Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article om,
says...

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?

Which one? Thor? Jupiter?

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article m,
says...

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.

Bigot.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 10:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
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.....


Preachers in name only.

That will be your only clue, bozo.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 10:26 AM, BAR wrote:
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.

JPS likes to keep his thumb on the scales of justice.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 10:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

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?

Which one? Thor? Jupiter?

It's your choice.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 10:36 AM, BAR wrote:
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.



Has anyone mentioned the fact that Zimmerman was out there because his
wife had witnessed thugs running through her yard with the neighbors tv?
That the thugs had broken in to a neighbors home while the mother and a
18 month old were home and took the TV? That Zimmerman only then joined
the neighborhood watch? Probably not, but hey, that doesn't fit the
narrative....

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/12 10:57 AM, JustWait wrote:


Has anyone mentioned the fact that Zimmerman was out there because his
wife had witnessed thugs running through her yard with the neighbors tv?
That the thugs had broken in to a neighbors home while the mother and a
18 month old were home and took the TV? That Zimmerman only then joined
the neighborhood watch? Probably not, but hey, that doesn't fit the
narrative....

Was that the wife or former girlfriend that Zimmerman beat up?

Zimmerman is a thug. He also has lied to the authorities and the judge.
Your kind of guy, PsychoScotty.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article m,
says...

On 7/22/2012 10:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
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.....


Preachers in name only.

That will be your only clue, bozo.

Because that's all you have.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article m,
says...

On 7/22/2012 10:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

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?

Which one? Thor? Jupiter?

It's your choice.

Well, I asked Re and he said he didn't want Zimmerman dead. So I wonder
just what "God" Zimmerman was talking about? The one on Golob?

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article , says...

On 7/22/2012 10:36 AM, BAR wrote:
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.



Has anyone mentioned the fact that Zimmerman was out there because his
wife had witnessed thugs running through her yard with the neighbors tv?

Cite?

That the thugs had broken in to a neighbors home while the mother and a
18 month old were home and took the TV? That Zimmerman only then joined
the neighborhood watch? Probably not, but hey, that doesn't fit the
narrative....

Not true at all.