On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:20:45 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:34:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 3:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:52:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 2:43 PM, wrote:

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was a hot head or that he ever
displayed his pistol before he was attacked.

I suppose if a black man shot a white guy you would take the other
side. OJ didn't do it ... right?


There is evidence Zimmerman is a hothead. And OJ did it.

Are you a hot head too? You have gone to great effort to get a CCW in
a state that most people agree has onerous CCW permit requirements.


It wasn't a "great effort." In fact, it took hardly any effort.

You must have pictures of your local police chief in a compromising
position or something. I looked into it when I lived there and the PG
county cops just said no.
What was your justification?

Very 'special circumstances'.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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.

On 5/1/2013 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:34:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 3:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:52:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 2:43 PM, wrote:

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was a hot head or that he ever
displayed his pistol before he was attacked.

I suppose if a black man shot a white guy you would take the other
side. OJ didn't do it ... right?


There is evidence Zimmerman is a hothead. And OJ did it.

Are you a hot head too? You have gone to great effort to get a CCW in
a state that most people agree has onerous CCW permit requirements.


It wasn't a "great effort." In fact, it took hardly any effort.

You must have pictures of your local police chief in a compromising
position or something. I looked into it when I lived there and the PG
county cops just said no.
What was your justification?


Harry gave the police chief a blow job.

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, 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 5/2/13 12:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2013 09:06:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,


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!

He was watching a suspicious person

Yeah, right, a "suspicious person" walking to his uncle's house in the
subdivision, and carrying a dangerous soft drink and a bag of candy.

On 5/2/13 1:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2013 12:38:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/2/13 12:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2013 09:06:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,


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!

He was watching a suspicious person

Yeah, right, a "suspicious person" walking to his uncle's house in the
subdivision, and carrying a dangerous soft drink and a bag of candy.

Walking slow in the rain, looking IN cars. (not AT cars).
This was in a neighborhood that was plagued by auto burglaries.


That's according to Zimmerman, who lied to the judge, too.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 09:06:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,


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!

He was watching a suspicious person until the cops (that he called)
showed up.

He accosted an innocent person walking.

You keep glossing over the fact that Martin was caught with burglary
tools and jewelry at school.

So, that means to you that he's automatically guilty?


He was a vandal and was only at his
father's house in the first place because he was kicked out of school.
I bet all of this, along with things we have not been told, will show
up in the trial. O'mara will try to demonstrate that Martin was a thug
and a trouble maker who attacked Zimmerman while he was returning to
his truck. That is what Zimmerman has said and there is nobody to
testify that it isn't true.
You are simply buying Al Sharpton's spin on this and I am not exactly
sure why.

I'm not "buying" ANY spin. I'm waiting for the FACTS. YOU on the other
hand, with FOX have him guilty without the benefit of trial. Why?
Because it's easy when the kid is dead, FOX and the NRA think it's good
to go killing kids because the APPEAR different and are looking for a
scapegoat for hot headed Zimmerman.