Gun Center

[nogods]

Here you go again - mix apples and oranges and ask for lemonade.

You muddle the issue and then ask for a answer that doesn't fit the scenario stated. This is why nobody trusts lawyers and Politicians.

A lawyer is the only person who can be hired as a defense lawyer - then in court argues information that will convict his own client.

Then cries when the incarcerated person cant pay his bill.

Another example of your limited intellectual ability. What you can't understand you just cry about.

The fact that the shooter was cleared of all criminal charges has no bearing on his civil liability. You thought that somehow he must be immune from civil
liability just because he was not convicted of any crime. The OJ example shows how idiotic your premise was.

So you resort to lashing out at something you don't have the intellectual ability to be. You probably do the same with regard to doctors, and scientists, and teachers, and any other profession beyond your capabilities.

[Chant]

Another example of your limited intellectual ability. What you can't understand you just cry about.

The fact that the shooter was cleared of all criminal charges has no bearing on his civil liability. You thought that somehow he must be immune from civil
liability just because he was not convicted of any crime. The OJ example shows how idiotic your premise was.

So you resort to lashing out at something you don't have the intellectual ability to be. You probably do the same with regard to doctors, and scientists, and teachers, and any other profession beyond your capabilities.

Humm.

Cleared of all criminal charges, but convicted in civil court of doing a wrong.

And what was the injury then?

So using this logic. If I go to your house with the intent of robbing you, and you shoot me, even though you might not be charged with a crime for having shot me, I can still take you to civil court for having shot me during a commission of a crime that I choose of my own free will to commit and rob you that way?

Sounds like a system only a lawyer could come up with.

[nogods]

Humm.

Cleared of all criminal charges, but convicted in civil court of doing a wrong.

And what was the injury then?

So using this logic. If I go to your house with the intent of robbing you, and you shoot me, even though you might not be charged with a crime for having shot me, I can still take you to civil court for having shot me during a commission of a crime that I choose of my own free will to commit and rob you that way?

Sounds like a system only a lawyer could come up with.

Another couch potato judge.

The OP claimed that a judged made a bad decision when he ruled that the defendant in the civil case was not entitled to a dismissal at this time. So tell me, what were the issues? How did the judge err in his legal analysis?

Oh wait, you don't know the issues or the facts. You just think that because OJ was not convicted of a crime he could not be sued for causing the deaths.

Neither you nor the OP have any idea what thee case involved. The only difference between flapping your lips out of ignorance and a pig farting is the smell.

[Chant]

Another couch potato judge.

The OP claimed that a judged made a bad decision when he ruled that the defendant in the civil case was not entitled to a dismissal at this time. So tell me, what were the issues? How did the judge err in his legal analysis?

Oh wait, you don't know the issues or the facts. You just think that because OJ was not convicted of a crime he could not be sued for causing the deaths.

Neither you nor the OP have any idea what thee case involved. The only difference between flapping your lips out of ignorance and a pig farting is the smell.

OJ shot Nicole with a knife????

Where can I get me one of those?

Lets see. Not enough evidence to convict during a criminal case, but can convict in civil court with evidence that basically says, "yeah... okay, maybe they MIGHT have done it".

Now that you bring up pig farts, that system certainly does smell like something ****ty only a lawyer could come up with. You know, anything that screws another hard earned nickle out of the public's pockets and into the court's.

I do however love how you dance around like a monkey attempting to defend the existence of the fraud you call a profession.

[nogods]

OJ shot Nicole with a knife????

Where can I get me one of those?

You think OJ shot Nichole wit a knife? Do you read what you write before you post it?

Oh wait, i get it...you can't comprehend the analogy of a person who shoots someone, is not convicted of any crime, then gets sued with a person who stabs someone, does not get convicted of any crime, then gets sued.

You think the cases are different because one involved a knife and the other involved a gun.

Now I understand your idiotic comment. It's the purple cow argument. "But your honor, the cow that was run over in the case decided by the court last year was purple. The cow in this case is brown. You can't equate the two because there was no purple cow in this case."

Did you larn that from the "people's law school" after watching the "people's court"?

[Chant]

You think OJ shot Nichole wit a knife? Do you read what you write before you post it?

Oh wait, i get it...you can't comprehend the analogy of a person who shoots someone, is not convicted of any crime, then gets sued with a person who stabs someone, does not get convicted of any crime, then gets sued.

You think the cases are different because one involved a knife and the other involved a gun.

Now I understand your idiotic comment. It's the purple cow argument. "But your honor, the cow that was run over in the case decided by the court last year was purple. The cow in this case is brown. You can't equate the two because there was no purple cow in this case."

Did you larn that from the "people's law school" after watching the "people's court"?

Yes. I do. Sometimes I think you don't however.

I was talking about a the Buffalo case where the "plaintiff" admitted going to a home to commit a crime when they were shot. Let's call this case the brown horse.

You brought up OJ. Let's call this case your purple cow. (And I thought it was kind of amusing that you ducked my posed question by bringing up OJ, so I asked you if OJ shot Nicole with a knife. Sorry if it confused you.)

So did Nicole - the stabbee - go to OJ's -the stabber- house with the intention of committing a robbery, which OJ stabbed her for? Did Nicole's family admit in criminal court that she went to OJ's pad with the intention of robbing him?
Or was it supposedly OJ who went to Nicole's place to commit a crime?

Two different animals, Goober. In one case the victim's family sues the supposed criminal and wins. In the other the criminal not only admits to the crime, but sues his victim and wins.
That last one is a **** sandwich that only a lawyer can dream up, and served up piping-hot by a court system that's all about raking in the money.

But please, keep dancing though little monkey.
If you dance long and hard... maybe someday all the common folk will actually come to believe this pile of crap is really a diamond.

[cheekman]

interesting..In a first, more Americans support gun rights than gun control, poll finds

http://news.yahoo.com/first-more-ame...223803476.html

[nogods]

Yes. I do. Sometimes I think you don't however.

I was talking about a the Buffalo case where the "plaintiff" admitted going to a home to commit a crime when they were shot. Let's call this case the brown horse.

You brought up OJ. Let's call this case your purple cow. (And I thought it was kind of amusing that you ducked my posed question by bringing up OJ, so I asked you if OJ shot Nicole with a knife. Sorry if it confused you.)

So did Nicole - the stabbee - go to OJ's -the stabber- house with the intention of committing a robbery, which OJ stabbed her for? Did Nicole's family admit in criminal court that she went to OJ's pad with the intention of robbing him?
Or was it supposedly OJ who went to Nicole's place to commit a crime?

Two different animals, Goober. In one case the victim's family sues the supposed criminal and wins. In the other the criminal not only admits to the crime, but sues his victim and wins.
That last one is a **** sandwich that only a lawyer can dream up, and served up piping-hot by a court system that's all about raking in the money.

But please, keep dancing though little monkey.
If you dance long and hard... maybe someday all the common folk will actually come to believe this pile of crap is really a diamond.

"Look judge, in that accident where the court decided talking on a cell phone was negligence, the driver was on his way to pick up a pizza. In this case my client was talking to his mother but was on his way to visit his mother for mother's day."

Nope, your attempt to distinguish the two fails because the issue isn't about who went where. The claim in the OP was that because he was "cleared of all criminal charges" he could not be held civilly liable. That is not the law in New York or California, and the OJ case is just one of the more famous cases that exemplifies that rule.

Now that we have eliminated the OP's inane argument that being "cleared of all criminal charges" (which itself is a TV phrase, not a real world one) we can get to the real reasons you are so upset with the judge's decision.

So tell us, what was the legal or factual issue of that decision you think was wrong? Do you even know what the legal or factual issues were in that matter?

[Chant]

"Look judge, in that accident where the court decided talking on a cell phone was negligence, the driver was on his way to pick up a pizza. In this case my client was talking to his mother but was on his way to visit his mother for mother's day."

Nope, your attempt to distinguish the two fails because the issue isn't about who went where. The claim in the OP was that because he was "cleared of all criminal charges" he could not be held civilly liable. That is not the law in New York or California, and the OJ case is just one of the more famous cases that exemplifies that rule.

Now that we have eliminated the OP's inane argument that being "cleared of all criminal charges" (which itself is a TV phrase, not a real world one) we can get to the real reasons you are so upset with the judge's decision.

So tell us, what was the legal or factual issue of that decision you think was wrong? Do you even know what the legal or factual issues were in that matter?

LOL!!!

Here... let me play Van Halen's "Dance the Night Away" for you.

[cheekman]

Christmas gifts for shooters


http://www.ammoland.com/2014/12/top-...#axzz3MyTOwyyB

[cheekman]

Top Ten Anti-Gun-Freedom Haters of 2014.. with this idiot leading the list.Michael Bloomberg topping the list.

http://www.ammoland.com/2015/01/top-...#axzz3NtCSc6mc

[NY The Vampire State]

Top Ten Anti-Gun-Freedom Haters of 2014.. with this idiot leading the list.Michael Bloomberg topping the list.

http://www.ammoland.com/2015/01/top-...#axzz3NtCSc6mc

What's up with these a- holes from Microsoft on the list? They should focus on improving there *hit computer software.

Those are some good pictures, especially Hillary.

[cheekman]

What's up with these a- holes from Microsoft on the list? They should focus on improving there *hit computer software.

Those are some good pictures, especially Hillary.

The microsoft guys are very, very, liberal they support far left ideas and have the money to support their own ideas..

[cheekman]

It should be started in this state..
http://universalfreepress.com/south-...ndment-course/

[4248]

Gov Cuomo and his anti gun owner rights agenda could be heading to the White House.

Democrats have two anti fire arms candidates to choose from - Mrs Billy Clinton or Gov A Cuomo.

Either way fire arms will be on their agenda and the agenda of the National Democratic Committee.

Every check you, your family and friends write to even the lowest level Democrat Candidate - that money goes up hill to support the loss of our rights and further attacks on jobs held by those who provide anything related to sport shooting, hunting and gun ownership in America.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUTH CAROLINA BILL REQUIRES ALL STUDENTS TO TAKE NRA APPROVED 2ND AMENDMENT COURSE
Read more at http://universalfreepress.com/south-...ndment-course/