Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

[Reality Speaks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
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...

Good idea. Rely on a manual and some gun nut shooting instructor for legal advice. What the hell do statutes have to do with the law? Brilliant.

[xxxrayted]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Like talking to a brick wall:

By NBC News and msnbc.com

Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from “intermediate range,” according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.
The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.

Separately, a medical report on Martin’s alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin’s shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/...

Trayvon Martin had marijuana in system the night he was gunned down

RICH SCHAPIRO
Thursday, May 17, 2012

Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system the night he was gunned down in a Florida condo complex, according to a medical report released Thursday.

Martin’s autopsy report shows he had traces of THC, the active ingredient in pot, in his blood and urine.

The medical file was among a trove of evidence — including hundreds of pages of interviews and photos — released Thursday.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-17/ne...

[xxxrayted]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Good idea. Rely on a manual and some gun nut shooting instructor for legal advice. What the hell do statutes have to do with the law? Brilliant.

Statues are the laws. Geeze. Brilliant.

[Duke for Mayor]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>

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.

The protection offered under 2307.60 to someone acting in legitimate self defense, or of another applies whether you're in your own home, in your car, or in public, and whether you have a CCW or not is irrelevant, so long as the victim's conduct was not intentionally tortious.

To be clear, you could potentially be sued, and it might cost a lot of money to defend the claim, but in the end, the perp is barred from recovery in tort under the circumstances specified in 2307.60.

Read the statute:

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

woof

[Duke for Mayor]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Statues are the laws. Geeze. Brilliant.

I believe that Che was being sarcastic.

woof

[xxxrayted]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe that Che was being sarcastic.
woof

Now don't you go sticking up for him ;-D

[xxxrayted]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
The protection offered under 2307.60 to someone acting in legitimate self defense, or of another applies whether you're in your own home, in your car, or in public, and whether you have a CCW or not is irrelevant, so long as the victim's conduct was not intentionally tortious.
To be clear, you could potentially be sued, and it might cost a lot of money to defend the claim, but in the end, the perp is barred from recovery in tort under the circumstances specified in 2307.60.
Read the statute:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60
woof

I didn't say that they would win, I just said they can sue. That's why I provided you that article of the Cleveland police officers being sued. It can happen and as you stated, it's just a royal pain in the azz. The probability of success increases when different races are involved. I shoot a black attacker where I live, it goes to court with a nearly all black jury or a judge who wants to keep winning elections in a black district, I can lose my pants right or wrong. This is why I say they should get rid of that ability to sue in the first place. If it's justified, it should protect you from liability. Hell, even OJ was sued after he won his double murder trial.

[Duke for Mayor]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Now don't you go sticking up for him ;-D

Why not...its pretty clear that you missed that.

woof

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Like talking to a brick wall:
By NBC News and msnbc.com
Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from “intermediate range,” according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.
The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
Separately, a medical report on Martin’s alleged killer, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, prepared by his personal physician the day after Martin’s shooting in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, found that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer suffered a likely broken nose, swelling, two black eyes and cuts to the scalp. That report, first reported Tuesday by ABC News, also was reviewed by NBC News.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/...
Trayvon Martin had marijuana in system the night he was gunned down
RICH SCHAPIRO
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system the night he was gunned down in a Florida condo complex, according to a medical report released Thursday.
Martin’s autopsy report shows he had traces of THC, the active ingredient in pot, in his blood and urine.
The medical file was among a trove of evidence — including hundreds of pages of interviews and photos — released Thursday.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-17/ne...

Like I said before and you still ignore:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Toxicology said he had trace amounts. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of forensic toxicology knows that trace amounts of THC tell us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether the person was high. Your ignorance about this doesn't help your credibility as a "breath sound on 911 tape" expert.
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Martin's other injury was an abrasion on his 4th left finger. Not what you would expect on someone who was beating someone else. You also seem to forget the gunshot wound in the center of his chest from a gun less than 30 inches away.
<quoted text>

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Statues are the laws. Geeze. Brilliant.

You are about as sharp as a bowling ball, aren't you?