mnealtx

Red herring. Whether the attack was provoked or not does not excuse the employment of lethal force by Martin, nor condemn the use of lethal force in return by Zimmerman. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Not seeing anything there to contradict it. Don So you agree there's nothing in the law that states you have to exhaust all non-lethal means before employing lethal force and that your statement was simply your opinion and not legally binding? It's a start, at least. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

From a Tampa lawyer's website: Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony. Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony. Not seeing anything in there to support your claim. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

More from NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/currents-ice-loss.html Oops! I already posted that. Where do you think the warmth comes from? The scam 'science' theory that hasn't been able to find that tropical hot spot yet, where Trenberth's 'missing heat' is, or why the temps have been flat for the last 12+ years while CO2 continues to climb? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Depends on the laws of your state, and is a question you need to be asking a lawyer certified to practice law in your state. This and this might help clarify things for you, but you still need to discuss it with a lawyer to make sure you're acting within the bounds of the law should you, God forbid, find yourself in that sort of situation. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Nope. Since the scenario doesn't fall under SYG, his problem is just beginning....starting with arrest for murder or manslaughter or some such. I was pointing out the flaw in his scenario, where he thought you could draw the gun just because you were losing. Admittedly, I could have been more clear. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

The law doesn't allow you to draw the gun simply because you're losing the fight, so your problem is already solved. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Sincerely doubt that's due to any policies that Obama has implemented - got any cites to show that? Even better, hook 'em up to the Obama Defense team. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

How's that match up with the Freddie/Fannie bonuses? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

No, incorrect recall on your part. Funny how that works - everyone is supposed to take the expert's word for things...except yourself. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

you changed "running for your life" to running, I see. So you already acknowledge at least a bit more of a spectrum of choices between run and fire. Feel free to consider it written as 'running for your life' if it gets you to actually contribute something. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

That's because the other 'options' aren't really options at all - they rely on the good graces of the person that is attacking you. which was his point - yet again John put up a post that doesn't allow for any choice. There are certainly more options than begging or running for your life. Really? What other options other than running or having the *legal* ability to use force in your own defense are there? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

That's because the other 'options' aren't really options at all - they rely on the good graces of the person that is attacking you. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

No. There is, however, audio of him telling the 911 operator that he was following him. Whether the gun was in hand or not is irrelevant, who initiated the conflict is clear. Then you also heard him tell the 911 operator that he "didn't know where this kid is", which negates your theory. Hard to initiate a conflict when one of the parties isn't even there, wouldn't you say? All this is immaterial to your attempted point, as following someone is not 'initiating a conflict'. What if the unarmed individual encourages conflict with someone he doesn't know to be armed? He is still the aggressor. Then you agree that, given what we currently know, Martin was the aggressor? And completely justified, if the aggressor escalated to deadly force like smashing the defender's head into a concrete sidewalk. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Maybe Obama's spooling up for another 'kinetic military action'. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Maybe you should "leave that for the defense experts" like you espoused in another thread. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Really? There's video of him chasing Martin down the street, gun in hand? What if the unarmed individual encourages conflict with someone he doesn't know to be armed? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Yes, I know. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Don't be a juvenile dick on top of a hypocritical twat. Nice debate style. He also couldn't prove ANY link, or benefit. Also note that his "proof" was a HuffPo article talking about the money side of the issue. Like your never did with your mention of nepotism, you mean? The point that it's quite feasible to give a benefit to a son as a favour to a father? You refuse to acknowledge it? Amazing. Never said *that*, either. But feel free to provide evidence that UBS hired Perry fils as a sop to his father's ego rather than financial, as alluded to in his HuffPo link. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Helping the son helps the father. It's an indirect link. It's like you think people can't read Helping the son helps the father It's like you think people can't read. "Indirect link" or no, he still made the claim that the father was helped and then couldn't back it up. And you made it sound like you were starting to get it. Oh well. If your point was to support Dekker's ludicrous claim, it's obvious you NEVER 'got it'. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Not sure I agree - the general sense I get from the poll is applicability of various options when in public - sort of hard to "run for your life" inside your own home. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

No. That right there is the point I'm making. Glad you finally acknowledge it.[/repl] Never denied it - just said that there's no evidence of the direct benefit to Perry that was claimed. See, there you go! An actual reason to discount Bertt's assertion instead of the ridiculous line of argument that Perry couldn't possibly give two shits about his son's success. Actually, the ridiculous line of argument was the son's success being the 'benefit' to Perry. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

With a lot of Oklahomans and Texans thinking that the oil companies are Jesus. And a lot of Californians wondering why the lights went out. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Still haven't found that fatal flaw yet, jake? Nepotism is self-dealing for your kin. Had Perry given his son some sort of position in State gov't, that would be nepotism. UBS giving the son a job, while possibly favor-seeking, isn't nepotism. Now, the timeline. Discussions about selling the state lottery started at least as far back as 2006 - some states were apparently earlier than that. Perry's son wasn't hired until 2007. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

no....but I don't think you'll find many saying we're in a booming economy right now either. It was more a reference to his June 2009 data point. We have an extra TRILLION dollar drag on the economy, with nothing to show for it. "Turns out those shovel ready projects weren’t as shovel ready as we expected heh, heh, heh." No wonder the economy is stagnating. It is hard to plan for the future when Obama has already mortgaged it. The HOUSE approves budgets. Interesting, don't you think, that federal spending is higher under the GOP controlled House than it was when Pelosi was speaker? The DEM controlled SENATE hasn't approved a budget in over 1000 days and is working under 'continuing resolutions'. Nice try. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706