on the wrist she’s likely to get criminally.

My “meat on the bone” comment wasn’t meant in a derogatory way. If it came across as such, it wasn’t intentional. Only an observation that even if sued, the crockpot likely can’t pay. Unfortunately I have a little experience with civil judgements against a party that simply translates to a worthless piece of paper on file saying you’re owed money. Sadly you can’t squeeze lemonade from a rock. 👍

 

[OHEng]

Even rocks can generate a little bit of lemonade. There is always a federal tax return that might be garnished, as well as wages as Shark points out. In some ways I think it hurts the offender more if they have to shell out a portion of their earnings rather than having their insurer pay out a lump sum.

 

[Shark1007]

I didn’t think you meant anything in a derogatory way. I filed a ton of lawsuits against dirtbags who fought police officers or hurt them. I would get as big judgment as possible against the dirt bag and then hand it over to the meanest collection lawyer I knew. A judgment is good for 20 years and can be renewed and the collection lawyers specialize in squeezing lemonade from rocks.

 

[DennyBob]

“I am not an attorney, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.”

I hope some of y’all got that.

From my perspective, yes, it’s justified, but with a caveat IMO.

If you are a 3rd degree Black Belt in “Insert Martial Arts Style Here”, and you are in good physical condition, the gun shouldn’t be your first go to.

If you’re in poor physical condition, elderly, or have chronic RA like I do, then yes, without a doubt - this is a threat to your life and justifies deadly force.

I got CCW Safe about a year ago, just in case . . . And I’ve been listening to their podcast. There’s a little self-promotion, they don’t bash their competition, but I’d say 75% of the content is educational, featuring legal and weapons experts covering topics of all sorts, including law, de-escalation, situational awareness, how you should interact with police in regard to carry or hopefully never, a self defense shooting. I’ve learned a lot. Oh, and Don West is their chief counsel.

They literally covered this topic multiple times - that’s where I get my info. I’m not affiliated or trying to talk them up, just relating where my thinking was influenced.