What's up everybody! Just a quick message. We will be relaunching with the goal of keeping the community front and center. I have worked with Jamal and select moderators, to make sure The Illl Community's needs are being addressed as we evolve. We are encouraging you to use the new platform.

We will NOT be closing the current community, but we will be porting user data over to the new system over time, so please get used to using the new community!

We will be working on it every single day until it's exactly what you want!

Please feel free to join now, test, as we are in beta:

Stiff · Legion of Trill BG · ✭✭✭✭✭


Last Active
  • Re: A Miami woman killed a teen burglar as he fled her home, police say. Should she be charged?

    Here's the applicable statute, the part in bold is the "stand your ground" provision.

    The parts in bold and italicized is the standard. If the homeowner reasonably believed it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent a commission of felony, there's not a crime here.

    Its tough to call because all the facts are not known...

    776.031. Use or threatened use of force in defense of property

    (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
    (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    I'll do you one better from Florida State's Statues concerning their castle doctrine laws (which are some of the strongest in the nation)

    776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    In the eyes of the law she looks to be in the clear. If you break into people's houses you might die...end of story.
  • Re: The Truth About Gaddafi & Libya (informative movie)

    Will watch later. My understandin' is that Gaddafi was attemptin' to unite Africa and the Middle East under a single currency of gold. He preached that they should only sell oil in gold. If that'd happened, the entire world would have shifted to the East, hence the murder

    The reasons that the government provides for going into these countries is so transparent...

    In 2003 we go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein is an tyranical dictator that maybe, might, possibly , sort of, have "weapons of mass destruction"

    But then you got North Korea with Kim Jon-Il...around the same time saying "WE GETTING THEM NUKES ON DECK B" and they just respond with "that's not right, "cut it out"

    And then they claim Gaddaffi was about to committ an act of genocide so they had to intervene on "humanitarian" grounds... meanwhile all the genocides that were happening in Congo, Darfur , and Uganda and the govt conveniently couldn't find fucks to give. It's all about oil and Israel.
  • Re: The Official World Politics Thread - All Breaking News here.

    At a certain point we're gonna have to stop talking about Hillary... She's gone and she's not coming back

    Trump is talking about ending federal student loans tho
  • Re: Chili’s Apologizes For Taking Meal From Black Veteran On Veterans Day

    A Chili’s manager who took a free meal from a Veteran on Veteran’s Day is on administrative leave, according to the restaurant.

    Chili’s officials apologized to Army Veteran Ernest Walker for the incident and thanked him for his service, Kelli Valade, Chili’s Grill & Bar President, said in a statement.

    “We took swift action and immediately removed our manager from the restaurant,” Valade said. “We are now in the process of working with Mr. Walker on a resolution that promotes trust and healing.”

    Walker’s lawyer, Lee Merritt, said during a press conference he met with leaders from Chili’s and the restaurant’s parent company, Brinker International on Monday morning to discuss the incident.

    Merritt said the parties are working on the legal aspects of the incident, since the manager “assaulted” his client, though he said Walker does not want to see the manager permanently fired.

    “[He’s] not interested in seeing the young man fired; didn't want to see anyone lose their job,” Merritt said, adding that Walker is not on a “witch hunt.”

    Welp, I'm not defending him now, because he said he didn't want the manager fired. Black people are too damn forgiving man. SMH He had people defending him and then he goes and says some shit like this. This is why I wait until a victim speaks before I defend him.

    With all due respect to ole dude, fuck his wishes. If he's perfectly fine with being dogged out and humiliated like a nigger then that's his But leaving that manager in place leaves open the possibility for this to happen again to somebody else. This is bigger than him..and me saying the manager needs to be fired ain't got anything to do with defending ole dude. White veterans aren't getting plates snatched from them off of wild accusations. Chili's better make the right call.
    Young StefMaximus Rex313 wayzMECCA1000SneakDZAdnyce215
  • Re: Aye Y'all Know Hillary Clinton is Trash Right?

    xxCivicxx wrote: »
    Stiff wrote: »
    xxCivicxx wrote: »
    Stiff wrote: »
    xxCivicxx wrote: »
    smp4life wrote: »
    xxCivicxx wrote: »
    smp4life wrote: »
    xxCivicxx wrote: »
    smp4life wrote: »
    xxCivicxx wrote: »
    blackrain wrote: »
    D. Morgan wrote: »
    blackrain wrote: »
    I've yet to see any viable alternatives as to what exactly not voting will accomplish...and anyone who thinks a Trump presidency wouldn't do far more harm than Hilary is very misinformed. I've yet to see anyone say Hilary is perfect and her flaws are very well known but to pretend as if it will make no difference between her running the country vs Trump is where you expose your own ignorance

    What sense does it make to keep going for the status quo?

    In any other instance I'm all for challenging the status quo...but when the alternative is 4 years under Trump many find that risk not with taking

    Again, your entire argument in favor of hillary has nothing to do with her or her policies

    You've been programmed to think trump whenever someone mentions hillary's past

    You are literally brainwashed

    Because it's a binary choice dude. It has nothing to do with "brainwashing."

    It's not a binary choice

    The fact that you think it is is proof of your brainwashing

    Either Clinton or Trump will win the presidency. Two choices. A one or a zero. That's the definition of a binary choice.

    You don't decide who becomes president, the electoral college does

    You show faith in the system by participating in voting

    Your choice in whether to participate or not is not binary

    And who decides how the electoral college votes? Also, participating or not is also a binary choice. Any yes or no or choice or 1 thing out of 2 possible choices is by DEFINITION binary.

    The electoral college decides how the electoral college votes

    You're confusing yourself

    Nah the electoral college goes off of the popular vote of the state. There's never been an instance in American history where the popular vote of a state went with one candidate and the electoral college said nah we going a different way. ONE or TWO single voters in the electoral college might try to vote a different way on some "protest" shit but it has never swayed the election.

    People always point to the Bush vs Gore election...but that was a case where the popular vote NATIONALLY went to Gore but the way the math worked out with the individual states and their votes, Bush got more electoral votes (even though that's only because Gore didn't press the issue with Florida and if he had he would have won)

    Lol you literally just contradicted yourself in your post

    The popular vote has nothing to do with the electoral vote

    The electorate normally vote with the popular vote so as to avoid revolts and keep the masses docile, but they are not obligated to vote how the people vote

    Bush lost the popular vote by 2 million and became president. No matter how you want to slice it, the fact remains that you saw the irrelevancy of the popular vote in your own lifetime

    The popular vote is irrelevant on a NATIONAL level.
    On a state level the popular vote is THE determining factor of how the state's electoral college vote goes. The electoral college has historically ALWAYS voted with the popular vote of its state with the exception of one or two "faithless electors" which are rare and don't ever sway the election.

    You're agreeing with me so I'm not sure these posts are about

    And once again, saying "always" and then "with the exception" is a contradiction

    And once again, the electoral college is not OBLIGATED to vote how the people vote

    And once again, they do so only to keep the facade/ritual going

    What you appear to be saying is that the popular vote is irrelevant and the electoral college decides the election. You're pointing to the 2000 election to support your argument.

    What I'm telling you is that the popular vote on a STATE level is what determines who gets the electoral college votes for that state. And the whole "always" and "with exception" hang up is basically this:

    If California has 55 electoral points and Candidate A wins the popular vote in California, then candidate A is entitled to 55 electoral points. When it's time for the ceremonial vote casting of the electors one of the 55 electors says "ahh fuck it I'm writing in my mom" then sure Candidate A will technically will only get 54 votes from California but it will be inconsequential. There's NEVER in the history of the country been an instance where a state's entire electoral college decided to flip against the popular vote of its state. To state that the electoral college is not obligated to vote how the people vote is to argue hypotheticals with no historical precedent.