Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/21/2012 10:39 PM, wrote:
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?


Harry,"no balls"as his gangsta buddies call him, would never do such a
thing.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 8:56 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/21/2012 10:35 PM, wrote:
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.

Maybe after all the investigating is done Martin will get a long jail
sentence posthumously. Zimmerman might even be a hero.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious to anyone who isn't using this event as an
election tool, that Martin was probably up to no good that night...

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 6:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 7/21/2012 3:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:42:20 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article .com>,
says...
>
> On 7/21/2012 8:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 20, 2012 4:10:59 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> says...
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:09:32 -0400, iBoaterer > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >In article >,
> >>> > says...
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:29:14 -0400, iBoaterer > wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> >In article >,
> >>> > >> says...
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:50:01 -0400, X ` Man >
> >>> > >> >> wrote:
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> When you initiate a confrontation, as Zimmerman
> >>> > >> >> >did, you shouldn't be allowed to end it with a firearm and then claim
> >>> > >> >> >self-defense.
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> That all assumes they can prove Zimmerman initiated it. Simply getting
> >>> > >> >> out of your car is not initiating a confrontation and that is all
> >>> > >> >> Corey is alleging he did in the indictment
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >Well the, why did he get out of the car? AND you're forgetting the phone
> >>> > >> >conversation Martin was having.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> He got out of the car to WATCH the person he called the cops on so he
> >>> > >> could point him out when they got there.
> >>> > >> Is getting out of your car a crime now? Corey seems to think so.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Bull****, he confronted Martin. His girlfriend heard it. Is looking at a
> >>> > >car a crime now? That's why you seem to think Zimmerman was justified in
> >>> > >killing Martin.
> >>> >
> >>> > What was the first thing the girlfriend said she heard between them?
> >>> >
> >>> > Hint, it was Martin addressing Zimmerman.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, asking Zimmerman what he wanted. If a strange man in the night
> >>> comes up to you, are you going to ask him his intentions or just stand
> >>> there and wait to see if he's going to rob you, hurt you, kill you, rape
> >>> you or whatever?
> >>> >
> >>> > 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.
> >>>
> >>> Again, if a man attacked me in the middle of the night, I'd do the same
> >>> thing. It's called protecting yourself.
> >>
> >> So you'd pull a Zimmerman on someone that attacked you. It's good to know you've come around.
> >
> > Come around? I've said that from the very beginning that if someone
> > approached me in the middle of the night like Zimmerman did to Martin,
> > I'd have defended myself just like Martin presumably did.
> >
>
> The thing is, it wasn't in the middle of the night.

Yes it was.

> There is no evidence
> that Zimmerman did nothing more than ask the kid who he was and what he
> was doing on the property. What would be your reasonable "defense" to
> that action?

I'd tell him it's none of his ****ing business. BUT the fact is, as the
girlfriend stated, Zimmerman pushed Martin hard enough that his phone
headset fell.

> Apparently the kid's response and his suspicious activity involving
> parked cars led Zimmerman to ask the police to come and check the kid
> out. What would be your reasonable "defense" to that action? Zimmerman
> decided to keep an ey on the kid from a distance till the police
> arrived. What would be your reasonable "defense" to that action"
> It seems that, at this point, a game of hide and seek started. Here is
> where it starts to get really interesting. Do you want to finish the story?

He didn't keep an eye on him "from a distance" he went up to Martin and
started messing with him, it's very clear from the phone call.

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.


Taint no evedence that Zimmerman accosted or attacked the kid atol.

Sure there is, Martin's dead body.

Z was just shooting a distress shot in the air. Unfortunately, martin
suddenly got in the way.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 7:27 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/21/12 10:35 PM, wrote:
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.



Zimmerman is a known hothead with a reputation for exploding and now, a
known liar. There's no reason to give credence to anything he says or
claims.

That sure makes Greg's case about jumping to conclusions.
Harry, you never disappoint. You are a consistent fool.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

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.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

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.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

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.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

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!!!

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

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.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article , says...

On 7/22/2012 8:56 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/21/2012 10:35 PM, wrote:
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.

Maybe after all the investigating is done Martin will get a long jail
sentence posthumously. Zimmerman might even be a hero.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious to anyone who isn't using this event as an
election tool, that Martin was probably up to no good that night...

Up to no good in your mind means that it's a good thing he's dead? And
speaking of such, you have defended Christianity here, so tell me, do
you really think that God wanted Martin dead like Zimmerman said? Oh,
and just to show your insanity, how is anyone using this case "as an
election tool"?

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article om,
says...

On 7/22/2012 6:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 7/21/2012 3:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:42:20 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article .com>,
says...
>
> On 7/21/2012 8:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 20, 2012 4:10:59 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> says...
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:09:32 -0400, iBoaterer > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >In article >,
> >>> > says...
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:29:14 -0400, iBoaterer > wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> >In article >,
> >>> > >> says...
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:50:01 -0400, X ` Man >
> >>> > >> >> wrote:
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> When you initiate a confrontation, as Zimmerman
> >>> > >> >> >did, you shouldn't be allowed to end it with a firearm and then claim
> >>> > >> >> >self-defense.
> >>> > >> >>
> >>> > >> >> That all assumes they can prove Zimmerman initiated it. Simply getting
> >>> > >> >> out of your car is not initiating a confrontation and that is all
> >>> > >> >> Corey is alleging he did in the indictment
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >Well the, why did he get out of the car? AND you're forgetting the phone
> >>> > >> >conversation Martin was having.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> He got out of the car to WATCH the person he called the cops on so he
> >>> > >> could point him out when they got there.
> >>> > >> Is getting out of your car a crime now? Corey seems to think so.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Bull****, he confronted Martin. His girlfriend heard it. Is looking at a
> >>> > >car a crime now? That's why you seem to think Zimmerman was justified in
> >>> > >killing Martin.
> >>> >
> >>> > What was the first thing the girlfriend said she heard between them?
> >>> >
> >>> > Hint, it was Martin addressing Zimmerman.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, asking Zimmerman what he wanted. If a strange man in the night
> >>> comes up to you, are you going to ask him his intentions or just stand
> >>> there and wait to see if he's going to rob you, hurt you, kill you, rape
> >>> you or whatever?
> >>> >
> >>> > 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.
> >>>
> >>> Again, if a man attacked me in the middle of the night, I'd do the same
> >>> thing. It's called protecting yourself.
> >>
> >> So you'd pull a Zimmerman on someone that attacked you. It's good to know you've come around.
> >
> > Come around? I've said that from the very beginning that if someone
> > approached me in the middle of the night like Zimmerman did to Martin,
> > I'd have defended myself just like Martin presumably did.
> >
>
> The thing is, it wasn't in the middle of the night.

Yes it was.

> There is no evidence
> that Zimmerman did nothing more than ask the kid who he was and what he
> was doing on the property. What would be your reasonable "defense" to
> that action?

I'd tell him it's none of his ****ing business. BUT the fact is, as the
girlfriend stated, Zimmerman pushed Martin hard enough that his phone
headset fell.

> Apparently the kid's response and his suspicious activity involving
> parked cars led Zimmerman to ask the police to come and check the kid
> out. What would be your reasonable "defense" to that action? Zimmerman
> decided to keep an ey on the kid from a distance till the police
> arrived. What would be your reasonable "defense" to that action"
> It seems that, at this point, a game of hide and seek started. Here is
> where it starts to get really interesting. Do you want to finish the story?

He didn't keep an eye on him "from a distance" he went up to Martin and
started messing with him, it's very clear from the phone call.

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.


Taint no evedence that Zimmerman accosted or attacked the kid atol.

Sure there is, Martin's dead body.

Z was just shooting a distress shot in the air. Unfortunately, martin
suddenly got in the way.

Yep, that's the typical FOXite. Good puppy.

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.

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.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:45:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


You are making up a scenario in your mind that has never been
suggested by any witness or by the physical evidence,.

Zimmerman says Martin approached him and there is nobody or nothing to
dispute it. Zimmerman is the one with the presumption of innocence and
the state has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his story is
not true.

That there is no one pre trial doesn't make it true. And yes, there is
evidence that he approached Martin. The phone call.

Cite that?
Martin spoke first and he never said, "this guy is coming up to me"

He said some guy was following him.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:45:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The law says that Martin was "beating the **** out of Zimmerman'??? What
about Zimmerman's assault of Martin?

What assault? Nobody ever saw Zimmerman assault martin and martin
showed no signs of an assault. He had bloody fists from hitting
Zimmerman but no signs he was ever hit.

And no one saw Martin initiate an assault on Zimmerman.

Then we are left with the physical evidence. Martin had bloody fists
and Zimmerman had a broken nose.

No we aren't.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:47:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


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.

It was in his police statement and the phone call. He wanted to watch
Martin until the cops got there "because these punks always get away"

That's THREE different reasons then, thanks!

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:48:36 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 08:40:00 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Come around? I've said that from the very beginning that if someone
approached me in the middle of the night like Zimmerman did to Martin,
I'd have defended myself just like Martin presumably did.

Then you would go to jail. "Self defense" is one shove or punch. The
second punch is battery if you can not demonstrate that the danger was
not mitigated.
I know a guy who did 7 years in a Maryland prison for killing an
intruder IN HIS HOUSE with one punch so that is not even always a
defense. They said he should have run away and called the police.

Martin did try to leave, that's in the phone call.


cite that.

"Florida prosecutors have released a trove of documents, photographs and
audio recordings revealing new details about the night George Zimmerman
shot dead the unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. We
broadcast excerpts of the chilling recording of a prosecutor?s interview
with Trayvon?s girlfriend. She and Trayvon were talking on the phone in
the moments leading up to his death. "I know he was scared," the girl
recounts. "I told him, 'Keep running!' ... He told me the guy was
getting real close to him. And the next I hear is [Trayvon saying], 'Why
are you following me for?' ? I heard this man... say, 'What are you
doing around here?' ... And I call Trayvon, 'Trayon, what's going on?
What?s going on?? ... Then, I am calling him and he didn?t answer...You
could hear someone had bumped Trayvon...I was still screaming, I was
saying, 'Trayvon! Trayvon!'...And then the next thing the phone just
shut off."

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/12 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:47:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


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.

It was in his police statement and the phone call. He wanted to watch
Martin until the cops got there "because these punks always get away"




Zimmerman was the one with the arrest record. He was the punk.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/12 3:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 07:27:33 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/21/12 10:35 PM, wrote:

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.



Zimmerman is a known hothead with a reputation for exploding and now, a
known liar. There's no reason to give credence to anything he says or
claims.

Actually his wife is the only one charged with lying.


And that means Zimmerman hasn't lied to the authorities?

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

On 7/22/2012 3:20 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/22/12 3:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:47:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


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.

It was in his police statement and the phone call. He wanted to watch
Martin until the cops got there "because these punks always get away"




Zimmerman was the one with the arrest record. He was the punk.

You're the one with all the guns and most likely to be the next shooter
in Huntingtown Md.
My logic works just as well as yours and probably better

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:12:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


Cite that?
Martin spoke first and he never said, "this guy is coming up to me"

He said some guy was following him.

Following is not approaching

Oh, man.......

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:54:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

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"

Gee, you can't can you?

Zimmerman has the presumption of innocence and it is up to Corey to
prove his story is not true. That is why she is going for the thought
crime prosecution.

And he will be convicted despite what FOX says.

Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 07:27:33 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/21/12 10:35 PM, wrote:

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.



Zimmerman is a known hothead with a reputation for exploding and now, a
known liar. There's no reason to give credence to anything he says or
claims.

Actually his wife is the only one charged with lying.

The only one charged, but the judged did admonish HIM for lying.