BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 219340 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.

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

United States

#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

United States

#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

United States

#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

Dublin, 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!!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72260 Apr 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, you are saying there are TWO standards. One for the police and another for everyone else. Do you have any ideas how many murders cops commit? If a police chief or sheriff gets shot to death, he was probably murdered by another cop!!!
Again, we had THREE sheriffs assassinated in just a few months in late 2000 and early 2001 between Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky and everyone was a Democrat murdered by another Democrat cop!!!
This case even hit the New York Times only because it was a BLACK Democrat sheriff who murdered another Black sheriff-elect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/us/ex-sheri...
Buy the way, they did elect a black sheriff to my former home county, Clayton Co. GA, and he cleaned house. The first thing he did was fire 25% of his force, had they disarmed in the office and marched outside!!! I don't care what color a sheriff is so long as he is not corrupt and Clayton Co. was corrupt until he showed up.
Oh wow, I haven't kept up with Clayton Co sheriff since my daughter moved to Henry Co. five years ago. Looks like Victor Hill was just as corrupt as the guy before him.
http://www.ajc.com/news/clayton/former-clayto...
Old Goat

Wichita, KS

#72261 Apr 11, 2012
commenter2001 wrote:
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-...
yep,$2.75!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#72262 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!!!
The next time you go out packing heat, you might first consult with an attorney. You enjoy no presumption under the FL "stand your ground" law while out on the street that your use of deadly force is justified merely because you thought you life may be in danger. You shoot, and the burden of proof is on you. If you are sitting in your living room and you are confronted by an intruder, that is an entirely different situation.

Learn the law before going off half-cocked.
Grand Birther

Dublin, OH

#72263 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Wojo, did you read Florida's law? I posted it and it is extremely clear, the State must prove it is NOT self defense. They can not legally cuff him without probable cause!
Did you graduate 8th grade? Or are you so blinded by your bigotry, you just can not see anything you do not agree with?
Dumbass, probable cause is that he admittedly killed a minor.

Do you think they just take a simple statement at the scene and send someone one their merry way?

No.

You kill a minor you get cuffed and go to jail where you have to explain in detail and writing what happened.

Duh.

Are you an adult? That's a serious question.

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) 3 min Notliz 1,403,371
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 14 min Frankendrumpf 232,860
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr See 35,556
News Obama To Sign Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Thur... (Jan '09) 8 hr Nephew of Sotomayor 24
News Kagan confirmed as Supreme Court justice (Aug '10) 8 hr Nephew of Sotomayor 766
News Mitt Romney vacations with family during GOP co... 20 hr Patrick Aei 2
News Race and Beyond: Let's Talk About Race and Poverty (Oct '12) Sat Human 156
More from around the web