100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
With all the cell phones and such... It is inevitable that someone recorded this incident by its image and not simply by voice. If so it will pop up... Even if someone is trying to supress it... these neighbors sound pretty scary and it was dark and raining, Im not sure if they got anyone brave enough to be within distance to get a cell phone video worth much but there is now supposedly a tape the DOJ has of a call from Martin himself that night which 'may have' Zimmermans voice in the background and is being digitally enhances of some such to verify what is going on ,,,,,, The same justice department that is headed by a racist, partisan hack and mouth piece for Obama.  I am sure the evidence will be so accurate.
well, gee, I dont know,, but wouldnt evidence be being turned over from the police that you so confidently put your faith in? but I guess the head of doj would be suspect more/less than the head of a police department who has equally SUSPICIOUS claims made against him in the past I am equally 'sure' his handling was going to be accurate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. That is wrong too. Police have authority to do many things that citizens do not. IF an officer stops or approaches you, it is clear they are an officer and their authority and weapon status and legitimacy are a given. Their position puts them in a unique position where threat is a regular and a constant so they can , unfortunately, usually pull the fear of physical threat card even if they THOUGHT an unarmed perosn was armed. A citizen approaching you, however, with a gun does not have any clear authority or assumed legitimate reason for having a gun and would be not within their right to shoot another citizen because they dont have the same level of authority to confront a citizen with a weapon on their person. But this man is not a police officer. Had not identifying marks or badge that someone would think he was a police officer with that authority. Trying the case in the media is how all high profile cases are tried, thats a fact of life. IN this case, I think bringing it the attention that it would otherwise not have been given is just and morally conscious and not wrong at all. THere is no evidence of race being involved, except possible racial slurs. But racism is not the crime. The potential crime that needs to be investigated is whether this man HUNTED , CONFRONTED, and then SHOT this young man who was breaking no laws and had no weapon. Race may play a part in why the man saw him as so 'suspicious' though, but thats not something anyone could prove. The boys age is at issue because he was unarmed and being followed by a grown man with a GUN. 17 year olds in most other cases arent repeatedly called 'men'. Juniors in high school arent yet 'men' or 'women'. Men hold jobs and can legally have weapons. This was a boy in school , volunteering four days a week, with no weapon, visiting family friends. When young men have to fear being hunted down , its an issue. A classic case of you deciding what is right with no knowledge of what actually happened. ITs a case of me having an opinion about how it was HANDLED and the attention it deserves and the opportunity for the family to GAIN knowledge of what happened ,,,even if it takes pressure from the national community to do so,,, You only know what you have heard on the mass media. You weren't there and know nothing about how it was handled. And "men" are often in the military, 17 years old and carry weapons, so your statements about what are "men" and who are boys and, again, just your opinion which conflicts with the facts. that assumes that being in the military is the same as being a man,, which is not at all true, but thats a whole other debate we send children to war, that is pretty well recognized , it still doesnt prove they arent still children but thats irrelevant here because THIS 'man' was not a militant with a weapon, he was a high school junior and volunteer with candy and a drink... and my opinion doesnt conflict with 'facts' at all as few 'facts' have been revealed besides a short summary on a police report and the testimony of witnesses who dont even seem to give the same account (probably because they were witnessing the ordeal at different moments) and also some background on the two involved the boy , a high school football player and volunteer with no criminal background or known violent tendencies or episodes, and a past hero who risked death to save his dad from a fire the man, a married , working man, who spent alot of time looking out for 'suspicious' people and had a past assault against someone else,,,(later dropped, but serious enough to consider given these circumstances), who was 'fed up' according to a friend and who implied as much to the dispatcher when he stated the 'aholes' always get away, and something was 'wrong' with the dude A day in court for that young man is all I want to see.... No violent history and he just happens to start a fight with someone the night he gets shot? 
if you have information about violence in his past, please present it otherwise he has no known history of violence or even trouble with the law,, unlike the shooter,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. That is wrong too. Police have authority to do many things that citizens do not. IF an officer stops or approaches you, it is clear they are an officer and their authority and weapon status and legitimacy are a given. Their position puts them in a unique position where threat is a regular and a constant so they can , unfortunately, usually pull the fear of physical threat card even if they THOUGHT an unarmed perosn was armed. A citizen approaching you, however, with a gun does not have any clear authority or assumed legitimate reason for having a gun and would be not within their right to shoot another citizen because they dont have the same level of authority to confront a citizen with a weapon on their person. But this man is not a police officer. Had not identifying marks or badge that someone would think he was a police officer with that authority. Trying the case in the media is how all high profile cases are tried, thats a fact of life. IN this case, I think bringing it the attention that it would otherwise not have been given is just and morally conscious and not wrong at all. THere is no evidence of race being involved, except possible racial slurs. But racism is not the crime. The potential crime that needs to be investigated is whether this man HUNTED , CONFRONTED, and then SHOT this young man who was breaking no laws and had no weapon. Race may play a part in why the man saw him as so 'suspicious' though, but thats not something anyone could prove. The boys age is at issue because he was unarmed and being followed by a grown man with a GUN. 17 year olds in most other cases arent repeatedly called 'men'. Juniors in high school arent yet 'men' or 'women'. Men hold jobs and can legally have weapons. This was a boy in school , volunteering four days a week, with no weapon, visiting family friends. When young men have to fear being hunted down , its an issue. The hell they don't. Have you not heard of something called a Citizens Arrest or a Good Samaritan Law? I guarantee that if I saw a crime being committed and there was not law enforcement around I would do whatever I could to try and stop the suspect until they got there. I have heard it. The good samaritan applies to situations where AIDE is being given to someone else. This doesnt apply here. A Citizens Arrest In a citizens arrest a crime has to have ACTUALLY occurred or the citizen is legally liable. As in this case.... Do we know for a fact that a crime wasn't committed? Are you privy to parts of the investigation that the rest of the country and media isn't? if so do fill us in. Also if the person was acting in good faith they wont be held liable, even if they made a mistake. I imagine since he was only found with skittles and a drink, he hadnt stolen anything so yeah, I pretty much can guarantee he had not committed a crime that night that he was pursued yes, good faith, without a crime, makes you legally liable for the consequences.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
oh yeah
the defense attorney is saying this isnt a stand your ground case because the law is mostly used in relation to people inside your HOME or on private property the defense is merely going to be 'self defense' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
With all the cell phones and such... It is inevitable that someone recorded this incident by its image and not simply by voice. If so it will pop up... Even if someone is trying to supress it... these neighbors sound pretty scary and it was dark and raining, Im not sure if they got anyone brave enough to be within distance to get a cell phone video worth much but there is now supposedly a tape the DOJ has of a call from Martin himself that night which 'may have' Zimmermans voice in the background and is being digitally enhances of some such to verify what is going on ,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and for your viewing pleasure,,,(Check out all the dates in this one,, some go back to 1940)
section 301 of title 3, United States Code http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/3/4/301/notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.)
This is the full text of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. Last updated date is September amended in september 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Obama douche just keeps getting worse! Obama raises eyebrows with executive order revising authority to nationalize resources for defense. I think he should have left it alone or repealed the old one, but he is our King! President Obama's signature on an executive order that updates presidential authority to take control over national defense resources in time of emergency has legal minds arguing over whether the White House is trying to expand power or merely organize rules 18 years in the making. The executive order, signed late Friday, revokes an earlier order put in place by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and says any other previously issued orders or rulings by previous presidents shall remain in effect unless they are inconsistent with the new order. The purpose of the order, according to its contents, is to make sure the U.S. is prepared to mobilize technological and industrial resources "capable of meeting national defense requirements" and ensure "technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency." It orders Cabinet agencies to determine military and civilian staffing and evaluate access to resources like suppliers, materials, skilled labor and professional and technical personnel. It also is intended to ensure the U.S. government is prepared "in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States." The executive order gives the homeland security secretary authority to issue guidance to other department heads to establish and activate a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of experts in the private and public sector -- though not full-time federal employees -- to fill executive positions in the federal government in the event of a national defense emergency. Read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/19/obama-signs-executive-order-revising-authority-to-nationalize-resources-for/#ixzz1pcVBB2XS it goes further than Clinton, , to be intellectually honest "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows" READ DPA of 1950 (thats a year, not a law number,,lol) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
|
Do not waste energy beating on a windowless iron wall... search for a door, with a tenant of reason. Never fill a leaky bucket with water and hope to drink later. Some things are given..... the rest you must learn, even sacrifice, to understand. Good night  
my brother tells me inspiring quotes too thanx, and good night 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
|
Someday the rock will move or be removed. and the light will penetrate the darkness sheeple live in.....when it is too late. no doubt, every empire falls |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
|
I will not negate your right to your personal opinion. I defend it, but when your actions or inactions affect the rights, or lives, of the many, I must stand against it! To not stand against ANY violation of the constitution, or the bill of rights, is by definition, TREASON. TO DEFEND OR SUPPORT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY IT, ACT AGAINST IT OR ATTACK IT, IS THE VERY REASON THEY GIVE FOR THE WARS OF TODAY! "{I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the uniform code of military justice. So help me God." When it is our gov't or those with power to make the law, do so by attacking our constitution and bill of rights, they become a "domestic" enemy, and thereby forfiet the priviledge of office UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, which they are attempting to destroy! again , it is personal perspective of what constitutes 'attacking' the constitution Ok, let's do the same to everyones bibles..... just a little here a little there.... change the 10 commandments to allow adultry, maybe murder, and don't forget the one about covetting..... gotta change that one because other nations have oil and resources that our corporations need.... that one definately has to go! the bible is interpreted many ways by different people too no change needed, when things are translated , written in different contexts originally than the context of the time they are written etc,,, no need to change it for people to interpret what it says differently |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
|
I will not negate your right to your personal opinion. I defend it, but when your actions or inactions affect the rights, or lives, of the many, I must stand against it! To not stand against ANY violation of the constitution, or the bill of rights, is by definition, TREASON. TO DEFEND OR SUPPORT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY IT, ACT AGAINST IT OR ATTACK IT, IS THE VERY REASON THEY GIVE FOR THE WARS OF TODAY! "{I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the uniform code of military justice. So help me God." When it is our gov't or those with power to make the law, do so by attacking our constitution and bill of rights, they become a "domestic" enemy, and thereby forfiet the priviledge of office UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, which they are attempting to destroy! again , it is personal perspective of what constitutes 'attacking' the constitution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/25/12 06:51 PM
|
|
The very THOUGHT of such tolerance of these actions slaps EVERY service person, evry TRUE patriot, in the face for believing their oath to defend the constitution and the rights of the people mean anything! The mere thought is dishonorable and treasonous in my book! that is of course your opinion, which you AND my brother (who would disagree about how intolerable this action is) fought for all of us to have I personally find it odd that someone so passionate about the rights they fought for being a fan of 'thought' policing but in any case, thank you, I will continue to express the opinion that not just you fought for me to be able to express |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
|
Your blessed OweBummer is a train wreck about to happen, the media is the conductor saying everything is OK, but the truth is..... the bridge is out, and we're heading for it at full throttle! I guess thats a perception that cant be proven or disproven, as it has no absolute value of any kind ,,,,did we just slowly pull out of the station one year,,what year was it,, what validates that it was a 'slow' pull what validates that we are NOW, under this SPECIFIC leadership at a 'full throttel? at what point during the train ride was someone obligated to stop the train, and who was that person? why is this person more obligated than those over the past six decades? Yeah, I guess it's ok to assassinate Americans, take away their rights, destroy the constitution.....it all means NOTHING! none of that is relevant to anything I said really,,,, but you have the right to your passions as do every other citizen,, veteran or not,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/25/12 06:34 PM
|
|
Your blessed OweBummer is a train wreck about to happen, the media is the conductor saying everything is OK, but the truth is..... the bridge is out, and we're heading for it at full throttle! I guess thats a perception that cant be proven or disproven, as it has no absolute value of any kind ,,,,did we just slowly pull out of the station one year,,what year was it,, what validates that it was a 'slow' pull what validates that we are NOW, under this SPECIFIC leadership at a 'full throttel? at what point during the train ride was someone obligated to stop the train, and who was that person? why is this person more obligated than those over the past six decades? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
|
Because gov't has never been so corrupt as it is now! Everything has come out of the closet since journalism became propaganda. Now they just say "we don't care" on TV and the people go "duh.....ok" We're phucked unless people start giving a shite about their rights! The gov't is supposed to serve the people, NOT the reverse! people can care without panicking and picking scapegoats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
are you a procrastinator ?
|
|
Have you ever faced or currently facing the problem of procrastination? How did you overcome it or trying to overcome it ? I generally procrastinate if I dont consider something a priority. If its something I know will HAVE to be done, like something with plumbing or a repair, I try to get it done and overwith. If it has to do with calling someone, IM the worst, they are likely to never get the call,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dynamics of being silent?
|
|
I think the concept of the "silent treatment" is just ridiculous past the age of pubes.....and usually want to talk it out...TO A FAULT. I have been wrong on several occasions. Guys don't know WHAT to say? Girls are pissed but have the maturity to chill and just don't want to talk? Just one scenario I guess. I dunno. When, in disagreement, should we talk it out or just take an adult time out? time out does not mandate an indefinite silence I think people should always talk things through, but that they should time those conversations so that it doesnt happen in the moment that they are feeling the hurt or pain or whatever calming down and THEN talking it out,, is what I think is best |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/25/12 06:07 PM
|
Honestly MsH...... you see no nothing fearful in the actions he's been taking? Really? He can destroy our constitution, take away our rights, remove our liberties, even assassinate us.... and you can say it's all ok because it only affects terrorists?
A law is a law once it is on the books, the definition of that law, as most, are subject to interpretation of the user.... enforcement personnel..... the possibility of abusive consequence is unquestionable! THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN AND PROVEN MANY TIMES! How can you dare laugh at the implications of them and say/think it's ok? plenty before him COULD HAVE also it wouldnt just affect terrorists, it would affect the world his own children would have to live in, something he seems to take pretty seriously Im laughing at the constant 'worst case scenario' tactics used by media to try to reinforce political campaigns,,,, and the way they are worded to suggest it is actually the intent of the president,,,, cite me five random laws or executive orders, and I can pick out a worst case possibility to,, the probability however is another story The ignorance is believing it will not be abused or misused! This is NOT the belief, the American constitution I fought to defend! It is being degraded by individuals to passive, uncaring, to give a shite! So what if another right is stolen, another freedom is taken..... when people must die to reclaim them for you, I hope you are thankful, and don't treat them as people did us Viet Nam Vets.....which is happening, and probably why we vets see it clearer than the general populas! the patriot card need not be used I have a brother who was and still IS actively engaged in 'protecting' the rights of this country , a fairly bright man, who doesnt seem to be feeling this same paranoia either so its not about whether someone was or is in the service, its a matter of personal perspective and opinion mine is that its nothing singularly unique or dangerous, yours is that it is,,,, and so goes the mingle threads ,,everday,,, 
So shite on the constitution and rights to freedom that MOST vets fought to defend because you know or are related to someone who served..... that makes it ok, and if I AS A VETERAN say differently, my point is invalid because you know better? ANY DEBASEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY IS IN VIOLATION OF MY BELIEF AND WHAT I OFFERED MY LIFE TO DEFEND! But because you don't care about anothers sacrifice to a belief, it's simply business as usual..... and ok... Sorry, I'll fight to get them back for you when you lose them. After all, I'm only a useless former Marine with one opinion that NO right should be violated, not even yours! my point is, my brothers opinion is no less valid than yours since you are both 'vets' and my brothers opinion is in line with mine, which means mine is no less valid either what you are fighting to get 'back' is something we havent had since 1950 when such precautionary laws were first IMPLEMENTED but if takes 62 years to feel panicked about it,, to each their own six decades seems pretty solid time for me not to sense an urgency that its likely to be 'misused' not every vet agrees with each other, and it seems mighty devisive to attack the freedom of people to disagree by claiming how empassioned you are BECAUSE you fought for that freedom noone is under obligation to agree with someone because they have served,, thats my point it doesnt make the vets opinion valid nor invalid anymore than it does the non vet and it doesnt mean anything about whether people 'care' about what someone else fought for, because at some point in time, people have fought for and against just about everything and made sacrifices for their personal beliefs |
|
|
|
|
Previous
