Lucky...

I thought she was the Maverick. Actually she is the distraction from teh aweful reality of the R's. Like I said, before I read this, she is the distraction. She is such a freak show that she does distract from the egregious right.

Do you think all the R votes are going that way? Maybe, considering R's and L's are only 3 degrees away. At the end of the day, a vote not going to D or R is watsed, so L's usually go R.

Yes I know, horrible conspiracy Yes, like lies and blatant misquoting, etc. I like that - alternate sources - AKA she / they blatantly misquoted as they ased someone else's cheat sheet, basically plagiarism, sort of. There was no alternate source, close the sugar bowl. Either post a lie, inconsiostency, misquote, etc or move along and worship the dumb Alaskan.

She is inconsequential, at the same time, your best shot .] How do you figure? Which, she's the best shot? Hell, Huckabee let the ahole out who killed teh 4 cops, reminds me of - what was his name - seems like WIllie something. D0-cock-us was ruined by that if memory serves.

I do more research than most anyone here. Right, it just shows your limted knowledge on the topic or law in general and now you're getting nasty to cover your tracks. Where did I say it did? You're confused. All that being Mirandized does is determine if the statemenst are coming in. - No Miranda, but no coercion = no statements unless D testifies. - No Miranda and coercion = no statements regardless. If you think you're smarter than a practicing lawyer who is a prosecutor and defense attorney (of course in jurisdictions where he's not prosecuting) then I will take that as expected response. The hillarity is that you think I call myself the expert of all thimgs, your legal knowledge is so minimal that you didn't even know that Dickerson v US was the case that tested Miranda, it was around 2000 and Dickerson was a bank robber; Miranda was upheld as stare decisis. Look it up, I don't want to educate you anymore. Not interested in further showing us the ways of Miranda and that I'm wrong about the degrees of Miranda, Normiss? And you chide me and claim I said I'm an expert, when I have never called myself a legal expert, drop this issue and run? Have a good one .

Yes, I wrote: I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person. I can't see a person being charged when they killed a person while that person was defending another from grave imminent danger. It's gotta be what they call an Affirmative Defense to claim Justifyable Homicide in that case. Not sure what hair you're trying to split here, but as I wrote and let me clarify: "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently (from other states) than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person." The issue and context was that Normiss stated that he thought some states, esp Calif, DC, etc had laws that didn't allow a person to kill to save another person, unless you are endanged. IOW's, killing a 3rd party to defend a 2nd party was not legally statuted. Now this is clear to everyone else, but since your brother just looked silly, you feel the need to jump in and split hairs where there are none. FAIL. It's a pretty damn big hair, son. You stated you would be surprised if any state defined it differently than allowing one person to kill another while protecting a third. The you posted a section of law that contains several other situations where it is allowed yet you fail to see the difference. No, little kid, the context was that of one state allowing it and onither not. If you follow the contcext I was saying that one state wouldn't define JH differently than another state. This is so classicBeligian, looks for hairs to split rather than attacking the meat of an issue. There always is a hair to split, semantics to be found. I hope, for your sake, if you ever get tried for a crime you don't try to sell teh jury a POS argument like that, they become offended. KInda like, "That depends on what the definition of, "is" is." It is a valid point, "is" can be an inquiry, a command and other usages, so Clinton really meant that it depends upon the usage of "is" in the given context, but that is as chickenshit an attempt to dissect an argument as you do. You're patently dishonest, you claim I was hgarrassing you in PM, yet I've posted both PM's twice and you just run like the wind. As long as you're having fun. "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."

She is inconsequential, at the same time, your best shot . And she is dragging herself down, I'm just enjoying the show, same as with Tiger and his now reported harem of whores who will be holding their hands out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/palins-latest-emrogueem-g_b_373453.html There have been so many lies and distortions pointed out in Sarah Palin's Going Rogue since it was released last week that her memoir has already become something of a gag line. As the epigram to Chapter Three, "Drill, Baby, Drill," Palin assigns the following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach: Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their lives. Only the quote wasn't by John Wooden. It was written by a Native American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled "Back on the War Ponies," which appeared in a left-wing anthology, We Are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History, edited by Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and James W. Loewen. This is hillarious, her ghost writers are as dumb as her: Obviously, they didn't get the quote from anything Wooden ever wrote, but from a cute little web site called The Quote Garden. Isn't that sweet? Just laughable ladies and gents, your 2012 Republican pres idential candidate: Sarah "The Maverick" Palin.

Yes, I wrote: I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person. I can't see a person being charged when they killed a person while that person was defending another from grave imminent danger. It's gotta be what they call an Affirmative Defense to claim Justifyable Homicide in that case. Not sure what hair you're trying to split here, but as I wrote and let me clarify: "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently (from other states) than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person." The issue and context was that Normiss stated that he thought some states, esp Calif, DC, etc had laws that didn't allow a person to kill to save another person, unless you are endanged. IOW's, killing a 3rd party to defend a 2nd party was not legally statuted. Now this is clear to everyone else, but since your brother just looked silly, you feel the need to jump in and split hairs where there are none. FAIL.

And your pulling that out of your ass under the giuse of liberal states are icky. Ridiculous logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would generally not be considered justifiable. AND: The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker. In fact here is California statute referrenced: Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code (state law) that covers justifiable homicide: 196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either-- 1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or, 2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or, 3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest. Although the above text is from Californian law, most jurisdictions have similar laws to prevent escapees from custody. So altho I find your guessing that liberal states must somehow love criminals, I also find it boring as usual. In regards to your previous post, "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person," are you now surprised at how California defines it? Not at all, it's right in line with the norm. Normiss was saying some states might not allow killing guy A as he was killing / attacking guy B unless you are guy B. I have never heard of any JH stataute that would require the only person being able to stop the attack with deadly force be the person under attack. So no, I am not surprised one bit. BTW, whoever thinks Cali is so liberal, watch the last decade or 2 of immigrant propositions and gay marriage props. Cali is not that liberal anymore. They are tougher on guns, but that's about it.

And before you further waste our time by telling me I didn't post Cailf statute, here it is: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, EDITED TO ADD BY LUCKY: (so even killing a person attempting to rape another person is justifiable) 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. So please, no one here thinks you understand the law, quit being rudamentary. ______________________________________________ http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html Although some states require that you retreat before responding to force with force, California self-defense law does not.21 So even horrible, liberal California does not require a duty to retreat. Looks like your stereotypes fell thru again. Of course this is a lawyer website, maybe you have a better grasp of the law than they.

And your pulling that out of your ass under the giuse of liberal states are icky. Ridiculous logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would generally not be considered justifiable. AND: The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker. In fact here is California statute referrenced: Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code (state law) that covers justifiable homicide: 196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either-- 1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or, 2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or, 3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest. Although the above text is from Californian law, most jurisdictions have similar laws to prevent escapees from custody. So altho I find your guessing that liberal states must somehow love criminals, I also find it boring as usual.

10+ Yep. Is celeb priv at work here once again?

Show me where I wish any doom upon these celebs. Just not there, I just enjoy it when they get in trouble.

Since the market has set the value, it looks like your opinion mean pretty much fuck-all in this case. Why the chip on your shoulder about other people's success? Find something you're good add-put in the effort to excel at it, and celebrate your own achievements instead of spending so much energy toward belittling others. I'm not hating on him, I'm just laughing at the other end of his success. I just don't have sympathy for people who get millions producing nothing, using the media to their advantage and then getting their dick caught in the door. I don't hope his game falls off, I just love watching him squirm. Like with Kobe, I laughed my ass off watching him try to suck his old lady's ass after he (did or didn't) rape that chick.

Sure, but the byproduct employment could go somewhere else and get produced that way. Hey, go for it, guys like John Mayer who mumble ignorant BS get all the ass and millions too, so more power, but if I hear dorks like that making his so-called music get into hot water, I'm gonna laugh my ass off. Same with Tiger, OJ, Brittny, Paris and the rest. I don't hate them, I just don't sympathize when they get their stupid asses in trouble.

It just depends, but I'm not splitting hairs here, we know if someone is just floating carbon, being insanely rewarded for meaningless things. I get your point; stereotype. Acft maintenace. People travel, I assure their safety on my end; the pilot ensures the rest. Aviation safety is obviously not close to sports as far as level of importance (aviation obviously being higher). I've worked military acft, alert acft, so is that important? I've worked 4 years on the Longbow Helicopter, is that important? And rewards; I get barely rewarded vs the worthless sector getting highly rewarded.

Yep, that sounds like the date. I was in unive at teh time, so it was cool going thru it. I was taking poli-sci during Clinton's impeachment, so I lucked out there too.

Well, I didn't, and I'm not going to spend 10-15 minutes typing out a longer response to prove it. Laypeople watch people's court and act like jailhouse lawyers. Normiss knows that Miranda isn't necessary to be read upon arrest. It only has to be read and adhered to by law enforcement if they want statements to come in. A def has no inherent right to be Mirandized, but they do have a right to counsel and if that is violated then the statements don't come in. Obviously legal folks know this, laypeople get that .02 of knowledge and run around with it, waving it frantically. As a lawyer that you are, I don;t know what kind of law you practice, but I'm sure it's frustrating when clients are like this. Often your biggest opponent is your client; is that about right?

vs. . Thx for not busting it out, I knew you knew. And we know Normiss didn't know.

I do more research than most anyone here. Right, it just shows your limted knowledge on the topic or law in general and now you're getting nasty to cover your tracks. Where did I say it did? You're confused. All that being Mirandized does is determine if the statemenst are coming in. - No Miranda, but no coercion = no statements unless D testifies. - No Miranda and coercion = no statements regardless. If you think you're smarter than a practicing lawyer who is a prosecutor and defense attorney (of course in jurisdictions where he's not prosecuting) then I will take that as expected response. The hillarity is that you think I call myself the expert of all thimgs, your legal knowledge is so minimal that you didn't even know that Dickerson v US was the case that tested Miranda, it was around 2000 and Dickerson was a bank robber; Miranda was upheld as stare decisis. Look it up, I don't want to educate you anymore.

I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person. I can't see a person being charged when they killed a person while that person was defending another from grave imminent danger. It's gotta be what they call an Affirmative Defense to claim Justifyable Homicide in that case.

Or back into jails getting little/no help. But that would be socialism to help people w/mental issues.

To further that, Justifyable Homicide can be applied if person A holds a gun to person B, you, person C shoots person A. So they don't to pose imminent threat to the holder of the gun, they can be imminently threatening any person.

OK