|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
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? 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. But, then, it's Florida, and you boys don't mind electing a felon as your governor. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
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. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
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. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
|
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
On 7/21/2012 4:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:42:20 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, 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. You know that how? The girlfriend never said that. She just said the call dropped. It could have just as likely have been that when Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose that he dropped his phone. 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. You made that up. Otherwise cite it., It's all Zimmermans fault. He smashed the kids hand with his face. |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
On 7/21/2012 4:13 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:13:30 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: 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? 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. That beast Zimmerman asked him a question he didn't want to answer... |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
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"? |
Obviously, credibility is not an issue...
|
| 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