Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: ‘Use my broken heart’ to change gun laws « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2756
Offline
« #15 : July 27, 2013, 11:17:53 AM »

"Rick Scott reviewed the law......and the clarity is clear. No further action necessary at this point...."

Rick Scott is not the final arbiter on this and whether he feels or you feel that no action is necessary bears no impact on the matter.

Yes it does.....only Scott can call a special session to address this and he's refused to do so. Read this Durango.........it's real...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down

I skimmed it. Is there a particular section you wanted to bring to my attention re: Rick Scott?

Keep in mind I'm not arguing against concealed carry.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #16 : July 27, 2013, 11:24:35 AM »


“No high school graduation for Trayvon, no college for Trayvon, no grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable, and to pay for this awful crime. Trayvon was my son, but he is also your son,” she said.

.....

“My message to you is please use my story, please use my tragedy, please use my broken heart to say to yourself we cannot let this happen to anybody else’s child,” Fulton told the crowd, which gave her a standing ovation.


I think it is pretty clear from these 2 statements that she is blaming SYG for the death of her son.

deadzone

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3560
Offline
« #17 : July 27, 2013, 11:25:11 AM »

"Rick Scott reviewed the law......and the clarity is clear. No further action necessary at this point...."

Rick Scott is not the final arbiter on this and whether he feels or you feel that no action is necessary bears no impact on the matter.

Yes it does.....only Scott can call a special session to address this and he's refused to do so. Read this Durango.........it's real...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down

I skimmed it. Is there a particular section you wanted to bring to my attention re: Rick Scott?

Keep in mind I'm not arguing against concealed carry.

Just that concealed carry permits have increased by 90% and violent crime has dropped by 26% since 2007...

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2756
Offline
« #18 : July 27, 2013, 11:54:03 AM »


“No high school graduation for Trayvon, no college for Trayvon, no grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable, and to pay for this awful crime. Trayvon was my son, but he is also your son,” she said.

.....

“My message to you is please use my story, please use my tragedy, please use my broken heart to say to yourself we cannot let this happen to anybody else’s child,” Fulton told the crowd, which gave her a standing ovation.


I think it is pretty clear from these 2 statements that she is blaming SYG for the death of her son.

it's not clear from the quotes nor the story itself how much value she assigns to SYG in this case. Regardless of that, the larger point she seems to be making is that SYG is a troublesome law. One that's led to problems in the past and will in the future. She's utilizing her visibility to open a debate on the worthiness of the law itself. I have no problem w/ that. That to me is a discussion that's overdue.

I'm assuming you're okay w/ the current SYG laws as they are being applied?

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #19 : July 27, 2013, 01:10:56 PM »


“No high school graduation for Trayvon, no college for Trayvon, no grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable, and to pay for this awful crime. Trayvon was my son, but he is also your son,” she said.

.....

“My message to you is please use my story, please use my tragedy, please use my broken heart to say to yourself we cannot let this happen to anybody else’s child,” Fulton told the crowd, which gave her a standing ovation.


I think it is pretty clear from these 2 statements that she is blaming SYG for the death of her son.

it's not clear from the quotes nor the story itself how much value she assigns to SYG in this case. Regardless of that, the larger point she seems to be making is that SYG is a troublesome law. One that's led to problems in the past and will in the future. She's utilizing her visibility to open a debate on the worthiness of the law itself. I have no problem w/ that. That to me is a discussion that's overdue.

I'm assuming you're okay w/ the current SYG laws as they are being applied?

I think it is abundantly clear to be honest, best case we can agree to disagree.

I am OK with the SYG law as it is written and as I understand it. If your problem is how the law is being applied, that is an education issue for judges is it not?

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
« #20 : July 27, 2013, 03:32:09 PM »

Use your broken heart yourself to change your parenting effectiveness.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Online
« #21 : July 27, 2013, 03:41:01 PM »

Just because the SYG language is part of the pattern jury instruction for self defense doesn't mean it had anything to do with the verdict. If the jury agrees - as they seem to have - that Z had a reasonable fear for his life then that is basic self defense NOT stand your ground. SYG would've also provided a pre- trial defense that Z waived.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46190
Offline
« #22 : July 27, 2013, 05:49:34 PM »

There seems to be quite a bit of determination to include stand your ground as a part of the reason for the verdict.  Folks seem set on including that which was not presented, argued, nor a part of the final reckoning.  And that is from the president on down....

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2756
Offline
« #23 : July 27, 2013, 07:01:40 PM »

There seems to be quite a bit of determination to include stand your ground as a part of the reason for the verdict.  Folks seem set on including that which was not presented, argued, nor a part of the final reckoning.  And that is from the president on down....

You're wrong.

1) There was extensive testimony given in this case about GZ knowledge of SYG. In fact it was shown that he was lying about his knowledge of SYG (in the Hannity interview) by one one of his own instructors.

2) The defense argued GZ had a right to be where he was and was not doing anything illegal.

3) Juror B37 is the juror that believed GZ to be not guilty before deliberations began said this when she was interviewd after the trial.

"COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."



This was the written jury instructions given to the jury for them to consider.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Because the defense waived their right to a SYG hearing does not mean they excluded stand your ground from their self defense assertion. It is part of self defense.

There seems to be some confusion in this forum between a formal SYG hearing and self defense. Both of which allow  standing ones ground.





Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8929
Offline
« #24 : July 27, 2013, 07:11:18 PM »


“No high school graduation for Trayvon, no college for Trayvon, no grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable, and to pay for this awful crime. Trayvon was my son, but he is also your son,” she said.

.....

“My message to you is please use my story, please use my tragedy, please use my broken heart to say to yourself we cannot let this happen to anybody else’s child,” Fulton told the crowd, which gave her a standing ovation.


I think it is pretty clear from these 2 statements that she is blaming SYG for the death of her son.


That indeed is probably what she is trying to do unfortunately the real person/s to blame if there is any is by the woman and his dad looking in the mirror.

Had Martin had proper parenting that said no to his drifting into thuggery perhaps her son would be alive today. Suggesting that he would even have been a high school graduate with the path he was on is absolutely ludicrous.  Time to quit playing "make believe" dreams on her son's future endeavors. The reality was he was on a path of being a part of a gang and the criminal element of society that flourishes today.

Sure it is a horrible tragedy to lose a son to such a horrible death but creating this fantasy of what her son was robbed of by dying is absurdity at its finest.  Am I being harsh?  Yes but sometimes harsh reality is demanded. 

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #25 : July 27, 2013, 07:13:09 PM »

There seems to be quite a bit of determination to include stand your ground as a part of the reason for the verdict.  Folks seem set on including that which was not presented, argued, nor a part of the final reckoning.  And that is from the president on down....

You're wrong.

1) There was extensive testimony given in this case about GZ knowledge of SYG. In fact it was shown that he was lying about his knowledge of SYG (in the Hannity interview) by one one of his own instructors.

2) The defense argued GZ had a right to be where he was and was not doing anything illegal.

3) Juror B37 is the juror that believed GZ to be not guilty before deliberations began said this when she was interviewd after the trial.

"COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."



This was the written jury instructions given to the jury for them to consider.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Because the defense waived their right to a SYG hearing does not mean they excluded stand your ground from their self defense assertion. It is part of self defense.

There seems to be some confusion in this forum between a formal SYG hearing and self defense. Both of which allow  standing ones ground.

You are talking about a mind set  rather than the law itself. The mother is talking about the law.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2756
Offline
« #26 : July 27, 2013, 07:23:12 PM »

There seems to be quite a bit of determination to include stand your ground as a part of the reason for the verdict.  Folks seem set on including that which was not presented, argued, nor a part of the final reckoning.  And that is from the president on down....

You're wrong.

1) There was extensive testimony given in this case about GZ knowledge of SYG. In fact it was shown that he was lying about his knowledge of SYG (in the Hannity interview) by one one of his own instructors.

2) The defense argued GZ had a right to be where he was and was not doing anything illegal.




3) Juror B37 is the juror that believed GZ to be not guilty before deliberations began said this when she was interviewd after the trial.

"COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."



This was the written jury instructions given to the jury for them to consider.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Because the defense waived their right to a SYG hearing does not mean they excluded stand your ground from their self defense assertion. It is part of self defense.

There seems to be some confusion in this forum between a formal SYG hearing and self defense. Both of which allow  standing ones ground.

You are talking about a mind set  rather than the law itself. The mother is talking about the law.

A mindset!?

I just quoted you the freakin' jury instructions and told you that standing ones ground IS part of self defense.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2756
Offline
« #27 : July 27, 2013, 07:25:16 PM »

Is there some reason she's not allowed to speak out against SYG regardless if it's the formal assertion or part of self defense.

That makes no sense.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46190
Offline
« #28 : July 27, 2013, 07:26:35 PM »

There seems to be quite a bit of determination to include stand your ground as a part of the reason for the verdict.  Folks seem set on including that which was not presented, argued, nor a part of the final reckoning.  And that is from the president on down....

You're wrong.

1) There was extensive testimony given in this case about GZ knowledge of SYG. In fact it was shown that he was lying about his knowledge of SYG (in the Hannity interview) by one one of his own instructors.

2) The defense argued GZ had a right to be where he was and was not doing anything illegal.

3) Juror B37 is the juror that believed GZ to be not guilty before deliberations began said this when she was interviewd after the trial.

"COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."



This was the written jury instructions given to the jury for them to consider.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Because the defense waived their right to a SYG hearing does not mean they excluded stand your ground from their self defense assertion. It is part of self defense.

There seems to be some confusion in this forum between a formal SYG hearing and self defense. Both of which allow  standing ones ground.
Is it part of self defense - but a part that wasn't argued nor presented by Zimmerman's team, or at least that is my understanding.  I wasn't one who followed the case from start to finish

The juror is right - but for the stand your ground phrase.  One is entitled to protect oneself if they feel they are in danger for their life. 

As to the Judge's instruction - that would seem to me to be out of line from my pov, having not been offered as a defense by those representing Zimmerman. 

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/18/stand-your-ground-critics-admit-it-was-a  Here is an article I just googled on the point. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2756
Offline
« #29 : July 27, 2013, 07:52:12 PM »

There seems to be quite a bit of determination to include stand your ground as a part of the reason for the verdict.  Folks seem set on including that which was not presented, argued, nor a part of the final reckoning.  And that is from the president on down....

You're wrong.

1) There was extensive testimony given in this case about GZ knowledge of SYG. In fact it was shown that he was lying about his knowledge of SYG (in the Hannity interview) by one one of his own instructors.

2) The defense argued GZ had a right to be where he was and was not doing anything illegal.

3) Juror B37 is the juror that believed GZ to be not guilty before deliberations began said this when she was interviewd after the trial.

"COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."



This was the written jury instructions given to the jury for them to consider.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Because the defense waived their right to a SYG hearing does not mean they excluded stand your ground from their self defense assertion. It is part of self defense.

There seems to be some confusion in this forum between a formal SYG hearing and self defense. Both of which allow  standing ones ground.
Is it part of self defense - but a part that wasn't argued nor presented by Zimmerman's team, or at least that is my understanding.  I wasn't one who followed the case from start to finish

The juror is right - but for the stand your ground phrase.  One is entitled to protect oneself if they feel they are in danger for their life. 

As to the Judge's instruction - that would seem to me to be out of line from my pov, having not been offered as a defense by those representing Zimmerman. 

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/18/stand-your-ground-critics-admit-it-was-a  Here is an article I just googled on the point.

"Is it part of self defense - but a part that wasn't argued nor presented "

I just told you that there was argument about SYG and GZ knowledge argued to the jury. It showed he was lying.

"The juror is right - but for the stand your ground phrase."

The juror said she considered stand your ground.  What's to debate about that? Do you know better than her what she considered?

"As to the Judge's instruction - that would seem to me to be out of line from my pov, having not been offered as a defense by those representing Zimmerman. "

Jury instructions were written by both sides. I'll give you one guess which side wanted the words stand your ground included in those instructions.
  Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: ‘Use my broken heart’ to change gun laws « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools