Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#6279 Jul 7, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. It's just that the participants who don't have the ability to respond to posts without breaking them up into a dozen pieces makes it difficult and time consuming for me to respond back. I have better things to do. Learn how to respond to posts where I can simply hit the reply button and respond back, and I will be happy to accommodate your replies.
Riiiiiight. Pick one and give it a try. How about your claim about Martin's injuries? How about your claim that he was high? You can still hit reply to my other post. You don't because you know you are wrong.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6280 Jul 7, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't entirely true.
Maybe you should have paid more attention in class and put the checkers away:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60
You surely could be sued. But recovery in tort is barred under 2307.60 (B)(2) under specified circumstances. It doesn't protect from an innocent bystander or their family recovering in tort if you maim or injure them, but it will as applied to the perp.
That's why you best be sure about where yer pointin that gun, cowboy.
woof
Thanks cowboy. Might I suggest that you visit the Sheriff's website and find the CCW manual that explains all this?

Page 19 of the CCW handbook:

CIVIL LIABILITY.

"Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or the survivors could sue the licensee from the harm of the licensees use of deadly force. A "wrongful death" lawsuit or "tort damages" is a common legal action for money damages. A civil action does not involve a criminal penalty such as incarceration, but both a criminal and civil case can be brought based on the same incident,"

Mind you, this manual is two years old and has been updated since then, so page 19 may not be entirely accurate. But the changes of laws since then do not affect this section of our laws. It's still there and has not changed. The only exception to this law is if a licensee is attacked in his or her vehicle. And the reason for this exemption is that your car (by the Castle Doctrine) is considered your temporary home.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6281 Jul 7, 2012
free wrote:
So you agree with me. That's wonderful !
Imcompetent ? I didn't kick him loose, only to turn around and arrest him. Then set a low bail and kick him loose again, only rearrest him for not reporting his solicitation of funds for his defense after he lied to the court. What's your spin on that ?
And coersing his girlfriend into lying for him with some sort code while in jail. Why all the deceit with the court sytstem if Zimmy's not guilty ? Did he think he was untouchable or is he laying the groundwork for an insanity defense plea ? While throwing his girlfriend under the bus... What's your spin on that ?
Good luck trying to explain all that bad behavior to the court.
Maybe Zimmy studied for his drug test so he's pass. Martin didn't have a chance to cram for the forensic tests.
<quoted text>
It seems to me that Martin didn't study for a lot of things including the stand your ground law.

Yes, I admit, Zimmerman tried to conceal his internet funds. But it's likely that he was saving that money for his legal expenses. I can't prove that, but I'm assuming at this point. As far as Zimmerman's account of what took place that night, he voluntarily submitted to a voice stress analysis which he passed with flying colors. Of course, these positive results are not admissible in court, but the fact that he freely submitted to this test is a good sign that he had nothing to fear. Police use this voluntary procedure for detection purposes.

Zimmerman does not have a girlfriend, he has a wife. And his wife did what any loyal wife would do: she did whatever she could to bring her husband home before trial, and secure their financial obligations for his defense. Yes, it is a crime, but if I'm being accused of murder, and I'm caught doing 85 in a 55 zone, that does not make me a murderer.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6283 Jul 8, 2012
Convict himself of what--a bogus murder charge?

My concern is that there is no way for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. If the natives get restless again, everybody involved will fear for their own life. I wouldn't want to be a jury member or a judge handing down an acquittal or not guilty verdict. There are also people who are totally against an armed citizenry. They only want cops to have the guns even though before CCW's, there was a portion of our society who carried guns anyway. Usually those were the bad guys.

From all that I've read in evidence of the case, it seems to me that Zimmerman told the truth. And if he did tell the truth, then he was authorized by the state of Florida to use his firearm to protect himself. So what might happen now is that they will send a man to prison for obeying the law due to media, prejudice and fear, and not because he broke any law. That would be a real black eye to our system of justice; sending people to prison for doing nothing wrong.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6285 Jul 8, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well consider this before you end up dead.
Let's say Frank and Bob, who have been close friends for twenty years have a disagreement...a heated one... over the affection of Lisa, who Frank thought was his woman, only to find out that he is not the only man in her life (happens every day). Both have been drinking.
Things progress from verbal aggression, to threats of physical assault directed by each at the other, to punches being thrown by both men, but only punches, nothing more. Both men are extremely strong, were in the service, and know how to kill with their hands.
Lisa, who Frank and Bob both know to be extremely emotional and impulsive, appears on the scene with a firearm that both men, for good reason suspect is loaded, and points it in their direction, screaming at them to stop. She begins to move closer to them, pointing the gun at them with her finger on the trigger, screaming the entire time.
Lisa loves both men, knows Frank and Bob each carry switchblades, have hot tempers, and each has physically assaulted her on numerous occasions in the past, causing her serious injuries requiring hospitalization on at least one occasion each. Lisa has no CCW license, but when she appeared on the scene the gun was in plain view of both men.
Instead of complying with Lisa's demand to stop assaulting one another, they each lunge towards Lisa to attempt to disarm her.
Frank, who manages to disarm Lisa and now has the gun, begins to threaten Bob with it, until Lisa pulls a switchblade herself, and attempts to stab Frank. Bob attempts to intercede.
Frank pulls the trigger twice, killing both Bob and Lisa.
How's that for a nice day?
woof
you are all fantasy; and guns scare you.

all your problems.

are you scared of spoons also?

spoons make people fat.

you best get back to your xbox, your fantasy is waiting.
free

Sidney, OH

#6286 Jul 8, 2012
Either way, he's screwed, whether by conviction or acquittal.
Amd it will all boil down to "intent". If the prosecution can establish his intent was use the weapon to shoot somebody, anybody in a self-grandiose attempt for his fifteen minutes of fame and garnish favor with law enforcement, then he's cooked. Evidence can viewed or skewed depending on your perspective to speculate that Martin was the victim in this situation. Words "like, maybe, could, should and others" are vague references and a two edged sword.
Did Zimmy stalk & pursue Martin who in turn confronted Zimmy ? Did Zimmy reason that he had a weapon and could reasonably deter this aggressor by merely stating so and/or expose the weapon as well ? If Martin had no knowledge of Zimmy's weapon until he confronted Zimmy and felt threatened by Zimmy's stalking technique, then Martin had justification to protect himself from a potential threat. Martin couldn't know the extent of Zimmy's intent or capabilities to cause harm and thought to himself, I need to stop this guy (Zimmy) before he stalks and attacks, either robs or rapes, an unsuspecting victim. Neither one knew the others intent or background... or affiliations.
Was Zimmy acting on behalf of and full authority of the housing complex ? Do they some culpability and liability in this situation ? Although Zimmy made numerous 911 calls, some were redundant annoyance calls, was he also acting on behalf of law enforcement and training requirements ?
xxxrayted wrote:
Convict himself of what--a bogus murder charge?
My concern is that there is no way for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. If the natives get restless again, everybody involved will fear for their own life. I wouldn't want to be a jury member or a judge handing down an acquittal or not guilty verdict. There are also people who are totally against an armed citizenry. They only want cops to have the guns even though before CCW's, there was a portion of our society who carried guns anyway. Usually those were the bad guys.
From all that I've read in evidence of the case, it seems to me that Zimmerman told the truth. And if he did tell the truth, then he was authorized by the state of Florida to use his firearm to protect himself. So what might happen now is that they will send a man to prison for obeying the law due to media, prejudice and fear, and not because he broke any law. That would be a real black eye to our system of justice; sending people to prison for doing nothing wrong.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#6287 Jul 8, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks cowboy. Might I suggest that you visit the Sheriff's website and find the CCW manual that explains all this?
Page 19 of the CCW handbook:
CIVIL LIABILITY.
"Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or the survivors could sue the licensee from the harm of the licensees use of deadly force. A "wrongful death" lawsuit or "tort damages" is a common legal action for money damages. A civil action does not involve a criminal penalty such as incarceration, but both a criminal and civil case can be brought based on the same incident,"
Mind you, this manual is two years old and has been updated since then, so page 19 may not be entirely accurate. But the changes of laws since then do not affect this section of our laws. It's still there and has not changed. The only exception to this law is if a licensee is attacked in his or her vehicle. And the reason for this exemption is that your car (by the Castle Doctrine) is considered your temporary home.
Senate Bill 184 has been in effect since 9/9/08.

The folks writing that manual aren't providing their audience an accurate reflection of the law as it relates to tort claims.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm...

Look for yourself:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60

Shoot your attacker, you're protected from having them or their family recover damages.

Shoot an innocent bystander, you're not.

woof

woof
free

Sidney, OH

#6288 Jul 8, 2012
Whether Zimmy goes to prison or is placed in protective custody with the name change & relocation, his days of safely walking the streets as Zimmy are gone.
If he chooses noteriety over discretion, he will experience a gauntlet of attempts of his safety that law enforcement and courts cannot & will not expend the resources to protect him. If acquitted.
If convicted, the law of the prison jungle will pass judgement and he'll be a prison bitch or get constantly abused, attacked & even shanked.
He can pick his poison. He just made a poor choice.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#6289 Jul 8, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
you are all fantasy; and guns scare you.
all your problems.
are you scared of spoons also?
spoons make people fat.
you best get back to your xbox, your fantasy is waiting.
Quite obviously, air makes you stupid.

Or maybe its water.

woof
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6290 Jul 8, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite obviously, air makes you stupid.
Or maybe its water.
woof
if you want to understand stupid........read your own posts.

anybody who is against your fantasy policies is stupid.

those of us who have to pay for your stupid policy, think you are stupid thinking we will go along on your joy ride fantasy.

I am not the dog chained to someone providing for you.

you are...so back in the cage with you.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6291 Jul 8, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Senate Bill 184 has been in effect since 9/9/08.
The folks writing that manual aren't providing their audience an accurate reflection of the law as it relates to tort claims.
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm...
Look for yourself:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60
Shoot your attacker, you're protected from having them or their family recover damages.
Shoot an innocent bystander, you're not.
woof
woof
all gun law is unconstitutional; and a state law can't change fed law.

see 2nd admendment as fact check.

problem is us sheep gave govt permission to tell us what we can and can't do.

people of morals can govern themself.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6292 Jul 8, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Senate Bill 184 has been in effect since 9/9/08.
The folks writing that manual aren't providing their audience an accurate reflection of the law as it relates to tort claims.
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm...
Look for yourself:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60
Shoot your attacker, you're protected from having them or their family recover damages.
Shoot an innocent bystander, you're not.
woof
woof
The manual was written by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. You say you know more about CCW laws than he does? I think not. Mike DeWine seems not to know what he's talking about either, because the 2011 CCW manual he authored says the same thing, only on page 18 and not 19.

http://ohioattorneygeneral.gov/files/Publicat...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6293 Jul 8, 2012
free wrote:
Either way, he's screwed, whether by conviction or acquittal.
Amd it will all boil down to "intent". If the prosecution can establish his intent was use the weapon to shoot somebody, anybody in a self-grandiose attempt for his fifteen minutes of fame and garnish favor with law enforcement, then he's cooked. Evidence can viewed or skewed depending on your perspective to speculate that Martin was the victim in this situation. Words "like, maybe, could, should and others" are vague references and a two edged sword.
Did Zimmy stalk & pursue Martin who in turn confronted Zimmy ? Did Zimmy reason that he had a weapon and could reasonably deter this aggressor by merely stating so and/or expose the weapon as well ? If Martin had no knowledge of Zimmy's weapon until he confronted Zimmy and felt threatened by Zimmy's stalking technique, then Martin had justification to protect himself from a potential threat. Martin couldn't know the extent of Zimmy's intent or capabilities to cause harm and thought to himself, I need to stop this guy (Zimmy) before he stalks and attacks, either robs or rapes, an unsuspecting victim. Neither one knew the others intent or background... or affiliations.
Was Zimmy acting on behalf of and full authority of the housing complex ? Do they some culpability and liability in this situation ? Although Zimmy made numerous 911 calls, some were redundant annoyance calls, was he also acting on behalf of law enforcement and training requirements ?
<quoted text>
Not sure of how their block watch works. Over here, you are instructed to call the cops if something looks suspicious even if you do not see any crime taking place. The housing complex shares no liability because Zimmerman was not getting paid for watching the neighborhood. It's voluntary, and the housing complex owners stated they didn't want participants armed while on block watch, but of course, they can't override state law. They were merely expressing their desire.

Again, to convict somebody, you need some pretty concrete evidence which the prosecutor doesn't have. Unless a surprise witness comes forward who claims to have witnessed the attack, everything that took place that night had only one witness--Zimmerman. The other witnesses seen what took place after the initial attack. And remember, according to that 911 call, Martin had ample time to return to the house he was staying at. He could have walked there for crying out loud. It's not that big of a complex. A google satellite shot of the place is available on the internet.

Everything here hinges on who attacked who, and it would be a completely stupid to call police, hang up with them, and then attack the person on the street you called police about. It doesn't make sense to me, and it shouldn't make sense to a judge or jury either.

Your views are being skewed by your dislike of citizens having firearms. If you could somehow put that aside, and look at this case for what it really is, I think in time, you will agree with me that this was indeed a justified shooting.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#6294 Jul 8, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The manual was written by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. You say you know more about CCW laws than he does? I think not. Mike DeWine seems not to know what he's talking about either, because the 2011 CCW manual he authored says the same thing, only on page 18 and not 19.
http://ohioattorneygeneral.gov/files/Publicat...
Good luck trying to cite that manual in court.

You are just as wrong on this as you were about Trayvon Martin's injuries and your assertion he was high.

Really, your life would be much better if you could admit that there are people who know more about some subjects than you do.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#6295 Jul 8, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything here hinges on who attacked who, and it would be a completely stupid to call police, hang up with them, and then attack the person on the street you called police about. It doesn't make sense to me, and it shouldn't make sense to a judge or jury either.
If one was a vigilante who wanted to shoot "some punk kid" it wouldn't be so stupid. In fact, it would seem to be just the right move.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#6296 Jul 8, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
The manual was written by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. You say you know more about CCW laws than he does? I think not. Mike DeWine seems not to know what he's talking about either, because the 2011 CCW manual he authored says the same thing, only on page 18 and not 19.
http://ohioattorneygeneral.gov/files/Publicat...
For the past ten years I've held the exact same license as both of those fine fellows.

What I'm telling you, after having looked over the manual, is that what is written in the manual is not a complete and accurate statement of the law under 2307.60 that bars recovery in tort by perps or their legal representatives/families under certain circumstances. The manual touches on SB184 on page 21 under the heading "Castle Doctrine, but doesn't provide aby statutory references. Take a look see.

My guess is that that information was left out of the manual for two specific reasons, but that would only be speculation upon my part.

First, 2307.60 doesn't only apply to people with CCW licenses...it applies under any circumstance where someone acts in self defense, defense of others, or in defending their home.

Second, the CCW manual was written for a specific purpose and for a specific audience, and I'm sure that the authors had some concerns about the possibility that some of those folks might misconstrue that information as providing them carte blanche to use their weapons more aggressively than the SB 184 permits.

If you think I'm mistaken, write to the AG's office and ask them to explain the protections provided against tort recovery under 2307.60, and the limitations involving innocent bystanders.

Read the statute. Its fairly straightforward.

woof
Fat Jack Shallac

Beachwood, OH

#6297 Jul 8, 2012
I'll be voting for Harry S Truman for President in November. Now, I know he's been deceased for many years but I feel that he could still do a lot better than what they have out there running for the leader of our country.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6299 Jul 8, 2012
free wrote:
I have no doubt Martin made some very bad choices. Whether they rise to the level of loss of life, I believe the entire incident could have been mitigated. Zimmy will probably not testify on his behalf which leads the jury to depend on the physical evidence and testimony of witnesses who heard and saw before & after the actual shooting, but not leading up to and during the shooting. Unless there was a witness watching from a vantage point and is afraid to come forward for fear of reprisals. Which there probably is/are.
If the housing complex allowed a neighborhood watch on their premises for security purposes knowing full well the risks associated with confrontations and reporting, whether true or erroneous, and the possibility weapons could be displayed and discharged puts them at risk as well. Did they have a contract with the neighborhood watch group to not carry weapons on their property ? Looking the other way or ignoring the liability doesn't absolve them from that liability. Liability doesn't carry a paid or voluntary moniker. Liability is liability. Was the watch group Bonded and Insured ? Probably not, so each individual is personally liable for their own actions at that level. Is the housing complex liable in civil court ? Remains to be seen.
I could argue that Zimmy called police knowing full well this scenerio would not end well, and they would roll up after the fact and he could convince them he acted in self defense..
<quoted text>
That would be a very weak argument unless Zimmerman had a police scanner on him to determine how long it would take the police to get there. Police could arrive before you hang up with dispatch because as you are talking, they are typing and another person (not the one talking on the phone) dispatches the officers. Those officers could be right around the corner or have to come from the other side of the city.

Martin's family would have a tough time with suing the housing complex. For one, they didn't financially support the neighborhood watch, and secondly, they cannot tell people when they can carry a gun. Even in Ohio, I as a landlord cannot forbid any of my tenants from having a gun in their apartment or on the grounds. If you click on that CCW link I gave to Duke, I believe it's written in there somewhere. Therefore, an apartment complex cannot disarm anybody or prevent them from forming a block watch. But even still, block watches are not violent in any way with most situations. Block watches are usually conducted by your councilman or perhaps the chief of your police department or some other figure on the upper part of the ladder. They explain what legalities you have in participating in a block watch. They explain what you should and should not do.

The only thing Zimmerman did wrong (not legally) is run after Martin after he took off. That's it. Had he not done that, I'm sure he wouldn't have even been arrested, not that I think he should have been arrested anyway.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6300 Jul 8, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
For the past ten years I've held the exact same license as both of those fine fellows.
What I'm telling you, after having looked over the manual, is that what is written in the manual is not a complete and accurate statement of the law under 2307.60 that bars recovery in tort by perps or their legal representatives/families under certain circumstances. The manual touches on SB184 on page 21 under the heading "Castle Doctrine, but doesn't provide aby statutory references. Take a look see.
My guess is that that information was left out of the manual for two specific reasons, but that would only be speculation upon my part.
First, 2307.60 doesn't only apply to people with CCW licenses...it applies under any circumstance where someone acts in self defense, defense of others, or in defending their home.
Second, the CCW manual was written for a specific purpose and for a specific audience, and I'm sure that the authors had some concerns about the possibility that some of those folks might misconstrue that information as providing them carte blanche to use their weapons more aggressively than the SB 184 permits.
If you think I'm mistaken, write to the AG's office and ask them to explain the protections provided against tort recovery under 2307.60, and the limitations involving innocent bystanders.
Read the statute. Its fairly straightforward.
woof
Duke, they didn't omit anything in the manual. They straight out printed just the opposite of what you said. Besides the manual, your instructor is trained to teach these classes and answer questions not covered in the manual. Not that they are acting as legal council, but they educated in the topics of the manual much more thoroughly.

The Castle Doctrine is different because when it comes to having a weapon, your car is considered your castle. It's sort of your temporary home. The Castle Doctrine does provide civil suit protection, so if you shoot somebody who tries to harm you in your car, you are protected from liability through the Castle Doctrine. If you step out of your car and shoot somebody, you are not. I know it's crazy, but that's what this manual and the teachers of these classes say. It was also explained to us that the reason the Castle Doctrine was used was so they could slip in that protection for the licensee. A

Again, we cannot afford liability protection to our officers yet alone armed citizens:

Mom sues Cleveland police officers after son's death following Taser incident

Posted: 07/06/2011
By: Tina Kaufmann, newsnet5.com

CLEVELAND - A lawsuit has been filed by a mother who said her son was shocked with a Taser by Cleveland police earlier this year and later died from the events of the evening.

The incident happened on New Year's Eve 2010. Rodney Brown Sr., 40, was driving on E. 113th Street when Cleveland police stopped him for driving without headlights.

Reportedly, Brown was ordered by authorities to get out of his car and proceed to the back. Brown then questioned why he was pulled over and that's when it reportedly all began.

Brown is suing police officers Michael Chapman and Belal Ilain, plus others not named in the wrongful death lawsuit. Shirley Brown is requesting a jury trial and that she be awarded all compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and other costs incurred.

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/c...
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#6301 Jul 8, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be a very weak argument unless Zimmerman had a police scanner on him to determine how long it would take the police to get there. Police could arrive before you hang up with dispatch because as you are talking, they are typing and another person (not the one talking on the phone) dispatches the officers. Those officers could be right around the corner or have to come from the other side of the city.
Martin's family would have a tough time with suing the housing complex. For one, they didn't financially support the neighborhood watch, and secondly, they cannot tell people when they can carry a gun. Even in Ohio, I as a landlord cannot forbid any of my tenants from having a gun in their apartment or on the grounds. If you click on that CCW link I gave to Duke, I believe it's written in there somewhere. Therefore, an apartment complex cannot disarm anybody or prevent them from forming a block watch. But even still, block watches are not violent in any way with most situations. Block watches are usually conducted by your councilman or perhaps the chief of your police department or some other figure on the upper part of the ladder. They explain what legalities you have in participating in a block watch. They explain what you should and should not do.
The only thing Zimmerman did wrong (not legally) is run after Martin after he took off. That's it. Had he not done that, I'm sure he wouldn't have even been arrested, not that I think he should have been arrested anyway.
Still afraid of the facts, aren't you? What about Martin's injuries? What about him being high?

Maybe if you keep ignoring it, people will forget that you don't know what you are talking about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ashtabula Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Oscar castellanos Thu Toots 1
Josh Million, a murderer? (Feb '14) Jun 29 concerned 117
News Historic steam locomotive to take trips in Indi... Jun 11 interested 2
Roxs sport lounge Jun 4 lauren 2
The Diamond Project In Erie May '15 Reg 1
ashtabula's drug problem (Dec '08) May '15 fact and truth 63
Wal-Mart meat (Jul '09) May '15 Sherman-TX 39
More from around the web

Ashtabula People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Ashtabula Mortgages