| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
|
|
#43
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article ,
says... On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:39:05 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/20/2012 1:09 PM, 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. Don't get ahead of yourself. Lots happened between the first inquiry and the big bang. So? Fact is Zimmerman confronted Martin. And you know this how? Just because Sharpton told you so? Because the phone call proves so. Corey did not even say Zimmerman confronted Martin in her indictment. There is certainly no credible witness testimony that says it. She didn't have to. |
|
#44
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article m,
says... On 7/20/2012 2:50 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/20/12 2:42 PM, wrote: 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. 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? I wonder what would have happened if Martin's plan to kill Zimmerman had worked out. Would O'Bama still have said "That's my boy"? Please show cite for the statement that Martin a "plan to kill Zimmerman"? |
|
#45
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article ,
says... On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:50:32 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 7/20/12 2:42 PM, wrote: 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. 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. The law says that Martin was "beating the **** out of Zimmerman'??? What about Zimmerman's assault of Martin? |
|
#46
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
In article m,
says... On 7/20/2012 1:39 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/20/2012 1:09 PM, 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. Don't get ahead of yourself. Lots happened between the first inquiry and the big bang. So? Fact is Zimmerman confronted Martin. How so? The phone call, see above or learn to comprehend. |
|
#47
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
|
|
#48
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
|
|
#49
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
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. 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. 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." |
|
#50
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
On Friday, July 20, 2012 6:04:24 PM UTC-4, jps wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:17:39 -0400, wrote: >On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:07:31 -0700, jps > wrote: > >>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. > >Since when is "you don't need to do" something the same as "don't do >it"? Actually, IIRC, she said "we don't need you to do that" which is a polite way of saying stand the **** down. Language has meaning. If she had a reason, or the legal ground, to say "Do not follow him", she would have been trained to do just that. After all, supposedly the dispatchers and police departments knew him very well, right? You're trying too hard to turn it into something it's not. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Zimmerman now in Credibility Gap | General | |||
| The issue is . . . | Cruising | |||
| Credibility Issues | ASA | |||
| Bush wants DEMOCRACY in Mideast??? Or "credibility"? | General | |||
![X ` Man[_3_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
