Wesley chapel Grove movies shooting (Spring Hill: section 8, brokers, near)

[bannedontherun]

Originally Posted by SULAW2015

Hearsay, inadmissible in court.

BS...he's a direct witness. He's already testified and it is admissible.

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by bentlebee

As a owner of a business I can implement and post signs about certain rules and regulations in our business as long as they don't interfere with discrimination and/or the law, then they are perfectly legal to post and legally can be implemented.

What you are saying is " just ignore anything as long as it doesn't have a statute number listed then it is not binding...so the heck with it! Really, you believe that your self?

Yes, I believe it because it is the undeniable truth.

Yes, you can put that sign up. Yes, I can legally ignore it. That is the law. Do not doubt me on this.

The first link is the simple one:

http://www.epiphanydigest.com/2012/07/21/is-it-legal-to-carry-firearms-at-florida-theaters/

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/94771-does-anybody-have-portion-fl-statute-regards-no-concealed-weapons-signs.html


http://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?87-No-Weapons-Sign/page3

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/florida-discussion-firearm-news/4715-pointless-no-gun-signs-can-you-carry-florida-airports.html

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/response-no-guns-allowed-signs-9152/index3.html




Now, if you ask me to leave for any reason, and if I refuse to leave, then you might try to have me arrested for trespassing. Good luck with that, I'll be gone before the cop arrives.

But your sign has no force of law.

[bannedontherun]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

The rights I am talking about is to be in public without being attacked and possibly injured or killed by a punk who could not adhere to the basic laws of society. That being; be polite when you have acted in a way that has violated the rights of others. That right would be to enjoy an experience which he paid for where he could expect that no one would be tapping away on a cellphone or chatting on one during the experience.

You keep bringing this up like it's some legal or god given right that everyone be exempt and free from rudeness when they go out in public. That is not the case. How about Chad, he too paid money and has a right not to be harrassed. Equally annoying as texting is people not arriving on time and bumping into the back of your seat, walking behind when they should be seated and Reeve's son still had not arrived and would have been interrupting not only previews but possibly the movie itself...that's incredibly rude.

[SULAW2015]

Originally Posted by bannedontherun

BS...he's a direct witness. He's already testified and it is admissible.

Hearsay = out of court statement or assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
When did he testify in a court and when was he cross examined?
It will be 180 days to 2 years before relevant testimony is heard.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by SULAW2015

Hearsay, inadmissible in court.

No, what Hamilton heard is what Hamilton heard. It won't be hearsay when he is asked to relate what he heard Reeves' wife say to her husband.

[bannedontherun]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

It tells me that he was aware of the gravity of the situation and that he could have been killed by further attack. Once again - Let me be clear - The situation was beyond texting. The situation was that the man was being attacked and he responded to that attack in a means that is acceptable under law.

71 year old men do not need to suffer at the hands of anyone. In fact, no person needs to suffer at the hands of anyone.

1000 empty seats. Oleson should have taken the opportunity to correct the situation by moving.

Warning someone who is within inches of you is not a good idea.

As far as a break in, I would be waiting for them to step through the door or into the house from a window.
I would not hesitate to take that person out. Surely they would have had no problem taking me out.

My house, my home. I will defend it.

The victim got up and turned around after Reeves returned to his seat for the sole purpose of
continuing an argument which he escalated to assault and battery. For those stupid actions he lost his
life.

No sympathy. No excuses. We reap what we sow.

Amen to that. Reeves has all but guaranteed that his wife and daughter and granddaughter will live out the remainder of their years in poverty, his defense even if he wins and the civil litigation will ensure he will be broke. At best he's exchanged the golden years of retirement for a cold concrete cell with poor medical care and very real and imminent danger for at least a year or two and quite possibly the remainder of his life. I'm sure he thinks it's all worth it now.

[bannedontherun]

Originally Posted by SULAW2015

Hearsay = out of court statement or assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
When did he testify in a court and when was he cross examined?
It will be 180 days to 2 years before relevant testimony is heard.

He testified for the State and was cross examined at the bond hearing. I know it's not the trial but he still testified about Vivian being told to shut the f up.

[bannedontherun]

He better get a new lawyer...Escobar is certainly no O'Meara or Baez. The Judge has severely scolded him twice already. Once for starting just about question of State's witnesses with "Remember" or "Keep in mind you're under oath" and the State quickly pointed out, they don't have to be constantly reminded they took and oath before their testimony. Win for the State.

Second scolding was Escobar repeatedly asks the same already answered questions as to question the believability of State witnesses. The Judge said "You can't keep repeating questions that have clearly already been answered, just because you don't like the answer. Win for the State.

[Spring Hillian]

So if I put up a no trespassing sign on my house and I find someone trespassing they could tell me that my sign has no legal meaning? If I put up a no trespassing sign and I find you trespassing I will hold you at gun point until the police to arrive to arrest you.

Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall

Yes, I believe it because it is the undeniable truth.

Yes, you can put that sign up. Yes, I can legally ignore it. That is the law. Do not doubt me on this.

The first link is the simple one:

http://www.epiphanydigest.com/2012/07/21/is-it-legal-to-carry-firearms-at-florida-theaters/

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/94771-does-anybody-have-portion-fl-statute-regards-no-concealed-weapons-signs.html


http://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?87-No-Weapons-Sign/page3

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/florida-discussion-firearm-news/4715-pointless-no-gun-signs-can-you-carry-florida-airports.html

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/response-no-guns-allowed-signs-9152/index3.html




Now, if you ask me to leave for any reason, and if I refuse to leave, then you might try to have me arrested for trespassing. Good luck with that, I'll be gone before the cop arrives.

But your sign has no force of law.

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

So if I put up a no trespassing sign on my house and I find someone trespassing they could tell me that my sign has no legal meaning? If I put up a no trespassing sign and I find you trespassing I will hold you at gun point until the police to arrive to arrest you.

Your house doesn't need a sign. It's not open to the public.

Unless your house is a public nuisance, such as a house of prostitution, in which case concealed carry is already prohibited.

Yes, you can certainly prohibit trespassing on private property which is not open to the public, and you don't need a sign to do so.