I feel like some forum members have suffered head injuries or had a frontal lobotomy

2seaoat wrote:I just take issue with Seaoat calling forum members (laymen) fools when both the prosecution AND the defense said the case wasn't about stand your ground. And also, when the defense did not revolve around not having the obligation to retreat.

Nothing you just posted changes the status of the jury instruction where the judge commanded the jury to follow the law of stand your ground.  If your opinion, or all the other folks who want to render an opinion can show me where the judge did not command the jury to follow the law of stand your ground, or that any of these opinions changed the law......well then I would not be having conversations with fools, and I would certainly have to apologize because the judge did not instruct the jury on the stand your ground law.   If a thousand people give the opinion that the earth is flat, it does not change the physical natural laws of the universe , nor does it change the law as given to the jury.

2seaoat wrote:What does any of that have to do with you name calling?Suspect
Plenty of law experts, along with both prosecution and defense attorneys, and at least one of the drafters of the stand your ground law, have said this case was not about stand your ground. No one here is arguing that the earth is flat or that Seaoat is succinct!


Fool: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

Did the Judge instruct the jury and command that they follow the stand your ground law?  No it is not a stand your ground case.

Name calling would be saying something which is used to be hurtful, while the use of the word fool is a very specific descriptive word which clearly is not derogatory if an otherwise intelligent person is being foolish.  An example, I may say I foolishly was late in getting to the bank when they closed on Saturday and I did not get that cashiers check.  It is descriptive of one who is deficient in judgment, sense, and most certainly understanding.   It is one thing to be ignorant.   It is quite another to have no control and be stupid, but when the use of the word fool is used, it is descriptive and assumes that understanding has not been achieved.  Succinct.......that and fifty cents will get you an apple pie at Macs.

2seaoat wrote:What does any of that have to do with you name calling?Suspect
Plenty of law experts, along with both prosecution and defense attorneys, and at least one of the drafters of the stand your ground law, have said this case was not about stand your ground. No one here is arguing that the earth is flat or that Seaoat is succinct!


Fool: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

Did the Judge instruct the jury and command that they follow the stand your ground law?  No it is not a stand your ground case.

Name calling would be saying something which is used to be hurtful, while the use of the word fool is a very specific descriptive word which clearly is not derogatory if an otherwise intelligent person is being foolish.  An example, I may say I foolishly was late in getting to the bank when they closed on Saturday and I did not get that cashiers check.  It is descriptive of one who is deficient in judgment, sense, and most certainly understanding.   It is one thing to be ignorant.   It is quite another to have no control and be stupid, but when the use of the word fool is used, it is descriptive and assumes that understanding has not been achieved.  Succinct.......that and fifty cents will get you an apple pie at Macs.

2seaoat wrote:Funny how the progressives and the stealth progressive seaoat have fallen back on name calling and making fun of the forums mental abilities when we understand their drab crap and yet refuse to accept it...


Yes anybody who has an opinion that a case where the judge instructs the jury it is a stand your ground case, and then says somebody has an opinion that it is not..........they are a fool.   No name calling, just a simple fact of the condition that person who holds that opinion.  Now if a person wants to argue that a Murder 2 case was not proven, or it really should not be a murder 2 case, that is an opinion which may be foolish, but I can only counter that opinion with my opinion.....not worth a hill of beans.  However, to misstate the law and say it is not a murder 2 case, and to continually come back to the opinion that this was not a stand your ground case.....well either a person is a fool, or the instruction was not given.........hmmmm and to put icing on that fool cake....I am told they understand it.

Dreamsglore wrote:

The stand your ground instruction is given in all these cases of self defense. To say it is a stand your ground case based on that is silly.