Monday, December 21, 2009

"The Message" In The Roderick Scott Verdict ...

 
Bob Lonsberry Writes:

"But it does send a message to the criminal element that not everybody lies down and lets their neighborhood be taken over by thugs. It sends a message that crime is a dangerous business and sometimes things can go horribly wrong ...

The law says you can leave your house, even in the middle of the night. The law says that if you’ve got a permit for a gun you can carry it with you. The law in New York says you can make a citizens arrest if you witness someone committing “any offense” – and breaking into cars falls under “any offense.”

And finally, the law says that when you fear for the life or limb of yourself or another person, you may use deadly physical force. You have the right of self-defense."

SCATS ~~ Thank you Bob Lonsberry for very clearly repeating the real message in this verdict! And thank you Roderick Scott for reminding us all that everyone of us sheeple has a responsibility for stopping the takeover of our neighborhoods by those who want us to cower in fear inside our homes while they wreak havoc in our world.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank God!! Thank God!! Thank God !

Now I can finally have a good night sleep, along with a peaceful and joyous Christmas, knowing that we have Bob Lonsberry, so close, to interpret the law for us. I feel so much better with such a knowledgeable and expert interpretation of the law.

I did not know that if I feel my neighbor's "limb" is threaten I can just shoot the threatening individual. My neighbors will now all be safe. Thank you Bob.

Doug Skeet

SCATS said...

Doug ~~ I know you meant what you wrote to be sarcastic. However, I hope you realize that yes, it is true that the law permits someone to shoot when you or another person is being threatened with serious bodily harm. It has been that way for a very long time. Guns are legal. Using them is legal under certain conditions. This case highlights the proper circumstances for doing so.

Anonymous said...

SCATS

You and I can discuss THIS case until we are blue in face and not change each others mind.

I do know the law and to use your words "Threatened with serious bodily harm" is at the center of the case. Your definition and mind will be different. In my opinion taking two steps (by testimony) toward Scott is not being "Threatened with serious bodily harm".

I could not shoot, to kill, a fellow human being by that individual taking two steps toward me. At the time Scott did not see a knife, a gun, a screw driver nothing but an individual taking two steps toward him.

We have Scott's testimony of what he is alleged to have said. We have the teenager's words as to what he is alleged to have said. You and I were not there. We do not know what was said or done. All we know for sure is Scott's testimony that "The teenager took two steps toward me." Scott could have kept the gun on him and have taken two steps back while still taking to the teenager. In my opinion Scott was way too quick to pull the trigger. He is a civilian and not trained for stressful situations.

Were these two teenagers bums? Yes!Should they have been better supervised by their parents? Yes!Were these two teenagers in trouble before? Yes! Should they have been home or some other place and this time? Yes! Do we have too many of these crimes in our neighborhoods? Yes! My own vehicles have been broken into four times in my life. Does it make you mad as HELL? Yes!

Should someone be killed for taking two steps? No!

Sincerely

Doug Skeet

Anonymous said...

I agree with Doug.
I just don't think this was a proper or justified use of a firearm.

If I were on the jury I would have reached a different conclusion

Anonymous said...

Doug- do you know the Cervinis or the other family? It sounds like you might since you're opinion is so strong. Peace.

SCATS said...

To Doug Skeet ~~ Re: "You and I can discuss THIS case until we are blue in face and not change each others mind." Maybe. Maybe not. I'm hopeful that you will come around just as the holdout on the jury did :)

Re: "Threatened with serious bodily harm" is at the center of the case." I agree 100%.

Re: "Your definition and mind will be different." Given what the jurors were told, I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm basing everything on what the judge explained in his instructions to the jury. That was all they are allowed to consider. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I might be able to sit on such a jury and remove myself from the emotionality of it and maybe you could not. Not everyone can.

Re: "Taking two steps" ... I don't recall testimony about "two steps." I recall testimony where he says Cervini was running towards him. I also recall testimony by James Cervini who was asked if the diagram he helped police to draw showed Chris Cervini running. He said "I guess so." This was after changing his story from what he told GPD and the grand jury. Three or four versions of the situation months after the fact lead me to believe the story as he told it the FIRST time which was when he was under the most stress to tell the truth. If you could reference your quote (with a link)about the "two steps," I'd really be interested in reading it.

By the way, my position about Scott being acquitted has NOTHING to do with how I would respond in the same situation. I do not believe I could take another person's life even if I had to ... and I pray neither you or I are ever put to that test.

PS ~~ I've had my auto messed with too and it's not a nice feeling :(

SCATS said...

To 7:26PM ~~ The problem is, when you serve on a jury, your opinion on that issue doesn't matter. You are expected to apply the law to the situation given the facts/evidence and based upon the judge's instructions about what you can and can not do or decide. However, you can use your opinion to decide who you think is telling the truth ... or not based upon their testimony, evidence, body language ...

Anonymous said...

To: 7:35 pm I don't know the Cervinis or anyone else involved in this case.

To: SCATS I was in the jury box for two complete trials. The directions to the jury from the judge makes or breaks the case. Then the honest jury must follow his/her directions. This same trial with a different jury could have a different result. That is where our justice system is unfair. I don't have the answer to a better system.

Doug Skeet

Anonymous said...

SCATS -
If Chris Cervini were your son, would you still hold this very strong opinion that you hold? Just wondering.

SCATS said...

To 8:44AM ~~ I have given that a lot of thought actually. Yes, I believe I would have the same opinion. The reason is that I'm not the kind of person who lets my children engage in criminal mischief and then say "Well, kids DO that kind of stuff! Didn't you?" I didn't. My kids won't and don't if I can help it.

From a young age, we've guided the selection of friends towards kids from families whose values were similar to ours. If their parents aren't parenting, then we probably won't be spending much time together in my home or theirs. We keep track of where they go and who they are with. If we don't know the person and haven't met the parents, then that home is off limits until we have that meeting. If there is a party, we discuss it with the hosting family's parents before permission is given. And last but not least, my kids know that there is hell to pay at home when they make "poor choices." They also know that if one of their friends stole liquor from the parents' cabinet that a phone call home will get them extricated from that situation ASAP.

Lastly, I do think there are some people who choose poorly despite having the best parents. But I think those examples are very few in reality. Kids learn right and wrong at home and from an early age, if mom and dad tune in.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, SCATS, for the thorough reply. I sincerely hope that your position never has to be tested. I asked because I come from a home that did all that you outlined as I was growing up. I was raised with two brothers. One of them was hauled home by the cops on a regular basis, spent time in jail, was kicked out after nothing else seemed to work, in and out of rehab, etc. Simply put - my parents used all their internal and external resources to assist my brother in making better decisions for himself and those around him. It simply had ZERO effect. I agree that poor choices require consequences and neither you nor I were in Mr. Scott's driveway that evening - but I am unsettled by your outright celebrations that Mr. Scott got "off" with no apparent concern for how the family of Chris Cervini may be feeling. Whether you think they are "entitled" to a feeling or not - they lost a child. And we have no way of knowing what heartache they have endured raising this child who clearly pushed the limits of the law. I would respectfully ask that you consider that there is collateral damage here that has nothing to do with how you, I or the general public may view Chris Cervini, his actions and/or the upbringing skills of his parents. Keep the forum going but remember -- some day someone may run a blog with strong opinions about someone you love. And you might not appreciate it.

Thank you for letting me vent.

SCATS said...

To 12:48PM ~~ I appreciate your explanation. However, I'm disturbed by your claim : "... but I am unsettled by your outright celebrations that Mr. Scott got "off" with no apparent concern for how the family of Chris Cervini may be feeling."

"Outright celebrations"? "got off" ? " ... no apparent concern"?

Are you kidding me? Perhaps you missed it but I did state on another thread that BOTH SIDES LOST A LOT in this case. Both sides face a lifetime of loss. I don't see any "celebratory" statements unless stating that the jury decided correctly was interpreted that way by you. And for the record, Mr. Scott didn't "get off". He was tried and found "Not Guilty" by 12 people who apparently struggled with making that their choice. There is a big difference. Let's hope neither you or I ever have to await word about our fate from a jury of 12 of our peers.

Anonymous said...

"Doug- do you know the Cervinis or the other family? It sounds like you might since you're opinion is so strong. Peace."

Unsurprising to find something like this on SCATS' blog. So Skeet has an opinion and because you disagree with it, he must be close personal best buds with Cervini's family?

Why can't you people just discuss your opinions and not make accusations...

Oh ya, I forgot, this is SCATS' site. You're allowed to make accusations with no basis for proof.

Sorry Doug but according to SCATS' rules, YOU must proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not affiliated in any way with the Cervinin family. Sorry but thems the rules!

SCATS said...

To 4:47PM ~~ You really must let go of that gloating arrogant feeling you got on election night and get back to the other MR bunch. They miss you!

Re: " Why can't you people just discuss your opinions and not make accusations..."

I love it whenever someone uses "you people" in a sentence. It's the grand-daddy of all judgmental sentiments ;)

The person's question didn't sound either "accusing" or in disagreement. You read way too much into things that don't require it. Maybe you could try spending the holiday at a spa to decompress ;) Just make sure it's not one of "those kinds of spas" Greece is known for!

Anonymous said...

Doug Skeet wrote: "I did not know that if I feel my neighbor's "limb" is threaten I can just shoot the threatening individual. My neighbors will now all be safe. Thank you Bob."

I'd like to be your neighbor, Doug!

Anonymous said...

Just remember that Mr. Skeet no longer resides in Greece.