On 4/20/2012 3:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/20/2012 1:00 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 20, 2012 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, 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.

Again, *you* don't know exactly what was done, so conjecture.


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?

That's not in evidence. The only statement we have at this time says that Martin approached Zimmerman, and initiated contact.


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?

Because charges are filed on someone you think that they've actually done something? So everyone that's ever been charged is automatically guilty? 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?

You just saw it. They published something that they had to later correct with a "note" after it was pointed out to them. Half-assed journalism. Some would even say very FOX-like, eh?


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.

I've said nearly nothing about Martin. You, on the other hand, have tried Zimmerman and found him guilty based on little knowledge of the facts and some crappy news articles you hand-picked. Fact is, and my point... you just don't know. Most of your so-called "facts" are only your opinion, and are based on error-filled, biased articles. You're just a different version of your hypothetical FOX viewer. Some crappy writer with a bias told you to think that.

I'm done.

Me too, for the same reasons. He is the one who has already made up his
mind...

Yeah, let's not forget who the first person to bring race into it right
here was, and let's not forget about those that spewed about a "black
attitude" and let's not forget that you want to bring Martin's past into
this but not Zimmermans. Now just whose mind is made up?

You are retarded...

On 4/20/12 3:38 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/20/2012 3:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/20/2012 1:00 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 20, 2012 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, 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.

Again, *you* don't know exactly what was done, so conjecture.


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?

That's not in evidence. The only statement we have at this time says
that Martin approached Zimmerman, and initiated contact.


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?

Because charges are filed on someone you think that they've actually
done something? So everyone that's ever been charged is
automatically guilty? 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?

You just saw it. They published something that they had to later
correct with a "note" after it was pointed out to them. Half-assed
journalism. Some would even say very FOX-like, eh?


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.

I've said nearly nothing about Martin. You, on the other hand, have
tried Zimmerman and found him guilty based on little knowledge of
the facts and some crappy news articles you hand-picked. Fact is,
and my point... you just don't know. Most of your so-called "facts"
are only your opinion, and are based on error-filled, biased
articles. You're just a different version of your hypothetical FOX
viewer. Some crappy writer with a bias told you to think that.

I'm done.

Me too, for the same reasons. He is the one who has already made up his
mind...

Yeah, let's not forget who the first person to bring race into it right
here was, and let's not forget about those that spewed about a "black
attitude" and let's not forget that you want to bring Martin's past into
this but not Zimmermans. Now just whose mind is made up?

You are retarded...


It's good that you recognize him as a kindred spirit, because you are
indisputably the dumbest poster active in rec.boats.

In article , says...

On 4/20/2012 3:12 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/20/2012 1:00 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 20, 2012 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, 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.

Again, *you* don't know exactly what was done, so conjecture.


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?

That's not in evidence. The only statement we have at this time says that Martin approached Zimmerman, and initiated contact.


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?

Because charges are filed on someone you think that they've actually done something? So everyone that's ever been charged is automatically guilty? 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?

You just saw it. They published something that they had to later correct with a "note" after it was pointed out to them. Half-assed journalism. Some would even say very FOX-like, eh?


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.

I've said nearly nothing about Martin. You, on the other hand, have tried Zimmerman and found him guilty based on little knowledge of the facts and some crappy news articles you hand-picked. Fact is, and my point... you just don't know. Most of your so-called "facts" are only your opinion, and are based on error-filled, biased articles. You're just a different version of your hypothetical FOX viewer. Some crappy writer with a bias told you to think that.

I'm done.

Me too, for the same reasons. He is the one who has already made up his
mind...

Yeah, let's not forget who the first person to bring race into it right
here was, and let's not forget about those that spewed about a "black
attitude" and let's not forget that you want to bring Martin's past into
this but not Zimmermans. Now just whose mind is made up?

You are retarded...

Which of the above do you disagree with and why?