Area gun sales, fears rising

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: North Port Sun 7,569

Gun stores in Charlotte County have experienced increased sales since Election Day as local gun owners brace for an anticipated restriction of gun laws following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Full Story
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4243 Feb 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
yes you have proven over and over again that you are just a ghetto hood and not smart enough to read.........LOL
But you do provide hours of entertainment.......
Tell us again how the burden of proof lies with the defense..........
.
.
.
.
.
.
On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...
Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.
That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!
lol! You're such an idiot son. And a liar to boot!

http://www.opd.ohio.gov/rc_casebook/affirmati...

"Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook
Reproduced with permission from
Allen V. Adair and the Franklin County Public Defender Office

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN GENERAL (ME005)

Also see Abandonment; Self-defense; Duress; Entrapment; Battered Wife Syndrome; Insanity; Intoxication.

Basics

Specific defenses



R.C. 2901.05(A)-- On an affirmative defense the defendant bears both the burden of going forward with the

evidence and the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

R.C. 2901.05(C)-- An affirmative defense is either:(1) designated by statute as such; or (2) "A defense

involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, on which he can fairly

be required to adduce supporting evidence."..."

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4244 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Actually, I'm in the real world son.
I have no idea what world you're in and I'm sure you don't either...
Such idiots.
http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/P...
"...Pre-trial Evidentiary Hearing under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law
When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.
During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward...."
I see you are so stupid you are trying to still claim it is up to the defense to prove that Zim is not guilty........

That is not a trail moron/liberal..........ROTFLMA O

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4245 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Son, you're such an idiot. And clearly damn proud of it too!
Really..........LOL

It is you that post stuff that a 9 year old knows is wrong..........LOL

On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...

Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.

That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4246 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You're such an idiot son. And a liar to boot!
http://www.opd.ohio.gov/rc_casebook/affirmati...
"Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook
Reproduced with permission from
Allen V. Adair and the Franklin County Public Defender Office
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN GENERAL (ME005)
Also see Abandonment; Self-defense; Duress; Entrapment; Battered Wife Syndrome; Insanity; Intoxication.
Basics
Specific defenses
R.C. 2901.05(A)-- On an affirmative defense the defendant bears both the burden of going forward with the
evidence and the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
R.C. 2901.05(C)-- An affirmative defense is either:(1) designated by statute as such; or (2) "A defense
involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, on which he can fairly
be required to adduce supporting evidence."..."
Still bound and determined to prove you are dumber than a 5 year old..........ROTFLMAO

Just go burn your hood down and get it over..........LOL

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4247 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Actually, I'm in the real world son.
I have no idea what world you're in and I'm sure you don't either...
Such idiots.
http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/P...
"...Pre-trial Evidentiary Hearing under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law
When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.
During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward...."
You would not know the real world if you were beat with it.........
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4248 Feb 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
You would not know the real world if you were beat with it.........
lol! You're such an idiot son.

And clearly damned proud of it!
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#4249 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Actually, I'm in the real world son.
I have no idea what world you're in and I'm sure you don't either...
Such idiots.
http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/P...
"...Pre-trial Evidentiary Hearing under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law
When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.
During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward...."
SYG is not a trail. What it is is a request for an exemption of charges based on evidence the defense must provide that shows the defendant was protecting him or herself. If it goes to the murder trial, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not defense.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#4250 Feb 1, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a liberal socialist that thinks government handouts can go on forever, would think self cannibalism could be self supporting.
Thanks for the laugh! You made my day!
We are so happy for you -- small minds are easily amused!!!

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#4251 Feb 1, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read all the publically available evidence? I have reviewed every bit of it. I wanted to be certain in a case such as this that my opinion was based completely on facts.
One of the most revealing occurrences from the left was the immediate attack on Florida SYG law. I’ve been debating this issue since shortly after it happened. It’s not a case of SYG, it appears to be self-defense. I disagree with Zimmerman’s attorney who believe SYG applies. If you’re attacked you have every right to defend yourself. It’s not standing your ground.
Evidence – Zimmerman lost Martin during his conversation with the 911 dispatcher.
Evidence – Martin was less than 200 yards from where he was staying. He could have easily made it to safety if he was so concerned. Recall, he was on the phone with his girlfriend. Her statement says she told him to run, he declined.
Evidence – Martin had no defensive wounds consistent with being attacked.
Evidence – Zimmerman did indeed have injuries consistent with a surprise attack.
What occurred after Zimmerman lost Martin? There’s only one witness; Zimmerman. His statements to date are supported by known evidence.
Yes, he and his wife both lied about money.
Recall, state district attorney didn’t feel there was enough evidence to support a criminal arrest. It wasn’t until substantial public pressure was an arrest made. That pressure was made without knowing all the facts. They assumed it was a racially motivated shooting. That same pressure forced two out of office, again without all the facts related to the case. Will those responsible apologize if Zimmerman is found not guilty? I doubt it.
Ultra liberal Alan Dershowitz was very critical of the prosecutor, Corey. Dershowitz publically stated the affidavit was a grave ethical violation on the part of Corey. Read more here, then research further http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/... Then some on the left were calling for Dershowitz to be disbarred. Why is it liberals who claim high moral ground frequently demand punishment over free speech?
You might also find this interesting http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-georg...
There may be another delay http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/...
The state has given little resistance to delays. Are they delaying the case to allow strong feelings to subside?
It became a SYG case because he was charged.

Had the same evidence not have been politically motivated the state would have said he was defending himself but because he was charged any good lawyer would request a SYG hearing to have time in front of the court to prove he had a right to defend himself based on the SYG law and have the case dismissed with prejudice.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#4252 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Actually, I'm in the real world son.

I have no idea what world you're in and I'm sure you don't either...

Such idiots.

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/P...

"...Pre-trial Evidentiary Hearing under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.

During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward...."
Who the hell said anything about his pre trial evidentiary hearing? You certainly didn't, until now. I didn't. Here is one, didn't. Ec didn't.
Everyone has been talking about a murder trial up to this point.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#4253 Feb 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
SYG is not a trail. What it is is a request for an exemption of charges based on evidence the defense must provide that shows the defendant was protecting him or herself. If it goes to the murder trial, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not defense.
You should direct your point to the Zimmerman supporters.

They don't seem to understand that.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#4254 Feb 1, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Who the hell said anything about his pre trial evidentiary hearing? You certainly didn't, until now. I didn't. Here is one, didn't. Ec didn't.
Everyone has been talking about a murder trial up to this point.
Actually, I did. I clearly indicated the poster blew right by it.

Perhaps you missed it. Perhaps you didn't understand. Perhaps it just doesn't fit your position.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#4255 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I did. I clearly indicated the poster blew right by it.

Perhaps you missed it. Perhaps you didn't understand. Perhaps it just doesn't fit your position.
If you did, I did miss it. What is the post number?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#4256 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You should direct your point to the Zimmerman supporters.
They don't seem to understand that.
Neither of you are right.

It is a pre-trial hearing.

If one is found in compliance with the SYG law the case is dismissed.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#4257 Feb 1, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>It became a SYG case because he was charged.
Had the same evidence not have been politically motivated the state would have said he was defending himself but because he was charged any good lawyer would request a SYG hearing to have time in front of the court to prove he had a right to defend himself based on the SYG law and have the case dismissed with prejudice.
Perhaps, but lawyers know the law, and I'm sure they do not want to pursue SYG for a reason. Who knows why? Perhaps they feel that if defeated, it will be fodder for the prosecution. Maybe they will ask for a SYG hearing just before trial to further delay it.

Last year, I was involved in a traffic accident which was my fault. I took some advice from a friend of mine that works in the court system. He's no lawyer or anything like that, but he told me to plea not guilty, so I did. When I got my court date, he told me to talk to the prosecutor and tell her that I changed my mind. I would be willing to plea no contest if the accident was not on record for my insurance company and I get no points on my license.

It worked just fine. I paid court costs, and that's about it. But more importantly as my friend told me, the other party could not sue me for further damages if they got a hold of some ambulance chaser.

When it comes to US justice system, it's nothing but a game. You need to hire lawyers because they know how the game is played.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#4258 Feb 1, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Neither of you are right.
It is a pre-trial hearing.
If one is found in compliance with the SYG law the case is dismissed.
That's pretty much what I said. It's like asking a judge to throw a case out of court (for whatever reason) before the real trial begins. The prosecution is not charging Zim with not being in compliance with SYG law. There is no charge here so there's no reason to defend yourself.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#4259 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>REALLY? Congress can redistrict?!?!?!
I must have missed that one! Please show me that "right" you claim they have.
As for voter ID, it's not something democrats "resist," It was a ploy to keep people from voting. It won't be a issue the next go 'round because the courts have made it clear. You're problem is (as is typical by comic cons) you need to "assign" that to make your case.
As for race, you people keep bringing it up over and over while complaining about others.
amazing....
We are? What is the argument Democrats give for not wanting Voter-ID? Race. Look it up!

Yes, Congress has the right to redistrict. That's the way we got rid of Kookcinich here in Cleveland. They just redistricted him out. He was going to move to another state and run, but he gave that up and took a job with Fox News instead.

The courts ruled that Voter-ID is not allowed in states where it causes financial distress to vote. That's really about it. As long as it doesn't infringe on anybody's right to vote, Voter-ID is allowed and is used by states already. But if voter-ID restricts voters, wouldn't that be voters from the Democrat and Republican side? If so, then why is it only Democrats are fighting it?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4260 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Sure you have, son. The prosecution needs to go to court and prove THEIR case beyond a reasonable doubt. They have the dead body...
They have the weapon...
They have the confession...
Now it's up to the defense to show it was justified. But if you believe all the defense has to do is show up, then fine. I won't argue with you. I'm sure the prosecutor will argue they don't want to have the verdict overturned due to incompetent defense.
BTW, the only one "...insisting that Zimmerman is this malicious murderer who killed this killed in cold blood..." is you. Again, you need to assign my position in order to make your case.
You keep skipping right past the FACT I've already said I want justice to take over. Why can't you actually quote that fact for a change? At least it would be accurate.
You truly are dumber than a bag of hammers. First you say the DEFENSE must prove their case BRD, then you turn around in the next post and say the exact opposite WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. Do you have any actual original thoughts in your head?? And I have NEVER said that Zimmerman killed this kid in cold blood BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SUPPORT IT.

So since you have proven yourself to be nothing more than a troll who is here to talk bullshit, why don't you run along and play with the dog, and let the grownups talk for awhile, junior.

I swear, sometimes I wonder why I even bother trying to have an actual debate with simpletons such as yourself.{rolls eyes}

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4261 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Sure you have, son. The prosecution needs to go to court and prove THEIR case beyond a reasonable doubt. They have the dead body...
They have the weapon...
They have the confession...
Now it's up to the defense to show it was justified. But if you believe all the defense has to do is show up, then fine. I won't argue with you. I'm sure the prosecutor will argue they don't want to have the verdict overturned due to incompetent defense.
BTW, the only one "...insisting that Zimmerman is this malicious murderer who killed this killed in cold blood..." is you. Again, you need to assign my position in order to make your case.
You keep skipping right past the FACT I've already said I want justice to take over. Why can't you actually quote that fact for a change? At least it would be accurate.
And they may have a weapon and a body, but the prosecution does NOT have a murder confession. They have a confession to a self-defense shooting which is called JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE, you fcking retard.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Guadalajara, Mexico

#4262 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You're such an idiot son.

And clearly damned proud of it!
You are the one proven to be a moron/liberal/liar over and over

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min No Surprize 1,144,048
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min Nutz 163,183
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Jacques Ottawa 180,917
Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho (Apr '09) 5 hr Swedenforever 204
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 6 hr Swedenforever 54,527
Republican Party shifts on immigration with hig... 6 hr Shinichiro Takizawa 18
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 11 hr IBdaMann 33,282
Obama backer faces sexual abuse charges 22 hr Reverend Alan 111

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE