BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72200 Apr 11, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>Please point to the post where I allied myself with scum such as you? Hahaha!!! It ain't there.
No. YOU prove you didn't write it. Not for me to do your work for you.
Barry Bin Lyin

Port Saint Lucie, FL

#72201 Apr 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Skid has a reading comprehension problem.
776.013 does not provide Zimmerman with a presumption that his actions were reasonable based purely on subjective perception. Why doesn't Skidmark actually try reading the statutes?
Clue: Presumption of fear of death pertains to HOME PROTECTION.
Zimmerman was following martin out in the street.
Duh!
How about reading the right page? Eh Skid?
<quoted text>
Nice try, for a wor'tard, I mean BUT Florida law justifies use of deadly force IE. poppin' a cap in the thug when you are:

1.Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; IE. getting your head smashed against the concrete for the 3rd time...
2.Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Any questions?

Try not to selectively read the law, comrade.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72202 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Relevance? Last time I checked a semi-automatic pistol is deadly force. Last time I checked Trayvon Martin is dead.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Wojo is incapable of comprehending what he reads. The Florida law is very clear. It does not require that the assailant has any weapon and does not require that he be physically assaulted. All it requires is that the shooter is in fear of being attacked.
And it is up to the state to prove otherwise.
And it does not matter if Martin died or not. Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force to protect himself against any perceived threat! If the state even charges him without proof he did not act in self defense, the state has committed a crime.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder ...
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry birfoon, the law doesn't protect the armed assailant, Zimmerman, after the fact of getting his ass kicked. And it does not protect Zimmerman if his alleged fear was not reasonable. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman.
Okay, what evidence do you have that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin? I will be waiting!!!
Oh, read the Florida law! The State must prove it was not self defense!
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]
776.012&#8195;Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013&#8195;Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)&#8195;A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)&#8195;The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)&#8195;The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
Cont.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72203 Apr 11, 2012
Cont.
(d)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)&#8195;A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)&#8195;A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)&#8195;As used in this section, the term:
(a)&#8195;“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)&#8195;“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)&#8195;“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)&#8195;A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)&#8195;A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)&#8195;The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
776.;Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1);Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2);Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a);Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72204 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it is not Israels problem that Muslims are stupid. If they want to do suicide attacks, it is their fault that they died.
Oh, how many Jewish suicide bombers have there been? Got a clue?
Muslims do not think the way we do. They think it is fine to put a bomb factory next to a hospital so the Israelis would be less likely yo attack it. But it they do attack and innocent Muslims are killed, the Muslims think that is fine as they died as martyrs and will go straight to heaven.
You have no idea what you are talking about. How many Abrams tanks, F15s,. F16s, drones, ships, sophisticated armaments do the Palestinians have? Not justifying the suicide attacks, they are intolerable, cruel, unjusitifiable, but so are air strikes and the "collateral damage" they cause, which incidentally account for the 20-1 ratio, as most of the killed are civilians.
Barry Bin Lyin

Port Saint Lucie, FL

#72205 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Notwithstanding what you just wrote, does it make what I advancede untrue? Answer that one.
Islam-Mohamad? Mohamad was a brutal killer and wrote the Koran, a book of hate, particularly against women. And probably a pedophile, as per most religious traditions, not just with Moslems. Happy? I have written the exact same thing in letters to the editor here,. but they refused to publish it. Chicken like you, I guess.
'Got address' brave comrade? Malik and Ali might visit ya there-they have among other things great goat cheese!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72206 Apr 11, 2012
Now let me bring to your attention this part of Florida's Stand your Ground law! You can not arrest, detain, etc. anyone unless you have evidence that he was NOT acting in self defense. In other words, the Sanford Police violated Zimmerman's rights simply by cuffing him and taking him to the police station!
776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—&#8195;
A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,........
As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72207 Apr 11, 2012
Barry Bin Lyin wrote:
<quoted text>'Got address' brave comrade? Malik and Ali might visit ya there-they have among other things great goat cheese!
From the UnAmerican traitor Barry Bin Lyin who calls wojar and me comrade. Read this :

"Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>a muslim terrorist has greater morals than the combined numbers of the DNC."
Barry Bin Lyin

Port Saint Lucie, FL

#72208 Apr 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Barry, I actually read the law, and can comprehend it.
There is no presumption under the FL law that Zimmerman's alleged fear was reasonable. He cannot assert immunity without proving by preponderance of evidence that his alleged fear was reasonable. This includes showing that he shot Martin while being beaten, not after the fact.
<quoted text>
Then you should read it again, this time without moving your lips as it tickles my ass when you insist on doing that.

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.012&#8195;Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. HOWEVER, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does NOT have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably BELIEVES that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Can you get you pinhead around it yet?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72209 Apr 11, 2012
I have made this point several times before and not one of you Libtards dared replied.
If a police officer shoots someone, is the officer disarmed, cuffed and put in a jail cell? NO, it is assumed that it was a lawful shooting. Sure, he may be put on deck duty will the shooting is investigated and unless there is evidence that he committed a crime, he will be treated as if he was innocent.
SOOOO, explain why a private citizen should not be treated the same as a law enforcement officer??? Come on there Libtards. Which one among you is willing to give an intellectually honest reply???

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72210 Apr 11, 2012
Barry Bin Lyin wrote:
<quoted text>'Got address' brave comrade? Malik and Ali might visit ya there-they have among other things great goat cheese!
You wear your name well, Lyin.

Incidentally, tell me, inform me where I criticized the Bible, and the Catholic Church? One single passage. I reproduced from memory what is in the Bible, the Old Testament and the progroms orchestrated by said church. Tell me where I misinformded. And I'd gladly reproduce verses from the Koran, no problem, why, the Moslems would even praise me.

Was all I wrote not already in Genesis? Were the massacres in Constantinople, the Crusades, the witches, the Inquisition, the religious wars, did I make them all up? Did I comment on the Church by saying "damn this and damn that"? You gotta grow up . Lyin, but mostly try not to be so disgusting.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72211 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now let me bring to your attention this part of Florida's Stand your Ground law! You can not arrest, detain, etc. anyone unless you have evidence that he was NOT acting in self defense. In other words, the Sanford Police violated Zimmerman's rights simply by cuffing him and taking him to the police station!
<quoted text>
Yea, what 'right' was that?????.....something in Birtherville.

It is standard police procedure to cuff an individual while investigating and also while transporting. Since the police did not have all the facts yet, Zimmerman was detained and cuffed while transported. Get a grip on the real world.....outside of the racist Birtherville......

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72212 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what you are talking about. How many Abrams tanks, F15s,. F16s, drones, ships, sophisticated armaments do the Palestinians have? Not justifying the suicide attacks, they are intolerable, cruel, unjusitifiable, but so are air strikes and the "collateral damage" they cause, which incidentally account for the 20-1 ratio, as most of the killed are civilians.
Yes I do know what I am talking about. If they are stupid enough to attack you, they are willing to die. And I would rather the other guys die, than my people die.
And if they are willing to hide behind innocent people, it is their fault as it is a violation of the Hague and Geneva Accords.
I will be honest with you, I do not give a damn about how many Muslims we, or our allies, have to kill. If Iran nukes New York City, we should nuke the whole of Iran!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72213 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I have made this point several times before and not one of you Libtards dared replied.
If a police officer shoots someone, is the officer disarmed, cuffed and put in a jail cell? NO, it is assumed that it was a lawful shooting. Sure, he may be put on deck duty will the shooting is investigated and unless there is evidence that he committed a crime, he will be treated as if he was innocent.
SOOOO, explain why a private citizen should not be treated the same as a law enforcement officer??? Come on there Libtards. Which one among you is willing to give an intellectually honest reply???
Unlike vigilantes, the police are trained on the law and the use of weapons. Why would one expect a private citizen to be treated the same a sworn police officer?????.....well, DUH!!!!....only in Birtherville.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72214 Apr 11, 2012
Now Wojo, read this part of Florida's law:
776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)
(2)&#8195;A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)&#8195;The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection.
In other words, in State of Florida v. Michael Monahan, Monahan has every right to demand Florida pay for any inconvience. It was a violation of Florida law for the police to even cuff him much less arrest him, etc!!!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72215 Apr 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
That's news?
Sorry, BirfoonLady. Zimmerman was following Martin in order to stop an imaginary nonexistent felony about to be committed by a f-----g c--n who always gets away.
And, BTW, Zimmerman has the burden of proof to show he was trying to stop a forcible felony.
Got anything new?
<quoted text>
And, BTW, Zimmerman has the burden of proof to show he was trying to stop a forcible felony.

Ha ha ha....you dweeb!

He has proof, dipchit.....
It's ALL on his head....
Broken nose.....Bashed up skull.....
Grass stained clothes

What "else" you need, for forcible felony?
Dweeby dipchit.....;-)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72216 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do know what I am talking about. If they are stupid enough to attack you, they are willing to die. And I would rather the other guys die, than my people die.
And if they are willing to hide behind innocent people, it is their fault as it is a violation of the Hague and Geneva Accords.
I will be honest with you, I do not give a damn about how many Muslims we, or our allies, have to kill. If Iran nukes New York City, we should nuke the whole of Iran!!!
Iran nukes NY city? What with? No wonder you're so aggressive. You've lost it. Your hate for anything not white and American has become an obsession. Do you know the modern history of Iran? Do you even know about Mossadegh and his successor the Shah and the US's and UK's involvements? Do you know what meddling is? You don't like it when same rules apply to you, now to you?
Old Goat

Wichita, KS

#72217 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
No. YOU prove you didn't write it. Not for me to do your work for you.
it is impossible to find something that does not exist.
Caught you lying again, now you are a lying-scumbag!
I forgive you, that is just your nature.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72218 Apr 11, 2012
Trayvon's special prosecutor sets Friday deadline
Updated: 34 minutes ago

The special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin shooting has set a deadline: By Friday night, she will make an announcement about the case.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/bre...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72219 Apr 11, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>it is impossible to find something that does not exist.
Caught you lying again, now you are a lying-scumbag!
I forgive you, that is just your nature.
Ahhhh, well well well, you did fall for it. I used the old birther argument, and you don't like it. Too bad. This is what you losers, you included, have been doing for years now. You come out with WND kind of bs, we ask for proof or reference, and invariably the answer is "if you're so smart, find it yourself". Right back atcha, Goat. And, wear a bib, your drooling is disgusting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min republiCONS 168,006
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min shinningelectr0n 1,172,286
Romney version 3.0? 3 min barefoot2626 145
Is Obama's 'Election Proximity' Excuse a Snub t... 58 min Captain Yesterday 41
French left picks presidential runner, Hollande... (Oct '11) 1 hr swedenforever 10
Team Rubio message: Ready to run 2 hr Cujo 10
Zionist Lobby in US Takes a Hit in Latest Natio... (Nov '12) 2 hr swedenforever 14
More from around the web