|
Nosathro -> RE: Concealed Carry In Florida (3/27/2013 7:59:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotSoNormalGuy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotSoNormalGuy
quote:
• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.
There are, however, many ways to interpret all of the data. Taking your "Other Interesting Points bullet-point, for instance.. We could conclude any of the following.
Possibility 1) Juries/Courts are less likely to convict a defendant who stood his/her ground (legitimately or illegitimately) against a black person.
Possibility 2) More people are put in the position of having to legitimately 'stand-their-ground' against blacks than against whites
Possibility 3) What is the raw total of the numbers? If the sample size isn't quite large, the numbers may very well be statistically insignificant thus providing no conclusion. I'm not familiar with the number of stand-your-ground cases in Florida, so I have no frame of reference. These percentages could have been formed from 10 cases or 10 thousand.
There are other possibilities, these are just some of the more obvious.
NSNG
I have to pick this apart to even respond to it..
quote:
Then is could be racism.
Yes. It could be. I'm not sure why you included "Then [it]" since I covered the racism option in "Possibility 1".
quote:
Two examples come to mind, Michael Dunn who is facing Murder 1 for shooting a black teenager claiming they were playing their music too loud, he is invoking the Stand Your Ground Law.
If he would have invoked His first amendment right should we throw out freedom of speech?
Just because he invoked it doesn't mean he'll be successful in using it as a defense.
The prosecution must be pretty confident his defense will not stand up since they upgraded the charge to First Degree Murder in December.
quote:
Then there is Donald Montanez who ran an illegal tow truck operation. He towed a car claiming it was illegal park when it wasn't, under Florida Law the owner, Glenn Rich a black, had the right to reclaim his car without paying, Montanez wanted some $200.00. Montanez shot and killed Rich when he attempted to retrive his car. Montanez at his trial claimed he was Standing his Ground, however as the trial went on it was become clear Martinez was not indanger, he then claimed he was still standing his ground protecting his girlfriend, who on the stand under oath stated she was not indanger. It is now known the Montanez real name is Rivera with a long history of criminal convictions, using six social security numbers and five different aliases. Yet Florida saw fit to issue Montanez/Rivera a concealed weapons permit.
Once again, it sounds Montanez/Rivera is on trial for Murder. He is trying to use Stand-Your-Ground as a defense. If I assume your facts to be true, then it sounds like it's unlikely the defense will work. Once again, what is the problem here?
EDIT: Shame on you for using bits and pieces of a situation. Montanez/Rivera was found guilty over a year ago! His use of the stand-your-ground defense didn't work. Sounds like the law is protecting and not protecting guilty people who commit murder. Where's the issue here?
After nearly 12 hours of deliberation, six jurors found Montanez guilty of manslaughter and third-degree felony murder because he was committing grand theft auto when he fatally shot Glen Rich.
NSNG
First of all I don't feel any shame, what did you want the entire record of trial? This thread as a part of the conversation is that guns in the public hand and being allowed to carry them make it safer, and reduces crime for the criminals including those suicide (that is a crime?) are now in fear of armed citizens. My question is are they? In using the Montanez/Rivera case show that a career criminal who should not have been able to legally obtain firearms and a concealed weapons permit, did. In Florida getting a concealed weapons permit is a matter of an 8 hour class, a few forms and paying a fee, no back ground check. The only reason Montanez/Rivera was discovered, the State Prison did a background check. Further in the Michael Dunn case, we also see a “law abiding gun owner” use his 2nd Amendment rights to kill a teenage for playing his music too loud. This type of incident is not the first of it kind. In Texas a man, Raul Rodriguez was convicted of murder, he used the Texas stand your ground law as his defense and also he had a concealed weapons permit, in fact at trial witness testified Rodriguez bragged that with his concealed weapons permit, and the stand your ground law he could kill anybody and get away with it.
With these examples there are now questions. Are the criminals in fear or have they adapted to the situation? If Montanez/Rivera was able through legal means obtain weapons, how many more criminals have done so? Are the Stand Your Ground laws protecting people or just Vigilante Justice? Or even worse armed people carrying out personal grudges then using the law to hide behind?
I do have a question for you when you say innocent people who defend their lives" are you referring to people like Michael Dunn, Rodriguez and Montanez? Or do you mean Kelly Danaher, Davis and Rich, they did not have guns.
My biggest question is how many more innocent people have to die so that some can have their phallic symbol?
|
|
|
|
