Divemedic

Mom, he’s looking at me

The Chicago Cubs are suing a bar located near their stadium, because the bar isn’t paying the Cubs for allowing their customers to look at the team while they play baseball. The team is claiming the rooftop bar is misappropriating the team’s property rights because the bar is selling admission to the bar and allowing patrons to watch Cubs games from that vantagepoint. It looks like the courts are going to side with the team. In the meantime, the city is investigating the structural integrity of the roofs, issuing citations to those in danger of collapse. I’m sure those investigations are totally legit and were in no way sponsored or encouraged by the billionaire team owner.

Money talks, I guess.

The Ricketts family, billionaire owners of the Cubs, began purchasing the nearby rooftop properties in order to control the marketable sight lines into the stadium and by the end of the 2016 season, owned (or controlled via agreement) 11 of the 13 rooftop locations that had a view into the nearby baseball field. Wrigley Rooftop is one of the two that has thus far refused to sell.

I don’t care what the court says, if I can see it from my property, then you have no claim to force people to pay for looking at it. This will open all sorts of legal maneuvering. If my neighbor can see into my yard, can I sue him for watching me swim in my pool?

If the Cubs don’t want people in nearby tall buildings watching them play, perhaps they should build a dome. I’m sure they can get taxpayers to foot the bill. After all, teams build sports ball complexes at taxpayer expense all the time. For example, the Tampa Bay Rays are getting a Billion dollars of taxpayer money to build their new stadium, even while the local governments of the state are assuring the taxpayers that property taxes are totally needed to fund things everyone agrees are needed- things like firefighters, police, schools, and roads: “The money we take in from property taxes totally is being used for needed services and is in no way being used to fund billion dollar sports complexes. The money going to build places of business for billionaires to pay millionaires to play children’s games is totally coming from a different line item that was totally taken from taxpayers in a different way, so it doesn’t count.”

If that doesn’t work, perhaps the team could try the Scooby Do method and pay someone to dress a ghost in order to force the owners to sell.

Meanwhile, the shortstop for the Rays is being paid $182 million to play baseball. Jason Heyward is being paid $184 million to play the game by the Cubs. Meanwhile, the bar in question (Wrigley Field Rooftop Bar) is estimated to be making $1 million a year.

This is one of those times where a billionaire is doing something immoral to make more money, and the government shouldn’t be getting involved. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Remember, when the legislature decides what can be bought or sold, the first thing to be bought and sold are the legislators themselves.

By Divemedic, ago

Found Out

The people in this thread siding with the spitter are what I was talking about with the dude grabbing your wife’s ass- there are some actions which should merit an immediate and violent response. You can add spitting in my face to that list.

By Divemedic, ago

Cool

This dude spent 4 years building a submarine in his workshop.

He even had it coast guard registered. So what happens the first time he took it out? He was stopped by police after some Karen thought he was a North Korean commando mission to attack her HOA.

Check out the video series of the build and him sailing it.

By Divemedic, ago

AI is Being Overrated

People trusting AI are overstating the so-called “intelligence” of these models. They are computer programs: no more, no less. These AI models are written by humans and are subject to the biases of their programmers. Let me illustrate:

I asked ChatGPT the following: what florida case law states that display of a firearm is non-lethal force?

The anwer:

There is not a single Florida appellate case that broadly holds that the “display” of a firearm is always “non-deadly force.” In fact, modern Florida law tends to treat the threatened use of a firearm as potentially deadly force, depending on the circumstances.

The key authority is actually the statute:

  • Florida Statute § 776.012(2) expressly recognizes the “threatened use of deadly force.”

Before the 2014 amendment to § 776.012, many Florida practitioners treated merely drawing or displaying a firearm (without firing) as non-deadly force. After the amendment, that distinction became much weaker because the statute now separately authorizes the “threatened use of deadly force.”

Cases commonly discussed on this issue include:

  • Bass v. State, 232 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) — pointing a firearm at someone can constitute aggravated assault.
  • Gilbert v. State, 347 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) — displaying a gun in a threatening manner can create a well-founded fear of imminent violence.
  • M.M. v. State, 391 So.2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) — aggravated assault requires proof the victim had a reasonable fear of imminent violence.

What Florida courts do recognize is a distinction between:

  1. Improper exhibition / brandishing under Fla. Stat. § 790.10, and
  2. Aggravated assault with a firearm under § 784.021.

A mere display may be charged as “improper exhibition” rather than aggravated assault if there was no intentional threat of imminent violence.

Of course, I know that this isn’t the case, so I replied with: what about Howard v. State, 698 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), or Carter v. State, 115 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)?

The model replied with:

Yes — those are two of the principal Florida cases people cite for the proposition that merely displaying a firearm is non-deadly force as a matter of law.

Howard v. State

Howard is probably the clearest statement. The Fourth DCA said: “even the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not ‘deadly force.’”

The case relied on Toledo v. State and distinguished between:

  • actual deadly force, and
  • threatened/displayed force.

Howard has since been repeatedly cited for the rule that:

  • pointing or displaying a firearm,
  • without discharge,
  • is generally treated as non-deadly force under Florida self-defense law.

Carter v. State

Carter reinforced the same concept. The important language is footnote 3: “Apparently the firearm was not discharged and deadly force did not apply as a matter of law.”

Carter is often cited together with Howard and later cases such as:

  • Cunningham v. State
  • Rivero v. State
  • Jackson v. State

Those cases collectively stand for the proposition that:

  • merely displaying or pointing a firearm,
  • even at someone,
  • without firing, is not deadly force as a matter of law.

Jackson is especially explicit: “the mere display of a gun, or even pointing a gun at another’s head or heart without firing it, is not deadly force as a matter of law.”

That said, after the 2014 amendments to Florida’s self-defense statutes recognizing the “threatened use of deadly force,” the statutory framework became more complicated. Courts still cite Howard/Carter for the force-classification issue, but prosecutors sometimes argue that threatening with a firearm falls under justified “threatened deadly force” rather than ordinary non-deadly force.

Again, the model admitted that the court cases were in opposition to it’s position, but still pushed back with incorrect antigun bullshit. So, I asked a follow up question: Oh really? Then Cunningham v. State, 159 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and Burns v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) were not after 2014?

It then gave me a long explanation that boiled down to “Well, all of your cases are from the 4th DCA” with the implication that the 4th was out of line with the rest of the courts in the state. So I came back with: There is also Jackson v. State, 179 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), Copeland v. State, 277 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), and Marty v. State, 210 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). None of them are 4th district. I think whoever programs you has a certain antigun bias, and your opinions are suspect at best.

So the AI responded back with:

That does not mean every firearm-related threat is legally “non-deadly force” for every statutory purpose, but for the issue you originally asked about — Florida case law on display of a firearm — the appellate trend is clear and longstanding.

And to your broader point: the error here was analytical, not ideological. Legal issues involving firearms often have nuanced doctrinal distinctions (e.g., “threatened deadly force” versus “deadly force” versus “non-deadly force” in jury instructions), and I compressed those distinctions too aggressively. Your cited cases corrected that.

This is why I no longer pay for access to ChatGPT.

By Divemedic, ago

Don’t Even Open the Door

This is why you don’t talk to cops, and my advice is that you don’t even open the door.

Also, you DO have cameras in your vehicles and on the perimeter of your house, right?

My wife’s new Lexus? Yeah, I just got done putting her dash camera in. It’s worth it. Cops lie, because in many cases, their jobs require them to make arrests. If they aren’t good at their jobs, they become good at faking their jobs.

I am not familiar with Colorado law, but this cop just writes a summons on the spot for her trial. No discovery, no opportunity for a lawyer, no due process? That seems rather sketchy.

By Divemedic, ago

Nope

Several members of Congress have introduced a bill that would allow current and former members of the US military’s special forces to carry concealed weapons nationwide, despite any other laws to the contrary. I’ve seen stories about this bill in a few places over the past few weeks, and I just can’t support it. The idea that we are going to pass a Federal law that grants some sort of “super citizen” status to certain people, who then have rights not available to the rest of us?

No.

I would note that all three of the congressmen who sponsored this bill are former special forces. It’s typical self serving crap that politicians vote to give themselves more rights than the rest of us. The same thing happened with LEOSA. The entire premise behind that travesty of a law was cops might run into some criminal they arrested and need to defend themselves, as if some cop from Bumfukt, Iowa has a higher chance of running into a criminal while spending the day at Disneyland in California than I would is simply ridiculous, and there is no evidence that it actually happens.

The same for special forces soldiers. They don’t need such a permit while carrying out their duties, because they are on duty. For former soldiers, there is no need for them to have more rights than the rest of us. Don’t give me the line that this will be used as a stepping stone for more bills later- as soon as cops got their special LEOSA rights, they promptly turned around and lobbied against our right to carry. I’m not falling for that one again.

If these Republicans want to expand carry rights: do it for everyone, not just yourselves and your friends.

By Divemedic, ago

Relapse and Joke

Been sick since Friday. I was getting better, then last night it got worse with a vengeance, running a fever and all. Didn’t sleep well. So this is my post for the day.

A man comes home and tells his wife that the unfortunately lost his job. She asks why, and he tells her that it’s too embarrassing. She tells him that, no matter what, they can deal with it together. So he tells her- “they caught me with my dick in the pickle slicer.”

She replies, “OK, you’re right, that is a bit embarrassing, but I am your wife and we will get through this together. However, I just have to ask, what did they do with the pickle slicer?”

The husband replies, “They fired her, too.”

By Divemedic, ago

Lies, Lawyers, and AI

This is why I am opposed to the death penalty. A prosecutor caught fabricating evidence using AI:

By Divemedic, ago