Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 47891011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 170 to 182 of 248
  1. #170
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    18,205
    Liberals and logic...some things in this world just do not mix well, like tooth paste and orange juice.
    To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right.
    -- Confucius

  2. #171
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Float'N Vally, MS
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post

    Mr. Z will come out the big winner even if he is convicted. He has a law suite against NBC and Al Sharpton that should be (almost) a slam dunk.
    I sure hope you are correct!!!!!!
    Life is too short, Behappy!
    TFMM

  3. #172
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,290
    All law is based upon what a "reasonable and prudent person under similar circumstances and conditions would do". Now, we have laws, rules, standards, regulations, ordinances, and even guidelines that assist a trier of fact (judge) in determining what burden the defendant had based upon the local Standard of Care with respect to the incident in question. It is possible for this to swing either way: a sharp attorney could prove you needed to exceed the normal Standard of Care, such as slowing down in fog, herds of animals crossing a road, mudslides, snow and ice, swarms of locusts, etc. while in other cases, you may be able to prove it was reasonable and prudent to speed up because you had a pregnant women in the back of your car who was going into labor which was an limb presentation and you are in the middle of the desert with no visible traffic for miles.

    I could make a case that an employer would be negligent for not equipping his technicians with a personal CO alarm even though there is no law or standard requiring it presently. He knew the hazard yet he failed to inform his people or equip them with reasonable protection that is not cost prohibitive.

    I run stop signs in Philly in plain view of cops because they don't stop at those intersections either. It's called 'common sense' and averting an incident. When I was a paramedic, we were allowed to violate certain rules of the road only while responding to an emergency with all our emergency flashers and siren activated and ONLY when we could proceed with caution. That meant coming to a complete bobble-head stop at a red light, looking to see everyone had stopped for us, and only then proceed on through the red light with caution. We had to swerve into the opposing lane of traffic to get around everyone who stopped for us never passing on the right because the law instructs everyone else to pull over to the right. If I tried to pass on the right and someone hit me, it would be my fault because they were doing what the law allowed. BTW, those cars are all making "illegal" lane changes as they pull over or partially block one lane.

    The law cannot be precise for every instance of life. Therefore, the yardstick for civilized society if the reasonable and prudent test. You do not have to prove perfection under military or NASA conditions but only what can be reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of life under the conditions of normal use--not under nuclear attack or a hurricane---normal.

  4. #173
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    You have no idea how the system works, do you

    in your scenario above, you have several problems. ONE, the thugs could say YOU shot the officers, after all there is a GROUP of them and only one of you...it would be their word against yours. YOU ARE ALL READY SCREWED. assuming there are no other witnesses, or there are no witnesses that will testify on your behalf. Either way you just opened up a legal can of worms that will probably cost your house to defend. NEXT

    Judges don't convict anyone. Jury's do that, or if you decide you don't want a jury, then you will get a "bench trial" then the judge will act as the jury and make a decision as to guilt or innocence.

    SECOND it will be up to a District Attorney to decide whether to bring charges against you. You maybe arrested, then released or remanded to jail for further prosecution

    However, lets assume you were arrested and charged with stealing the thugs car and using the LEO's firearm, both of which are illegal. A jury has the right to use something called "Jury Nullification". This is a case where you are charged with a crime, you obviously (or not) broke the law, but a Jury deems your actions where necessary to save the officers (or any citizens) life.

    there is a couple more problems. A judge CAN decide that, even though a jury found you innocent and "set the charges aside" HE CAN "vacate the decision" and still convict you of a crime. (almost never happens, but a Judge has that option) Another issue is that most Judges do NOT instruct a jury in the Rule of Law concerning Jury Nullification. So most Juries have no idea they have that option.

    You really should go talk to an Attorney or if your really boarded some day, go sit in on a trial.
    I don't see a problem with any of the scenarios you pointed out. They are all bogus assumptions. You are just spouting a bunch of legal procedures that would not apply to this situation 99% of the time. In other words I am not impressed with your legal knowledge as it applies to this situation.

    I highlighted the only statement that applies IMO.

  5. #174
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    I don't see a problem with any of the scenarios you pointed out. They are all bogus assumptions. You are just spouting a bunch of legal procedures that would not apply to this situation 99% of the time. In other words I am not impressed with your legal knowledge as it applies to this situation.

    I highlighted the only statement that applies IMO.
    So...where did you get your law degree?
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

  6. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    18,205
    Quote Originally Posted by ControlsInMT View Post
    So...where did you get your law degree?
    A cereal box.
    To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right.
    -- Confucius

  7. #176
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by hearthman View Post
    All law is based upon what a "reasonable and prudent person under similar circumstances and conditions would do". Now, we have laws, rules, standards, regulations, ordinances, and even guidelines that assist a trier of fact (judge) in determining what burden the defendant had based upon the local Standard of Care with respect to the incident in question. It is possible for this to swing either way: a sharp attorney could prove you needed to exceed the normal Standard of Care, such as slowing down in fog, herds of animals crossing a road, mudslides, snow and ice, swarms of locusts, etc. while in other cases, you may be able to prove it was reasonable and prudent to speed up because you had a pregnant women in the back of your car who was going into labor which was an limb presentation and you are in the middle of the desert with no visible traffic for miles.

    I could make a case that an employer would be negligent for not equipping his technicians with a personal CO alarm even though there is no law or standard requiring it presently. He knew the hazard yet he failed to inform his people or equip them with reasonable protection that is not cost prohibitive.

    I run stop signs in Philly in plain view of cops because they don't stop at those intersections either. It's called 'common sense' and averting an incident. When I was a paramedic, we were allowed to violate certain rules of the road only while responding to an emergency with all our emergency flashers and siren activated and ONLY when we could proceed with caution. That meant coming to a complete bobble-head stop at a red light, looking to see everyone had stopped for us, and only then proceed on through the red light with caution. We had to swerve into the opposing lane of traffic to get around everyone who stopped for us never passing on the right because the law instructs everyone else to pull over to the right. If I tried to pass on the right and someone hit me, it would be my fault because they were doing what the law allowed. BTW, those cars are all making "illegal" lane changes as they pull over or partially block one lane.

    The law cannot be precise for every instance of life. Therefore, the yardstick for civilized society if the reasonable and prudent test. You do not have to prove perfection under military or NASA conditions but only what can be reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of life under the conditions of normal use--not under nuclear attack or a hurricane---normal.
    Well said! It seems you have given several instances when “reasonability supercedes law.” Now let’s see if the hyenas jump on you like they do me. But we all know what five hyenas do when they come across one lion…they run.

  8. #177
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,942
    Quote Originally Posted by hearthman View Post
    All law is based upon what a "reasonable and prudent person under similar circumstances and conditions would do". Now, we have laws, rules, standards, regulations, ordinances, and even guidelines that assist a trier of fact (judge) in determining what burden the defendant had based upon the local Standard of Care with respect to the incident in question. It is possible for this to swing either way: a sharp attorney could prove you needed to exceed the normal Standard of Care, such as slowing down in fog, herds of animals crossing a road, mudslides, snow and ice, swarms of locusts, etc. while in other cases, you may be able to prove it was reasonable and prudent to speed up because you had a pregnant women in the back of your car who was going into labor which was an limb presentation and you are in the middle of the desert with no visible traffic for miles.

    I could make a case that an employer would be negligent for not equipping his technicians with a personal CO alarm even though there is no law or standard requiring it presently. He knew the hazard yet he failed to inform his people or equip them with reasonable protection that is not cost prohibitive.

    I run stop signs in Philly in plain view of cops because they don't stop at those intersections either. It's called 'common sense' and averting an incident. When I was a paramedic, we were allowed to violate certain rules of the road only while responding to an emergency with all our emergency flashers and siren activated and ONLY when we could proceed with caution. That meant coming to a complete bobble-head stop at a red light, looking to see everyone had stopped for us, and only then proceed on through the red light with caution. We had to swerve into the opposing lane of traffic to get around everyone who stopped for us never passing on the right because the law instructs everyone else to pull over to the right. If I tried to pass on the right and someone hit me, it would be my fault because they were doing what the law allowed. BTW, those cars are all making "illegal" lane changes as they pull over or partially block one lane.

    The law cannot be precise for every instance of life. Therefore, the yardstick for civilized society if the reasonable and prudent test. You do not have to prove perfection under military or NASA conditions but only what can be reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of life under the conditions of normal use--not under nuclear attack or a hurricane---normal.
    No one can argue with your general premise hearthman but I will differ with you if you think this applies to Brian's contention that the law apparently is all about what is reasonable or unreasonable. You must be blessed by the way living in an area where they won't give you a ticket for running a stop sign. That is completely unheard of wherever I've been.

    Other than a special case like racing to a hospital with a gravely injured person there are no reasonable or unreasonable issues that I am aware of that trumps the law as far as a police officer is concern when enforcing the law. He may decide to cut you some slack if he feels like you deserve one but this "thing" about trumping the law is hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

    I hope you don't feel like Brian's apparent contention in the Zimmerman case about what should be considered in lieu of the lack of evidence and hang Zimmerman because we "know" what happened and what Zimmerman was thinking. That is the liberal point of view. Rather a person is innocent or guilty depends not only on the actual facts here but the social aspects of the incident and how you feel about the dependent including his race, sex and religion.

    That IMHO is what I gathered from Brian's whole view on this situation. IMHO Brian "knows" Zimmerman confronted Martin, what Zimmerman was thinking and did and it was all Zimmerman's fault regardless of the lack of evidence so far showing that. This is what this country is going towards with the PC agenda being shoved down our throats. Just want to get this off my chest. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  9. #178
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by corny View Post
    You can find the full text of the stand your ground law on the net. I thought I had a link but it may be on my work computer and Im not going to lug it out just for a link.... Trust me... google search... stand your ground law text.... and you can find it.

    Anyhow... while I believe zimmerman will get off because of the scary black man syndrome america suffers..... reading the text of the law I dont think stand your ground will hold up because of his pursuit of martin

    Here... I looked up the link again...... cause I know many of you are too lazy to look up the link yourself...and a few of the folks on here probably cant use a search engine.

    Going askew for a moment.

    Im serious about some folks not being able to use a search engine. I know guys at work who want manuals or info on something on the net and they say they cant find it.....and I go on the net and within 2 minutes or less I have the information they need plus a boatload more....... its either laziness or stupidity.

    Back on topic....

    Anyhow... I looked up the link..... was going to try and find another one because of the name of this law firm where the statute text is at..... Hussein and Webber...... everyone will claim the text is fake because of the Hussein...

    Buffoons.........lol

    "Thats an Obama website"......lol
    I'm just curious to know, do you personally want Zimmerman to walk, or would you like to see him get some time? If you want him to get time, how much?

  10. #179
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,942
    Quote Originally Posted by exreo View Post
    I'm just curious to know, do you personally want Zimmerman to walk, or would you like to see him get some time? If you want him to get time, how much?
    Hey you know the answer to that exreo. Corny wants everybody to do some time except for himself and if you have ever crossed him then he wants you burned at the stake and then hung. LOL. Thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  11. #180
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Hey you know the answer to that exreo. Corny wants everybody to do some time except for himself and if you have ever crossed him then he wants you burned at the stake and then hung. LOL. Thank you very much
    So far my experience on this board has been a little different. On the college sports boards I posted on, the liberals there were vicious and mocking and attacking. They were just plain nasty people. I haven't found that as much on this board, but I guess it's just because this board has a lot more conservatives on it. The liberals on the liberal college sports boards always have their liberal moderator friends to throw me off the board.

  12. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    This is exactly what I have been saying. A judge or jury can apply or not apply a law as they see fit. Just because someone broke a law doesn’t mean they will be found guilty of it. Furthermore, language about common sense and reasonability does not have to be written in the letter of the law for a judge or jury to acquit someone who obviously broke that law.

    An extreme example; A cop is shot by a group of thugs that hate cops. He is critically injured, bleeding profusely and will die if not rushed to the hospital. You come upon him and the thugs will not give you their car so you can save his life. Legally they are not required to either. They say to call an ambulance. So you draw the policeman’s pistol and steal/borrow their car at gunpoint to rush the officer to the hospital. Do you think there is a judge or jury that would convict you on grand theft auto with a use of a firearm special circumstances charge?

    My point is that all laws can and are enforced or dismissed due to the circumstances that surround the event. Call it reasonability, common sense, prudence, being a hero, a concerned citizen or no ill intent.

    Whether calling it “reasonability trumps law” is not wording it correctly is a matter of opinion. That is the way I see the above example.
    Now if it was just a citizen rather than a cop... then you probably WOULD be charged with auto theft by firearm... Kinda a double standard.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  13. #182
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,290
    The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman acted with malice to the extent murder 2 is defined in Fla. If the State had also charged him with manslaughter, that would have been much easier to prove. Did the DA get greedy or was this a deliberate move to help Zim.?

    No Glenn, I was not trying to help anyone with any argument but simply make that point. Ya'll can do with it what you want. Any law, principle or fact can be twisted or misapplied for some untoward purpose. That's why we have courts. I do think the Trayvon advocates here are desperate to prove Zimmerman was hunting Martin or in other words, looking for trouble. However, even if he could be proven to have wandered after Martin that does not give the punk the excuse to assault him, much less threaten to kill Zimmerman. In the absence of witnesses, it will come down to whose version do you believe. I think if the State proves Martin did not stop but was caught by Zimmerman running after him, they have a case for manslaughter. Other than that, it will probably shake out that the kid ambushed Zimmerman and got his reward when he should and could have continued walking/ running home. One or the other went looking for trouble and found it.

    Meanwhile, to drift back a little to the original discussions of this case, I offer an incident that happened in Philly last night: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...cal&id=8918568

    My wife had taken this same train a few hours earlier after spending the afternoon at Macy's so she could check out all the majesty and pomp of a major dept. store at Christmas. So, two weenies are wanted for attempted murder of two people: the one arguing sports and the victim standing behind the first as one bullet passed through into the second victim. These punks think that it is fitting and proper to settle a dispute over basketball by existing a train then firing into it at the person you were arguing with. This kind of animal is what is ruining our cities.
    notice both punks were "in uniform"---wearing what? Yep, hoodies. Say what you want but it is a uniform of the city thug. It denotes a nasty self absorbed attitude about the world. I've never seen anyone wearing one with a smile on their faces. They are always PO'd at the world. The Great Society has bred these rodents and Obama keeps feeding them cheese.

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 47891011121314151617181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event