Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Prosecutors to Seek Death Penalty in Florida High School Mass Shooting

Attorneys said he would plead guilty if death penalty was not pursued

Prosecutors announced Tuesday they will seek the death penalty against the suspected gunman who killed 17 students and instructors at a South Florida high school last month, undermining a strategy from defense attorneys to avoid a trial that is certain to receive national attention.

Broward County State Atty. Michael Satz filed the formal notice to seek the death penalty against Nikolas Cruz, who has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder and is being held without bond. Cruz, 19, is scheduled for formal arraignment Wednesday on a 34-count indictment, which includes the murder and attempted murder charges.

Cruz’s attorneys have said in recent weeks he would plead guilty if the death penalty was not pursued.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I want to see the whole trial where The sheriff and the FBI has to admit and describe every encounter they had with the shooter in the years prior to Feb 14.

Then put them on trial next!

Anonymous said...

They should prosecute DemocRATS for approval of Gun Free zones.

Anonymous said...

The fact that he's willing to plead guilty if they remove the death penalty means that he knows he's gonna get convicted any way!

Needle him, fry him, gas him, shoot him, or hang him - he doesn't deserve to breathe oxygen any more!

Zorro said...

no really?

Anonymous said...

Nothing Done anymore to Death Penalty prisoners ....
So you can be shure he is Not Worried !!!

It is just a Name !! That's why Crime is so High in USA !!!

Anonymous said...

I think there are to many nuts walking around today, meds don’t always work! Some people need 24 care. This dude is clearly nuts, his foster parents should be charged also for being idiots. Seems to me for reports I read, they were just getting a check

superstardebater said...

Anonymous said...
They should prosecute DemocRATS for approval of Gun Free zones.
March 14, 2018 at 5:47 PM

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is an act of the U.S. Congress prohibiting any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). The law applies to public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools, and to non-private property within 1000 feet of them. It provides that the states and their political subdivisions may issue licenses that exempt the licensed individuals from the prohibition.
It was first introduced in the U.S. Senate in February 1990 as S. 2070[1] by Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and then was incorporated into the Crime Control Act of 1990 that was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

Herbert H. "Herb" Kohl (born February 7, 1935) is an American businessman and politician. He is a former United States Senator from Wisconsin and a member of the Democratic Party. He is also a philanthropist and the former owner of the Milwaukee Bucks of the National Basketball Association. He did not seek re-election in 2012 and his term ended on January 3, 2013. He was succeeded by fellow Democrat Tammy Baldwin.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was originally passed as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. It added 18 U.S.C. § 922(q); 18 U.S.C. § 922 itself was added by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Following the Lopez decision, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.[2] These changes required that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce."[3] As nearly all firearms have moved in interstate commerce at some point in their existence, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.

Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several federal Circuit Courts.
Exceptions[edit]
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B):
[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;


Opposing the law[edit]
On May 22, 2007, June 24, 2009, and July 21, 2011, US Representative Ron Paul introduced similar bills H.R. 2424, H.R. 3021, and H.R. 2613 that would repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act. No form of those bills has ever passed committee.[19]
In February 2018, US Representative Thomas Massie introduced a similar bill, H.R. 34 titled the "Safe Students Act", that would repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Anonymous said...

I’m shocked they haven’t already exacted that penalty on this obvious patsy

Anonymous said...

Everyone involved with the failure of dealing with this kid should be charged.