BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 207306 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#72240 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>

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.
Duh! "[A]s permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031...."

Now please read the relevant sections and point to where reasonable fear is presumed according to the fact pattern in the Zimmerman case.

Duh!

Please learn to read!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72241 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Within three months in late 2000 and early 2001 we had sheriffs in Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky assassinated. All were Democrats murdered by another officer who was also Democrat!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Dorsey
What the hell. Did you know that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao were all Democrats? Why not?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72242 Apr 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
He WAS taken to the STATION and QUESTIONED.....
THEN LET GO....
BECAUSE "EVIDENCE" supported "his" CLAIM.........
OF "self defense!"
"his" CLAIM. Er, the other guy couldn't dispute it, he was dead.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72243 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.
Ah, but while is Israelis target military targets.\, and sometimes kill innocent people, while the Muslims deliberately attack civilians over and over and over again!!!
Oh, do you know terrorists are civilians? Soooo using Libtardian Logic, we should not target terrorists!!!
Again, I do not care how many Mulsims are killed but I do prefer that it is the Muslims who are killing the other Muslims.
There are more or less 100 armed conflicts on this Earth and only two or three do not involve Muslims. Do you know why?
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72244 Apr 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
He WAS taken to the STATION and QUESTIONED.....
THEN LET GO....
BECAUSE "EVIDENCE" supported "his" CLAIM.........
OF "self defense!"
I suggest you explain it to the Lifer....he doesn't seem to understand.

BTW...the police wanted to charge him, but the DA decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.....just to keep things truthful.....

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#72245 Apr 11, 2012
Barry Bin Lyin wrote:
<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?
Again, Barry Birfoon, reasonabley believes is not "believes".

The law provides certain circumstances where reasonable belief is presumed. The fact pattern in the Zimmerman case does not provide for the presumption. Hence the burden of proof in establishing that his belief was reasonable rests on Zimmerman if he wishes to invoke immunity under the FL "stand your ground" law.

Why is that so difficult for Skidmark to comprehend?

Clue, Zimmerman was not in his home, car, boat, etc.

He does not enjoy the presumption that his belief was reasonable.

Read the pertinent part where it says "in any other place".

Duh!
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.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72246 Apr 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Z...
FROM the City of Sanford Florida!
The CITY "where" THIS happened!
Looks like thing might be changing....

Angela Corey, the special prosecutor investigating the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, is scheduled to hold a 6 p.m. EDT press conference in Jacksonville, Fla., on Wednesday, where she is expected to charge George Zimmerman in the 17-year-old's killing.

It's not clear what the specific criminal charges will be. Corey's office confirmed the press conference but did not elaborate on the details.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72247 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
"his" CLAIM. Er, the other guy couldn't dispute it, he was dead.
Evidence of a GASHED head
EYEwitness Testimony of "John" saying Z was on bottom

776.08&#8195;Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/77...

Florida Statute 776.013 states that a person defending their home or occupied vehicle from an "unlawful" forceful entry or attempted forceful entry by another may use deadly force to stop the invasion or attempted invasion of the property. In such instances they need not retreat before using deadly force, they need not warn the intruder of their intent to shoot, and there is an absolute presumption that the person attempting the entry was doing so with the intent to commit a violent act (i.e. "forcible felony"), and that the defender is presumed to be acting in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. In other words – no arrest or prosecution is technically "legal" if someone without a right of entry or ownership is trying to break in, and you shoot them.

In theory – the police and prosecution cannot try to show your fear was unreasonable, or that the intent of the assailant was not to do you or a family member severe injury.

Of course, there are some limitations to this statute. The statute states that in order to take advantage of its protections you can’t be engaged in unlawful activity when the incident occurs, the defender must be aware that someone has broken into the house or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to do so, and the person entering the home or occupied vehicle does not have a right or invitation to do so.


If you do use a firearm or other deadly weapon – the law gets complicated,

and you may not be acting legally
"unless" you are trying to stop a forcible felony.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/Analysis-Fl...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72248 Apr 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
He WAS taken to the STATION and QUESTIONED.....
THEN LET GO....
BECAUSE "EVIDENCE" supported "his" CLAIM.........
OF "self defense!"
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
"his" CLAIM. Er, the other guy couldn't dispute it, he was dead.
Ah, but there was at least one witness who said it was self defense and not one witness who said it was not. The STATE must prove it was NOT self defense. I have posted the actual law. Is it that you can not comprehend what you read or is it that you as so blinded by your bigotry?
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72249 Apr 11, 2012
BTW...the police wanted to charge him, but the DA decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.....just to keep things truthful.....

The DA "is" more SKILLED in Legal Matters.....
He let Z go, because EVIDENCE "supported" Z's claim!

IF they charge him......
IT will be "malicious prosecution".....

BECAUSE of PRESSURE from the IDIOTS who can't UNDERSTAND LAW!

And don't TRY TO!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#72250 Apr 11, 2012
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Looks like you RW nutjobs are WRONG again!

"Official: Charges coming in Trayvon Martin death"

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/10/4404315/fla-...

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#72251 Apr 11, 2012
Oh, and you birther LOSERS LOST AGAIN!

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88910250-Purpur...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72252 Apr 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
BTW...the police wanted to charge him, but the DA decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.....just to keep things truthful.....
The DA "is" more SKILLED in Legal Matters.....
He let Z go, because EVIDENCE "supported" Z's claim!
IF they charge him......
IT will be "malicious prosecution".....
BECAUSE of PRESSURE from the IDIOTS who can't UNDERSTAND LAW!
And don't TRY TO!
The DA decided not to charge Zimmerman, not because the evidence supported his claim, but rather because there was not sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction....Try the truth for once!!!!

When police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self-defense because Martin had attacked him. According to police, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and had a wound on the back of his head. Responding officers handcuffed Zimmerman, took him into custody, and transported him to the Sanford Police Department where he was questioned by investigators. Zimmerman was eventually released without being charged because police said they did not find evidence to contradict his assertion of self-defense. The lead homicide investigator reportedly said he did not believe it was self-defense and he wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but the state attorney's office said there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72253 Apr 11, 2012
BTW...the police wanted to charge him, but the DA decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.....just to keep things truthful.....said "YAlowNESS"
----------

The DA "is" more SKILLED in Legal Matters.....
He let Z go, because EVIDENCE "supported" Z's claim!

IF they charge him......
IT will be "malicious prosecution".....

BECAUSE of PRESSURE from the IDIOTS who can't UNDERSTAND LAW!

And don't TRY TO!

The IDIOTS who don't understand LAW
SHOULD keep their mouth's SHUT....

On such a SERIOUS matter......

WE, the USofA is supposed to be...
a CIVILIZED Nation........

I do NOT see many ACTING "civil" on here!

More like a FEEDING Frenzy of piranhas!!!!!!


BUT they are NOT
SMART ENUF
to "realize"
THEY don't "understand" iT!!!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#72254 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???
Honest?

Rouge wishes to ponder a frivolous question.

At the very least, it would be idiotic public policy. Do you want an effective police force? Is it not in the public interest to have an effective police force and to recognize the specific needs of law enforcement?

BTW, the laws in most jurisdictions require that police use of deadly force should be justified.

Grow up! Florida isn't the Wild West.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72255 Apr 11, 2012
Cornelius Scudmister wrote:
Just to be clear.
You arrest someone on probable cause, not if there is enough evidence for a conviction. This is to allow you to gather evidence for a "conviction".
If we ONLY arrested just when there was enough evidence for a "conviction", people would never be found innocent, cases would never be dismissed or charges would never be dropped.
----------

YOU "DON'T" ARREST anyone.....
WHEN there is NO evidence
to SUPPORT an arrest.......

.....BUT evidence enuf to LET SOMEONE GO!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#72256 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???
Why weren't police treated the same as private citizens under that "libtard" Giuliani?

Grow up!
Grand Birther

Columbus, OH

#72257 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of this Zimmerman-Martin thing I don't understand, wojar, and perhaps you can explain it to me.
It seems to me that yes or no, Zimmerman may or may not be justified in killing Martin. Whether it was justified or not, it seems like a most regrettable dénouement. It's sad that Martin was shot dead, right or wrong. I'm now coming to the part that I don't understand, and it's this : The dumb KY GB, Rogue, lardy Rush, uncouth Marcus, American er hmm Lady et al, are not only defending Zimmerman without knowing what really happened, they are eulogising him, patting him on the back, way to go, guy's a true American hero.
There you have it. Can you help me understand?
They all hope to get to legally shoot someone some day, especially a scary scary black person in a hooded sweatshirt.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#72258 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???
There is a big difference between a police officer shooting someone and a private citizen shooting someone.

They know that a police officer will follow the orders of his or her superiors and let things be sorted out on the shooting

They can't say the same of a private citizen who could run if they feel they would be put in jail for what they did.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72259 Apr 11, 2012
Incest Mom wrote:
BTW...the police wanted to charge him, but the DA decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.....just to keep things truthful.....said "YAlowNESS"
----------
The DA "is" more SKILLED in Legal Matters.....
He let Z go, because EVIDENCE "supported" Z's claim!
IF they charge him......
IT will be "malicious prosecution".....
BECAUSE of PRESSURE from the IDIOTS who can't UNDERSTAND LAW!
And don't TRY TO!
The IDIOTS who don't understand LAW
SHOULD keep their mouth's SHUT....
On such a SERIOUS matter......
WE, the USofA is supposed to be...
a CIVILIZED Nation........
I do NOT see many ACTING "civil" on here!
More like a FEEDING Frenzy of piranhas!!!!!!
BUT they are NOT
SMART ENUF
to "realize"
THEY don't "understand" iT!!!!!
You're the dumbshit who cannot understand the truth and continually twist and distort the facts. Go get a brain!!!!

The facts are that the DA decided not to charge because there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction. Prove me wrong....boy, you incest types are so very, very stupid!!!!

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min RealDave 1,345,592
News Fireworks fly in face-to-face Democratic presid... 3 hr Responsibility 17
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 hr Ari son of Anarchy 213,436
News Trump: 'I'm going all the way' 7 hr Patriot 281
News Not even Rubio can ignore Trump, GOP anger 7 hr Asp 158
News Expectations low as Obama, Ryan meet at last 22 hr spud 42
News Rand Paul to end presidential bid Thu Sheri 1
More from around the web