|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article ,
says... On 7/22/2012 6:54 AM, iBoaterer wrote: http://vveasey.hubpages.com/hub/Why-...ot-And-Killed- By-George-Zimmerman You read the darnedest nonsense fella. Iboaterer would have been an inspiration for Art Linkletter to do a TV show. Nonsense? It's CASE STUDIES and and PRECEDENT you moron. You may not know this but many, many, even most court cases are determined on precedent. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article , says...
On 7/22/2012 9:42 AM, Meyer wrote: On 7/22/2012 6:54 AM, iBoaterer wrote: http://vveasey.hubpages.com/hub/Why-...ot-And-Killed- By-George-Zimmerman You read the darnedest nonsense fella. Iboaterer would have been an inspiration for Art Linkletter to do a TV show. Holy crap, now he is following hysterical fiction writers... LOL!!! Hysterical fiction writers??? You stupid insane fool, the link show actual real case studies and precedent. I know you are too stupid to know this, but most cases are tried on just that. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article m,
says... On 7/22/2012 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:56:38 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 7/21/12 4:44 PM, wrote: On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:21:23 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... What's very clear is that Martin attacked Zimmerman for asking him a question. Martin initiated the violence. So if you asked someone a question and they started pounding your head into the pavement, you'd just let them, huh? Please show the evidence that it's very clear that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Show any evidence to the contrary. It is the prosecution that has to prove their case. Zimmerman has a presumption of innocence. Without absolute proof from the state that Zimmerman's story is not true, we are left with Zimmerman's story. That is why Angie is trying to make the case that he got out of his truck with the intent of shooting Martin and nothing else that happened was important. It is all she has. That is going to be a tough case to make and I doubt Scott really expected a win, his knee was just jerking like everyone elses to "do something" Zimmerman has no credibility. The act of shooting an *unarmed man* on the street, as opposed to a burglar breaking into your house, should be enough for at least a manslaughter conviction. Martin was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman's demands. Under similar circumstances, I would have told Zimmerman to **** off. Were Zimmerman, however, in the uniform of a sworn policeman, I would have responded in a polite manner. You live in a crazy state. You still assume Martin did not approach Zimmerman and punch him in the nose in answer to "what are you doing here"? Would you do that? You would automatically open up with fighting words when you were a visitor on private property? Yes, when some stranger was approaching me in the dark. I wonder if Martin would have treated an elderly woman the same as Zimmerman in the same circumstances? I'll bet he would. Probably not, because the elderly woman probably wasn't out to harm Martin. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article m,
says... On 7/22/2012 6:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:19:20 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 7/21/12 4:07 PM, wrote: On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:51:53 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 7/20/12 3:47 PM, wrote: . Martin was shot because he was beating the **** out of Zimmerman. I am not sure what the law is where you live but aggravated battery is a forcible felony in Florida and a bystander could have legally shot Martin if they came up on him beating Zimmerman's head on the concrete. Is that what Rush told you to say? That is what the law says. I'm betting Zimmerman cops a plea. If he does, O'Mara is not earning his money. This is a very weak case brought for purely political reasons. All he needs to do is stand on the law and he walks. That is why they are stalling. Once the elections are over and the news cycle moves on to more pressing things (like the punk in Colorado) this thing will just go away. I still doubt it even survives the immunity hearing. No one is stalling. At Zimmerman's first bail hearing, the defense waived the right to a speedy trial because he wouldn't be spending his time on his butt in a cell. Zimmerman has shown himself to be a liar. The immunity hearing will be interesting. When is it? Again Z is out on bail, that he paid handsomely for. He is in no hurry. Once the media frenzy dies down and he can get a fair trial, he will go for one. I suspect that. by now, O'Mara's detectives have quite a dossier about the "angel" Travonn Martin. I wonder how many unsolved burglaries got thrown in his coffin by the N. Miami police before they buried him. We still have not even heard about the disposition of the presumed stolen jewelry Travonn had at school. His family never said it was theirs. The police are under a gag order right now and at least one cop was disciplined for a leak. Floridians should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a law that permits a hothead like Zimmerman to pick a fight, shoot and kill the guy he attacked, and then being able to "stand his ground." It's far too easy a law to abuse. You and "Ineverboat" seem to be assuming Zimmerman picked the fight with absolutely no evidence so far that it is true. When you start with a scenario that is not true, it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. Then why did Zimmerman get out of his car? By the way, he's given two different answers to that already. Maybe he had two reasons. But that wouldn't occur to someone like you with razor sharp focus. Oh, man you try so hard to make excuses for a KNOWN liar. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article m,
says... On 7/22/2012 6:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:51:53 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 7/20/12 3:47 PM, wrote: . Martin was shot because he was beating the **** out of Zimmerman. I am not sure what the law is where you live but aggravated battery is a forcible felony in Florida and a bystander could have legally shot Martin if they came up on him beating Zimmerman's head on the concrete. Is that what Rush told you to say? That is what the law says. I'm betting Zimmerman cops a plea. If he does, O'Mara is not earning his money. This is a very weak case brought for purely political reasons. All he needs to do is stand on the law and he walks. That is why they are stalling. Once the elections are over and the news cycle moves on to more pressing things (like the punk in Colorado) this thing will just go away. I still doubt it even survives the immunity hearing. Just what "political reasons"? It's all about restless natives being stirred up by a couple of PINOs. Thank God they were unsuccessful. Please, do give an example..... |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:15:58 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:04:24 -0700, jps wrote: Actually, IIRC, she said "we don't need you to do that" which is a polite way of saying stand the **** down. That doesn't sound like "stand down" to me. It sounds a lot more like "our lawyers say, we can't tell you to do it". Well then they might find themselves being sued by the parents of Trayvon for not calling off a lunatic with no training. And justifiably so if you're right. What evidence do you have, prior to the event in question occurring, that would lead you to the conclusion that Zimmerman was a lunatic? There is plenty of evidence that Martin was a professional criminal in the making. Your problem is that you are trying to argue one person's background should not be part of the discussion while another person's background is part of the discussion. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
On 7/22/2012 10:05 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
do you really think that God wanted Martin dead like Zimmerman said? Why don't you ask God yourself? |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article ,
says... On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:55:33 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 7/20/12 7:48 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:07:38 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:28:12 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:54:51 -0400, wrote: Maybe god knew what a thug Martin was Wow, you've convicted Martin of something no one else has. Does that extra-legal right come in a cereal box? You all seem pretty quick to convict Zimmerman without that trial you demanded I think he's a scumbag but I haven't convicted him. I just hope he does time for his stupidity. He deserves it for engaging in a foolish pursuit of someone with whom he had no business nor right. You are an idiot. In your statements above you have tried and convicted Zimmerman. Amazing, isn't it, that someone who served in the military ostensibly to defend the Constitution gets up on his electronic soapbox and tells someone he is an "idiot" for merely expressing his opinion. Obviously the marines don't check recruits for basic intelligence and ability to understand. The police dispatcher told him specifically that he "didn't need to do that" when she realized he was running after Trayvon. His negligent actions ended up with the death of a 17 year old kid. The police dispatcher said "Ok, we don't need you to do that." I challenge you to provide a source for your quote. When the police say "don't do that," most people of at least average intelligence "don't do that." I suppose if you were in the military or if you are really really stupid or both, it's okay to ignore that advice. Righties...always trying to split hairs to defend their lack of understanding of issues. Taking the most liberal interpretation of the dispatcher's instruction. If she weren't being polite, it would have sounded different. You are claiming the Zimmerman is an uneducated idiot in one breath and in the next breath requiring him to interpret someone else's meaning of a statement. I would venture a guess that this episode is a learning opportunity for all dispatchers to be more clear in their instructions and not leave room for vigilante interpretation. Zimmerman was not a vigilante, he was a performing neighborhood watch activities. You don't have much experience talking over radios do you or communicating in situations where everyone is hyper-alert state. If you asked the dispatcher today if she'd opt for different language in her instructions to Zimmerman, I'd bet a lot of money on her answering "yes." Hind-sight is always 20/20. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
On 7/22/2012 10:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m, says... On 7/22/2012 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:56:38 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 7/21/12 4:44 PM, wrote: On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:21:23 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... What's very clear is that Martin attacked Zimmerman for asking him a question. Martin initiated the violence. So if you asked someone a question and they started pounding your head into the pavement, you'd just let them, huh? Please show the evidence that it's very clear that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Show any evidence to the contrary. It is the prosecution that has to prove their case. Zimmerman has a presumption of innocence. Without absolute proof from the state that Zimmerman's story is not true, we are left with Zimmerman's story. That is why Angie is trying to make the case that he got out of his truck with the intent of shooting Martin and nothing else that happened was important. It is all she has. That is going to be a tough case to make and I doubt Scott really expected a win, his knee was just jerking like everyone elses to "do something" Zimmerman has no credibility. The act of shooting an *unarmed man* on the street, as opposed to a burglar breaking into your house, should be enough for at least a manslaughter conviction. Martin was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman's demands. Under similar circumstances, I would have told Zimmerman to **** off. Were Zimmerman, however, in the uniform of a sworn policeman, I would have responded in a polite manner. You live in a crazy state. You still assume Martin did not approach Zimmerman and punch him in the nose in answer to "what are you doing here"? Would you do that? You would automatically open up with fighting words when you were a visitor on private property? Yes, when some stranger was approaching me in the dark. I wonder if Martin would have treated an elderly woman the same as Zimmerman in the same circumstances? I'll bet he would. Probably not, because the elderly woman probably wasn't out to harm Martin. Probably....probably....probably This case is probably going to be thrown out the window once the authorities figger out how to keep the natives calm about it. A little duct tape over the mouths of PINOs Sharpton and Jackson would go a long way to that end. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com