rumitoid

Dear Patriots,
Theaters and parks, churches and bars: let the firearm be your guide to a relaxing good time.

The socialist-Nazi-Commie-Muslim Liberals want to infringe upon our 2nd Amendment right with such gun-grabbing laws as registration, background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on clip and weapon size and automatic fire. The Christian Founding Fathers knew this day would come, the "infringement" addition was prophetic of Obama's administration. (Reading the Bible closely, we can see in Revelation clear intimations of black helicopters, FEMA Camps, and Liberal gun-grab tactics.)

Kamouflaged Kids: the new look in child's wear. Let the Marxists send their kids out into this terror-filled world in bright or ordinary clothing as easy prey for Jihadists or the unsavory predators roaming the streets. We will survive with our ultra-caution and practical fear. Islam and Liberals are the clear enemies of the US of A; teaching our children to hate these people from an early age will prepare them for the reality of the world we live in. KK has many programs to equip our youth not just to survive but to strengthen and enhance our patriotic ideals for this country.

As you know, this law below does not go far enough. We know who the enemy really is, the true source of the threat. Including Middle Eastern racial profiling as a reasonable and serious threat assessment (meaning, "shoot first and question afterwards") seems adequately justified.
(The Five Principles of the Law of Self-Defense:
Innocence—Aggressors Need Not Apply

(The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense

(What I expect we will see at trial with regard to the principle of Innocence is the State arguing that Zimmerman engaged in conduct of a nature sufficient to qualify as “aggression”. The defense will respond that nothing Zimmerman did could reasonably qualify as an act of “aggression,” and at the same time that even if he did engage in such conduct he nevertheless “regained his innocence” afterwards.
Imminence—Right NOW!

(The principle of Imminence refers to the notion that you can defend yourself with force only against a threatened danger that is about to happen RIGHT NOW. You can’t use force to prevent a danger that may arise at some later time—the law expects you to seek an alternative resolution in the mean time, such as calling the police–nor may you use force in response to a danger that has already occurred or passed—doing so would be retaliation, not self defense.

(The principle of Imminence may come into play around the arguments that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, in that his observation/following of Martin would create in a reasonable person’s mind (in this case, Martin) a fear of imminent harm. The defense will, naturally, argue the contrary.
Proportionality—The “Goldilocks” Principle (Just Right)

(The principle of Proportionality refers to the notion that the degree of force you may use in self-defense must be proportional to the degree of force with which you are threatened. Briefly, a non-deadly threat may only be countered with a non-deadly defense. A threat capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., a broken bone, blinding, a rape) may be met with deadly force.

(Usually, the use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker is fatal to a claim of self defense. If you nevertheless wants to argue self defense you will have to convince the court that the unique circumstances warranted your use of deadly force despite the fact that the attacker was unarmed.

(In many states, the fact that the attack occurred in the defendant’s home often raises a legal presumption of a threat of death or grave bodily harm (e.g., the so-called “make-my-day” laws). That, of course, is not relevant in the Zimmerman case. In all states, however, if the unarmed attack is of such ferocity that it nevertheless raises a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, the use of deadly force in self defense would be justified.

(Much has been made in the public narrative about the fact that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed Martin. For Zimmerman to be successful in arguing self defense as a legal justification for the shooting he will need to present the court with a compelling narrative of his own recounting his reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. The success of Zimmerman’s narrative will surely be a function of the unremitting nature of Martin’s attack—straddling the prone Zimmerman and punching him “MMA-style” even after Zimmerman was clearly no longer any apparent threat and was, by eye-witness account, screaming for help—and the extensiveness of Zimmerman’s injuries as evidenced by medical reports and contemporaneous photos.
Avoidance—A Duty to Retreat as Long as Safely Possible

(The principle of Avoidance refers to the notion that you should not use force in self-defense if you can avoid the need to do so by making use of a safe avenue of retreat.

(Florida is, of course, a “stand your ground” state (776.013(3)), where a person acting in justifiable self defense has no general duty to retreat before doing so. This does not, however, take the principle of Avoidance out of this trial.

(As previously mentioned, it is is possible that the State will argue that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. As the aggressor he would not be eligible to argue self-defense unless he first “recovered his innocence.” A condition to “recovering innocence” is that you have “exhausted every reasonable means to escape” or that you “withdraw from physical contact with the assailant.” (An alternative means of “recovering” innocence comes into play when the aggressor’s non-deadly attack is countered by a deadly-force attack.)

(In this way the principle of Avoidance and a legal duty to retreat can arise even in a Stand Your Ground state, like Florida, which has no general duty to retreat before using force in self-defense.

(Reasonableness—Meet the “Reasonable and Prudent Man”

(The principle of Reasonableness is really an umbrella principle that applies to each of the previous four. The issue here is whether your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. If they were not, any claim to self-defense fails.

(So, if you believed the other person was an aggressor, but a reasonable person would not have believed this, you did not act in lawful self-defense. Similarly if you believed that the threat was imminent but a reasonable person would not have, or that the force you used was proportional to the threat but a reasonable person would not have, or that you could not have avoided the threat but a reasonable person would have . . . in each case the claim to self defense fails.

(It is within the contours of the principle of Reasonableness that the attacker’s prior acts and/or reputation might be made relevant at trial, even if they were unknown to you at the time. The reasonableness of your perception that the attacker’s behavior was threatening would be buttressed if your attacker had a reputation in the community for behaving in threatening manner. Similarly, the reasonableness of your perception that the attacker was acting in an irrational and frightening manner would be buttressed if your attacker habitually used intoxicants, and was in fact intoxicated at the time of the attack.)

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

Man! You can sure spend a long time saying nothing!

rumitoid

Dang. Got nothing out of that? Might be the meaning was wisely camouflaged?

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

Try using the minimum number of words needed to convey your meaning instead of the maximum number. I couldn't keep my eyes open through the whole thing.

rumitoid

Guns everywhere and freely acquired! Every knapsack and ice cooler frisked. Every unidentified person detained and questioned. All Middle Eastern-looking people automatically detained and interrogated. Deacons of churches assigned to securing and monitoring frisk procedures as well as maintaining ammunition and gun supply to the disciples of peace. Have a potluck after church? Chemical food-tasting devices and FBI clearance required.

In "God we trust": Not!

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

I dare you to watch this and tell me this is representing God.
I am fed up with your holier than thou attitude. You are just like Brian, Glucon retired669...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ead_1372329728&use_old_player=0

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

You actually wasted your time reading it. Why?

It is just a lot of ...

angery american Loc: Georgia

I had the same thought....

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Now..now...the people you listed are secular agnostics or atheists. Rumitoid is the font of all things Christian. Only he can provide us with the correct way to think and act as Christians. I missed the memo from God pronouncing rumitoid the guiding light for our Christian behavior. Send me a copy if you received it.

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

The Holy Spirit has not been replaced, at least I was not notified. Maybe he has been promoted to a heavenly position.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Perhaps, we were not worthy of notification of his promotion to director of faith behavior.

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

:XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :roll:

We bee the meanies :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

Did you think of all this while you were riding your hog? Maybe not around in circles in the unventilated garage next time.;)

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Totally laughing my derrière off!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

I do not think we are "meanies". I just think we do not believe we are so all knowing that we can issue edicts as to how everyone is not practicing their faith in the correct way based on our personal interpretation of the scriptures.