| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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..... |
|
#83
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#84
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#85
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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"????? |
|
#86
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
|
#87
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#88
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman
|
|
#89
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#90
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| So why did Zimmerman...... | General | |||
| More about the right's new darling: | General | |||
| More about the Zimmerman saga | General | |||
| The Darling of the Right, Dick Cheney Gets an Award | General | |||
| Right Wing loses, Left Wing Wins Big | General | |||
![X ` Man[_3_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
