Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

Vote for ME!, Commander Nivitz and I shall make it a better world with my Atomic Nivitron!

Dag it's so Hott out that my chickens got there younger hanging out! WTH!!!! Really ?!? Youngest hanging out!!!

free wrote:

Yes, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. His breathing increased to a pant and you could hear the phone brushing against something--likely his face. Zimmerman told the dispatcher when asked that he was chasing Martin. However, no crime committed there.
"No crime by Martin as well. He was just in the neighborhood minding his own business when someone started pursuing / stalking him. Zimmy didn't identify himself as the local vigilante in charge of that turf's security. "
The witness (John) gave a description of who was on top and who was on the bottom by clothing. The guy with the hoodie was on top according to the police interview of the witness. The witness went up to the men fighting, told them he was going to call the police, and between the time he entered his house to go upstairs to get his phone, that's when he heard the gunshot, seen Zimmerman standing there with Martin laying face down on the ground.
"Again, the witness did not witness the exchange that led to the foreplay on the ground. He didn't know if Zimmy initiated the conflict, possibly striking the first blow to antagonize Martin. "
Martin and Zimmerman were not having playful sex, Martin likely attacked Zimmerman and created a scene of blood all over Zimmerman because of a broken nose and bashed in back of the head. Please don't tell me you and your wife behave this way. "Martin likely what ? You're speculating. I've been attacked before and the other guy didn't fare too well, overplaying his position in his mind and then paying a price for his miscalculation. Not my fault. Sometimes my wife and I spill out into the front yard, across the sidewalk and intop the gutter. But that's for another day....."
Law enforcement cannot make anybody go to the hospital. You have the right to refuse medical treatment of any kind. They can offer medical care, call out emergency personnel, but cannot force you to go. The attack was throughly investigated which is why Zimmerman was set free the first time. "A thorough investigation within hours of the altercation and subsequent death of an alleged assailant ? Do you really believe as a competent investigative agent of law enforcement that you're going to allow the shooter of a victim to leave the crime scene without a thorough medical evaluation by a competent physician, not an on-site EMT ? Evaluating gun residue, blood transfer, DNA ? Is it possible local law enforcement thought they were dealing with a gangland hit, latino on latino, because Martin had lighter skin at the time he was alive ? And then just write it off as another homocide ?"
How did Martin defend himself when it was he who was the attacker?
"You don't know that, except for what the shooter, the only other actual witness, tells you."

Okay, then would you convict a person based on "we don't know that?"

What we have now is Zimmerman's account of what happened and all the evidence to support his claim. Remember that a conviction needs to be 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt." This is what a judge goes by and this is what he or she instructs their jury to do. The burden of proof is on the prosecution--not the defendant in this case.

How would prosecution prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin first--especially given the autopsy report? How would prosecution prove that Zimmerman continued his pursuit of Martin given the evidence of the 911 call? How does the prosecution prove that Zimmerman did not struggle for his gun in self-defense, but instead, pulled it out and used it to settle the fight?

These theories are nothing but that: theories. They have no factual back up for proof-positive evidence or circumstantial evidence for that matter. Zimmerman is not guilty until proven innocent. Zimmerman is innocent until prove guilty.

Nonprofit, Tax Exempt, Organizations and Churches:

The majority of 53% of US the Government of this Representative Republic that vote and the 47% nonvoters that sit on their dead hands and whine; Successfully elects President, Governor, Representatives of US the Government, County Commissioners, Township Trustees, Mayors, City Council, School Administrators and Board Members.

That defies USA Labor Law, The Constitution, and demands of Natural Law: what Mother Nature, God, or Whatever Power decreed to be the reality of the real world, democracy, capitalism, the US Constitution, and free, fair, and affordable commerce and common sense demands.

Demanding every corporation, farmer, business, outsourcer sweatshop, and nonprofit, tax-exempt, organization and Church; markets the cost in the wholesale and retail price of his or her product and service; of every worker, consumer, and taxpayer's wages (union contract), investment and independent business profit. This enables every worker, consumer, and taxpayer to pay healthcare insurance premium or pay healthcare provider. Pay ALL taxes and pay for every product and service they use for life. With money derived from wages, investment profit, and independent business profit. This enables every parent to educate, love, nurse, nurture, discipline, protect, and provide; for every child (job) they conceive. And fund schools, infrastructure, local and national security, government services, and etc.; with money derived from wages, investment profit, and independent business profit.

Elected Officials hold Government employees, Parents, Teachers, Veterans, Police, Firemen, and Fathers disqualified for affirmative action with white skin, Union workers, consumers, taxpayers, and America’s grandchildren’s children Representatives deny Collective Bargaining Rights accountable.

To fund Illegal drug users and Immigrants, lottery, casino, and keno losers, unemployed workers, waitresses that pander for life for $2.00 per hour, slaves in enterprise zones, low-income child labor, consumers, and taxpayers, volunteers without wages, and nonunion workers willing to work for fewer wages than they can afford life. That pays with welfare checks, food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid.

Pay all taxes tax exempt organizations and Churches evade. Pay for donors tax refund supporting Churches. And Donors of food, and merchandise to nonprofit, tax exempt organizations at Bison camp-out parties.

Pay for all stimulus packages, tax abatements, tax incentives, tax refunds, tax credit, and tax exemptions. Pay sales tax on the more stock dividends (money) OPEC Nations, Enron Stockholders, Wal-Mart Stockholders, Hillarys, Chinese, Foreign and Domestic Investors and Stockholders (money marketers) market quarterly. In the wholesale and retail price of every product and service Human Beings use for life. And School Boards and Government needs to build, maintain and operate schools, infrastructure, and provide local and national security, and Government services. That gets only product or service.

Defying USA Labor Law, The Constitution, and Realities demands is bankrupting USA. Makes free, fair, and affordable commerce IMPOSSIBLE; Makes funding schools IMPOSSIBLE; Makes balancing every budget IMPOSSIBLE; Makes Union workers, consumers, taxpayers, and Americas grandchildren's children life UNAFFORDABLE; and created Ohio’s $1.35 trillion budget deficit, the $40 trillion social security and the $16 trillion national debt. America’s grandchildren’s children are responsible to pay Chinese, Foreign and Domestic Investors and Stockholders interest with this debt until they are 18 years old. America’s grandchildren’s children cannot afford life and pay this debt with the $7.25 per hour Government mandated labor wage in a hundred million years.

I'd let Loren Eberly litigate Zimmy's case, He seems to know it all or at least his robo-thread poster.....

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you think we do in CCW class? Play checkers.

The problem with CCW's in Ohio is that if I use my weapon, injure or kill somebody, and the police and investigators concluded I acted in accordance with the law, it does not protect me from civil suit. This is one of the things I would like to see changed in Ohio. But so far, we can't even offer that kind of protection to our police yet alone armed citizens.

That isn't entirely true.

Maybe you should have paid more attention in class and put the checkers away:

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

You surely could be sued. But recovery in tort is barred under 2307.60 (B)(2) under specified circumstances. It doesn't protect from an innocent bystander or their family recovering in tort if you maim or injure them, but it will as applied to the perp.

That's why you best be sure about where yer pointin that gun, cowboy.

woof

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, then would you convict a person based on "we don't know that?"
What we have now is Zimmerman's account of what happened and all the evidence to support his claim. Remember that a conviction needs to be 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt." This is what a judge goes by and this is what he or she instructs their jury to do. The burden of proof is on the prosecution--not the defendant in this case.
How would prosecution prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin first--especially given the autopsy report? How would prosecution prove that Zimmerman continued his pursuit of Martin given the evidence of the 911 call? How does the prosecution prove that Zimmerman did not struggle for his gun in self-defense, but instead, pulled it out and used it to settle the fight?
These theories are nothing but that: theories. They have no factual back up for proof-positive evidence or circumstantial evidence for that matter. Zimmerman is not guilty until proven innocent. Zimmerman is innocent until prove guilty.

Funny that you have no response to my point by point rebuttal of your "facts." I will give you this, you know how to pick your battles. When you are proven wrong, you just curl up and ignore it.

free wrote:

Law enforcement can compel you to obey all directives on scene, to get in the cruiser and to go the hospital for examination & evaluation. Only incompetent law enforcement doesn't. I can't imagine the alleged assailant dictating medical options to law enforcement.
"Oh no officer, I don't want to take a breathalyzer or have you swab for powder residue. I'd rather skip that part and just go home, I have be home for dinner." And officers complying with the alleged shooter's unreasonable request. The officers had to thought to themselves, "hey Barney, we're missing something here, I just feel it. Remember that one class we took where we had to take charge of the crime scene and tell everyone what to do ? Remember that ? Gosh, I forgot the procedure .....dang.....Chief's gonna be mad at me again...dang, well that couple rolling around naked in their front yard was a distration. Nice ABs. "

Oh, so now you are above the police? I'm sure they will be elated to hear that. Can you explain to me how testing an injured subject would prove his account of the story was wrong? Besides, there were dozens of cops and investigators on the scene. Your claim is that they were all incompetent? Good luck taking that one to court.

Just for your information, Zimmerman was tested for drugs and alcohol. He passed--Martin didn't.

free wrote:

"No crime by Martin as well. He was just in the neighborhood minding his own business when someone started pursuing / stalking him. Zimmy didn't identify himself as the local vigilante in charge of that turf's security. "

"Again, the witness did not witness the exchange that led to the foreplay on the ground. He didn't know if Zimmy initiated the conflict, possibly striking the first blow to antagonize Martin. "

"Martin likely what ? You're speculating. I've been attacked before and the other guy didn't fare too well, overplaying his position in his mind and then paying a price for his miscalculation. Not my fault. Sometimes my wife and I spill out into the front yard, across the sidewalk and intop the gutter. But that's for another day....."

"A thorough investigation within hours of the altercation and subsequent death of an alleged assailant ? Do you really believe as a competent investigative agent of law enforcement that you're going to allow the shooter of a victim to leave the crime scene without a thorough medical evaluation by a competent physician, not an on-site EMT ? Evaluating gun residue, blood transfer, DNA ? Is it possible local law enforcement thought they were dealing with a gangland hit, latino on latino, because Martin had lighter skin at the time he was alive ? And then just write it off as another homocide ?"

How did Martin defend himself when it was he who was the attacker?
"You don't know that, except for what the shooter, the only other actual witness, tells you."

I see, so don't believe the actual witness, believe speculation. Good luck in court with that one as well.

Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to identify himself as anybody. It changes nothing. Yes, I am speculating, because given the fact Martin disappeared from Zimmerman's sight (according to the 911 recording) he had more than enough time to make it back to the house where he was staying. Obviously, he didn't do that. He did monitor Zimmerman's moves until he was off the cell phone, and attacked him at that point.

Again, blood samples were taken. Sight gunshot fire was examined. It was a close range shooting a little more than a foot. Read the reports for crying out loud.

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny that you have no response to my point by point rebuttal of your "facts." I will give you this, you know how to pick your battles. When you are proven wrong, you just curl up and ignore it.

Not at all. It's just that the participants who don't have the ability to respond to posts without breaking them up into a dozen pieces makes it difficult and time consuming for me to respond back. I have better things to do. Learn how to respond to posts where I can simply hit the reply button and respond back, and I will be happy to accommodate your replies.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all. It's just that the participants who don't have the ability to respond to posts without breaking them up into a dozen pieces makes it difficult and time consuming for me to respond back. I have better things to do. Learn how to respond to posts where I can simply hit the reply button and respond back, and I will be happy to accommodate your replies.

Riiiiiight. Pick one and give it a try. How about your claim about Martin's injuries? How about your claim that he was high? You can still hit reply to my other post. You don't because you know you are wrong.

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
That isn't entirely true.
Maybe you should have paid more attention in class and put the checkers away:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60
You surely could be sued. But recovery in tort is barred under 2307.60 (B)(2) under specified circumstances. It doesn't protect from an innocent bystander or their family recovering in tort if you maim or injure them, but it will as applied to the perp.
That's why you best be sure about where yer pointin that gun, cowboy.
woof

Thanks cowboy. Might I suggest that you visit the Sheriff's website and find the CCW manual that explains all this?

Page 19 of the CCW handbook:

CIVIL LIABILITY.

"Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or the survivors could sue the licensee from the harm of the licensees use of deadly force. A "wrongful death" lawsuit or "tort damages" is a common legal action for money damages. A civil action does not involve a criminal penalty such as incarceration, but both a criminal and civil case can be brought based on the same incident,"

Mind you, this manual is two years old and has been updated since then, so page 19 may not be entirely accurate. But the changes of laws since then do not affect this section of our laws. It's still there and has not changed. The only exception to this law is if a licensee is attacked in his or her vehicle. And the reason for this exemption is that your car (by the Castle Doctrine) is considered your temporary home.

free wrote:

So you agree with me. That's wonderful !
Imcompetent ? I didn't kick him loose, only to turn around and arrest him. Then set a low bail and kick him loose again, only rearrest him for not reporting his solicitation of funds for his defense after he lied to the court. What's your spin on that ?
And coersing his girlfriend into lying for him with some sort code while in jail. Why all the deceit with the court sytstem if Zimmy's not guilty ? Did he think he was untouchable or is he laying the groundwork for an insanity defense plea ? While throwing his girlfriend under the bus... What's your spin on that ?
Good luck trying to explain all that bad behavior to the court.
Maybe Zimmy studied for his drug test so he's pass. Martin didn't have a chance to cram for the forensic tests.
<quoted text>

It seems to me that Martin didn't study for a lot of things including the stand your ground law.

Yes, I admit, Zimmerman tried to conceal his internet funds. But it's likely that he was saving that money for his legal expenses. I can't prove that, but I'm assuming at this point. As far as Zimmerman's account of what took place that night, he voluntarily submitted to a voice stress analysis which he passed with flying colors. Of course, these positive results are not admissible in court, but the fact that he freely submitted to this test is a good sign that he had nothing to fear. Police use this voluntary procedure for detection purposes.

Zimmerman does not have a girlfriend, he has a wife. And his wife did what any loyal wife would do: she did whatever she could to bring her husband home before trial, and secure their financial obligations for his defense. Yes, it is a crime, but if I'm being accused of murder, and I'm caught doing 85 in a 55 zone, that does not make me a murderer.

Convict himself of what--a bogus murder charge?

My concern is that there is no way for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. If the natives get restless again, everybody involved will fear for their own life. I wouldn't want to be a jury member or a judge handing down an acquittal or not guilty verdict. There are also people who are totally against an armed citizenry. They only want cops to have the guns even though before CCW's, there was a portion of our society who carried guns anyway. Usually those were the bad guys.

From all that I've read in evidence of the case, it seems to me that Zimmerman told the truth. And if he did tell the truth, then he was authorized by the state of Florida to use his firearm to protect himself. So what might happen now is that they will send a man to prison for obeying the law due to media, prejudice and fear, and not because he broke any law. That would be a real black eye to our system of justice; sending people to prison for doing nothing wrong.

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Well consider this before you end up dead.
Let's say Frank and Bob, who have been close friends for twenty years have a disagreement...a heated one... over the affection of Lisa, who Frank thought was his woman, only to find out that he is not the only man in her life (happens every day). Both have been drinking.
Things progress from verbal aggression, to threats of physical assault directed by each at the other, to punches being thrown by both men, but only punches, nothing more. Both men are extremely strong, were in the service, and know how to kill with their hands.
Lisa, who Frank and Bob both know to be extremely emotional and impulsive, appears on the scene with a firearm that both men, for good reason suspect is loaded, and points it in their direction, screaming at them to stop. She begins to move closer to them, pointing the gun at them with her finger on the trigger, screaming the entire time.
Lisa loves both men, knows Frank and Bob each carry switchblades, have hot tempers, and each has physically assaulted her on numerous occasions in the past, causing her serious injuries requiring hospitalization on at least one occasion each. Lisa has no CCW license, but when she appeared on the scene the gun was in plain view of both men.
Instead of complying with Lisa's demand to stop assaulting one another, they each lunge towards Lisa to attempt to disarm her.
Frank, who manages to disarm Lisa and now has the gun, begins to threaten Bob with it, until Lisa pulls a switchblade herself, and attempts to stab Frank. Bob attempts to intercede.
Frank pulls the trigger twice, killing both Bob and Lisa.
How's that for a nice day?
woof

you are all fantasy; and guns scare you.

all your problems.

are you scared of spoons also?

spoons make people fat.

you best get back to your xbox, your fantasy is waiting.

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 ?

xxxrayted wrote:

Convict himself of what--a bogus murder charge?
My concern is that there is no way for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. If the natives get restless again, everybody involved will fear for their own life. I wouldn't want to be a jury member or a judge handing down an acquittal or not guilty verdict. There are also people who are totally against an armed citizenry. They only want cops to have the guns even though before CCW's, there was a portion of our society who carried guns anyway. Usually those were the bad guys.
From all that I've read in evidence of the case, it seems to me that Zimmerman told the truth. And if he did tell the truth, then he was authorized by the state of Florida to use his firearm to protect himself. So what might happen now is that they will send a man to prison for obeying the law due to media, prejudice and fear, and not because he broke any law. That would be a real black eye to our system of justice; sending people to prison for doing nothing wrong.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks cowboy. Might I suggest that you visit the Sheriff's website and find the CCW manual that explains all this?
Page 19 of the CCW handbook:
CIVIL LIABILITY.
"Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result in a criminal conviction, the licensee may still face civil liability. The victim or the survivors could sue the licensee from the harm of the licensees use of deadly force. A "wrongful death" lawsuit or "tort damages" is a common legal action for money damages. A civil action does not involve a criminal penalty such as incarceration, but both a criminal and civil case can be brought based on the same incident,"
Mind you, this manual is two years old and has been updated since then, so page 19 may not be entirely accurate. But the changes of laws since then do not affect this section of our laws. It's still there and has not changed. The only exception to this law is if a licensee is attacked in his or her vehicle. And the reason for this exemption is that your car (by the Castle Doctrine) is considered your temporary home.

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

Whether Zimmy goes to prison or is placed in protective custody with the name change & relocation, his days of safely walking the streets as Zimmy are gone.
If he chooses noteriety over discretion, he will experience a gauntlet of attempts of his safety that law enforcement and courts cannot & will not expend the resources to protect him. If acquitted.
If convicted, the law of the prison jungle will pass judgement and he'll be a prison bitch or get constantly abused, attacked & even shanked.
He can pick his poison. He just made a poor choice.

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
you are all fantasy; and guns scare you.
all your problems.
are you scared of spoons also?
spoons make people fat.
you best get back to your xbox, your fantasy is waiting.

Quite obviously, air makes you stupid.

Or maybe its water.

woof

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Quite obviously, air makes you stupid.
Or maybe its water.
woof

if you want to understand stupid........read your own posts.

anybody who is against your fantasy policies is stupid.

those of us who have to pay for your stupid policy, think you are stupid thinking we will go along on your joy ride fantasy.

I am not the dog chained to someone providing for you.

you are...so back in the cage with you.