100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > MoonsDragonLionWolf
|
Topic:
Am I doing this right?
Edited by
MoonsDragonLionWolf
on
Wed 07/31/13 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Am I doing this right?
|
|
Don't give out your social security number!
Those Mountain Dew stealing alien soabs will try to steal your identity so they can steal Mountain Dew and try to pin it on you! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
When was your last date?
|
|
Never really had one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury
|
|
theres that word reasonable again as I said, schoolyard fights will never be the same its now 'reasonable' to assume that some 160 pound teen breaking your nose is a life threatening situation,,, haaaaa ,.,, talk about foolish,, but whatever floats the paranoids boats,,, Fool! 
As long as you continue to ignore the facts you will never know. An unknowing fool like youself isn't worth my time to continue arguing with. Now have a nice day. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury
|
|
how many legal courses have you taken?.. lol don't matter dude,, it will all come out in the 'wash' Z will be held accountable one way or another for taking the life of an unarmed minor,,,, 
I haven't had to take any to know and understand the legal system and the way it functions. How many have you taken? Not enough as it's apparent that you can't comprehend the law. There is no "wash". No. He won't. As he has nothing to be held accountable for. He had the legal right to defend himself. Treyvon Martin was not an innocent minor skipping on home from fairy land. He was a young adult responsible for his actions that night. Such as the action to confront and assault George Zimmerman. You don't have to have a gun or a weapon to use deadly force. Case in point, Treyvon Martin used the concrete. You are blind to the laws and facts of the case due to your own personal bias and are trying to use every excuse or assumption you can think of only to fail. lol there is NO evidence the minor confronted George other than to ask him the REASONABLE question of why he was following him there is NO EVIDENCE that trey 'used the concrete' these are all just the CLAIMS of a man on trial for second degree murder who has had legal courses and aspires to be a cop,,,, but , if that's the narrative you really believe,, that's your prerogative dude one day big Z might just follow and harass the wrong person ,,,,and then THEY can explain their right to defend themselves if they are fortunate enough to leave no witness,,,, karma is a BEATCHHHHH There is evidence. Zimmerman's broken nose. Guess you chose to overlook that. Yet again there is evidence of that. The injuries on the back of George Zimmerman's head. They are claims but they are backed up by the facts you dumb b word. Once again you've chosen to ignore the facts. That is why, once again, you have failed. Allow me to let you in on a little secret. Karma doesn't exist. It's a lie that's told to try to make people feel better. yep,, boo hoo, he had a broken nose...lol that warrants shooting someone dead in the minds of many people apparently schoolyard fights may never be the same,,, the injuries on the back of zs head amounted to two SCRATCHES,,lol HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Karma, karma, karma,, its coming,,,, The broken nose on top of the beating that Treyvon Martin put on George Zimmerman using the concrete is deadly force which allowed George Zimmerman to use deadly force. You are not required to be bleeding to death to use deadly force. You do not have to have any injuries at all as long as you had a reasonable fear of your life. You are a fool. You know nothing and so can understand nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury
|
|
how many legal courses have you taken?.. lol don't matter dude,, it will all come out in the 'wash' Z will be held accountable one way or another for taking the life of an unarmed minor,,,,
I haven't had to take any to know and understand the legal system and the way it functions. How many have you taken? Not enough as it's apparent that you can't comprehend the law. There is no "wash". No. He won't. As he has nothing to be held accountable for. He had the legal right to defend himself. Treyvon Martin was not an innocent minor skipping on home from fairy land. He was a young adult responsible for his actions that night. Such as the action to confront and assault George Zimmerman. You don't have to have a gun or a weapon to use deadly force. Case in point, Treyvon Martin used the concrete. You are blind to the laws and facts of the case due to your own personal bias and are trying to use every excuse or assumption you can think of only to fail. lol there is NO evidence the minor confronted George other than to ask him the REASONABLE question of why he was following him there is NO EVIDENCE that trey 'used the concrete' these are all just the CLAIMS of a man on trial for second degree murder who has had legal courses and aspires to be a cop,,,, but , if that's the narrative you really believe,, that's your prerogative dude one day big Z might just follow and harass the wrong person ,,,,and then THEY can explain their right to defend themselves if they are fortunate enough to leave no witness,,,, karma is a BEATCHHHHH There is evidence. Zimmerman's broken nose. Guess you chose to overlook that. Yet again there is evidence of that. The injuries on the back of George Zimmerman's head. They are claims but they are backed up by the facts you dumb b word. Once again you've chosen to ignore the facts. That is why, once again, you have failed. Allow me to let you in on a little secret. Karma doesn't exist. It's a lie that's told to try to make people feel better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury
|
|
how many legal courses have you taken?.. lol don't matter dude,, it will all come out in the 'wash' Z will be held accountable one way or another for taking the life of an unarmed minor,,,,
I haven't had to take any to know and understand the legal system and the way it functions. How many have you taken? Not enough as it's apparent that you can't comprehend the law. There is no "wash". No. He won't. As he has nothing to be held accountable for. He had the legal right to defend himself. Treyvon Martin was not an innocent minor skipping on home from fairy land. He was a young adult responsible for his actions that night. Such as the action to confront and assault George Zimmerman. You don't have to have a gun or a weapon to use deadly force. Case in point, Treyvon Martin used the concrete. You are blind to the laws and facts of the case due to your own personal bias and are trying to use every excuse or assumption you can think of only to fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury
Edited by
MoonsDragonLionWolf
on
Wed 07/31/13 08:16 AM
|
|
Yes quite.
17 is only a minor in terms of legal rights that an adult would have. However 17 is considered a young adult in the legal system. A lot of 17 year olds are sentenced in court no differently than adults. You want to know why? It's because they are considered young adults who are responsible for their actions. Okay. So you claim to have fought someone who attacked you. It was okay for you to defend yourself but it's not okay for George Zimmerman to defend himself? When deadly force is used against you you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself as George Zimmerman did. Hold on. How do you know that George Zimmerman started the fight? You don't. Another assumption. Just because George Zimmerman started getting into MMA doesn't mean he had skill or talent to fight off anyone. A lot of guys get into MMA but couldn't fight a fly. Self defense is not based on whether or not you know how to fight. Once again you are trying to claim Treyvon Martin was a minor. He was a young adult who was responsible for his actions. Such as his actions to confront and assault George Zimmerman. Your statutory rape argument is flawed. If a 17 year old goes out and rapes someone they'd be charged as an adult. No differently than an 18+ year old who goes out and rapes someone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury
|
|
So, you say, if you had a gun, some dead thug, Trayvon, had you down, beating on you, telling you your was going to die, you wouldn't have used it to save your life? if I had a gun? I wouldn't be following a kid in the dark at night acting like some badass in the first place and no, I wouldn't shoot a minor dead because they were fighting me,, even if they broke my nose,,,, now, if I saw an actual WEAPON on them, if the assault happened with a knife or gun in their hands,, that's different but just hands? no,,, certainly, if I had the ability to get in my side to grab and point and shoot, I would have the ability to use some other option to get out of the situation,,,, How would you know he was a minor? however Zimmerman knew when he said 'late teens', he pretty much LOOKED like a teenager apparently and from his build in autopsy SEE ANSWER ABOVE,,lol You wouldn't. 17 isn't a minor. 17 is a young adult. not quite,,,legally speaking 17 is STILL a minor,,,, A minor is a person who does not have the legal rights of an adult. A minor is usually defined as someone who has not yet reached the age of majority. In most states, a person reaches majority and acquires all of the rights and responsibilities of an adult when he or she turns 18 http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/minors-law/ You're assuming that you would have had other options available to you to defend yourself.
The problem is you weren't there that night so how are you so certain that there was another way? You can't be. Once again you are assuming you would. A foolish notion. The law was on George Zimmerman's side. He had a right to defend his life with deadly force, meeting deadly force, if he felt it was in reasonable danger and he did. Just because you would just lay there and get beat to death doesn't necessarily mean someone else would. that's Assuming a lot too,, I have had a GROWN MAN at least five inches taller than treyvon and forty pounds heavier attack me,, and I fought,, that was my FIRST option outside of yelling that was far from 'laying there and getting beaten' that was also an option this grown man who had been attending an MMA gym had, but chose not to utilize,,, and because Z is a ***** who cant fight shouldn't have absolved him or justified him shooting a minor dead instead, ESPECIALLY When he starts the fight with the minor we have statuatory rape laws, because we hold ADULTS to greater accountability and reasonability than we do minors Yes quite. 17 is only a minor in terms of legal rights that an adult would have. However 17 is considered a young adult in the legal system. A lot of 17 year olds are sentenced in court no differently than adults. You want to know why? It's because they are considered young adults who are responsible for their actions. Okay. So you claim to have fought someone who attacked you. It was okay for you to defend yourself but it's not okay for George Zimmerman to defend himself? When deadly force is used against you you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself as George Zimmerman did. Hold on. How do you know that George Zimmerman started the fight? You don't. Another assumption. Just because George Zimmerman started getting into MMA doesn't mean he had skill or talent to fight off anyone. A lot of guys get into MMA but couldn't fight a fly. Self defense is not based on whether or not you know how to fight. Once again you are trying to claim Treyvon Martin was a minor. He was a young adult who was responsible for his actions. Such as his actions to confront and assault George Zimmerman. Your statutory rape argument is flawed. If a 17 year old goes out and rapes someone they'd be charged as an adult. No differently than an 18+ year old who goes out and rapes someone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury
Edited by
MoonsDragonLionWolf
on
Wed 07/31/13 07:20 AM
|
|
So, you say, if you had a gun, some dead thug, Trayvon, had you down, beating on you, telling you your was going to die, you wouldn't have used it to save your life? if I had a gun? I wouldn't be following a kid in the dark at night acting like some badass in the first place and no, I wouldn't shoot a minor dead because they were fighting me,, even if they broke my nose,,,, now, if I saw an actual WEAPON on them, if the assault happened with a knife or gun in their hands,, that's different but just hands? no,,, certainly, if I had the ability to get in my side to grab and point and shoot, I would have the ability to use some other option to get out of the situation,,,, How would you know he was a minor? How would you know he was underage? You wouldn't. 17 isn't a minor. 17 is a young adult. You're assuming that you would have had other options available to you to defend yourself. The problem is you weren't there that night so how are you so certain that there was another way? You can't be. Once again you are assuming you would. A foolish notion. The law was on George Zimmerman's side. He had a right to defend his life with deadly force, meeting deadly force, if he felt it was in reasonable danger and he did. Just because you would just lay there and get beat to death doesn't necessarily mean someone else would. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more! So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! That's exactly why we need to replace them with competent leaders who will respect the constitution rather than trying constantly to circumvent it simply to push their own agendas. The U.S. Government cannot be allowed to have such power. It will only lead to abuse as we have already seen. oh,, why don't you guys just accept that the government is working the way its supposed to? lol Why don't you stop being a fool? yall first,,,, IM just applying the logic put forth to different situations if its foolish to apply it here, than perhaps its foolish when others apply it elsewhere,,,,,, Your "logic" is flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more! So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! That's exactly why we need to replace them with competent leaders who will respect the constitution rather than trying constantly to circumvent it simply to push their own agendas. The U.S. Government cannot be allowed to have such power. It will only lead to abuse as we have already seen. oh,, why don't you guys just accept that the government is working the way its supposed to? lol Why don't you stop being a fool? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, Yes. The NSA does lock people in closets. Those are violations of constitutional rights as it's unlawful search and seizure for the government to tap phones, read emails, and bug homes without a legit warrent. To blanket a warrent for access to every American's private information like the NSA has done is a violation of constitutional rights. That sort of access to personal information can be deadlier than any single act depending on whose hands it falls into. show me the entity that has a 'blanket warrant' to every americans home? show me the document that gives them that authority? read your constitution again The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1] ,,,there is that word 'unreasonable' again,, leaves room for interpretation ,, doesn't it? what is not there, is mention of bugs, phone taps, or emails? do they clearly classify as a 'search' of ones home? You show me the proof that there's not! Exactly! You can't! No one claimed that the NSA had blanket warrents to bug homes! "Unreasonable" has no room for interpretation! Unreasonable means unreasonable! It's unreasonable for the FISA court to blanket warrent every American's meta data and emails and store them without probable cause! Check YOUR constitution again! Unlawful search and seizure doesn't just apply to homes! Once again you respond without knowing what you are talking about! That is why you will never understand! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
There are no Victims
|
|
Don't tell me what to do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This administration, the courts, the SCOTUS, Holders AG office, and congress have adulterated the laws so badly you can't find a Constitutional defense for any of them any more! So they simply disregard the Constitution....makes their job (as they see it) easier! That's exactly why we need to replace them with competent leaders who will respect the constitution rather than trying constantly to circumvent it simply to push their own agendas. The U.S. Government cannot be allowed to have such power. It will only lead to abuse as we have already seen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MoonsDragonLionWolf
on
Tue 07/30/13 10:03 AM
|
|
no, its an honest question how far do we, as a society, take 'suspicion'? if we call police, how far can they go? if we are the one 'suspicious', what is our obligation to put others at ease,, be a citizen, a police officer, or a government? if we believe someone is 'suspicious',, how far can we go in acting on that suspicion? how far, likewise, should a government be permitted to go? "Permission" has little to do with gov't. If they want the "right" to do something they change or ignore the law.... who (as is shown daily) is going to prosecute them? The courts or legislation they themselves make up? I didn't really say anything about permission or rights ,,,, I don't believe an entity like government can be prosecuted, but certainly individuals WITHIN The government can be... but my question was regarding what 'suspicion' should reasonably lead to I see a profound similarity between what NSA does as an entity, and what many citizens feel the right to do as individuals when they find someone 'suspicious',,, NSA just has more creative tools to 'keep an eye' on things,,, People are suspicious by nature.... a survival trait, but we don't go around bugging each other, reading others mail, tapping their phones or lock them in closets indefinitley because we "think" they might do something against us. Most would call those the acts of a crazy person! What makes gov't above that label? does nsa lock people in closets? and is bugging someone or reading mail or tapping phones, any more 'crazy' than following people around at night or shooting people DEAD because they trespass ? I mean,, tapped phones, read mails ,and bugs aren't actions that are deadly,, last I Checked,,, Yes. The NSA does lock people in closets. Those are violations of constitutional rights as it's unlawful search and seizure for the government to tap phones, read emails, and bug homes without a legit warrent. To blanket a warrent for access to every American's private information like the NSA has done is a violation of constitutional rights. That sort of access to personal information can be deadlier than any single act depending on whose hands it falls into. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am Lunar, The MoonsDragonLionWolf!
*Grrhowlroars!*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Detroit should be renamed!
|
|
Detroit is the poster child for the future of America! Failed gov't full of corrupt, pocket lining officials who have taken the lobbyist bribes, bankrupted and destroyed the entire system with their greed and depravity, and now those corporations have drained the economic potential thru their monopoly, they have moved to greener pastures.... CHINA..... and left those deviates holding an empty bag they are too fat and weak to fight their way out of! Think Paulson and Lehman Bros! It's coming! Well, at least they'll spend 444 million dollars to have a nicer Red Wings hockey stadium. Lol. 
Who spends 444 million dollars when they're bankrupt just to have a slightly nicer hockey stadium? Hockey isn't even that popular. So how's it supposed to be a money drawer to a bankrupt Detroit? It won't be. These are the fools that have caused Detroit to fall. Squandering the money that they've been given. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on what you mean by "love".
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
