Ron Cummings Arrested 2009.08.06 RE: Battery involving brother-in-law #3

[cajun]

You don't have to have no trespassing signs up for it to be trespassing. I've posted FL law on here before, you can search it out.

He came back out after they tried to get Misty in the van. She got an RO against her brother. I guess it will all come out in the wash sooner rather than later.

You have the right to stay in your home and you have the right to go outside and confront. If you don't like the laws I guess you can work to change them.

 

[Malesherbes]

You don't have to have no trespassing signs up for it to be trespassing. I've posted FL law on here before, you can search it out.

He came back out after they tried to get Misty in the van. She got an RO against her brother. I guess it will all come out in the wash sooner rather than later.

You have the right to stay in your home and you have the right to go outside and confront. If you don't like the laws I guess you can work to change them.

The thing about this that is so sad is that Ron has no respect for Mistys family-

I mean he just married their daughter- I dont care what was going down, you dont swing on your father in law, or brother in law- I am so glad I was never raised in an environment where that was considered no big deal- that is an abusive man if I have ever seen one. Lisa Croslin also thinks Ron was "on" something- and I think shes right- To me, that is the only thing that makes sense that he was on something and not able to use good judgment- if I were him I'd be asking for substance abuse treatment in lieu of jail.

jmo

 

[raeann]

How do you know they were told not to come over? Because thats what Misty says?

But they didn't kick the door- its not like Annette lives on a sprawling property with a mile long drive with yards full of dogs and no trespassing signs-

Let me ask you, now, does the home have windows? How about doors and a working phone? If someone showed up at my home after I told them to go away, I would just stay in the home and not get all gung ho on them-

Didn't Annette say she made Ron go back in the home but he didn't listen and decided to come back out for some more? Didn't Annette say that Ron started hitting Jr Croslin while he was in the car trying to leave?

ITA

Actually, I did some reading on the issue, and while this is not a confirmed legal opinion, it appears that since Annette S. rents the property, as stated by numerous posters, and since RC nor MC would apparently be listed on that rental agreement---Ron has no basis to tell anyone whether or not they can come onto the property. Technically, Ron and Misty are guests of the renter, and nothing more. The actual person who DID have a right to ask anyone to leave was GGMS and she saw NO threat, apparently, since she did not attack Tommy when she came out of the house. According to her own testimony, her first concern was removing Ron from continuing the attack. Her SECOND concern was getting the Croslin's to leave-- which they were trying to do. Her testimony also is that RON ignored her own instructions-- on her own property-- and perpetuated the assault on Tommy.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

http://www.heritagepublishinginc.com/Graphics/PDFs/JLSG0809_web.pdf

According to the above current listing 2009, he is not on any list for PD. He was on the list for the link you provided, but not now.

I think I will just call his office today and ask. It gave me a headache yesterday trying to explain it and I could very well be wrong. I was going by things I had looked up which indicated he was a part-time PD.

I couldn't get the site to load with your link, but I believe what you are saying that there is no indication of PD listed for him. Then again...it could be a clerical error.

The record shows they were to appoint him a PD.

 

[Kat]

Cajun, I did look up the Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground laws. We have the same here in Texas, but ours here in Texas is worded differently from what I'm reading.

I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly the FL statute. It doesn't appear to include property.

Okay ~ here is where I'm confused with FL~ did they revise the statute in FL to include the property that the residence sits upon?

I'm only seeing articles and law that says that the castle doctrine in FL applies to an intruder into a residence.

I'm not even attempting to figure out this court particular court case with the C's and the C's. I'm just trying to figure out the law so I can be informed in other cases too.

OT~ In TX we can protect ourselves and our families from perceived threat from an intruder anywhere on our land, not exclusive to a house.
In KY, when I was a young girl it was the same as it is in TX now, then they changed it to say that the intruder must be completely within the home. It was a off color joke that if you are going to shoot an intruder coming through the window you better make sure he lands on the inside.

 

[raeann]

It isn't incorrect to say that Ronald could have shot a person coming at him in an aggressive manner if he felt his life, his wife, or his property were being threatened. By law, Ronald could have stayed at the door with a gun and when Tommy rushed him...he could have countered that attack.

Every case is different and you can't say for a fact that Tommy could have shot Ronald legally, imo. There were extenuating circumstances here, imo. Tommy perhaps could have used deadly force at that point and maybe it was what Ronald was trying to prevent. Maybe Tommy threatened it before he got into the van. We have no idea what was said during the exchange or what threats could have been made from either side.

Sorry, but as "appalling" as it is...it is the law.

They did not have to be inside GGS' house to be trespassing, imo. They were uninvited troublemakers intent on causing the exact scenario which played out, imo.

My point was not that the LAW is appalling, but that anyone who would say that it applied in this case and SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, is appalling.

BTW----it was NOT his property in any way. The renter of the property did not feel threatened or feel the need to defend anyone because of the behavior of the Croslins. Nowhere in her statement does she say that she feared for her safety or that of her property. This is a person who has made it clear that she is no shrinking violet! If Annette S. felt in any way there was a threat to her or Ron, you can bet she would have responded quite differently than her own testimony says she did!

When the text messages, voice mails, and phone call records are made public, the true story will come out. Right now what we have to confirm Ron's attack are the matching statements of FIVE witnesses.

 

[Baxter]

I think I will just call his office today and ask. It gave me a headache yesterday trying to explain it and I could very well be wrong. I was going by things I had looked up which indicated he was a part-time PD.

I couldn't get the site to load with your link, but I believe what you are saying that there is no indication of PD listed for him. Then again...it could be a clerical error.

The record shows they were to appoint him a PD.

Looking back at the link you gave yesterday, it did not list him as a PD. It listed him as as a state attorney.

 

[raeann]

It really depends on the State law, which for FL I don't have handy. In California, for instance, if you call a place home and are there legally you have all the rights to do whatever the owner could do. There was a recent case where:

1) Married couple owns the property

2) Unemployed son moves in

3) Unemployed son has some girl move in with him at his invitation

4) Unemployed son arrested and jailed for some crime

5) Married couple cannot kick girl out

The girl was determined to be a legal occupant of the house because the married couple gave their son permission to live there, and he invited the girl as his guest. So she is there legally and cannot be kicked out for violating the lease as there is none - they had to go through a formal eviction process during which she just stayed there legally and could keep the couple from coming onto the property.

It's messed up IMO but that's the law in some states. If a place is legally established as your home, you can inform people that the cannot come in and if they do it's trespass. BUT the specific laws of the state are what matters.

Agreed....there are a lot of conflicts between different states, and even within states, different interpretations on most any issue. That's how we keep our lawyers occupied! :crazy:

The point of this case, in my opinion, does not even involve whether the initial confrontation was justified or instigated by any one person or another. I believe that if Ron had stayed in the house after he went back in, the Croslins were leaving and NO ONE would have even reported the incident. The law was not definitively broken by anyone until RC came out of the house, actually preventing the van from leaving, and perpetuated the second attack. Even if they had reported the first fight to LE, I doubt that there would have been any charges filed or arrests made. Up to the point where RC entered the car to attack, the whole issue was a "draw". jmo

 

[Kat]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/titl0776.htm

I think this is the statute for the justifiable use of deadly force. (AKA Castile Doctrine, Stand your Ground)

Protection of home 776.013 / justifiable deadly force
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0776->Section%20013#0776.013

Revision added to statute since it was voted into legislation in 2005, 776.012
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0776->Section%20012#0776.012

Now I haven't read all the statutes yet, but I can see that there is a possibility that RC's defense will use the above as defense.

Because it says:

... 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...

I wonder if that defense will be used. Honestly, I'm not wondering too hard though, I don't really care about this aspect of Haleigh's family. JMHO.

ETA: links to individual breakdown of statute didn't parse. Sorry.

 

[cajun]

The Florida measure says any person "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."



Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.


hhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

 

[cajun]

There was an interesting discussion on one of the cable news shows last night regarding a case from Florida where the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a person who had been in jail for two years for shooting a person who entered his car and assaulted him. This man had drawn a gun to protect himself, the "assaulter" got out of the car and RAN away, and the man shot him anyway as he ran. The court said that the law that applies to someone entering a home to assault someone also applies to vehicles in Florida and they ordered the release of the man as he had not broken any law.

This means that although many have suggested that RC could have shot HC---some have even said that they believe that he should have, which is appalling-- the TRUTH is that the LAW in Florida says that Tommy C could have legally shot Ron the minute that he entered the car and attacked him. Thank God neither of these two took it to that extreme. Just wanted to post this to show that the original contention of a number of posters was incorrect and actually the opposite of the truth--according to the Florida Supreme Court.

jmo

Here's an article on the case you are talking about.

snipped..

If you attack somebody be prepared to suffer the consequences," Hammer said.

The new law amended Florida's existing "Castle Doctrine" that allows people to use deadly force to defend themselves and others in their homes against the threat of death or great bodily harm.


It extends that right to public spaces including the street or a business and removes a duty to retreat before using deadly force.


http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090819/BREAKINGNEWS/90819037/1086/rss07

 

[tehcloser]

The Florida measure says any person "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."



Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.


hhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

But it's going to get sticky trying to prove how you were in fear for your life if the guy was in his car leaving............:waitasec: And you had gone in the house, then came back out...........:waitasec:

 

[raeann]

Here's an article on the case you are talking about.

snipped..

If you attack somebody be prepared to suffer the consequences," Hammer said.

The new law amended Florida's existing "Castle Doctrine" that allows people to use deadly force to defend themselves and others in their homes against the threat of death or great bodily harm.


It extends that right to public spaces including the street or a business and removes a duty to retreat before using deadly force.


http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090819/BREAKINGNEWS/90819037/1086/rss07

Yes, that is the one, and it appears that my post is in error in stating that it came from the FL. Supreme court. I heard something to the effect of "higher court" in passing and just assumed that it was a SC decision. My point originally was that while some are adamant that RC was within his rights to use force, this court decision extends that right also to TC in this case. Fortunately, neither one of the participants resorted to such unjustified lengths in this incident.

 

[LaLaw2000]

They were told not to come over, they did anyway, that's trespassing. If they had kicked the door in that would be B and E. Ron had every right to go out on the property he lives on, you don't have a right to come on that property and especially after being told not to come over.

You say that they were told not to come over and they did anyway. I will not ask for a link because I do not have one for my answer, but, IIRC, Misty is the one who SAYS she told them not to come over. Misty does not own that property and has no say over who comes and goes from there. GGM did not say that she told them to leave, but it is in the report that the Croslins were attempting to leave and Ronald attacked HC2 after he got back into the van.

ETA: I should have read the rest of this thread before stopping to post this. BUT, the Croslins were attempting to leave when HC2 was attacked again by Ronald.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Lets say that either Ronald, Misty, or GGM called LE and stated that people were tresspassing on her property. Under the law, even if GGM rented the property, she would have the right to ask anyone she did not want to have present on that property to leave.

Then lets say LE responded to GGM's call. LE would tell the people to leave and not come back because the owner (renter) did not want them there. AFTER the warning, if the Croslins came back to the property, then they would be arrested. HOWEVER, she does need to place 'no trespassing' signs on her property to make people aware that she does not want anyone she has not invited to come onto the property.

We have disccussed this in an earlier thread, IIRC. And I do not think anyone stated that the Croslins piled out of the van with 'force'.

 

[Kat]

all this mess because of two supposedly grown men. I don't care which one started it and which one finished it, they both were just plain wrong IMHO.

Thanks everyone for all the interesting discussion on statute and how it might be interpreted in court.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

My point was not that the LAW is appalling, but that anyone who would say that it applied in this case and SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, is appalling.

BTW----it was NOT his property in any way. The renter of the property did not feel threatened or feel the need to defend anyone because of the behavior of the Croslins. Nowhere in her statement does she say that she feared for her safety or that of her property. This is a person who has made it clear that she is no shrinking violet! If Annette S. felt in any way there was a threat to her or Ron, you can bet she would have responded quite differently than her own testimony says she did!

When the text messages, voice mails, and phone call records are made public, the true story will come out. Right now what we have to confirm Ron's attack are the matching statements of FIVE witnesses.

You can call it appalling that I said I think Ronald should have had his gun, but I would call it self defense. This is the very reason that law was written. Sometimes people do not have time to wait on LE to arrive in order to protect us with their weapons or means. If Ronald had shot him instead of simply pushing him away...he would be in the clear on this one, imo.

GGS' did not have to be the one threatened or to mention it in her statement. She came out after the initial fight started. I will double check, but even if Ronald's name is not on the lease...I believe he is considered a legal resident of the home. I am sure GGS would argue that he is residing with her. I think he still has a right to protect himself as a guest in her house.

You are incorrect on the five matching statements here, imo. No one is disputing that Ronald hit him...many times, but the circumstances are at issue. From the statements, the circumstances leading up to the altercation do not match. Tommy should not have been there in the first place! He put himself in that position and it warranted a response, imo.

 

[debs]

I think I will just call his office today and ask. It gave me a headache yesterday trying to explain it and I could very well be wrong. I was going by things I had looked up which indicated he was a part-time PD.

I couldn't get the site to load with your link, but I believe what you are saying that there is no indication of PD listed for him. Then again...it could be a clerical error.

The record shows they were to appoint him a PD.

Contact his lawyer? Wow.

 

[tehcloser]

You can call it appalling that I said I think Ronald should have had his gun, but I would call it self defense. This is the very reason that law was written. Sometimes people do not have time to wait on LE to arrive in order to protect us with their weapons or means. If Ronald had shot him instead of simply pushing him away...he would be in the clear on this one, imo.

GGS' did not have to be the one threatened or to mention it in her statement. She came out after the initial fight started. I will double check, but even if Ronald's name is not on the lease...I believe he is considered a legal resident of the home. I am sure GGS would argue that he is residing with her. I think he still has a right to protect himself as a guest in her house.

You are incorrect on the five matching statements here, imo. No one is disputing that Ronald hit him...many times, but the circumstances are at issue. From the statements, the circumstances leading up to the altercation do not match. Tommy should not have been there in the first place! He put himself in that position and it warranted a response, imo.

Of good Lord.....it was his wife's family. Not some derranged killer off the streets looking to harm you. Thank God most sane people know they do not need a gun to deal with their inlaws...............If a person is so quick to wave their gun around...THEY DO NOT NEED ONE. :bang:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Of good Lord.....it was his wife's family. Not some derranged killer off the streets looking to harm you. Thank God most sane people know they do not need a gun to deal with their inlaws...............If a person is so quick to wave their gun around...THEY DO NOT NEED ONE. :bang:

I disagree. According to Misty, their intent was to take her against her will which is to abduct/kidnap. They didn't come with the intention of a friendly casual visit, imo. In-laws or not, it is acceptable to protect your family. I know many in-law cases that have ended with a horrible outcome because they thought not unlike you posted. They couldn't bring themselves to stop the violent attack because it was "family".

I didn't say one word about "waving a gun around". Ronald had a gun and should have showed up with it at the door when they arrived, imo. He knew they were up to no good by being there, imo. He should have been prepared to defend himself and his family.