Home Menu

Menu


BoatBanter.com » rec.boats » General > The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
Reply
Page 4 of 24 123 4 56789101114 Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #33   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:52:10 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:



It's safe to assume that an ignorant fool like you would not know about
the serious race-related problems the Sanford police had and have, the
drug problems in the area, and that large parts of north east and
central Florida are populated by ignorant white racists at least as
stupid as you are, or that Florida itself had the largest number of
lynchings of black folks. So, yes, race is still a big issue in parts of
Florida.

You are talking ancient history. When was the last lynching? 75 years
ago? 100 years ago?
This particular neighborhood was racially mixed and the black guy who
came to the defense of Zimmerman was a retired CNN executive.
The Sanford police had a shakeup after the racist problems, the city
manager who appointed the current chief is black and the second in
command is black.
They have also said this is a witch hunt and they refused to accept
the resignation of the chief.

That last sentence is absolutely NOT true. They refused to accept his
resignation because they want to wait until the truth comes out, let
alone the scuffle about his severance package.

Here is part of the city meeting minutes:

O'DONNELL: So how do we interpret this vote? Was it a vote against
54,000 dollars? Was it suddenly a vote of confidence in a police chief
where this same police commission voted no confidence?

BONAPARTE: I think it was neither. What I heard at the meeting was some
members of the commission wanting to go through the process and see what
an independent investigation would show. Did the chief do something
wrong? Did he not do things he should have done? That's something that
we've been asking for some time. I came to the realization that with the
ongoing criminal investigation , it was going to be difficult for a
criminal -- for the city to get answers to those questions because of
the evidence. The evidence is still going to be tied up until the trial.
And therefore I thought, working with the chief, we could move forward
by having this separation agreement .


The whole thing can be seen he

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-...2312/#47152312


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #34   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
jps jps is offline
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,720
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
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.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #35   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 880
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
On 4/30/2012 1:16 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

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.

And Martin had the legal right to be walking around at night.


In the rain, Very interesting!~
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #37   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,020
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
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.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #40   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:21:41 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0400, iBoaterer 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?
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Page 4 of 24 123 4 56789101114 Last »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So why did Zimmerman...... iBoaterer[_2_] General 55 April 12th 12 07:37 PM
More about the right's new darling: iBoaterer[_2_] General 49 April 2nd 12 04:44 AM
More about the Zimmerman saga iBoaterer[_2_] General 21 March 30th 12 08:00 PM
The Darling of the Right, Dick Cheney Gets an Award Loogypicker[_2_] General 31 January 5th 10 09:12 PM
Right Wing loses, Left Wing Wins Big H K[_3_] General 0 July 13th 09 11:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Contact Us BoatBanter Home Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2017