"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." - Obama. What the MSM isn't telling you.

One would think that age to enlist in the US military would be a simple category. One is either old enough, or too old, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. By federal law (10 U.S.C., 505), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent) and 18 (without parental consent). The maximum age is 35. However, DOD policy allows the individual services to specify the maximum age of enlistment based upon their own unique requirements. The individual services have set the following maximum ages for non-prior service enlistment:

. usmilitary.about.com...

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Furbs

 

She never filed charges, she filed for a restraining order,

Anyone can that, nothing on his record.

Did I say there was anything on his record? No. However, a restraining order was granted because a judge saw sufficient evidence of domestic danger. That is a matter of public record. He has a history of domestic violence.

reply to post by timetothink


Why do they need parental consent?

That's right. Because they are minors until they are 18.

You really aren't proving your point, friend.

Originally posted by timetothink

Answered 2 years ago. Criminal Defense Attorney in Jacksonville, FL. I'm sorry to hear about your circumstances. Raising teenagers can be devilishly difficult. Any juvenile can be charged as an adult, in theory. The decision is made by the State Attorney and they should take a number of factors into consideration. How a child behaves at home is generally not one of them, however. A child's criminal behavior is examined closely, meaning history, type of crimes, treatment in the past, if there is a past, and the crime that brought the child to the State's attention. Violent crimes (gun crimes, assaults, robbery, etc.) seem to be the ones that get the most direct, or adult, filing decisions. Once a child is prosecuted as an adult, he remains an adult in the criminal justice system forever after. Here in Duval county, our new State Attorney has strongly stepped up juvenile direct file cases, even for children with no prior record.

reply to post by Furbs

 

Thanks for proving my point! Minors are -children- unless they are specifically targeted by the State Attorney.

reply to post by Furbs


You are making assumptions,

He was also granted a restraining order,

Because anyone can get one.

reply to post by Furbs


No I didn't prove your point,

17 to go fight in a war.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Furbs

 

You are making assumptions,

He was also granted a restraining order,

Because anyone can get one.

Anyone can shoot an unarmed child, but only a judge can grant an order of restraint. And judges aren't handing them out like candy. I am not sure what reality you call home, but it isn't the world of actuality.

reply to post by timetothink


You are either being purposely obtuse, or you do not understand the passage you just cited. Why does a 17 year old need parents permission?

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Furbs

 

No I didn't prove your point,

17 to go fight in a war.

Almost every single argument, from those of you who support Zimmerman, is utter nonsense.




So since Trayvon was of an old enough age that he could legally fight in war, that means that if a random stranger parks his vehicle, and gets out of that vehicle with a loaded weapon, and pursues him, and shoots him, it must have been self defense.

reply to post by BrokenCircles

So since Trayvon was of an old enough age that he could legally fight in war, that means that if a random stranger parks his vehicle, and gets out of that vehicle with a loaded weapon, and pursues him, and shoots him, it must have been self defense.

bolding mine

If that is what happened, you have a point.

There is no indication that is what happened though, according to what the police have released in their statements.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Furbs

 

No I didn't prove your point,

17 to go fight in a war.

Almost every single argument, from those of you who support Zimmerman, is utter nonsense.




So since Trayvon was of an old enough age that he could legally fight in war, that means that if a random stranger parks his vehicle, and gets out of that vehicle with a loaded weapon, and pursues him, and shoots him, it must have been self defense.

edit on 3/28/12 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)

Zimmerman is an innocent man who acted in self defense. End of story.

---------
MSNBC is on a witch hunt.

Comcast better wake up and fire Rev. Sharpton.

Stage a rally....then he covers himself on his own MSNBC show ???

Anyone can shoot an unarmed child, but only a judge can grant an order of restraint. And judges aren't handing them out like candy.

reply to post by Furbs

I was just looking for some numbers on the numbers of restraining orders issued in Seminole County, Fl.

I couldn't find anything. Do you have any data to support that judges don't hand them out like candy? I was under the impression that they are fairly easy to get, since judges don't want any dead spouses around to ruin their re-election chances when they are killed after being denied an injunction.

reply to post by butcherguy


The restraining order came out of Orange County. I do not have numbers for Orange County, my information comes from personal experience.

Also, I do not contest that people suffering from domestic violence should be able to get restraining orders. My contention comes from the idea that the court just gives them out to anyone that asks for them. They don't. It is naive to believe that they do.

George Zimmerman was restrained from his girlfriend by an order of protection. This is a matter of public record. A judge looked at the evidence and decided that George Zimmerman was a threat to the safety of his girlfriend.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Zimmerman is an innocent man who acted in self defense. End of story.

Zimmerman shot and killed someone, after choosing to follow them with a loaded weapon.
Self defense isn't premeditated.



P.S. From Zimmerman's standpoint, this story is just beginning.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by BrokenCircles

 

So since Trayvon was of an old enough age that he could legally fight in war, that means that if a random stranger parks his vehicle, and gets out of that vehicle with a loaded weapon, and pursues him, and shoots him, it must have been self defense.

bolding mine

If that is what happened, you have a point.

There is no indication that is what happened though, according to what the police have released in their statements.

Zimmerman didn't get out of his vehicle with a loaded gun, before heading towards, and eventually shooting Trayvon?

Zimmerman didn't get out of his vehicle with a loaded gun, before heading towards, and eventually shooting Trayvon?

Well, he acquired a broken nose and some head trauma somewhere in the "eventually."

In most states, once someone assaults you, you can use force to defend yourself; you don't have a duty to flee or just lie on the curb and be beaten.

Do not forget eye witness testimony,
911 calls from atleast 8 different people,
fact that treyvon told zimmerman *you got a problem*\
zimmerman said no, then martin told him NOW YOU DO
and started to attack him..

GET OVER IT..

the hang whitey clowns have been
race baited into hating zimmerman
never get baited into hate.

shame on you people


Which proves treyvon martin attacked zimmerman
was on top of him with zimmerman who is screaming
for help, with zimmerman bruised and beat up, then
the shot was fired and the threat was deleted.
SO, this OP, and the few people in this thread
sticking up for liberty posting the real eye witness accounts,
pictures of him, facts, evidence, we got a pretty damn good
case..Because it is the truth, and the truth always prevails
mmmmmmk?[

For the Martin defenders, the real underlying problem seems to be the whole idea of neighborhood watch.

Should neighborhood watch actually be driving around, looking for trouble?

Should they ask pedestrians who are wandering through the neighborhood in the middle of the night, who are covering their faces, what's up?

As if guys wandering the neighborhood in a hoodie were any kind of crime wave at all compared to 300 years of lynching.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
As if guys wandering the neighborhood in a hoodie were any kind of crime wave at all compared to 300 years of lynching.

Yes, actually they are.

There hasn't been a Lynching in nearly a decade in the US.

Crime Watch is not a program that can be set up by a government or police agency. It has to be set up by the people in a neighborhood who agree to staff it. Why would they go to all the trouble, buying radios, staying up late, meeting with the local police, etc?

Simple. Because they have been so victimized that they won't stand for it any more. And property crimes are about 90% of neighborhood crimes. That means break-ins. And most break-ins are committed by males 14-23 years of age. All most all of them enter the area on foot.....

So yeah, there is definitely a crimewave going on.