| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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... |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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". |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
| 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)
Hybrid Mode
