BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 197119 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

#72224 Apr 11, 2012
Barry Bin Lyin wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try, for a wor'tard, I mean BUT Florida law justifies use of deadly force IE. poppin' a cap in the thug when you are:
1.Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; IE. getting your head smashed against the concrete for the 3rd time...
2.Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Any questions?
Try not to selectively read the law, comrade.
Awwwww! Bawwy Biwfoon is twying to change what he said!

Bawwy Birwfoon: "Killing is justified if one PERCEIVES life in danger EVEN if in retrospect it may have not actual been..."

Sorry Barry Birfoon. Fess up. You were wrong. 776.013 does not provide Zimmerman with a presumption that his actions were reasonable based purely on subjective perception. To invoke immunity in Florida, Zimmerman must establish by preponderance of evidence that his actions were reasonable.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Skid has a reading comprehension problem.
776.013 does not provide Zimmerman with a presumption that his actions were reasonable based purely on subjective perception. Why doesn't Skidmark actually try reading the statutes?
Clue: Presumption of fear of death pertains to HOME PROTECTION.
Zimmerman was following Martin out in the street.
Duh!
How about reading the right page? Eh Skid?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#72225 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Relevance? Last time I checked a semi-automatic pistol is deadly force. Last time I checked Trayvon Martin is dead.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Wojo is incapable of comprehending what he reads. The Florida law is very clear. It does not require that the assailant has any weapon and does not require that he be physically assaulted. All it requires is that the shooter is in fear of being attacked.
And it is up to the state to prove otherwise.
And it does not matter if Martin died or not. Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force to protect himself against any perceived threat! If the state even charges him without proof he did not act in self defense, the state has committed a crime.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder ...
<quoted text>
Okay, what evidence do you have that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin? I will be waiting!!!
Oh, read the Florida law! The State must prove it was not self defense!
<quoted text>
Cont.
Rouge cuts and pastes wrote:
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]....
Rouge: "Okay, what evidence do you have that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin?"

Sorry Rouge, if Zimmerman wishes to invoke "stand your ground" the burden is on him to show that his actions were justified.

Rouge, didn't notice: "has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder,"

Was Zimmerman in his house or vehicle?

If not his actions must be REASONABLE and he has the burden to show his actions were reasonable. He enjoys no presumption according to the fact pattern of the case.

Learn how to read, Rouge.

BTW, the Blaze article concerned a case where two persons entered Monahan's boat.

Got a reading comprehension problem?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry birfoon, the law doesn't protect the armed assailant, Zimmerman, after the fact of getting his ass kicked. And it does not protect Zimmerman if his alleged fear was not reasonable. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72226 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?
The problem is the Libtards do not understand what "prevent imminent" means. It means you don't have to wait to get your brains bashed in!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72228 Apr 11, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, what 'right' was that?????.....something in Birtherville.
It is standard police procedure to cuff an individual while investigating and also while transporting. Since the police did not have all the facts yet, Zimmerman was detained and cuffed while transported. Get a grip on the real world.....outside of the racist Birtherville......
Ah, did you read the law? NO!!! You can not detain him much less transport him without probable cause. To detain someone while you are investigating the incident is not sufficient.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72229 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???
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike vigilantes, the police are trained on the law and the use of weapons. Why would one expect a private citizen to be treated the same a sworn police officer?????.....well, DUH!!!!....only in Birtherville.
For twenty years I carried an M10 or M109 revolver. Even in "peace time" I was issued 18 rounds, loaded six of them, and told to shoot anyone who violated SURITY rules!!!
When you are on a nuclear site, you shoot first and then ask questions. In 1984 my battalion commander, a Lieutenant Colonel, his CW3 pilot, the Bn SGM where put face down in the ground at Carswell AFB because there dared to land without a flight plan. Yes, they had an in flight emergency but that is not good enough for USAF SPs. You do not drop into a SAC unannounced, period!
Oh, I have had a FB-111 fly underneath me and I was flight only 500 feet above the ground. It will get your attention.
And you still did not explain why they had the right to detain you while they investigated a possible crime. They do not do that to cops, do they?
And if a police chief or sheriff is shot, it is usually an assassination by another cop!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72230 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, did you read the law? NO!!! You can not detain him much less transport him without probable cause. To detain someone while you are investigating the incident is not sufficient.
You are putting the horse before the cart. The police didn't know what they had until they investigated. Standard police procedure is to cuff an individual during transport. The police do this all the time to ensure the safety of everyone involved. You are looking at the incident with the benefit of hindsight.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72231 Apr 11, 2012
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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72232 Apr 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Rouge: "Okay, what evidence do you have that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin?"
Sorry Rouge, if Zimmerman wishes to invoke "stand your ground" the burden is on him to show that his actions were justified.
Rouge, didn't notice: "has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder,"
Was Zimmerman in his house or vehicle?
If not his actions must be REASONABLE and he has the burden to show his actions were reasonable. He enjoys no presumption according to the fact pattern of the case.
Learn how to read, Rouge.
BTW, the Blaze article concerned a case where two persons entered Monahan's boat.
Got a reading comprehension problem?
<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?
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72233 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
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???
<quoted text>
For twenty years I carried an M10 or M109 revolver. Even in "peace time" I was issued 18 rounds, loaded six of them, and told to shoot anyone who violated SURITY rules!!!
When you are on a nuclear site, you shoot first and then ask questions. In 1984 my battalion commander, a Lieutenant Colonel, his CW3 pilot, the Bn SGM where put face down in the ground at Carswell AFB because there dared to land without a flight plan. Yes, they had an in flight emergency but that is not good enough for USAF SPs. You do not drop into a SAC unannounced, period!
Oh, I have had a FB-111 fly underneath me and I was flight only 500 feet above the ground. It will get your attention.
And you still did not explain why they had the right to detain you while they investigated a possible crime. They do not do that to cops, do they?
And if a police chief or sheriff is shot, it is usually an assassination by another cop!!!
So, you are attempting to prove your point while trying to draw a comparison to national security issues? What works and is standard procedure in the area of our national security does not apply to everyday life and our streets.

The police always have the right to detain an individual when a crime is being investigated. You may elect not to answer their questions and request a lawyer. What now???? You don't wnat the police to do their job and protect your life and property????

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#72234 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Cont.
<quoted text>
Nice cut'n'paste.

Now read the part: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Key phrase: "who is attacked in any other place ... if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm"

Where does Rouge see "a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm" "in any other place"?

Please learn to read! Puh-lease!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#72235 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
I think the important point here is that they were all Democrats.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72236 Apr 11, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
You are putting the horse before the cart. The police didn't know what they had until they investigated. Standard police procedure is to cuff an individual during transport. The police do this all the time to ensure the safety of everyone involved. You are looking at the incident with the benefit of hindsight.
He WAS taken to the STATION and QUESTIONED.....
THEN LET GO....

BECAUSE "EVIDENCE" supported "his" CLAIM.........

OF "self defense!"
Old Goat

Wichita, KS

#72237 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhh, well well well, you did fall for it. I used the old birther argument, and you don't like it. Too bad. This is what you losers, you included, have been doing for years now. You come out with WND kind of bs, we ask for proof or reference, and invariably the answer is "if you're so smart, find it yourself". Right back atcha, Goat. And, wear a bib, your drooling is disgusting.
you lied.

Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>a muslim terrorist has greater morals than the combined numbers of the DNC.
Jock-off wrote:
So, Old Goat, you are now allied with Vladimir Putin, Pravda, muslim terrorists and Hugo Chavez. Very patriotic. Congratulations.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72238 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!!!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Iran nukes NY city? What with? No wonder you're so aggressive. You've lost it. Your hate for anything not white and American has become an obsession. Do you know the modern history of Iran? Do you even know about Mossadegh and his successor the Shah and the US's and UK's involvements? Do you know what meddling is? You don't like it when same rules apply to you, now to you?
What did we do to Germany and Japan during WWII and they did not really attack the U.S. mainland, did they?
And it is just a matter of time before Iran has nukes because O'Bumma is unwilling to confront anyone.
Germany, Japan and even the Soviet Union and Red China were/are pragmatic. The people in charge with Iran thinks if they start the war with the Big and Little Satans, the 12 Imam will climb out of the well.
Oh, Imams are decedents of Mohammed and according to the Sunni Muslims when an Imam speaks, he speaks for God!!!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#72239 Apr 11, 2012
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!

“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.....

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 47 min Limbertwig 194,241
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr Incognito4Ever 1,278,293
News Biden to test political waters in Florida as he... 9 hr Sterkfontein Swar... 22
News Minnesota's John Kline Will Not Seek Eighth Term 9 hr Black Annie 2
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 10 hr Into The Night 34,489
News Obama's 2nd term travails: A lame duck before h... (Jul '14) 21 hr Go Blue Forever 85
News Republicans LOVE Comparing Immigrants (and Tour... Sep 1 wild child 1
More from around the web