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....

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

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..

In article , 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.

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...

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.

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?