About Us

X ` Man

On 4/12/12 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:17:56 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:54:10 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:37:20 -0400, X `
wrote:

Zimmerman has been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder, He once
again is being represented by competent counsel, Mark O'Mara. There's
nothing going on in the legal system that is contrary to his civil
rights. The process is in place. No one is so desperate they need you to
"defend" them.

I am just frustrated that this witch hunt will cost the Florida tax
payers millions that could have been spent on more worthy projects
(schools, roads etc) on a case that will probably fail.

The first SA looked at the evidence and said it was a loser. I think
he was right. The police report will be defense exhibit A and unless
they can find something we have not seen so far to break Zimmerman's
story, this could be dismissed at the end of the state's case for lack
of evidence.

This is pure election year politics. The only question is who it
benefits.

It won't fail. There had to be some very damning evidence to charge him
with Murder II and not manslaughter which is much easier to prove. So, I
guess you think murder cases shouldn't be tried because of the cost? So
we just let them go? How about bank robbers? Child molesters? Those
trials cost a boat load of money too.

We are going to see what evidence they have today. Unless it is a lot
more than they have announced, it is squat.
The damning evidence was the lynch mob that Sharpton assembled.

Just what lynch mob is that? And actually, Sharpton his self said last
night that no one can be as upset about this as Martin's parents, and
they are handling this with calm and said that the public should as
well.

How would you lefties feel if it was a black guy shooting an unarmed
teenager (like Carl Rowan did) and it was a white rally outside the
police station demanding an arrest? You would call them KKK skinheads

I asked, after you stated that this is a waste of taxpayer's money,
where should we draw the line? Should we not take murderers to trial,
just let them go because of the cost? What about rapists? Robbers? Those
trials also cost money.

Unless they have uncovered something new, they still do not have a
case. This is politics, pure and simple.
You really have to view this in light of the current FLORIDA law, not
what might happen in Maryland, Massachusetts or California.
All Zimmernan has to establish is that he was in fear of great bodily
harm. He had a "right to be there" so there is no question about the
legality of how he got into the situation.

I really think the SP plans to lose this case, just for ammunition to
attack the law.

Maybe they should just propose SYG as a constitutional amendment and
let the voters decide.
They did it with pregnant pigs and gill nets so it would not be the
dumbest thing that was proposed tor amendment status.

It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was following Martin as the latter
walked to the house in the subdivision where his dad was staying, and
that Zimmerman confronted Martin, and that Zimmerman apparently went
back to his car where his gun was stashed, and that Zimmerman was told
by the police dispatcher to remain in his car and that he didn't. I'm
not that familiar with florida's insane stand your ground statute, but
it seems to me that Zimmerman instigated a confrontation. From the
beginning, Martin was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman's
apparent interrogation. If I were walking through a neighborhood and
some moron adult starting questioning me, I'd think the guy was a nut
case and I'd start walking faster, figuring the guy was trying to start
a fight or worse.

That stand your ground bull**** law needs to be modified.

thumper

On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, wrote:

The police DISPATCHER (not a real officer) just said "we don't NEED
you to do that" which only says he was not being told he was being
asked to follow Martin, not that he couldn't.

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

BAR[_2_]

In article , lid says...

On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, wrote:

The police DISPATCHER (not a real officer) just said "we don't NEED
you to do that" which only says he was not being told he was being
asked to follow Martin, not that he couldn't.

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

The fact is that the dispatcher said what the dispatcher said. The
policy and procedure manual for the 911 operators will be reviewed and
analyzed.

Your interpretation is your interpretation and it is made with the
luxury of time and safety.

JustWait[_2_]

On 4/13/2012 10:42 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, wrote:

The police DISPATCHER (not a real officer) just said "we don't NEED
you to do that" which only says he was not being told he was being
asked to follow Martin, not that he couldn't.

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

And as far as we all know, he didn't... he turned to go back to his car
and was jumped.

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article , says...

On 4/13/2012 10:42 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, wrote:

The police DISPATCHER (not a real officer) just said "we don't NEED
you to do that" which only says he was not being told he was being
asked to follow Martin, not that he couldn't.

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

And as far as we all know, he didn't... he turned to go back to his car
and was jumped.

How do you "know" that?

JustWait[_2_]

On 4/14/2012 9:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/13/2012 10:42 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, wrote:

The police DISPATCHER (not a real officer) just said "we don't NEED
you to do that" which only says he was not being told he was being
asked to follow Martin, not that he couldn't.

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

And as far as we all know, he didn't... he turned to go back to his car
and was jumped.

How do you "know" that?

Asked and answered, next!?

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article , says...

On 4/14/2012 9:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/13/2012 10:42 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/13/2012 10:12 AM, wrote:

The police DISPATCHER (not a real officer) just said "we don't NEED
you to do that" which only says he was not being told he was being
asked to follow Martin, not that he couldn't.

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

And as far as we all know, he didn't... he turned to go back to his car
and was jumped.

How do you "know" that?

Asked and answered, next!?

Cite?

thumper

On 4/14/2012 5:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:42:11 -0700, wrote:

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

You have to take words at what they are, not what they might be.

If they tell you that you don't "need" to eat all your peas, it
doesn't mean you can't.

Willful ignorance. The point was crystal clear.

BAR[_2_]

In article , lid says...

On 4/14/2012 5:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:42:11 -0700, wrote:

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

You have to take words at what they are, not what they might be.

If they tell you that you don't "need" to eat all your peas, it
doesn't mean you can't.

Willful ignorance. The point was crystal clear.

First Zimmerman was an uneducated idiot and now he is an English major
at a mid-west liberal arts college.

Make up your mind and stick with it.

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:10:59 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 4/14/2012 5:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:42:11 -0700, wrote:

I think this is biased interpretation. Granted the choice of words was
unfortunate but the intended meaning of the dispatcher was quite clear.
Don't follow.

You have to take words at what they are, not what they might be.

If they tell you that you don't "need" to eat all your peas, it
doesn't mean you can't.

Willful ignorance. The point was crystal clear.

Yes it was crystal clear that the government was not going to protect
Zimmerman's safety when Martin attacked him

How do you know Martin attacked Zimmerman? Oh, forgot, you blindly
choose to believe Zimmerman.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
So why did Zimmerman......	iBoaterer[_2_]	General	55	April 12th 12 07:37 PM
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say	X ` Man[_3_]	General	35	April 2nd 12 09:13 PM
More about the Zimmerman saga	iBoaterer[_2_]	General	21	March 30th 12 08:00 PM
Well, well, Zimmerman defenders.....	iBoaterer[_2_]	General	47	March 30th 12 01:44 PM
Lunatic arrested and charged for threatening Senator's life	jps	General	0	April 7th 10 06:08 AM

Menu

About Us