|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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... Exactly as I thought..... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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. Oh, yes he did, and you agreed. If I show you the exact paragraph where he said that, and the reply where you agreed, will you finally shut your pie hole? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article ,
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 Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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!!! What does that above insane bull**** have to do with what I stated "I personally never said anything racist or political about this case, but you sure have"????? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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... Want to bet that Greg did in fact say that the "state said that they have no evidence"??????? I've got it right here, and if I show you will you go away and never come back? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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... I've read it, so do please show me where "the state said they have no evidence". I know you can't, so like Harry you'll just try to go off on another tangent. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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... Greg did, I offered you a wager about that. I show you where he said that, you go away for good. Deal? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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. You are dead wrong. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
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... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 1:25 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... 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!!! What does that above insane bull**** have to do with what I stated "I personally never said anything racist or political about this case, but you sure have"????? Uh, no I haven't... you are making it up... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
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. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 12:41 PM, wrote:
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. Was Zimmerman heading back to his truck? (breaking off any alleged "pursuit") Did Martin approach Zimmerman from behind? (eliminating the claim that Zimmerman "confronted" Martin) Did Martin punch Zimmerman first? (establishing self defense) All three were answered "no" when asked if they had any evidence to dispute Zimmerman's story. I am not sure what evidence they have that would be important after that. O'Mara has eliminated "pursuit", "confronted" and established a presumption of self defense. In our court system the prosecution has the burden of proof. They have to prove the defendant's claim of self defense is wrong. Like I said to the "I" guy/girl, they have one more bite at this apple, at the immunity hearing. If they don't cough up this mysterious evidence there, the whole thing is over. The only winners in this case will be the lawyers. The "I" guy/girl is the old Nom De Plume. Remember how frustrated you got, trying to talk sense to her? |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
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... Who is Gene? And once again, you can't read. Greg certainly DID say that "the state said that they had no evidence". |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
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. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article , says...
On 5/1/2012 1:25 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... 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!!! What does that above insane bull**** have to do with what I stated "I personally never said anything racist or political about this case, but you sure have"????? Uh, no I haven't... you are making it up... You were the FIRST to interject race into the Martin/Zimmerman talks here on rec.boats. |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/1/2012 3:39 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/1/12 3:34 PM, wrote: On Tue, 1 May 2012 13:29:10 -0400, 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've said from the beginning a national boycott of Florida would be a way to pressure the state to dump the idiotic stand your ground law. I hope that happens, and the idea and support for it gains ground. I'm sure Floridans would be pleased if you personally boycotted the state. |
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... |
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 5/2/2012 12:05 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 May 2012 20:45:36 -0700, wrote: 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. That is the self defense law in most states. The only thing different is the duty to retreat and Zimmerman says he was walking away when he was confronted by Martin. I suppose you could call that a retreat situation. And, in that case, the claim that he was attacked from behind fits. |
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 11:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com