|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
harry spewed...
As for "race relations" in redneck/cracker areas of Florida, they remain a continuing problem. I have no familiarity with your area of the state. But of course you know all you need to know about Sanford... snerk |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/12 5:10 PM, JustWait wrote:
harry spewed... As for "race relations" in redneck/cracker areas of Florida, they remain a continuing problem. I have no familiarity with your area of the state. But of course you know all you need to know about Sanford... snerk There's no shortage of articles about the sordid racial history of Sanford, including recent times. Of course, you won't find that on that Fake News station you so love. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/12 5:21 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 4:44 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:21:41 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0400, 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. Cite? If you are going to play the game, you really have to watch the news. They had the bail hearing on TV in it's entirety. The fat cop with the badge said he had no knowledge of how the fight started or who initiated it. I have heard it, and I also read the transcripts. NO WHERE did anyone from the state say that they "have no evidence". Read it again. O'Mara ask about whether the state had any evidence about any of this in several separate questions about different aspects of the state's case and they were all answered "no" ZIMMERMAN'S ATTORNEY O'MARA: "Zimmerman confronted Martin," those words (in the affidavit of probable cause). Where did you get that from? DALE GILBREATH, INVESTIGATOR, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people. O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any. GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. ... O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree? GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes. O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with. GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with. O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you? GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish. O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you? GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question. (later) BERNARDO DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Sir, you were asked about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what "confronted" means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible), wouldn't you consider that a confrontation? GILBREATH: Yes. DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct? O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence. JUDGE KENNETH LESTER, JR., FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT: What's the objection? O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word "confronted" sir? GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses. DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding his own business? Is that correct? O'MARA: Again, your honor, we point to -- and this is not in evidence and he cannot present it that way to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Martin, the route he was taking was towards his house, correct? GILBREATH: Yes. DE LA RIONDA: And he was unarmed? GILBREATH: Yes. (later) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight? GILBREATH: Do I know? O'MARA: Right. GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight? GILBREATH: No. (later) O'MARA: That statement that he had given you -- sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event? GILBREATH: Which two? O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one. GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that. O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car? GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: No evidence. Correct? GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time? O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car? GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no. O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no. O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first? GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no. (later) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not. GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands? GILBREATH: He has said that, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant -- did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn't breathe? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself? GILBREATH: Yes. (later) O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct? GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that. O'MARA: Have you asked him for them? GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No. O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them? GILBREATH: Sure. O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. I'm sorry, just where does the state say in this diatribe that they have no evidence on this case? holy ****! |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 4:10 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Uh,oh.... you are gonna' be called a racist now! |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 5:21 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . You are way over-thinking this whole thing. It's just more election year narrative, and all good democrats are just going along for the ride... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 5:37 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/30/12 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. If you listen to the transcripts (snerk) the judge seems to differ with the whole "violence" notion.. He dismissed all of those "arrests" as college folly, and wrote them off in reference to the case. But of course harry, we don't expect you to accept that cause, well, you are a liar... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/12 6:00 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/30/2012 5:37 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. If you listen to the transcripts (snerk) the judge seems to differ with the whole "violence" notion.. He dismissed all of those "arrests" as college folly, and wrote them off in reference to the case. But of course harry, we don't expect you to accept that cause, well, you are a liar... To a low-life loser like you, smacking around one's wife and interfering with an arrest are "college folly." |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 4:25 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/30/12 4:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:14:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:28:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:26:00 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:47:44 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:21:51 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:01:00 -0400, wrote: ... a kid who was beating the **** out of him. How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"? I guess I shouldn't be surprised you bought that bull****. If Zimmerman would have shown any signs whatsoever of being subject to the kind of trauma that would result in a concussion (which beating the **** out of him would indeed imply) he'd have shown signs of it and would have been taken immediately to the hospital for tests and observation. According to everyone who witnessed him, he was alert and doing well. Whatever Greg, understand you need to be against the black kid because you're a conservative in the south. The legal question is not actual bodily harm, only the FEAR of great bodily harm. There are pictures of two cuts in the back of his head from the concrete. He was not required to wait for a concussion before he had the right to defend himself. Maybe it is different up where you live. I speak of the EMT's who attended to him. Any sign of trauma to the head and they would immediately take him to the hospital since the liability could create a catastrophic situation for whomever the EMTs work for. He pursued the kid with a weapon against the advise of the 911 dispatcher and then found himself in a situation where he feared for his life? Does that sound as stupid to you as it's going to sound to a jury or will you convince yourself otherwise? They guy promoted and invited the situation but you think "stand your ground" is going to rule the day? Ridiculous. I suppose it all comes down to the difference between pursuit and simply following with the intent of maintaining visual contact. Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. His story is that he lost sight of Martin and was approached from behind as he returned to his truck. Until the government comes up with evidence to break this story, the case will go nowhere. The state's investigator said he did not have any evidence about who initiated the confrontation at the bail hearing. Maybe Corey thinks she can have a "Jack McCoy" moment if she gets Zimmerman on the stand but the chances are that he will never testify. The only real question now is if this simply gets tossed at an immunity hearing and when that might happen. He didn't just pursue him, he confronted him with a loaded pistol in his possession. Zimmerman's account will be shredded by his own call to 911. He invited this tragedy and deserves to account for the killing of a teenager who had every right to be where he was. Cite? I saw nowhere in that phone call where Zimmerman said any more than that he was following Martin. He never said he approached Martin. In fact his statement was that Martin confronted Zimmerman. For your own reasons you have decided that Zimmerman chased and shot Martin for no reason yet there is no evidence to support that. When the defendant is a white guy, he suddenly loses his right to the benefit of a doubt from the left. You prefer speculation from people who were 1500-3000 miles away. I wouldn't have stopped to chat with Zimmerman either. He probably would have taken a shot at me. I'd probably carry in Florida just because there are so many "heeled" nutcases down there. Right... what a hero... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/12 6:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/30/2012 4:25 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:14:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:28:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:26:00 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:47:44 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:21:51 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:01:00 -0400, wrote: ... a kid who was beating the **** out of him. How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"? I guess I shouldn't be surprised you bought that bull****. If Zimmerman would have shown any signs whatsoever of being subject to the kind of trauma that would result in a concussion (which beating the **** out of him would indeed imply) he'd have shown signs of it and would have been taken immediately to the hospital for tests and observation. According to everyone who witnessed him, he was alert and doing well. Whatever Greg, understand you need to be against the black kid because you're a conservative in the south. The legal question is not actual bodily harm, only the FEAR of great bodily harm. There are pictures of two cuts in the back of his head from the concrete. He was not required to wait for a concussion before he had the right to defend himself. Maybe it is different up where you live. I speak of the EMT's who attended to him. Any sign of trauma to the head and they would immediately take him to the hospital since the liability could create a catastrophic situation for whomever the EMTs work for. He pursued the kid with a weapon against the advise of the 911 dispatcher and then found himself in a situation where he feared for his life? Does that sound as stupid to you as it's going to sound to a jury or will you convince yourself otherwise? They guy promoted and invited the situation but you think "stand your ground" is going to rule the day? Ridiculous. I suppose it all comes down to the difference between pursuit and simply following with the intent of maintaining visual contact. Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. His story is that he lost sight of Martin and was approached from behind as he returned to his truck. Until the government comes up with evidence to break this story, the case will go nowhere. The state's investigator said he did not have any evidence about who initiated the confrontation at the bail hearing. Maybe Corey thinks she can have a "Jack McCoy" moment if she gets Zimmerman on the stand but the chances are that he will never testify. The only real question now is if this simply gets tossed at an immunity hearing and when that might happen. He didn't just pursue him, he confronted him with a loaded pistol in his possession. Zimmerman's account will be shredded by his own call to 911. He invited this tragedy and deserves to account for the killing of a teenager who had every right to be where he was. Cite? I saw nowhere in that phone call where Zimmerman said any more than that he was following Martin. He never said he approached Martin. In fact his statement was that Martin confronted Zimmerman. For your own reasons you have decided that Zimmerman chased and shot Martin for no reason yet there is no evidence to support that. When the defendant is a white guy, he suddenly loses his right to the benefit of a doubt from the left. You prefer speculation from people who were 1500-3000 miles away. I wouldn't have stopped to chat with Zimmerman either. He probably would have taken a shot at me. I'd probably carry in Florida just because there are so many "heeled" nutcases down there. Right... what a hero... Yeah, I'm too smart to think I can fight off a "gunslinger" with a bag of candy. Not a day goes by without your proving again what an ill-educated, ignorant, pigheaded little ****head you are. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 6:06 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/30/12 6:00 PM, JustWait wrote: On 4/30/2012 5:37 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. If you listen to the transcripts (snerk) the judge seems to differ with the whole "violence" notion.. He dismissed all of those "arrests" as college folly, and wrote them off in reference to the case. But of course harry, we don't expect you to accept that cause, well, you are a liar... To a low-life loser like you, smacking around one's wife and interfering with an arrest are "college folly." No, to a judge, not to a bitch like yourself though... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 7:49 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/30/2012 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Harry is famous for pulling the trigger on his rapid fire mouth before checking the ammo. harry would freeze, the assailed would take his gun from his trembling hand and empty the chamber in his gut... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 6:19 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/30/12 6:11 PM, JustWait wrote: On 4/30/2012 4:25 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:14:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:28:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:26:00 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:47:44 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:21:51 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:01:00 -0400, wrote: ... a kid who was beating the **** out of him. How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"? I guess I shouldn't be surprised you bought that bull****. If Zimmerman would have shown any signs whatsoever of being subject to the kind of trauma that would result in a concussion (which beating the **** out of him would indeed imply) he'd have shown signs of it and would have been taken immediately to the hospital for tests and observation. According to everyone who witnessed him, he was alert and doing well. Whatever Greg, understand you need to be against the black kid because you're a conservative in the south. The legal question is not actual bodily harm, only the FEAR of great bodily harm. There are pictures of two cuts in the back of his head from the concrete. He was not required to wait for a concussion before he had the right to defend himself. Maybe it is different up where you live. I speak of the EMT's who attended to him. Any sign of trauma to the head and they would immediately take him to the hospital since the liability could create a catastrophic situation for whomever the EMTs work for. He pursued the kid with a weapon against the advise of the 911 dispatcher and then found himself in a situation where he feared for his life? Does that sound as stupid to you as it's going to sound to a jury or will you convince yourself otherwise? They guy promoted and invited the situation but you think "stand your ground" is going to rule the day? Ridiculous. I suppose it all comes down to the difference between pursuit and simply following with the intent of maintaining visual contact. Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. His story is that he lost sight of Martin and was approached from behind as he returned to his truck. Until the government comes up with evidence to break this story, the case will go nowhere. The state's investigator said he did not have any evidence about who initiated the confrontation at the bail hearing. Maybe Corey thinks she can have a "Jack McCoy" moment if she gets Zimmerman on the stand but the chances are that he will never testify. The only real question now is if this simply gets tossed at an immunity hearing and when that might happen. He didn't just pursue him, he confronted him with a loaded pistol in his possession. Zimmerman's account will be shredded by his own call to 911. He invited this tragedy and deserves to account for the killing of a teenager who had every right to be where he was. Cite? I saw nowhere in that phone call where Zimmerman said any more than that he was following Martin. He never said he approached Martin. In fact his statement was that Martin confronted Zimmerman. For your own reasons you have decided that Zimmerman chased and shot Martin for no reason yet there is no evidence to support that. When the defendant is a white guy, he suddenly loses his right to the benefit of a doubt from the left. You prefer speculation from people who were 1500-3000 miles away. I wouldn't have stopped to chat with Zimmerman either. He probably would have taken a shot at me. I'd probably carry in Florida just because there are so many "heeled" nutcases down there. Right... what a hero... Yeah, I'm too smart to think I can fight off a "gunslinger" with a bag of candy. Not a day goes by without your proving again what an ill-educated, ignorant, pigheaded little ****head you are. What a hero... and to be called those names by a loser like you is a badge of honor for sure... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 7:40 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/30/2012 4:25 PM, X ` Man wrote: I wouldn't have stopped to chat with Zimmerman either. He probably would have taken a shot at me. I'd probably carry in Florida just because there are so many "heeled" nutcases down there. God have mercy. You are just itchin to get into a gun fight, aren't you? Yup, we send these to the cops up here too, so next time he calls, they know who they are dealing with.. Hopefully they won't have to waste their time with his quivering again... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/12 7:14 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/30/2012 6:06 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 6:00 PM, JustWait wrote: On 4/30/2012 5:37 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. If you listen to the transcripts (snerk) the judge seems to differ with the whole "violence" notion.. He dismissed all of those "arrests" as college folly, and wrote them off in reference to the case. But of course harry, we don't expect you to accept that cause, well, you are a liar... To a low-life loser like you, smacking around one's wife and interfering with an arrest are "college folly." No, to a judge, not to a bitch like yourself though... No, not to a judge. Dummy. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 4:25 PM, X ` Man wrote:
I wouldn't have stopped to chat with Zimmerman either. He probably would have taken a shot at me. I'd probably carry in Florida just because there are so many "heeled" nutcases down there. God have mercy. You are just itchin to get into a gun fight, aren't you? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 5:21 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Harry is famous for pulling the trigger on his rapid fire mouth before checking the ammo. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article ,
says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:28:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:26:00 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:47:44 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:21:51 -0700, jps wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:01:00 -0400, wrote: ... a kid who was beating the **** out of him. How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"? I guess I shouldn't be surprised you bought that bull****. If Zimmerman would have shown any signs whatsoever of being subject to the kind of trauma that would result in a concussion (which beating the **** out of him would indeed imply) he'd have shown signs of it and would have been taken immediately to the hospital for tests and observation. According to everyone who witnessed him, he was alert and doing well. Whatever Greg, understand you need to be against the black kid because you're a conservative in the south. The legal question is not actual bodily harm, only the FEAR of great bodily harm. There are pictures of two cuts in the back of his head from the concrete. He was not required to wait for a concussion before he had the right to defend himself. Maybe it is different up where you live. I speak of the EMT's who attended to him. Any sign of trauma to the head and they would immediately take him to the hospital since the liability could create a catastrophic situation for whomever the EMTs work for. He pursued the kid with a weapon against the advise of the 911 dispatcher and then found himself in a situation where he feared for his life? Does that sound as stupid to you as it's going to sound to a jury or will you convince yourself otherwise? They guy promoted and invited the situation but you think "stand your ground" is going to rule the day? Ridiculous. I suppose it all comes down to the difference between pursuit and simply following with the intent of maintaining visual contact. Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. His story is that he lost sight of Martin and was approached from behind as he returned to his truck. Until the government comes up with evidence to break this story, the case will go nowhere. The state's investigator said he did not have any evidence about who initiated the confrontation at the bail hearing. Maybe Corey thinks she can have a "Jack McCoy" moment if she gets Zimmerman on the stand but the chances are that he will never testify. The only real question now is if this simply gets tossed at an immunity hearing and when that might happen. He didn't just pursue him, he confronted him with a loaded pistol in his possession. Zimmerman's account will be shredded by his own call to 911. He invited this tragedy and deserves to account for the killing of a teenager who had every right to be where he was. You have confronted people with a deadly weapon in your possession, why aren't you in jail? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
On 4/30/2012 5:37 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. If you listen to the transcripts (snerk) the judge seems to differ with the whole "violence" notion.. He dismissed all of those "arrests" as college folly, and wrote them off in reference to the case. But of course harry, we don't expect you to accept that cause, well, you are a liar... Bull****! Show them to me. I know, I know, you won't. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
On 4/30/2012 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . You are way over-thinking this whole thing. It's just more election year narrative, and all good democrats are just going along for the ride... Gee, I personally never said anything racist or political about this case, but you sure have. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 8:45 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/30/2012 5:37 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. If you listen to the transcripts (snerk) the judge seems to differ with the whole "violence" notion.. He dismissed all of those "arrests" as college folly, and wrote them off in reference to the case. But of course harry, we don't expect you to accept that cause, well, you are a liar... Bull****! Show them to me. I know, I know, you won't. I have told you before, do your own homework. When it becomes apparent you have actually done your homework, then come talk to me... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
On 4/30/2012 12:19 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/30/2012 8:38 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:21:35 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:33:31 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:58:25 -0400, wrote: Might get his bail raised or revoked. The guy also may have another lawyer leave him after he lied to him. SANFORD, Fla. ? A judge is considering whether to raise or revoke the bond for George Zimmerman after his lawyer told the judge a website raised $200,000 for the defense. Mark O'Mara told the judge Friday that Zimmerman's family hadn't told him about the money before his client was given $150,000 bond. Florida Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester says he wants to know more about the money before he decides whether to adjust the bond. The judge will make a decision on the bond at a later date. Zimmerman is accused of second-degree murder for the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed. Zimmerman claims self-defense. The neighborhood watch volunteer wasn't charged for more than six weeks, leading to nationwide protests That $200k is going to be more like 120k after taxes and the lawyers will eat all of it. Good, he shouldn't be paid because he killed a kid. ... a kid who was beating the **** out of him. You have no evidence if that happened. Even if it did, he may have very well been defending himself. How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"? You have no evidence if that happened. Even if it did, he may have very well been defending himself. 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. Cite? You stupid ****, you still have not listened to the transcript of the court hearing and you are commenting here anyway? What a harry... Bull****. NO WHERE in the transcript did anyone from the state's attorney's office ever say "they have no evidence" of anything. If there is, show me. Short answer, you can't. "we have no evidence of who started the fight".. go do your own homework idiot... But what you and FOX are doing is lying. Greg is saying that the state said they have no evidence period, and that was never said nor implied. They said they have no evidence of "who started the fight". That is NOT the whole case, and only a moron would think it was. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
On 4/30/2012 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0400, 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. Cite? If you are going to play the game, you really have to watch the news. They had the bail hearing on TV in it's entirety. The fat cop with the badge said he had no knowledge of how the fight started or who initiated it. Does this finally put any credibility of the plum on this issue, out to pasture? I have been telling you all for a week he didn't watch the hearing, didn't look it up, and doesn't even care really as long as he can get you going... You do know you are talking to the plum, who left and changed his handle when you stopped talking to him last time, right??? Okay, moron listen. There is a HUGE difference in saying that they had no evidence of "who started the fight" and coming in here and trying to say that the state said they "had no evidence" in the entire case. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 8:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/30/2012 12:19 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 4/30/2012 8:38 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:21:35 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:33:31 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:58:25 -0400, wrote: Might get his bail raised or revoked. The guy also may have another lawyer leave him after he lied to him. SANFORD, Fla. ? A judge is considering whether to raise or revoke the bond for George Zimmerman after his lawyer told the judge a website raised $200,000 for the defense. Mark O'Mara told the judge Friday that Zimmerman's family hadn't told him about the money before his client was given $150,000 bond. Florida Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester says he wants to know more about the money before he decides whether to adjust the bond. The judge will make a decision on the bond at a later date. Zimmerman is accused of second-degree murder for the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed. Zimmerman claims self-defense. The neighborhood watch volunteer wasn't charged for more than six weeks, leading to nationwide protests That $200k is going to be more like 120k after taxes and the lawyers will eat all of it. Good, he shouldn't be paid because he killed a kid. ... a kid who was beating the **** out of him. You have no evidence if that happened. Even if it did, he may have very well been defending himself. How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"? You have no evidence if that happened. Even if it did, he may have very well been defending himself. 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. Cite? You stupid ****, you still have not listened to the transcript of the court hearing and you are commenting here anyway? What a harry... Bull****. NO WHERE in the transcript did anyone from the state's attorney's office ever say "they have no evidence" of anything. If there is, show me. Short answer, you can't. "we have no evidence of who started the fight".. go do your own homework idiot... But what you and FOX are doing is lying. Greg is saying that the state said they have no evidence period, and that was never said nor implied. They said they have no evidence of "who started the fight". That is NOT the whole case, and only a moron would think it was. Go back and read the thread... doh... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
On 4/30/2012 4:44 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:21:41 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0400, 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. Cite? If you are going to play the game, you really have to watch the news. They had the bail hearing on TV in it's entirety. The fat cop with the badge said he had no knowledge of how the fight started or who initiated it. I have heard it, and I also read the transcripts. NO WHERE did anyone from the state say that they "have no evidence". Read it again. O'Mara ask about whether the state had any evidence about any of this in several separate questions about different aspects of the state's case and they were all answered "no" ZIMMERMAN'S ATTORNEY O'MARA: "Zimmerman confronted Martin," those words (in the affidavit of probable cause). Where did you get that from? DALE GILBREATH, INVESTIGATOR, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people. O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any. GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. ... O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree? GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes. O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with. GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with. O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you? GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish. O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you? GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question. (later) BERNARDO DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Sir, you were asked about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what "confronted" means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible), wouldn't you consider that a confrontation? GILBREATH: Yes. DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct? O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence. JUDGE KENNETH LESTER, JR., FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT: What's the objection? O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word "confronted" sir? GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses. DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding his own business? Is that correct? O'MARA: Again, your honor, we point to -- and this is not in evidence and he cannot present it that way to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Martin, the route he was taking was towards his house, correct? GILBREATH: Yes. DE LA RIONDA: And he was unarmed? GILBREATH: Yes. (later) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight? GILBREATH: Do I know? O'MARA: Right. GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight? GILBREATH: No. (later) O'MARA: That statement that he had given you -- sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event? GILBREATH: Which two? O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one. GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that. O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car? GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: No evidence. Correct? GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time? O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car? GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no. O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no. O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first? GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no. (later) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not. GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands? GILBREATH: He has said that, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant -- did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn't breathe? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself? GILBREATH: Yes. (later) O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct? GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that. O'MARA: Have you asked him for them? GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No. O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them? GILBREATH: Sure. O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. I'm sorry, just where does the state say in this diatribe that they have no evidence on this case? holy ****! Okay, point me out specific instance where the state says they have no evidence in the entire case..... There's a HUGE difference in saying that as opposed to saying that the state said they didn't' have any evidence of "who started the fight". I don't think you'll understand though, FOX told you and you believe it. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
On 4/30/2012 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Uh,oh.... you are gonna' be called a racist now! No you are the racist. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 8:53 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:12:26 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:44:40 -0400, wrote: In , says... I'm sorry, just where does the state say in this diatribe that they have no evidence on this case? Can you read? Just a few from the above transcript DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct? O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence. JUDGE KENNETH LESTER, JR., FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT: What's the objection? O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. ....... O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight? GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one. GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that. O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car? GILBREATH: No. DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding his own business? Is that correct? O'MARA: Again, your honor, we point to -- and this is not in evidence and he cannot present it that way to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. There are others but you are not interested in facts. Al Sharpton told you what happened and it is gospel. The police cannot testify to an event that they did not witness. Nor can they testify on behalf of a witness who will not testify. It is all part of the right of the accused to be faced by their accuser in a court of law. At least the judge isn't being led by the nose by the prosecutor. The question was "do you have any evidence" and the answer was "no". Of a VERY SPECIFIC EVENT!!!! But then you and FOX turn it around to make it sound like the state has no evidence in the whole case!!! NOBODY, nobody at all, not me, not Greg, not Fox said anything like that. You just don't know how to follow a conversation... NOBODY said it, period... Show us one place where Fox, or anybody said anything remotely like that? You are a ****ing idiot... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/30/2012 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0400, 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. Cite? If you are going to play the game, you really have to watch the news. They had the bail hearing on TV in it's entirety. The fat cop with the badge said he had no knowledge of how the fight started or who initiated it. Does this finally put any credibility of the plum on this issue, out to pasture? I have been telling you all for a week he didn't watch the hearing, didn't look it up, and doesn't even care really as long as he can get you going... You do know you are talking to the plum, who left and changed his handle when you stopped talking to him last time, right??? Okay, moron listen. There is a HUGE difference in saying that they had no evidence of "who started the fight" and coming in here and trying to say that the state said they "had no evidence" in the entire case. No **** Sherlock, NOBODY said they have no evidence in the case... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 8:50 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:37:05 -0400, X ` Man wrote: I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . Martin had no police arrest record. Zimmerman has an arrest record for violence. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, probably confronted him, and then pulled out his pistol. Zimmerman had the same charge laid on him as Skip Gates had from the Cambridge Police, Resisting arrest and both were dropped. As for the "confrontation", as I posted a few notes ago, the sworn testimony of the lead detective is that they had no evidence about who started the confrontation, that Zimmerman was not heading back to his truck or who threw the first punch. That is all you and your buddies making stories up with no facts.. No one is making up stories except you and Scotty. First you said the "state said they have no evidence". Nope, never said it, you are just stringing folks along again fool... What is wrong is the misleading by elimination. There are specific things that the state said they had no information about YET. If this was a black separatist gang who shot an armored car guard you would be telling us we are jumping to conclusions without any evidence but this is a white guy. *I* certainly wouldn't. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 8:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/30/2012 5:21 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:24:09 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 4/30/12 4:10 PM, wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:16:49 -0400, wrote: In , says... Zimmerman has the legal right to watch someone and that is the legal test. And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night. They were both on firm legal grounds until Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Was that alleged event before or after the asshole pulled a gun on him? I find it interesting that you can jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was an "asshole" who shot Martin for no reason but if someone says Martin was a pot smoking thief with a chip on his shoulder you say we are racists who are jumping to conclusions simply based on his THREE suspensions from school and the things they found in his back pack. . You are way over-thinking this whole thing. It's just more election year narrative, and all good democrats are just going along for the ride... Gee, I personally never said anything racist or political about this case, but you sure have. Yeah, and Jon Corzine never said he stole money, Holder never claimed to be a racist... LOL!!! |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 8:58 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 4/30/2012 4:44 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:21:41 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0400, 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. Cite? If you are going to play the game, you really have to watch the news. They had the bail hearing on TV in it's entirety. The fat cop with the badge said he had no knowledge of how the fight started or who initiated it. I have heard it, and I also read the transcripts. NO WHERE did anyone from the state say that they "have no evidence". Read it again. O'Mara ask about whether the state had any evidence about any of this in several separate questions about different aspects of the state's case and they were all answered "no" ZIMMERMAN'S ATTORNEY O'MARA: "Zimmerman confronted Martin," those words (in the affidavit of probable cause). Where did you get that from? DALE GILBREATH, INVESTIGATOR, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people. O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any. GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. ... O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree? GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes. O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with. GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with. O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you? GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish. O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you? GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question. (later) BERNARDO DE LA RIONDA, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY: Sir, you were asked about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what "confronted" means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible), wouldn't you consider that a confrontation? GILBREATH: Yes. DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct? O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence. JUDGE KENNETH LESTER, JR., FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT: What's the objection? O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word "confronted" sir? GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses. DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding his own business? Is that correct? O'MARA: Again, your honor, we point to -- and this is not in evidence and he cannot present it that way to the witness. LESTER: Sustained. DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Martin, the route he was taking was towards his house, correct? GILBREATH: Yes. DE LA RIONDA: And he was unarmed? GILBREATH: Yes. (later) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight? GILBREATH: Do I know? O'MARA: Right. GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight? GILBREATH: No. (later) O'MARA: That statement that he had given you -- sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event? GILBREATH: Which two? O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one. GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that. O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car? GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: No evidence. Correct? GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time? O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car? GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no. O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no. O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first? GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no. (later) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not. GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands? GILBREATH: He has said that, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant -- did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn't breathe? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that? GILBREATH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself? GILBREATH: Yes. (later) O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct? GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that. O'MARA: Have you asked him for them? GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No. O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them? GILBREATH: Sure. O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. I'm sorry, just where does the state say in this diatribe that they have no evidence on this case? holy ****! Okay, point me out specific instance where the state says they have no evidence in the entire case..... Why, you are the only one who has said that here? None of us has, not me, not Greg, not Fox, nobody, period... There's a HUGE difference in saying that as opposed to saying that the state said they didn't' have any evidence of "who started the fight". I don't think you'll understand though, FOX told you and you believe it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com