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
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#162670 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>When was the last time your mental healthcare provider adjusted your medication?
===

You speak for yourself.
It is good enough that vampire bot like you taking medication for a change after all, in order to prolong your sucking head again, as if you never have blood from all that blood you have sucked.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#162671 Jul 5, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
That's right Jacques, I said it.
Golfing is for sissys.
I tried golf. Tried hard. NOT for sissiee, believe me. But, the surroundings offered by a golf course setting are in itself worth the round, though one cringes at the volume of chemical agents needed to achieve such green perfection
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#162672 Jul 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. Country Club RINOs want illegal aliens for cheap labor........ and Democrats want them as voters!
Look at Alabama. They passed a law two years making it illegal of employers to hire "undocumented" workers and if they get caught, they lose their business licence. The end results is that Alabama went to being 1% over the national unemployment rate to 0.6% under (April 2013) which have benefited mostly POOR unskilled workers many of which are BLACK.
What has Obama done to boost the BLACK employment rates?!? NOT A DAMN THING!!!

========

If Obama polls fall to the low, then you might have a chance by blaming and naming all Obama's faults in the next election.

You just had a very high turnout from Black and Hispanic voters, and the trend will continue in the future because there are a lot of incomers who have become voters as citizens there.

If the economy is still no good, minorities will probably look for something different.
So far, the names of Conservatives are Rubio, Cruz and Bush (Jeb).

So, if they want some more showing for presidential hopefuls, they can name a few more.
But it is still somewhat early, even you want the changing hand.

Meanwhile, just observe what Obama is up to, if he can do something that makes sense in your conditions there.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#162673 Jul 5, 2013
--------

Edward Snowden’s nightmare comes true



Snowden’s worst fear, by his own account, was that 'nothing will change.'| AP Photo
Close
By PHILIP EWING | 7/5/13 5:01 AM EDT

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/edward-...

----------

Because Obama said the data collection in regard to telephone record and duration conversations, this shows the biased ground of controversy.

Too many politicians including former Bush, said too many words already about Snowden, as many of them called him a traitor, for this is another signal of radicalism in a new world phenomena.

And at thee same time, it seems it is a further difficulty to believe when they say there will be a fair trial for Snowden.

From news reports, that generalizes telling Snowden does have a great International support.

US has to consider those who desert as coming up with the know-how to deal with it because it is a big country, by just knowing that people come and go everywhere

Just like those dissidents, deserters, defectors, from anywhere escaping or going to US that other countries accept as is, US needs to come to terms with itself in the reality of facing this realistic new world.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162674 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>That won't get the aggressor out of manslaughter. Neither can a burglar claim self defense and walk.
The point being, the tables can be turned on the "aggressor".
wojar

Bristol, CT

#162675 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being, the tables can be turned on the "aggressor".
The point being that the play justice doesn't have a point. Self defense will not get Zimmerman off if he is seen as instigator. His reckless pursuit resulting in the death of a person who was violating no law, Zimmerman is liable for jail time.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>That won't get the aggressor out of manslaughter. Neither can a burglar claim self defense and walk.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162676 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being that the play justice doesn't have a point. Self defense will not get Zimmerman off if he is seen as instigator. His reckless pursuit resulting in the death of a person who was violating no law, Zimmerman is liable for jail time.
<quoted text>
Surely, you understand what "in general" means? Then again, maybe you don't.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#162677 Jul 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
When Eisenhower was president, the far right wing conservatives said that he was a communist and a "traitor."
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
And I am sure you can prove that, Tootzie?
<quoted text>
Can you F-ing read? I mean, CAN YOU F-ING READ? What does "the far right wing conservatives said"?
It was written by Robert W. Welch, Jr. who was the president of the John Birches and is an INDIVIDUAL and if he is a Conservative, Obama is a Stalinist-Communist!!!
Also, you can always find a few loonies on both sides of the political equations. Yes, IHMO Eisenhower was left of center but "Tootzie" wants to imply that everyone that is a birther, is a far right extremest when that is not the case!
Nevertheless, the Welch quotation shows that the far right wing considered Eisenhower, a loyal US citizen, a "traitor." So, now the far right wing calls Obama a "Stalinist-Communist. "

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162678 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being, the tables can be turned on the "aggressor".
Not in Florida.

See Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011)

Vila v. State, 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/cr9mwb9

"Florida Cases Interpreting Section 776.041: Person Who "Initially Provoked" Incident May Not Claim Self Defense"

"Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense." (emphasis supplied) Mixon v. State, 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952).

BTW that was a second degree murder case. Guilty and affirmed.

According to Professor Wilson Huhn:

"The West Key Digest system brings up a number of older Florida cases involving the rule that a "wrongdoer" may not claim self-defense. In several of these cases the courts stated that the defendant must be "free from fault" in order to claim self-defense. The quoted language in each case is from the key digest headnote, not the case itself."

Zimmerman will be SOL if the jury believes he instigated the incident and is not free from fault, and it properly follows instructions from the judge.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162679 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>When was the last time your mental healthcare provider adjusted your medication?
When was the last time they let you out of your padded cell?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162680 Jul 5, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nevertheless, the Welch quotation shows that the far right wing considered Eisenhower, a loyal US citizen, a "traitor." So, now the far right wing calls Obama a "Stalinist-Communist. "
I guess some do call Obama a Stalinist but I don't. But he is a socialist/Fascist!
Oh, Fascists are socialists who use intimidation or violence to make people do what they are told. Like using the IRS to punish their detractors.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162681 Jul 5, 2013
Pdamerica org wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data.
I did not know Canada and the USA relations were not as good as when Dumbya Bush was in charge.
Obama for the most part continued Bush/Cheney.
The average middle class citizenry have been losing ground worldwide since 1980 Reagan to present day 2013 Obama.
More accurately Alan Greenspan & Ben Bernanke!
And the current Canadian government is happy with Obummer Boy?
Obama not only continued most of Bush's programs, he has expanded them!
And the average middle class has gone into a nose dive under Obama. There are SEVEN MILLION fewer employed Americans now than when Bush left the White House!
And was is "More accurately" abut either Greenspan or Bernanke?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162682 Jul 5, 2013
"In the Zimmerman case the prosecution will make the following argument. Based upon his own statements to the police dispatcher Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, and then exited his car and followed him armed with a gun. Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime and was intent that Martin should not get away. Martin was completely innocent of any crime; he was simply walking home from a trip  to the store. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the ensuing struggle, no matter who struck the first blow. There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation. Accordingly, under 776.014, Zimmerman may not claim that he acted in self-defense."

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162683 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely, you understand what "in general" means? Then again, maybe you don't.
Surely you understand what FALSE means?

Play Justice LRS: The point being, the tables can be turned on the "aggressor".

Not in Florida, sonny. Maybe you should take off your play law robes and set up your choo choo train set.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162684 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in Florida.
See Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011)
Vila v. State, 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011)
http://tinyurl.com/cr9mwb9
"Florida Cases Interpreting Section 776.041: Person Who "Initially Provoked" Incident May Not Claim Self Defense"
"Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense." (emphasis supplied) Mixon v. State, 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952).
BTW that was a second degree murder case. Guilty and affirmed.
According to Professor Wilson Huhn:
"The West Key Digest system brings up a number of older Florida cases involving the rule that a "wrongdoer" may not claim self-defense. In several of these cases the courts stated that the defendant must be "free from fault" in order to claim self-defense. The quoted language in each case is from the key digest headnote, not the case itself."
Zimmerman will be SOL if the jury believes he instigated the incident and is not free from fault, and it properly follows instructions from the judge.
I'm not so sure.

justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162685 Jul 5, 2013
Play Justice LRS: The point being, the tables can be turned on the "aggressor".

Somewhere in that statement the Play Justice sees, "in general", which has nothing to do with the case he was talking about that is taking place in FLORIDA.

Clue to morons: Florida law governs Florida courts.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#162686 Jul 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the current Canadian government is happy with Obummer Boy?
Obama not only continued most of Bush's programs, he has expanded them!
And the average middle class has gone into a nose dive under Obama. There are SEVEN MILLION fewer employed Americans now than when Bush left the White House!
And was is "More accurately" abut either Greenspan or Bernanke?
Your reading leaves much to be desired, as in this current discussion, I pointed out that Canada-USA relations were much better when GWB was president and frosty at the present time. Do you know what "frosty" means? FYI it's the opposite of "warm".
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162687 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I was making was in reference to your original post. I was pointing out that the aggressor could have the tables turned on him and he ends up being the one claiming self-defense. Just talking about the SYG law in general.
toesap, your little game of deflection is really sad. See the post above? Can you read and understand the last sentence? My other post came from Florida Statutes and it explains how the aggressor may end up claiming self-defense. It's in black and white. Sorry, you lose.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162688 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
toesap, your little game of deflection is really sad. See the post above? Can you read and understand the last sentence? My other post came from Florida Statutes and it explains how the aggressor may end up claiming self-defense. It's in black and white. Sorry, you lose.
Allow me to rephrase that last part. You lost!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#162689 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not so sure.
justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
Sorry, unlike Professor Hahn, who cited binding case law, you are citing a web site's pure conjecture. Vila c. State and Johnson v. State were both tried recently under 776.041, and the appellate court made it clear what the law is, your favorite web site notwithstanding.

Now put those play judge robes away. Isn't it time for your nap?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in Florida.
See Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011)
Vila v. State, 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011)
http://tinyurl.com/cr9mwb9
"Florida Cases Interpreting Section 776.041: Person Who "Initially Provoked" Incident May Not Claim Self Defense"
"Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense." (emphasis supplied) Mixon v. State, 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952).
BTW that was a second degree murder case. Guilty and affirmed.
According to Professor Wilson Huhn:
"The West Key Digest system brings up a number of older Florida cases involving the rule that a "wrongdoer" may not claim self-defense. In several of these cases the courts stated that the defendant must be "free from fault" in order to claim self-defense. The quoted language in each case is from the key digest headnote, not the case itself."
Zimmerman will be SOL if the jury believes he instigated the incident and is not free from fault, and it properly follows instructions from the judge.

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Grey Ghost 1,129,132
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 min DDDD-25 47,580
Abby 10-30 7 min RACE 12
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 18 min Stina2 98,545
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 25 min Boy G 50,755
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 45 min JOEL 70,145
Amy 10-30 1 hr edogxxx 11
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]