In article ,
says...

On 1 May 2013 15:24:25 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:13:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Well, of course. Shoot away, and then claim stand your ground.

There was the beating he took before he pulled his gun.

Alleged beating

Yup with an alleged broken nose and lacerations to the back of his
head certified by an alleged doctor and allegedly photographed by the
police who allegedly chose not to prosecute until politics intervened.

That is pretty much mob rule, not the rule of law.

So, because someone has a broken nose, lacerations and a doctor says he
has them, then it must be a beating "he took BEFORE he pulled the gun"?
That is speculation and you know it.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:31:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Yup with an alleged broken nose and lacerations to the back of his
head certified by an alleged doctor and allegedly photographed by the
police who allegedly chose not to prosecute until politics intervened.

That is pretty much mob rule, not the rule of law.

So, because someone has a broken nose, lacerations and a doctor says he
has them, then it must be a beating "he took BEFORE he pulled the gun"?
That is speculation and you know it.

You don't think the gun stopped the fight?

I don't know, there is a very high probability that the gun STARTED the
fight.

If this guy was a trigger happy hot head as Harry describes him, that
fight would have been over in 2 seconds. Zimmerman would not have had
anything but powder residue on his hand.

No, like a lot of people he thought he was a bad-ass because he had a
gun.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:13:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:31:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Yup with an alleged broken nose and lacerations to the back of his
head certified by an alleged doctor and allegedly photographed by the
police who allegedly chose not to prosecute until politics intervened.

That is pretty much mob rule, not the rule of law.

So, because someone has a broken nose, lacerations and a doctor says he
has them, then it must be a beating "he took BEFORE he pulled the gun"?
That is speculation and you know it.

You don't think the gun stopped the fight?

I don't know, there is a very high probability that the gun STARTED the
fight.


If this guy was a trigger happy hot head as Harry describes him, that
fight would have been over in 2 seconds. Zimmerman would not have had
anything but powder residue on his hand.

No, like a lot of people he thought he was a bad-ass because he had a
gun.

You are certainly making a lot of **** up here.

Such as? He was a vigilante!

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:13:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 12:47 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.



Well, of course. Shoot away, and then claim stand your ground.

There was the beating he took before he pulled his gun.

You have NO evidence of that.

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:13:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 12:47 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.



Well, of course. Shoot away, and then claim stand your ground.

There was the beating he took before he pulled his gun.

You have NO evidence of that.

You must have missed seeing the police photos that show Zimmerman took a beating at the hands
of the 17 year old thug in training Travon Martin. The real question is why they always use a
picture of Travon when he was 13 rather than one when he was 17.

On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:40:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

The real question is why they always use a
picture of Travon when he was 13 rather than one when he was 17.

===

More biased reporting from the anti gun/anti self defense weenies.

On 5/1/13 8:00 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:40:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

The real question is why they always use a
picture of Travon when he was 13 rather than one when he was 17.

===

More biased reporting from the anti gun/anti self defense weenies.


There have been plenty of photos posted of the murdered teen when he was
older than 13 or 14. There also have been photos posted, purportedly of
Martin at 17, but many of these were not of *the* Martin.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:11:19 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


Well, of course. Shoot away, and then claim stand your ground.

There was the beating he took before he pulled his gun.

You have NO evidence of that.

I guess the POLICE faked those photos.

You and everyone can tell from photos that there was a "beating before
he pulled his gun" how?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:09:18 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:11:19 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


Well, of course. Shoot away, and then claim stand your ground.

There was the beating he took before he pulled his gun.

You have NO evidence of that.

I guess the POLICE faked those photos.

You and everyone can tell from photos that there was a "beating before
he pulled his gun" how?

Because Travonn wasn't shot before he could attack Zimmernan.

Oh, because he wasn't shot means that Zimmerman didn't have his gun in
his head, huh? Bull****.

Nobody tolerates that kind of a beating if they have a gun in their
hand

But you said above that he didn't have a gun in his hand until after the
beating!!!!!

On Wed, 01 May 2013 00:47:41 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


The man charged with murdering Trayvon Martin waived his right to a
pre-trial self-defense immunity hearing during a Tuesday morning court
appearance in Sanford, Fla.

Under oath, George Zimmerman told Circuit Judge Debra Nelson that he
understood Florida's self-defense laws, that he had talked to his
lawyers about the "stand-your-ground" statute, and that he decided not
to have a pre-trial immunity hearing. The decision is seen by at least
one expert as wise but risky.

Zimmerman will not be allowed to have such a hearing after a jury has
made its decision but will also not have to testify twice. If he had
chosen to have the immunity hearing, Zimmerman could have claimed self
defense before a judge without a jury and if successful, could have been
cleared of the murder charge.

"George wants this case before a jury of his peers -- that's where he's
going to be acquitted," his attorney, Mark O'Mara, said after the
hearing. He added that the case was a "straight forward self-defense
case," and would not comment further on the defense's decision to forego
the immunity hearing.

http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!