Fine young man shot while robbing dollar store

[Cebu_4_2]

http://youtu.be/5ivWH9RQuEA

http://youtu.be/5ivWH9RQuEA

[Cebu_4_2]

Read the replies, we are not alone in thinking those who are there to harm should be stopped.

[mamboni]

"He be just gettin' some money to buy food. He use a gun like you use a tool bro. He not robbin', he just gettin' wut he needs. Why dat dude shot him? Dam! He not in danger! Let my son get his thing."

[mick silver]

i bet he was about to go back to school and start going to church

[Twisted Titan]

If he wasnt pointing the gun at him he should have minded his business and left.


That is beyond surreal to the point my mind is reppelled by the response.

[Ponce]

The will find the shooter guilty of something or other for firing five times when one or two was all that was needed... wanna bet?... and he will loose his gun.

V

[gunDriller]

the 'Samaritan' shot 5 times and the Shootee is in the hospital ... what was the Samaritan aiming for ?


on the other hand - Banksters steal $Trillions and the punishment is - a bonus & in some cases a promotion ?

[7th trump]

If he wasnt pointing the gun at him he should have minded his business and left.


That is beyond surreal to the point my mind is reppelled by the response.

I wonder if he did mind his own business and the thug ended up killing the shop owner if the weapon card carrier could legally be sued for not stopping a felony murder?
Could the relatives of a victim sue the card carrying gun be held responsible for not stopping the murder while having the means to stop to the murder?
As far as I know from taking the carry course (for Iowa) you dont have anything saying legally you have to stop the perpetrator.
All I know is if "your" life is threatened (someone pointing a gun at you; or brandishing a knife in a life threatening posture while coming at you) you have a right to take a life in defense.
Also in Iowa, you can pull the trigger if you see someone pointing a gun at someone if that person is for sure in a life threatening situation.

I think it'll come down to how the perp was brandishing the weapon in the robbery.
Was the perp just merely showing the gun as a means of seriousness (hey I have a gun so give me your money) or was he pointing the gun directly at the person with intent to fire if the shop owner wouldnt hand over the money.

I dont trust lawyers so it would matter on how a defense lawyer would present the case in order for me to stop the perp.
Ultimately you are between a rock and a hard place when it comes time in court.

What I realized in the open carry course was the perps have more rights than you.

[Jewboo]

If he wasn't pointing the gun at him he should have minded his business and left.




http://www.movpins.com/big/MV5BMTM1NDk5NjE3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzYwNDkwNw/still-of-john-wayne,-robert-carradine,-alfred-barker-jr.-and-sean-kelly-in-the-cowboys-large-picture.jpg


I'm conflicted over your post. I agree with it, but my inner John Wayne programming is having fits...lol.

[palani]

What I realized in the open carry course was the perps have more rights than you.

Do you have a case you can cite for this observation?

If not then what do you base your comment on?

[mamboni]

If he wasnt pointing the gun at him he should have minded his business and left.


That is beyond surreal to the point my mind is reppelled by the response.

Extending her reasoning, if someone sees a black slave getting abused he should mind his own business and move one 'cause it don't concern him, you savvy?

[7th trump]

Do you have a case you can cite for this observation?

If not then what do you base your comment on?

Take the open carry course yourself and find out...............grasshopper!

[palani]

Take the open carry course yourself and find out.

Why would I care to engage a corporation in a contract that limits my right to self-defense?

Why can't you answer the question?

[7th trump]

Why would I care to engage a corporation in a contract that limits my right to self-defense?

Why can't you answer the question?

Unlike you, I dont go around telling people about a court case that doesnt exist.
Thats stupid.....but then again you are known to yap stuff you dont research.
Internet website that you frequent where you go to discuss hearsay and opinions of law and lawsis not adequate research.
You caused your own confusion....now live with it or make it right.

1. Who said anything about a contract?
2. Where are you getting the idea you are limiting your right to defend yourself.
3. Your dealing with US citizens which means you are going to have to understand that jurisdiction and the rights within that jurisdiction to defend yourself.
You just cant go around shooting people palani.

[palani]

1. Who said anything about a contract? You did. You engaged in one when you applied for a concealed carry.

2. Where are you getting the idea you are limiting your right to defend yourself. Aren't you?

3. Your dealing with US citizens which means you are going to have to understand that jurisdiction and the rights within that jurisdiction to defend yourself. As stated my right to defend myself are limitless unlike yours.

You just cant go around shooting people
I wouldn't care to shoot people. Persons on the other hand ... who knows?

[7th trump]

You did. You engaged in one when you applied for a concealed carry.
Aren't you?
As stated my right to defend myself are limitless unlike yours.

I wouldn't care to shoot people. Persons on the other hand ... who knows?

Let me get this straight.....a permit to open carry is.......... a contract?
Since you brought this "contract" business up............whats the contract then?

First, tell me your interpretation of what this contract is.
Secondly, tell me what my obligations to this "contract" are.

[palani]

Let me get this straight.....a permit to open carry is.......... a contract? A permit to open carry is a piece of paper. The application and issuance of it is a contract.



Since you brought this "contract" business" up............whats the contract then? You pay money. You take a course. You have the 'permit' on your person. You obey all rules. Any questions?


First, tell me your interpretation of what this contract is. If you aren't competent to know what you contracted for then I am afraid I can't help you.


Secondly, tell me what my obligations to this "contract" are. I am not licensed to give legal advice. Seek counsel.

[mick silver]

http://www.thedailybell.com/images/library/WSParty1.jpg

[7th trump]

A permit to open carry is a piece of paper. The application and issuance of it is a contract.


You pay money. You take a course. You have the 'permit' on your person. You obey all rules. Any questions?

If you aren't competent to know what you contracted for then I am afraid I can't help you.

I am not licensed to give legal advice. Seek counsel.

No, its not a piece of paper.
No, application and issuance is not a contract either.
What rules to obey are those palani?

Only rules they say are a few school zones rules and federal building rules.
These same school and government building rules apply whether or not you have a carry permit.
I dare you to go into any federal building holstering a weapon and see what happens when you tell the US Marshal at the door its ok because you don't have a permit to carry so the rules don't apply to you....tell them you're exempt.....I dare you!
See how fast they draw down on you and commence thumping your silly armchair lawyerism ass with a couple of night sticks.

See dumb ass, having an open carry in Iowa is not a "contract" ............but a PRIVILEGE!
If it was a contract then even the worst felons could apply and not be denied to open carry because the US constitution forbids the right not to contract....you didn't think of that did you grasshopper?
Nope your silly ass is lost in the law because you listen to idiots on the internet acting like they all know something about something...and you ate the hook, line and sinker cool aid of armchair lawyism idiots!
This is how its portrayed in the gun class....a privilege.
All it tells the authority is that you qualify (no delinquent child care payments, no unpaid tickets, no felonies, ect.) to carry and have reviewed the rules and went over some major gun safety guidelines the state believes are necessary to keep everyone safe.
See when I go hunting I no longer have to store the ammo away from the gun from arms reach...in fact I can drive out of the field and straight to my house with a loaded gun in the glove compartment, strapped next to my side or sitting in the seat next to me. Heck I can even drive around with a shotgun in the back window of the pick up where as before its illegal and can land you in a heap of trouble real quick....doesn't sound like a contract to me....and I bet others don't as well.
heck I can even go buy a pistol and walk out of the store without the three day wait.........and no background checks either!
They go over the law which actually there to protect you from being charged with man slaughter.
Its a privilege dumbass...not a contract!

Do everyone a favor pup and stay on the porch!

[palani]

having an open carry in Iowa is not a "contract" ............but a PRIVILEGE!

THEREIN lies the rub. You traded a RIGHT for a PRIVILEGE.


PRIVILEGE, rights. This word, taken its active sense, is a particular law, or a particular disposition of the law, which grants certain special prerogatives to some persons, contrary to common right. In its passive sense, it is the same prerogative granted by the same particular law.

2. Examples of privilege may be found in all systems of law; members of congress and of the several legislatures, during a certain time, parties and witnesses while attending court; and coming to and returning from the same; electors, while going to the election, remaining on the ground, or returning from the same, are all privileged from arrest, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace.

3. Privileges from arrest for civil cases are either general and absolute, or limited and qualified as to time or place.

4. - 1. In the first class may be mentioned ambassadors, and their servants, when the debt or duty has been contracted by the latter since they entered into the service of such ambassador; insolvent debtors duly discharged under the insolvent laws; in some places, as in Pennsylvania, women for any debt by them contracted; and in general, executors and administrators, when sued in their representative character, though they have been held to bail. 2 Binn. 440.

5. - 2. In the latter class may be placed, 1st. Members of congress this privilege is strictly personal, and is not only his own, or that of his constituent, but also that of the house of which he is a member, which every man is bound to know, and must take notice of. Jeff. Man. 3; 2 Wils. R. 151; Com. Dig. Parliament, D. 17. The time during which the privilege extends includes all the period of the session of congress, and a reasonable time for going to, and returning from the seat of government. Jeff. Man. 3; Story, Const. 856 to 862; 1 Kent, Com. 221; 1 Dall. R. 296. The same privilege is extended to the members of the different state legislatures.

6. - 2d. Electors under the constitution and laws of the United States, or of any state, are protected from arrest for any civil cause, or for any crime except treason, felony, or a breach of the peace, eundo, morando, et redeundo, that is, going to, staying at, or returning from the election.

7. - 3d. Militia men, while engaged in the performance of military duty, under the laws, and eundo, morando et redeundo.

8. - 4th. All persons who, either necessarily or of right are attending any court or forum of justice, whether as judge, juror, party interested or witness, and eundo, morando et redeundo. See 6 Mass. R, 245; 4 Dall. R. 329, 487; 2 John. R. 294; 1 South. R. 366; 11 Mass. R. 11; 3 Cowen, R. 381; 1 Pet. C. C. R. 41.

9. Ambassadors are wholly exempt from arrest for civil or criminal cases. Vide Ambassador. See, generally, Bac. Ab. h. t.; 2 Rolle's Ab. 272; 2 Lilly's Reg. 369; Brownl. 15; 13 Mass. R. 288; 1 Binn. R. 77; 1 H. Bl. 686; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

And the means of converting the RIGHT to a PRIVILEGE is called CONTRACT.

Your TOURETTES seems to be active tonite. Are you off your meds?

[iOWNme]

If he wasnt pointing the gun at him he should have minded his business and left.


That is beyond surreal to the point my mind is reppelled by the response.

EXACTLY.

This is the same type of person that would be outraged if you DIDNT save her sons life and you had a weapon and the ability to do so.....

If you think im supposed to wait for an ARMED CRIMINAL to point his gun at me before i act, YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

I am under no moral obligation to wait and find out if the armed criminal is going to harm someone or is just bluffing. Im going to take on the responsibility of being a human and ACT NOW, so i can save additional lives, and hopefully bring the situation to a close with only 1 single loss of life: The INITIATOR of violence.

[iOWNme]

I'm conflicted over your post. I agree with it, but my inner John Wayne programming is having fits...lol.

Book,

(TT was quoting what the mom said)

If YOU were taken hostage in a business and a criminal perp had a gun to your noggin would you think it might be of some use for an armed fellow individual to take action and try and save you? Or should he just 'mind his own business'?

Because guess what? I DECIDE what my business is. And it just so happens that my business is defending innocent people from bullies and criminals. I grew up doing it. I still do it. And if i walked into a store and saw you as a hostage, i would do whatever it took to try and save your life.

[7th trump]

THEREIN lies the rub. You traded a RIGHT for a PRIVILEGE.



And the means of converting the RIGHT to a PRIVILEGE is called CONTRACT.

Your TOURETTES seems to be active tonite. Are you off your meds?

I gotta ask!!
Why are you convoluting "privilege" into the definition to "contract"?
Why do you always have to pollute what it is you are talking about.....why?

Contract



con·tract
[n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 kon-trakt; otherwise v. kuhn-trakt]

noun
1.
an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

2.
an agreement enforceable by law.

3.
the written form of such an agreement.

4.
the division of law dealing with contracts.

5.
Also called contract bridge. a variety of bridge in which the side that wins the bid can earn toward game only that number of tricks named in the contract, additional points being credited above the line. Compare auction bridge.

I don't see anything in "privilege" that even comes remotely close to "contract" or anything in "contract" remotely resembling what's in "privilege".
You don't have a clue do you palani...you really don't have a clue.........and that's why you are latching onto what I said about a carry permit as a privilege.
Just watch....as this progresses you are going to fall away from your "contract" argument (because you realize that argument is an epic failure) and find something about "privilege" to argue about.......its your method of operation......you do it all the time.

[palani]

I don't see anything in "privilege" that even comes remotely close to "contract" or anything in "contract" remotely resembling what's in "privilege".

Duty is derived from oath or contract. Have you taken any oaths lately? Did your class discuss any duty you are required to perform or abstain from?

[Cebu_4_2]

Palini on a roll to derail what he can before his mom calls him outta the basement. Personally I am tired of his fucking useless bullshit. He derails many threads to lube his useless pipe.

[Jewboo]

Book,

TT was quoting what the mom said

If YOU were taken hostage in a business and a criminal perp had a gun to your noggin would you think it might be of some use for an armed fellow individual to take action and try and save you? Or should he just 'mind his own business'?

Because guess what? I DECIDE what my business is. And it just so happens that my business is defending innocent people from bullies and criminals. I grew up doing it. I still do it. And if i walked into a store and saw you as a hostage, i would do whatever it took to try and save your life.





I dunno Sui Juris. My Concealed Weapon License here in Idaho is not a police badge. Even if it were, this ain't America anymore...read the following:







THE POLICE HAVE "NO AFFIRMATIVE DUTY" TO PROTECT US


This makes it very clear - the burden to defend and or use deadly force, is a RIGHT that lies with you personally to ACT accordingly and appropriately should you fear for your life and/or limb:

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.); http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6260

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist's wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965) (In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne Ne Casek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer's alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts' Riots' of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974) (A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department. The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. "The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled discretionary' or ministerial.'"); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler




:(?? maybe more GSUS Members should chime in here on this

[7th trump]

Duty is derived from oath or contract. Have you taken any oaths lately? Did your class discuss any duty you are required to perform or abstain from?

Nope...no duty or oath was ever discussed in the class......because a permit to carry is not what you think it is.
In my original post in this thread you'll notice that I say there maybe a legal possibility of the permit to carry being sued for not stopping a murder felony.
My first post explains my position.

[Jewboo]

I DECIDE what my business is. And it just so happens that my business is defending innocent people from bullies and criminals. I grew up doing it. I still do it.




https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/26/1372281884249/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Co-010.jpg


:rolleyes: that's what HE once thought too...lol.


http://www.wusa9.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/131118015101_ctm_0910_ZIMMERMAN.jpg

[7th trump]

Duty is derived from oath or contract. Have you taken any oaths lately? Did your class discuss any duty you are required to perform or abstain from?

Nope...no duty was ever discussed in the class.......OATH??
Why in the world would you bring up ....oath?
WTF....the permit to carry isn't a damn oath to anything....its a permit to carry!
In my original post in this thread you'll notice that I say there maybe a legal possibility of the permit to carry being sued for not stopping a murder felony....but no law says you have to bring yourself into a situation....no, theres no duty you nit-wit.
My first post explains my position.

[palani]

Palini on a roll to derail what he can before his mom calls him outta the basement. Personally I am tired of his fucking useless bullshit. He derails many threads to lube his useless pipe.
Did you have anything useful to add?

[palani]

Nope...no duty or oath was ever discussed in the class That is ALL they discussed. You must have been asleep.

because a permit to carry is not what you think it is. I have told you what I believe. I can't help if you are clueless.

In my original post in this thread you'll notice that I say there maybe a legal possibility of the permit to carry being sued for not stopping a murder felony. More nonsense. Do you ever read what you write? The 'permit to carry' is going to be sued? How do you sue a piece of paper?

[palani]

Why in the world would you bring up ....oath?
Because is an OATH is one way for a DUTY to be created. The other way to establish a DUTY is CONTRACT. Can't you read?

[7th trump]

Because is an OATH is one way for a DUTY to be created. The other way to establish a DUTY is CONTRACT. Can't you read?

I'd repeat myself that there was no mention of any "oath" in the class nor was there any mention of "duty" ever brought up in the class....but that doesnt mean a damn thing to you because you know everything there is about the class you never took.
The class was based around everyones legal right to carry, what Iowa considers a weapon, and what is expected of you if you should ever have to use the weapon. A ball bat is considered a weapon if its brandished as a weapon.
Conspiracy nut cases like yourself palani always seem to know everything about everything.

DUTY


Duty
A legal obligation that entails mandatory conduct or performance. With respect to the laws relating to Customs Duties, a tax owed to the government for the import or export of goods.

A fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, who occupies a position of confidence in relation to a third person, owes such person a duty to render services, provide care, or perform certain acts on his or her behalf.

In the context of Negligence cases, a person has a duty to comport himself or herself in a particular manner with respect to another person.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

There is no legal obligation with the permit to carry class that has any respect to customs duties palani.
And no nobody in the class, including the instructer, stood up and took an oath at any time during the class. When it was all over there was questions to be asked by some but for the most part everyone went to the desk to receive the paperwork they would take to the Sheriff's office stating the date they completed the class.

That was it nothing else.

[7th trump]

That is ALL they discussed. You must have been asleep.
I have told you what I believe. I can't help if you are clueless.
More nonsense. Do you ever read what you write? The 'permit to carry' is going to be sued? How do you sue a piece of paper?


Enough of this bullshit about oaths and duty's you paranoid fucktard!
Just take the damn class palani and find out for yourself.....its free!!
Its a good class to take even if you dont want to carry..........lots of gun law covered, that for once, you might learn a thing or two.

[palani]

you because you know everything there is about the class you never took.
I don't know everything. I do know that it cost you BUX to take that class and to get the permit. If you weren't engaging in a contract then WHY THE HELL DID YOU PAY ANY MONEY?

There is no legal obligation with the permit to carry class that has any respect to customs duties You are so clueless that CUSTOMS duty is the only thing you can come up with? What has any of this topic has to do with CUSTOMS?


DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.

2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforeed by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them.

3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind. 1. We are bound to obey the will of God as far as we are able to discover it, because he is the sovereign Lord of the universe who made and governs all things by his almighty power, and infinite wisdom. The general name of this duty is piety: which consists in entertaining just opinions concerning him, and partly in such affections towards him, and such, worship of him, as is suitable to these opinions.

4. - 2. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites.

5. - 3. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

nobody in the class, including the instructer, stood up and took an oath at any time during the class. Did I say I EXPECTED there to be an OATH? My statement was 'DUTY IS DERIVED FROM EITHER OATH OR CONTRACT'. No oath? Fine. Then there is a CONTRACT.

[palani]

you paranoid fucktard!

Elucid as always thou clouted half-faced bugbear

[7th trump]

I don't know everything. I do know that it cost you BUX to take that class and to get the permit. If you weren't engaging in a contract then WHY THE HELL DID YOU PAY ANY MONEY?
You are so clueless that CUSTOMS duty is the only thing you can come up with? What has any of this topic has to do with CUSTOMS?


Did I say I EXPECTED there to be an OATH? My statement was 'DUTY IS DERIVED FROM EITHER OATH OR CONTRACT'. No oath? Fine. Then there is a CONTRACT.

Hey douchbag I went on the web to "legal dictionary. com" and typed "duty" in the search engine and thats the result it came back with.
No, there was no mention of contract at any time during the class.
The only time the word contract came up was at the sheriffs office when the lady at the desk said not to fill in the section relating to contracters..........as in guns for hire.

For someone who thinks they know so much you know absolutely NOTHING !!

The class is free.
The cost of the permit is 50.00 for 5 years which after 4 years you can renew the permit, at a reduced fee, after taking the same FREE class over again.
I went to Duck Creek Armory to take the class...they offered it free to get people in the door of the gun staore to buy weapons......clever way to get people into the store huh?
They have since shut their doors...the instructor was the owner of the store who instructs the Davenport PD as well as the Rock Island PD...the sherrif's office knows him very well. The lady at the sherriff counter knows the guy on a first name basis as well as most Davenport LEO's do
And I love it because you are showing everyone what a complete paranoid asshole you really are.

[palani]

I went on the web to "legal dictionary. com" and typed "duty" in the search engine and thats the result it came back with. Thou art a flesh monger, a fool, and a coward.

there was no mention of contract at any time during the class. What did you think you were PAYING for?

For someone who thinks they know so much you know absolutely NOTHING !!
Thou art a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.

The class is free.
The cost of the permit is 50.00 for 5 years which after 4 years you can renew the permit, at a reduced fee, after taking the same FREE class over again. Ahh! A straight answer finally.

I went to Duck Creek Armory to take the class...they offered it free to get people in the door of the gun staore to buy weapons......clever way to get people into the store huh? Now you are on the topic of QUID PRO QUO.

And I love it because you are showing everyone what a complete paranoid asshole you really are.You scullion! You rampallian! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe!

[7th trump]

Thou art a flesh monger, a fool, and a coward.
What did you think you were PAYING for?

Thou art a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.
Ahh! A straight answer finally.
Now you are on the topic of QUID PRO QUO.
You scullion! You rampallian! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe!

Applying for a permit to carry is not QUID PRO QUO..........an exchange of goods or services.
Being able to carry is not a service of any kind (service to who?).........nor is it any "goods" either......you've completely taken QUID PRO QUO out of context!
A cop on the take would be a better description of QUID PRO QUO............get a life palani!
Show me where being able to carry is an exchange of goods or services.....I told you being able to carry is a privilege right....they will explain that in the class....atleast this class did anyway.

No, having a permit to carry is not any scullian kitchen servent............though I am known to be a good cook.
Nor is having a permit to carry mean you are a rampillain........I actually detest prostitutes.
No palani, having a permit to carry doesnt make anyone a lowlife scoundral or stinkard either.


And no palani, I've always told straight up answers.
It always been you who has never told a straight answer........if you answer at all.
This forum knows this about you.
You play silly legal games and even say you arent qualified to answer any legal questions......nice slick lawyer play acting.

[palani]

being able to carry is a privilege right Its going to be a right or a privilege as there is no such thing as a 'privilege right'. That would be like a 'sovereign citizen' .. an oxymoron ... one is either sovereign or one is subject (as a citizen). In the case of a permit you hold one because you have no right and that now becomes a privilege which might be taken away.

having a permit to carry doesnt make anyone a lowlife scoundral or stinkard either Being unable to carry on a conversation without resorting to cursing does though.

I've always told straight up answers. I don't fault you for being clueless. You cannot help that but I am trying to help you even if you cannot see that.

you arent qualified to answer any legal questions
I agree. That requires a license which I don't possess. Do you?

[7th trump]

Its going to be a right or a privilege as there is no such thing as a 'privilege right'. That would be like a 'sovereign citizen' .. an oxymoron ... one is either sovereign or one is subject (as a citizen). In the case of a permit you hold one because you have no right and that now becomes a privilege which might be taken away.
Being unable to carry on a conversation without resorting to cursing does though.
I don't fault you for being clueless. You cannot help that but I am trying to help you even if you cannot see that.

I agree. That requires a license which I don't possess. Do you?

You ever reread what you post.
You project yourself as a sovereign that doesnt need a license but yet admit you dont give legal advice because you dont have a license.
Well........you must be a citizen subject because you admit you need a license.
See palani......as much as you would like it to be....you cant have it both ways.
You're escentric to talk legaleese bullshit out your ass all day long, but when brought out onto the carpet you'll cower behind the law by saying you NOT qualified to answer legal questions.............pussy subject coward!
You backed yourself right into a corner...... a corner that exposes you for who you are....an armchair slick lawyeristic bullshitter fooled by his own fallacies!

[iOWNme]

https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/26/1372281884249/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Co-010.jpg


:rolleyes: that's what HE once thought too...lol.


http://www.wusa9.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/131118015101_ctm_0910_ZIMMERMAN.jpg




Why are you trying to compare what Zimmerman did to this story? That is COMPLETELY disingenuous of you. (But i am not surpirsed in the least bit)

Zimmerman saw a 'suspicious' guy. This story is about a man holding a gun to someones head. And you try and compare these two? Do you really think the members on this site are so brain dead they wont spot what you tried to do here?

These two stories are so different there not even in the same galaxy.

And no matter how dishonest and incincere you are, i would STILL try and save your life if an armed criminal was holding you hostage. Do you know why? Because i follow my own conscience over what the 'Law' says i should do.

Guess what that makes me? A human. A man with free will and the responsibility to exercise it.

And that scare the daylights out of you. To know there are actually men who do not follow the scribbles of 'Politicians', and who choose to use their own judgement of Right and Wrong, and to ACT on that judgment.

[palani]

You project yourself as a sovereign that doesnt need a license
Nonsense. I have never met a sovereign and I don't consider myself a sovereign. I am a meat popsicle.

admit you dont give legal advice because you dont have a license. Why would I admit to having something I don't possess? Do YOU have a license?

you must be a citizen subject because you admit you need a license.
Where have I ever stated I NEED a license? Your DOG needs a license. Does it have one? If so then you are on an equal footing with your DOG.

as much as you would like it to be....you cant have it both ways. I don't have a permit either.

pussy subject coward!Thy head stands so tickle on thy shoulders, that a milkmaid, if she be in love, may sigh it off.

[7th trump]

Nonsense. I have never met a sovereign and I don't consider myself a sovereign. I am a meat popsicle.
Why would I admit to having something I don't possess? Do YOU have a license?

Where have I ever stated I NEED a license? Your DOG needs a license. Does it have one? If so then you are on an equal footing with your DOG.
I don't have a permit either.
Thy head stands so tickle on thy shoulders, that a milkmaid, if she be in love, may sigh it off.

Wow....always trying to save your ass isnt it palani.
FYI, these childish games isnt helping you...they are actually detrimental to you.

I dont have a dog or cat or bird...or any animal for that matter.

So next time you post something about law I'll let it be known you admit your incompetent at law because you have no license........right!......I'm mean thats your excuse when called out.

[Jewboo]

I DECIDE what my business is. And it just so happens that my business is defending innocent people from bullies and criminals. I grew up doing it. I still do it.




http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/20811000/ngbbs4b830efc7fc0f.jpg

[willie pete]

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/20811000/ngbbs4b830efc7fc0f.jpg





lmao :D

[iOWNme]

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/20811000/ngbbs4b830efc7fc0f.jpg



And there is the ENTIRE problem with the world. When a mere mortal human tries to act on his own free will and judgement (Using DEFENSIVE force), STATISTS across the land proclaim that only 'Agents of the State' are allowed to try and help people and make this world a better place. Even though it is EASILY provable that ALL of the violence, destruction, theft and murder carried out in the history of man were carried out by the 'Law' and various 'Governments'.

You need the psuedo-religious ceremonies and magical ink scribbles in order to figure out Right from Wrong. I DONT.

If Book was being held hostage with a gun to his noggin, he is HONESTLY trying to say that he would rather someone call the Cops (Authority) instead of someone trying to stop the gunmen. Book would probably sue the guy who tried to save him if things went wrong. Even though he cant sue the Cops, but he wouldnt because he worships the STATE and its minions.

I love how in your eyes Im 'Batman' because i exercise my own free will and judgement. Because i CANNOT sit by while bullies pick on weak and innocent people. I CANT DO IT. Im a man, and when i see the innocent and weak being trampled on i INSTANTLY go into Mortal Combat mode. I dont have a choice, Its just how i was raised.

Book would it help if i put on a giant utility belt and wore a mask? Could i recuse you then?

[iOWNme]

lmao :D


Was that as funny as Book trying to compare Zimmerman to this story?

[Jewboo]

Because i CANNOT sit by while bullies pick on weak and innocent people. I CANT DO IT. Im a man, and when i see the innocent and weak being trampled on i INSTANTLY go into Mortal Combat mode. I dont have a choice, Its just how i was raised.




http://www.a-1comics.com/Halloween2009/groupcostume2009/280/MORTAL%20COMBAT%20FAMILY!380.jpg
Our city is safer thanks to Sui Juris and his family


:rolleyes:

[willie pete]

http://www.a-1comics.com/Halloween2009/groupcostume2009/280/MORTAL%20COMBAT%20FAMILY!380.jpg
Our city is safer thanks to Sui Juris and his family


:rolleyes:





I feel safer now :D ::)

[palani]

I dont have a dog or cat or bird...or any animal for that matter. And your wife left you. I can see why you are so miserable and think you have a need to carry a weapon.


So next time you post something about law I'll let it be known you admit your incompetent at law because you have no license........right!......I'm mean thats your excuse when called out. And don't you forget it either.