On 6/3/2012 10:47 AM, BAR wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 6/3/2012 8:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:


Your slow-witted right-wing buddy JustHate has implied any number of
times that he'd try to *push* his way in here. That is home invasion. If
he tried that, he'd be leaving on a gurney or in a body bag, and I'd
probably get an award for improving the gene pool.

Doubt it. Show us one instance where you imagined he made that
implication. You got some crazy ideas floating around in that swelled
head of yours.

Harry has an itchy trigger finger. I wouldn't be surprised if he walks
around the house with a hog leg strapped to his side.

Makes you wonder how an obviously insane person like him can legally get
his hands on firearms. Something has to be wrong with the system.

In article m,
says...

On 6/3/2012 10:47 AM, BAR wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 6/3/2012 8:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:


Your slow-witted right-wing buddy JustHate has implied any number of
times that he'd try to *push* his way in here. That is home invasion. If
he tried that, he'd be leaving on a gurney or in a body bag, and I'd
probably get an award for improving the gene pool.

Doubt it. Show us one instance where you imagined he made that
implication. You got some crazy ideas floating around in that swelled
head of yours.

Harry has an itchy trigger finger. I wouldn't be surprised if he walks
around the house with a hog leg strapped to his side.

Makes you wonder how an obviously insane person like him can legally get
his hands on firearms. Something has to be wrong with the system.

There is no sanity test for voting or owning firearms.

On 6/3/12 12:28 PM, BAR wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 6/3/2012 10:47 AM, BAR wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 6/3/2012 8:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:


Your slow-witted right-wing buddy JustHate has implied any number of
times that he'd try to *push* his way in here. That is home invasion. If
he tried that, he'd be leaving on a gurney or in a body bag, and I'd
probably get an award for improving the gene pool.

Doubt it. Show us one instance where you imagined he made that
implication. You got some crazy ideas floating around in that swelled
head of yours.

Harry has an itchy trigger finger. I wouldn't be surprised if he walks
around the house with a hog leg strapped to his side.

Makes you wonder how an obviously insane person like him can legally get
his hands on firearms. Something has to be wrong with the system.

There is no sanity test for voting or owning firearms.

There are "sanity" questions and if you lie, you face felony charges.
You'd best stick to water pistols.

On 6/3/2012 11:09 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:18:08 -0400,
wrote:

Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

===

There are a lot of very murky legal issues tangled up in this case.
I don't think it's a slam dunk for either side.



Common sense would suggest that the law would specifically pertain to
the moment the trigger was pulled. Based on the evidence we have so far,
at the moment he pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was in a life threatening
position with no egress as he was pinned to the ground and getting a
"MMA style beating according to the eye witness account...

At the same time, watching or even following someone is not a life
threatening event so it would stand to reason Martin had no legal reason
to jump on Zimmerman and try to kill him... It's really too bad half
the country can't get far enough around their own ideology and bias to
see that this was a terrible event, but Martin could have avoided it as
well as Zimmerman by not jumping on Zimmerman and trying to kill him...
Unfortunately the racists here, in congress, and in the media can't see
this because of nothing matters to them but inventing a racial aspect in
an election year....

On 6/3/2012 11:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 6/3/2012 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.


Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion

That is yet another one of your lies. He didn't follow Martin "till the
cops told him to stop". He continued after they told him that it's not a
good idea.

Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this
other

You don't know that.

**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

Bull****.



The evidence presented in court backs up my supposition. If you were not
a racist, you could see that..

On 6/3/2012 11:49 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 6/3/2012 10:18 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/3/2012 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.


Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

Not quite correct. At the time of the shooting, Treevon was sitting on
top of the prone Zimmerman beating the **** out of him. Pardon my
French. That looks more like self defense than stand your ground.

The fact is according to all the evidence we have available, Zimmerman
had NO egress and his life was being threatened at at the time.

On 6/3/12 4:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/3/2012 11:09 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:18:08 -0400,
wrote:

Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

===

There are a lot of very murky legal issues tangled up in this case.
I don't think it's a slam dunk for either side.



Common sense would suggest that the law would specifically pertain to
the moment the trigger was pulled. Based on the evidence we have so far,
at the moment he pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was in a life threatening
position with no egress as he was pinned to the ground and getting a
"MMA style beating according to the eye witness account...

At the same time, watching or even following someone is not a life
threatening event so it would stand to reason Martin had no legal reason
to jump on Zimmerman and try to kill him... It's really too bad half the
country can't get far enough around their own ideology and bias to see
that this was a terrible event, but Martin could have avoided it as well
as Zimmerman by not jumping on Zimmerman and trying to kill him...
Unfortunately the racists here, in congress, and in the media can't see
this because of nothing matters to them but inventing a racial aspect in
an election year....


Hilarious, just hilarious. You barely finished high school, you've never
even held a responsible job, and you're pontificating on legal matters.
What's next, your take on ion drive for spaceships?

On 6/3/2012 12:00 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 6/3/2012 10:47 AM, BAR wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 6/3/2012 8:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:


Your slow-witted right-wing buddy JustHate has implied any number of
times that he'd try to *push* his way in here. That is home
invasion. If
he tried that, he'd be leaving on a gurney or in a body bag, and I'd
probably get an award for improving the gene pool.

Doubt it. Show us one instance where you imagined he made that
implication. You got some crazy ideas floating around in that swelled
head of yours.

Harry has an itchy trigger finger. I wouldn't be surprised if he walks
around the house with a hog leg strapped to his side.

Makes you wonder how an obviously insane person like him can legally get
his hands on firearms. Something has to be wrong with the system.


Do you really believe he has firearms?? LOL!!!

On 6/3/12 4:51 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/3/2012 11:49 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 6/3/2012 10:18 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/3/2012 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.


Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

Not quite correct. At the time of the shooting, Treevon was sitting on
top of the prone Zimmerman beating the **** out of him. Pardon my
French. That looks more like self defense than stand your ground.

The fact is according to all the evidence we have available, Zimmerman
had NO egress and his life was being threatened at at the time.


JustSnot has seen the videotape that no one else has.

On Jun 3, 5:52*pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 6/3/12 4:49 PM, JustWait wrote:





On 6/3/2012 11:09 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:18:08 -0400,
wrote:

Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

===

There are a lot of very murky legal issues tangled up in this case.
I don't think it's a slam dunk for either side.

Common sense would suggest that the law would specifically pertain to
the moment the trigger was pulled. Based on the evidence we have so far,
at the moment he pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was in a life threatening
position with no egress as he was pinned to the ground and getting a
"MMA style beating according to the eye witness account...

At the same time, watching or even following someone is not a life
threatening event so it would stand to reason Martin had no legal reason
to jump on Zimmerman and try to kill him... It's really too bad half the
country can't get far enough around their own ideology and bias to see
that this was a terrible event, but Martin could have avoided it as well
as Zimmerman by not jumping on Zimmerman and trying to kill him...
Unfortunately the racists here, in congress, and in the media can't see
this because of nothing matters to them but inventing a racial aspect in
an election year....

Hilarious, just hilarious. You barely finished high school, you've never
even held a responsible job, and you're pontificating on legal matters.
What's next, your take on ion drive for spaceships?

Well, he is a bona fida space cadet.