|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:43:16 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 23524525.52.1335894681614.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@ynmk20, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:36:31 PM UTC-4, JustWait wrote: On 5/1/2012 1:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 01 May 2012 11:46:21 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/1/12 11:34 AM, wrote: "...so far they have come up with nothing..." If memory serves, the prosecutor and defense agreed to not discuss the particulars of the case outside of the courtroom. So, how would you know what "they" have come up with? Because they have been in a court room, under oath and said they had no evidence about the three main points of the case. Whoa!! Before you said that the state said they "had no evidence" period, you sure are putting qualifiers on it lately. The qualifiers were established by the direction of the thread, and the questions... you are an idiot... We never said the state had no evidence "at all"... Just what Gene said about the three points, anybody with a high school diploma could have followed their own line of questioning.... but you... apparently... Greg's posit from the start was that they had no evidence that *refutes Zimmerman's story*, and never said that they had none at all. iIdiot just took the phrase "they have no evidence" out of context with the rest of the sentence "that it didn't happen that way" and morphed it into some make believe bull it it's head. It just wants to argue, and does so over imaginary crap. iIdiot is a simple usenet troll, and not a very clever one. That is NO what he said. Period. Post your quote from this thread, or STFU. That simple. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/12 7:28 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:43:16 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article23524525.52.1335894681614.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@ynmk20, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:36:31 PM UTC-4, JustWait wrote: On 5/1/2012 1:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 01 May 2012 11:46:21 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/1/12 11:34 AM, wrote: "...so far they have come up with nothing..." If memory serves, the prosecutor and defense agreed to not discuss the particulars of the case outside of the courtroom. So, how would you know what "they" have come up with? Because they have been in a court room, under oath and said they had no evidence about the three main points of the case. Whoa!! Before you said that the state said they "had no evidence" period, you sure are putting qualifiers on it lately. The qualifiers were established by the direction of the thread, and the questions... you are an idiot... We never said the state had no evidence "at all"... Just what Gene said about the three points, anybody with a high school diploma could have followed their own line of questioning... but you... apparently... Greg's posit from the start was that they had no evidence that *refutes Zimmerman's story*, and never said that they had none at all. iIdiot just took the phrase "they have no evidence" out of context with the rest of the sentence "that it didn't happen that way" and morphed it into some make believe bull it it's head. It just wants to argue, and does so over imaginary crap. iIdiot is a simple usenet troll, and not a very clever one. That is NO what he said. Period. Post your quote from this thread, or STFU. That simple. I don't read anything iLoogy posts directly, but...you don't seem to understand how things work in unmoderated groups. You're not in a position to tell anyone to shut up and have it mean anything. Because you aren't, your "demand" makes you simple. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On May 1, 5:11*pm, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:34:52 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 1 May 2012 13:29:10 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Well, let's see, injury evidence, toxocology evidence, trajectory evidence, physical evidence, forensic evidence, witness evidence, and on and on..... That is all irrelevant to a self defense case. If Zimmerman can demonstrate that he had a fear of great bodily harm he has the right to use deadly force. The state has said they don't have evidence that he was in pursuit of Martin at the time of the confrontation They don't have proof that martin did not initiate the confrontation and they don't have evidence that Martin did not attack Zimmerman. It is actually unclear under the stand your ground law whether the alleged pursuit and initiating the contact would deny Zimmerman of the right to self defense. I am waiting on the hearing where hopefully more facts will come out. All I have now is the suspicion the both were eager for trouble. Casady and that is only proper. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article 526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbay5, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:43:16 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article 23524525.52.1335894681614.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@ynmk20, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:36:31 PM UTC-4, JustWait wrote: On 5/1/2012 1:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 01 May 2012 11:46:21 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/1/12 11:34 AM, wrote: "...so far they have come up with nothing..." If memory serves, the prosecutor and defense agreed to not discuss the particulars of the case outside of the courtroom. So, how would you know what "they" have come up with? Because they have been in a court room, under oath and said they had no evidence about the three main points of the case. Whoa!! Before you said that the state said they "had no evidence" period, you sure are putting qualifiers on it lately. The qualifiers were established by the direction of the thread, and the questions... you are an idiot... We never said the state had no evidence "at all"... Just what Gene said about the three points, anybody with a high school diploma could have followed their own line of questioning... but you... apparently... Greg's posit from the start was that they had no evidence that *refutes Zimmerman's story*, and never said that they had none at all. iIdiot just took the phrase "they have no evidence" out of context with the rest of the sentence "that it didn't happen that way" and morphed it into some make believe bull it it's head. It just wants to argue, and does so over imaginary crap. iIdiot is a simple usenet troll, and not a very clever one. That is NO what he said. Period. Post your quote from this thread, or STFU. That simple. Or WHAT, asshat? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:33:21 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@vbay5, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:43:16 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article 23524525.52.1335894681614.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@ynmk20, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:36:31 PM UTC-4, JustWait wrote: On 5/1/2012 1:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 01 May 2012 11:46:21 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/1/12 11:34 AM, wrote: "...so far they have come up with nothing..." If memory serves, the prosecutor and defense agreed to not discuss the particulars of the case outside of the courtroom. So, how would you know what "they" have come up with? Because they have been in a court room, under oath and said they had no evidence about the three main points of the case. Whoa!! Before you said that the state said they "had no evidence" period, you sure are putting qualifiers on it lately. The qualifiers were established by the direction of the thread, and the questions... you are an idiot... We never said the state had no evidence "at all"... Just what Gene said about the three points, anybody with a high school diploma could have followed their own line of questioning... but you... apparently... Greg's posit from the start was that they had no evidence that *refutes Zimmerman's story*, and never said that they had none at all. iIdiot just took the phrase "they have no evidence" out of context with the rest of the sentence "that it didn't happen that way" and morphed it into some make believe bull it it's head. It just wants to argue, and does so over imaginary crap. iIdiot is a simple usenet troll, and not a very clever one. That is NO what he said. Period. Post your quote from this thread, or STFU. That simple. Or WHAT, asshat? Or essentially admit that he never actually wrote what you claim. All you have to do is cut and paste the entire sentence out of his post. Nah, make it the paragraph, so we can all see the context of the statement. Heh, make it his entire post, so you can really show us how right you are. You won't do it. You can't. It doesn't exist. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/2/2012 8:56 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:33:21 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@vbay5, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:43:16 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article23524525.52.1335894681614.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@ynmk20, says... On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:36:31 PM UTC-4, JustWait wrote: On 5/1/2012 1:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 01 May 2012 11:46:21 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/1/12 11:34 AM, wrote: "...so far they have come up with nothing..." If memory serves, the prosecutor and defense agreed to not discuss the particulars of the case outside of the courtroom. So, how would you know what "they" have come up with? Because they have been in a court room, under oath and said they had no evidence about the three main points of the case. Whoa!! Before you said that the state said they "had no evidence" period, you sure are putting qualifiers on it lately. The qualifiers were established by the direction of the thread, and the questions... you are an idiot... We never said the state had no evidence "at all"... Just what Gene said about the three points, anybody with a high school diploma could have followed their own line of questioning... but you... apparently... Greg's posit from the start was that they had no evidence that *refutes Zimmerman's story*, and never said that they had none at all. iIdiot just took the phrase "they have no evidence" out of context with the rest of the sentence "that it didn't happen that way" and morphed it into some make believe bull it it's head. It just wants to argue, and does so over imaginary crap. iIdiot is a simple usenet troll, and not a very clever one. That is NO what he said. Period. Post your quote from this thread, or STFU. That simple. Or WHAT, asshat? Or essentially admit that he never actually wrote what you claim. All you have to do is cut and paste the entire sentence out of his post. Nah, make it the paragraph, so we can all see the context of the statement. Heh, make it his entire post, so you can really show us how right you are. You won't do it. You can't. It doesn't exist. So the guy will slide right back to the next lie... or start the circle again... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com