For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

On 5/2/2013 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 until the cops (that he called)
showed up.
You keep glossing over the fact that Martin was caught with burglary
tools and jewelry at school. 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.


A model son for O'Bama. Snerk

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Well then, it's settled, if you're walking in the rain, looking into
cars while walking by them, you need to die. Got it.

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

On 5/2/2013 12:38 PM, 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.


His uncle doesn't have property in that sub division.

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

On 5/2/2013 1:19 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
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.

Liars can't be trusted, can they, Harry?

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:20:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

I guess you were not paying attention to the girl friends's story. She
said he was the one who spoke first (why are you following me). There
is nothing illegal about following someone.
Following is not accosting, that is all conjecture from people 1000+
miles from the scene.

If you were being accosted, followed by a man with a gun, wouldn't you
ask him why?

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?

What is your explanation for a 17 year old kid with a big screwdriver
and a bag of women's jewelry?

Gee, I never saw where he had a screwdriver and a bag of jewelry when
Zimmerman accosted him.


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.

You let MSNBC and Al Sharpton convince you Zimmerman is guilty when
all of the evidence appears to support his story. Why do you thin\k
the state's attorney decided not to prosecute ... until political
pressure from lobbyists in DC made them bring in a prosecutor who
would try to make a case. That is mob rule, not justice.
If this was a black guy who was charged you would call it a lynching.

Bull****, I would say what it is, a vigilante with no justifiable cause
other than the kid was walking with Skittles accosting him. The only
reason thus far that HIS story is supported is because the victim is
feakin' dead.

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:39:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Well then, it's settled, if you're walking in the rain, looking into
cars while walking by them, you need to die. Got it.

He died because he attacked Zimmerman

Please show the proof of that wild allegation.

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

On Thu, 02 May 2013 14:29:30 -0400, Hank© wrote:

On 5/2/2013 1:19 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
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.

Liars can't be trusted, can they, Harry?

That was really, really low.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:20:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

I guess you were not paying attention to the girl friends's story. She
said he was the one who spoke first (why are you following me). There
is nothing illegal about following someone.
Following is not accosting, that is all conjecture from people 1000+
miles from the scene.

If you were being accosted, followed by a man with a gun, wouldn't you
ask him why?

How did Martin know that Zimmerman had a gun at that point?


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?

What is your explanation for a 17 year old kid with a big screwdriver
and a bag of women's jewelry?

Gee, I never saw where he had a screwdriver and a bag of jewelry when
Zimmerman accosted him.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...ns-paint-more-
complicated-picture-of-trayvon-martin-20120326_1_suspensions-jewelry-report



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.

You let MSNBC and Al Sharpton convince you Zimmerman is guilty when
all of the evidence appears to support his story. Why do you thin\k
the state's attorney decided not to prosecute ... until political
pressure from lobbyists in DC made them bring in a prosecutor who
would try to make a case. That is mob rule, not justice.
If this was a black guy who was charged you would call it a lynching.

Bull****, I would say what it is, a vigilante with no justifiable cause
other than the kid was walking with Skittles accosting him. The only
reason thus far that HIS story is supported is because the victim is
feakin' dead.

Don't forget about the can of iced tea.

Martin was a thug and junior criminal.

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 15:57:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

He died because he attacked Zimmerman

Please show the proof of that wild allegation.

In our justice system, the state has to prove that is not what
happened.

Horse****!! The state has to prove that IS what happened.

The evidence does seem to support Zimmerman's story. That is why Corey
had to come up with that "depraved mind" bull**** making the act of
getting out of your car to get a better look at something a thought
crime.


Funny, you like to look at the history of Martin, but don't look at the
history of Zimmerman, or you make some silly excuse for Zimmerman's
history.

For those here following the Zimmerman-Martin murder...
 

In article om,
says...

On 5/2/2013 12:38 PM, 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.


His uncle doesn't have property in that sub division.

Wasn't it his fathers girlfriend who actually onwed the property. Trayvon's daddy was
shacking up with some chick.