|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article 15572391.2471.1335963360183.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbqq1, says... 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. It sure does!!!! April 29 9:09 PM: Greg wrote: The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the burden of proof. See? "no evidence that it didn't happen that way. Now go back and read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no evidence about a couple of very precise things. I'm sure you and Scotty won't apologize for your mistake. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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... A lie??? Here, now apologize.... April 29, 9:09 PM Greg wrote: "The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the burden of proof." Now read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no evidence of a couple of very cut and dry concerns, they did NOT say they had no evidence that it didn't happen that way. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/2/2012 8:33 AM, 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? Careful now. The Monika "asshat" was awarded to Harry on the moderated Maryland gunowners group, just before he was banished from that group. You should seek permission from Harry, to use that cherished descriptor on someone else. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/2/2012 5:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says... On 5/1/2012 12:40 PM, wrote: In fact the physical attack is not even the legal test, only that Zimmerman feared he was going to be harmed. What a stupid law. You are supposed to die as all good victims should. I've survived quite a while without a gun including Detroit and Chicago. If I killed every time I felt fear of harm there would be more than a few needless deaths. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/2/2012 10:38 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article15572391.2471.1335963360183.JavaMail.geo-discussion- forums@vbqq1, says... 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. It sure does!!!! April 29 9:09 PM: Greg wrote: The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the burden of proof. See? "no evidence that it didn't happen that way. Now go back and read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no evidence about a couple of very precise things. I'm sure you and Scotty won't apologize for your mistake. What precice things? Things of consequence, perhaps? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/2/2012 10:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... 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... A lie??? Here, now apologize.... April 29, 9:09 PM Greg wrote: "The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the burden of proof." Now read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no evidence of a couple of very cut and dry concerns, they did NOT say they had no evidence that it didn't happen that way. "cut and dry concern" What you be talkin bout, boy? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:13:19 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:40:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: A lie??? Here, now apologize.... April 29, 9:09 PM Greg wrote: "The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the burden of proof." Now read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no evidence of a couple of very cut and dry concerns, they did NOT say they had no evidence that it didn't happen that way. "That way" refers to breaking Zimmerman's story. The significant points are about whether Zimmerman was returning to his truck when he was confronted, who initiated the confrontation and who started the fight. The state has said they don't have evidence about all 3 of those issues. An owner on private property has every legal right to watch a suspected trespasser until the police arrive. That is all Zimmerman says he was doing and the state has presented no evidence otherwise. Give it up, Greg. You could hand the boy a pencil and lead him to a piece of paper with two big dots on it, and he still couldn't connect them. Doesn't have the mental capacity. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , lid says...
On 5/2/2012 5:14 AM, BAR wrote: In , lid says... On 5/1/2012 12:40 PM, wrote: In fact the physical attack is not even the legal test, only that Zimmerman feared he was going to be harmed. What a stupid law. You are supposed to die as all good victims should. I've survived quite a while without a gun including Detroit and Chicago. If I killed every time I felt fear of harm there would be more than a few needless deaths. Indeed! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com