On 4/30/2012 12:39 PM, wrote:
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.

Wow, the facts make harry a lying ignorant fool again, who'd a thunk?

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

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.

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...

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.

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???

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 ****!

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!

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...

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...