|
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article , says...
On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article om, 5@
5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote:
In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. The kid was armed with two fists which were wailing on Zimmerman's head and mashing it into the pavement. What would Harry do if he were in Zimmerman's shoes? |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article ,
says... In article om, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. Well, just to show you YOUR stupidity, where did I ever say anybody here was more credible than a judge? Show me. I was never, ever talking about the hearing. I'm talking about the PEOPLE HERE. And of course, the FOXites aren't credible, and that is my point. They have no problem dragging up Martin's past, but Zimmerman's seems to have no bearing on their thoughts. THAT is stupid. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, Are you kidding? What a stooge.... morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/21/2012 1:59 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. The kid was armed with two fists which were wailing on Zimmerman's head and mashing it into the pavement. What would Harry do if he were in Zimmerman's shoes? He would **** his pants and get his ass kicked... |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/21/2012 2:20 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. Well, just to show you YOUR stupidity, where did I ever say anybody here was more credible than a judge? Show me. I was never, ever talking about the hearing. I'm talking about the PEOPLE HERE. And of course, the FOXites aren't credible, and that is my point. They have no problem dragging up Martin's past, but Zimmerman's seems to have no bearing on their thoughts. THAT is stupid. Gee, all the facts you don't seem aware of come from FOX. What else do you expect when the other news agencies are all editing and making up facts as they go along? |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article , says...
On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, Are you kidding? What a stooge.... Really? If the decision wasn't made on the basis of law, the judge will and should be recused. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article , says...
On 4/21/2012 1:59 PM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. The kid was armed with two fists which were wailing on Zimmerman's head and mashing it into the pavement. What would Harry do if he were in Zimmerman's shoes? He would **** his pants and get his ass kicked... You appear to believe the above, would you give cite please? I'd really like to know where these *facts* came from. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article , says...
On 4/21/2012 2:20 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. Well, just to show you YOUR stupidity, where did I ever say anybody here was more credible than a judge? Show me. I was never, ever talking about the hearing. I'm talking about the PEOPLE HERE. And of course, the FOXites aren't credible, and that is my point. They have no problem dragging up Martin's past, but Zimmerman's seems to have no bearing on their thoughts. THAT is stupid. Gee, all the facts you don't seem aware of come from FOX. What else do you expect when the other news agencies are all editing and making up facts as they go along? You STILL aren't capable of answering the question, I see.... |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/22/2012 9:32 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/21/2012 1:59 PM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. The kid was armed with two fists which were wailing on Zimmerman's head and mashing it into the pavement. What would Harry do if he were in Zimmerman's shoes? He would **** his pants and get his ass kicked... You appear to believe the above, would you give cite please? I'd really like to know where these *facts* came from. If you had cites, you would just misinterpert them. So why bother to try to humor you? |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/22/2012 9:33 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
You STILL aren't capable of answering the question, I see.... Well, if you want the gods honest truth, we were just mocking your logic and reasoning. You, like Plume, are so out of touch with reality, it's difficult carrying on a conversation with you. Cite= Oscar the grinch |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/22/2012 9:32 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/21/2012 1:59 PM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. The kid was armed with two fists which were wailing on Zimmerman's head and mashing it into the pavement. What would Harry do if he were in Zimmerman's shoes? He would **** his pants and get his ass kicked... You appear to believe the above, would you give cite please? I'd really like to know where these *facts* came from. Sorry, can't waste my time, you can't read anyway... |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/22/2012 10:06 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/22/2012 9:33 AM, iBoaterer wrote: You STILL aren't capable of answering the question, I see.... Well, if you want the gods honest truth, we were just mocking your logic and reasoning. You, like Plume, are so out of touch with reality, it's difficult carrying on a conversation with you. Cite= Oscar the grinch Exactly.. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article , says...
On 4/22/2012 9:32 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 1:59 PM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. The kid was armed with two fists which were wailing on Zimmerman's head and mashing it into the pavement. What would Harry do if he were in Zimmerman's shoes? He would **** his pants and get his ass kicked... You appear to believe the above, would you give cite please? I'd really like to know where these *facts* came from. Sorry, can't waste my time, you can't read anyway... Just as I suspected. |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
|
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/23/2012 8:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/22/2012 9:32 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 1:59 PM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/21/12 12:52 PM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 4/21/2012 11:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/21/2012 9:32 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/21/2012 9:10 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 3:00 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 1:05 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/20/2012 12:19 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/20/12 11:55 AM, JustWait wrote: 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.... That may be your reality, but the "real" reality is different: (CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - A judge has granted bail for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but would not allow his release Friday, citing further discussions needed about the terms, including whether or not he would be allowed out of state. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester also said that Zimmerman must not have any contact with the victim's family; must wear an ankle monitoring bracelet; and adhere to a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. The judge's order also states that Zimmerman cannot be in possession of firearms; and must not consume alcohol or controlled substances. Taking the stand during the hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, Zimmerman addressed the parents of Martin, who were seated in court: "I wanted to say that I am sorry for the loss of your son. "I did not know how old he was," he said. "I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know whether he was armed or not." Zimmerman said he had made a similar statement to police. "I was told not to communicate with them," he said. "I did ask [my attorneys] to express that to them." I would caution anyone reading harrys edited, out of context, and cherry picked statements to go on line and listen to what the judge said, another words, watch the whole hearing so you can have it all in context. I already know harry and plum won't do that, or won't care so we can pretty much dismiss anything they say here about it... :) Gee, because he was granted bail (with an ankle bracelet, I might add) means he's innocent, right? Nope, that would be a silly assumption, only made by an irrational person with an agenda.. I am particularly talking about the part where the Judge address Zimmerman's past record. I will let you do your own research.. Come back when you have. What does it matter? MY point, which you fail miserably to understand is that you and other FOXites dredged up Martin's past (he's never been arrested, by the way) but then don't want to bring Zimmerman's past (he HAS been arrested several times) into it. Funny huh? My whole post was about Zimmermans past, as interpreted in a court of law, by a judge... I said nothing about Martin, period. If I thought you were really that stupid, that would be one thing, but you are not. You are just being an asshole. Oh, but in the past you've stated right here in rec.boats that Martin had a shady past. So, I'll make it very easy for you to understand (hopefully you will). #1. Of the two, which one has been arrested three times, two of which were violent crimes? #2. Which of the two has NO arrest record? Who cares? One version of the story has all three charges arising out of the same incident. I don't know the truth of the matter, do you? He doesn't, he still obviously hasn't looked into what the Judge said about that yesterday... I don't care what the judge said yesterday. I asked two simple questions and you can't answer them. We already know the answers, everyone does, but it "has no bearing on this case" in the words of the Judge, and like it or not, we are not China yet... What you are failing miserably to get is this. HERE, in REC.BOATS the FOXites et al have stated over and over again that Martin had a couple of past problems at school, therefore he was a "thug" a "black trouble maker" etc. So, what I want to know is, from the same people, why is it that Martin's past is relevant, but Zimmermans past ARRESTS aren't? Again, the judge isn't here in rec.boats that I know of, therefore I don't care what the judge said. You assign a higher degree of credibility to the bozos here in rec.boats than to a Judge that actually is involved in the case and who probably knows more facts in the case than you do. Is that correct? No wonder folks here think you are insane. By the way, the person who used the alias Nom De Plume here, had the exact same reasoning process that you do. What a coincidence, eh? iBoater should change its name to iStupid. The judge's decision was made on the basis of law, not facts, morons. It's amusing watching the right-wing trash here defend a thug with a history of violence and armed with a handgun who shot and killed a kid armed with a bag of candy. The kid was armed with two fists which were wailing on Zimmerman's head and mashing it into the pavement. What would Harry do if he were in Zimmerman's shoes? He would **** his pants and get his ass kicked... You appear to believe the above, would you give cite please? I'd really like to know where these *facts* came from. Sorry, can't waste my time, you can't read anyway... Just as I suspected. Yeah, right snerk |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/23/2012 8:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/22/2012 10:06 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/22/2012 9:33 AM, iBoaterer wrote: You STILL aren't capable of answering the question, I see.... Well, if you want the gods honest truth, we were just mocking your logic and reasoning. You, like Plume, are so out of touch with reality, it's difficult carrying on a conversation with you. Cite= Oscar the grinch Exactly.. And you're still not bright enough to answer the question, I see. You are not bright enough to ask one... |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
On 4/23/2012 8:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/22/2012 10:06 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/22/2012 9:33 AM, iBoaterer wrote: You STILL aren't capable of answering the question, I see.... Well, if you want the gods honest truth, we were just mocking your logic and reasoning. You, like Plume, are so out of touch with reality, it's difficult carrying on a conversation with you. Cite= Oscar the grinch Exactly.. And you're still not bright enough to answer the question, I see. Refresh our memory. What was the question? |
Zimmerman to be arrested and charged....
In article , says...
On 4/23/2012 8:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/22/2012 10:06 AM, Oscar wrote: On 4/22/2012 9:33 AM, iBoaterer wrote: You STILL aren't capable of answering the question, I see.... Well, if you want the gods honest truth, we were just mocking your logic and reasoning. You, like Plume, are so out of touch with reality, it's difficult carrying on a conversation with you. Cite= Oscar the grinch Exactly.. And you're still not bright enough to answer the question, I see. You are not bright enough to ask one... I did, I guess you weren't bright enough to understand it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com