How do we protect kids in school?

How do we protect kids in school?

There are 6103 comments on the Ruidoso News story from Jan 8, 2013, titled How do we protect kids in school?. In it, Ruidoso News reports that:

During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ruidoso News.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#3849 Jun 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
, by a preponderance of the evidence,
.
What does ^that^ mean?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#3850 Jun 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
State law, Sissy.
Verbatim.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Interesting.
Tell us oh wise one.
Does a federal appeals court have jurisdiction over a state court?
two words

Albuquerque, NM

#3851 Jun 13, 2013
home school

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3852 Jun 13, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Tell us oh wise one.
Does a federal appeals court have jurisdiction over a state court?
Why would an appeals court be needed?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#3853 Jun 13, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Tell us oh wise one.
Does a federal appeals court have jurisdiction over a state court?
x-and-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would an appeals court be needed?
I never said it would be needed.
If a state court follows any procedure that is incongruent with federal court guidelines (hopefully meaning constitutional), the state court decision could easily be overturned.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#3854 Jun 13, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would an appeals court be needed?
Because the state law incorporates a presumption of guilt and an attempt to place the burden of proof on the accused. I suspect that in itself is grounds for appeal in federal court challenging it on a constitutional level. The constitution trumps ALL state laws and state laws have been struck down as unconstitutional on many occasions. Mr. Z and his attorney are most likely prepared to make that challenge if it becomes necessary. If they aren't, they should be.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3855 Jun 13, 2013
Meanwhile, federal, district and state laws claim self defense exonerates the accused. It also says the ACCUSED has the burden of proof for his/her affirmative defense (self defense).
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Tell us oh wise one.
Does a federal appeals court have jurisdiction over a state court?
<quoted text>
I never said it would be needed.
If a state court follows any procedure that is incongruent with federal court guidelines (hopefully meaning constitutional), the state court decision could easily be overturned.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#3856 Jun 13, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
Meanwhile, federal, district and state laws claim self defense exonerates the accused. It also says the ACCUSED has the burden of proof for his/her affirmative defense (self defense).
<quoted text>
See post #3854.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#3857 Jun 13, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
Meanwhile, federal, district and state laws claim self defense exonerates the accused. It also says the ACCUSED has the burden of proof for his/her affirmative defense (self defense).
<quoted text>
The burden of proof for the defendant is NOT the same burden of proof for the prosecution. The defense only has to raise REASONABLE DOUBT, even in an affirmative defense case. The state must still prove their case BEYOND reaonable doubt. All it takes is one juror to believe the "reasonable doubt" raised by the defense. The judge may then declare a hung jury and that the case is to be put before another jury. However, if the judge declares that there is no chance of Zimmerman ever being found unanimously guilty, he can dismiss the case with prejudice (Zimmerman cannot be tried for this case ever again.)

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3858 Jun 13, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Well, it's obvious where your head's at. I guess that's why you always seem to be in the dark about things.
It's obvious where you lips are at, Sissy.

PS: Affirmative defense, burden of proof... on accused.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3859 Jun 13, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof for the defendant is NOT the same burden of proof for the prosecution. The defense only has to raise REASONABLE DOUBT, even in an affirmative defense case.
AH!

So it looks like JzzmCheek is now saying burden of proof is on the defense in an affirmative defense.

How bout that, Sissy?

Looks like the only ones you have left that agree with you are your aliases...

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3860 Jun 13, 2013
Nope. On my phone, there is no such post number. You quote it for me, or don't believe it exists, and I will conclude you are a liar.

Let's see......the state brought a murder charge against zimmerman. They have evidence of a murder in the body, the gun, and a confession by the accused that he killed Martin. The state may also have other evidence.

If zimmerman does not dispute any of that and the state can prove each of those (in this case, easily done), defendant will be convicted.

Now, if zimmerman can establish affirmative defense (self defense), the state would have a more difficult time.

With its present evidence, why would the state introduce an affirmative defense? It is up to the accused to show sufficient cause for his defense.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
See post #3854.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3861 Jun 13, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
The defense only has to raise REASONABLE DOUBT, even in an affirmative defense cas
(direct quote)
" The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused. "

By preponderance of the evidence...

Verbatim...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3862 Jun 13, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
All it takes is one juror to believe the "reasonable doubt" raised by the defense.
Ah, hung jury.

Barefoot2626 is right again.

Not acquitted... ho 'bout that, Jzzmcheeks?

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#3863 Jun 13, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof for the defendant is NOT the same burden of proof for the prosecution. The defense only has to raise REASONABLE DOUBT, even in an affirmative defense case
Aaaah, but the reason this affirmative defense discussion has continued for weeks is because your cohorts have (and still do) insisted the defense bears no responsibility in AD.

Obviously he does--just SAYING it was self defense without presenting REASONABLE evidence does not justify an AD.

It is his burden.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3864 Jun 13, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
However, if the judge declares that there is no chance of Zimmerman ever being found unanimously guilty, he can dismiss the case with prejudice
If but candy nuts.

A judge isn't going to dismiss case with prejudice without propositional misbehavior.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#3865 Jun 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
AH!
So it looks like JzzmCheek is now saying burden of proof is on the defense in an affirmative defense.
How bout that, Sissy?
Looks like the only ones you have left that agree with you are your aliases...
Not what I said AT ALL, crackhead. You really should lay off the drugs this early in the day.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#3866 Jun 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, hung jury.
Barefoot2626 is right again.
Not acquitted... ho 'bout that, Jzzmcheeks?
I never said it WASN'T possible, crackhead.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#3867 Jun 13, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaaah, but the reason this affirmative defense discussion has continued for weeks is because your cohorts have (and still do) insisted the defense bears no responsibility in AD.
Obviously he does--just SAYING it was self defense without presenting REASONABLE evidence does not justify an AD.
It is his burden.
And they are correct. If the prosecution hasn't met the requirements for a conviction of Murder 2, the defense doesn't have to affirm anything. In an AD, the defense only has to raise reasonable doubt. They DO NOT have to prove absolute innocence.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#3868 Jun 13, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
Nope. On my phone, there is no such post number..
<quoted text>
Oh. Now I see the problem.
Yo gots yo free Bamaphone.

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Right to NOT be Persecuted for being a Shee... Jul 19 Marauder 2
News Judge blocks California's high-capacity magazin... Jul 19 Red Crosse 73
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See Jul 18 payme 33
News How 'The Boyfriend Loophole' Arms Domestic Abusers Jul 17 Jagermann 1
News Democrats should start playing to strengths Jul 8 im not a doctor 1
News The Second Amendment vs. the Fourth Amendment Jul 7 javawhey 4
Walmart Ammunition Policy in New York (May '13) Jul 7 against the const... 11
More from around the web