On 4/20/2012 1:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/20/2012 11:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article18803972.421.1334930205112.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynbi17, says...

On Friday, April 20, 2012 8:46:47 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article1526853.2971.1334881550324.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbab2, says...

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:56:02 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article18562529.2042.1334771010739.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynee1, says...

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:08:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:22:47 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:03:55 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:27:56 -0400, wrote:



"Asking a question is not assault."

But how do you know that the person asking the question isn't about to
assault you? Do you wait for him to do so?


True, but it was Martin who asked the first question.

Some vigilante creepy guy following me around at night, I'd ask the
first question too. It would be stupid not to.

Would you punch the guy when he asked you why you were there or would
you tell him you had a right to be there.

It all depends on HOW he approached me.

Either we believe the girlfriend or we ONLY have Zimmerman to
believe., The last words before the fight started were from Zimmerman
asking what Martin was doing there.

So?

Zimmerman's statement to the police was basically the same as what the
girlfriend says, before Zimmerman even knew there was a girlfriend.

Do you mean the statement that the police helped Zimmerman conjure up?


Since the police actually wanted to bring charges I doubt they
conjured up anything helpful for Zimmerman
It was the states attorney who said they did not have a case.
Nothing has changed and I still doubt they have a case the state will
win. This is just a knee jerk political move.

Don't confuse him with facts.

Fact: Zimmerman killed Martin.
Admitted fact.

Fact: Sanford PD didn't follow anywhere near normal investigations of a
homicide.
Conjecture.

No, not conjecture, truth.

You weren't there, you don't know exactly what they did. And I'm certain you aren't a police detective. So, conjecture.

Don't have to be a detective. They've stated they didn't do those things
normally done.

Fact: Zimmerman stalked Martin
False, he wasn't stealthy, Martin knew he was there. Look up "stalk".

Okay, see #3:

3.
to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner:

Again, the events don't support your take. He wasn't steady or deliberate, if he had been he wouldn't have lost him, gone back to his truck, etc. Wasn't sinister in his intent during the time he was following, else he wouldn't have had the police on the phone. In fact, he had lost Martin and was waiting on police when it seems Martin initiated contact.


A guy walking toward another person with a handgun isn't sinister? Also,
note the definition that you wanted me to look up says "steady,
deliberate, OR sinister.

Fact: Zimmerman was a known hostile hot head.
False.

Really?

http://rollingout.com/culture/george...retired-judge-
has-3-closed-arrests/

Which states:
According to a records search on George, he was previously arrested for
domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence and most
shockingly, resisting an officer with violence ? a felony charge that
surely could have landed him in prison.
All three of those arrests, however, were mysteriously closed with no
semblance of charges for the Florida resident. So how was someone with a
violent past including that of battery against an officer able to carry
a 9 mm handgun? Maybe that?s a question Robert Zimmerman should answer ?

You did't read you own cite, do you?
"Note: It has been brought to our attention that George Zimmerman has been arrested one time, not three, and that the charges against him were dropped after he completed a pre-trial diversion program. The additional two charges stem from the same incident on the same date."

Because the charges were dropped in pre-trial intervention means he
didn't do anything??? Are you serious?

The article you cite from wasn't even a halfway researched one, it got some pretty important stuff wrong. Half-ass "journalism".

You have proof of that, right? May I see it?

Anyway, on closer examination of the facts, he was actually a pretty wimpy "violent" guy, huh? Seems that he actually never touched anyone. Sounds to me like he's guilty of running his mouth.

Domestic violence, resisting arrest with violence, resisting arrest with
violence. How many crimes has Martin been charged with? After all you're
trying to make it look like Martin was a thug and Zimmerman was an
outstanding citizen.

Well, if you were really interested in facts, you would have just
watched the probable cause hearing where the Judge made a great effort
to let folks know that "this type of charge" is "standard" for incidents
on some University, and he (the judge) pretty much dismissed all of the
"charges" previously against him and said "they are not relevant to this
case at all" and then gave him a 150,000 dollar bond, and will even let
him leave the state. Those are the facts, spin on from there....

I couldn't, I'm employed. So.... Zimmerman's arrest record to you isn't
relative, but Martin, who allegedly got into a little school trouble,
but has NO arrest record is a thug who deserved to be shot by an ill
tempered vigilante? Got it.

When did I even mention Martin, you lying asshole?