On 5/8/2013 8:12 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/8/13 7:45 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 8, 12:45 am, wrote:

At this point we should just let the court decide this.

That's what I've been saying all along.



Might be a more fair trial if it were held in a state not so gun crazy.

What's gun crazy about it?

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 2:15:18 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:24:35 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:





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.



I suppose THAT makes Martin guilty?



Just another piece of information.



Relevant how?



In that he was in a neighborhood where he was not known. He was a stranger in the area, reportedly acting in a suspicious way. That's how.



So he should die, eh?

Nah, and I never said that. You know that. I just showed you how the aforementioned info (that you questioned) was relevant. There is no doubt it will be explored in court.

He died because when he confronted Zimmerman, he attacked him instead of saying "I'm headed down to Miss XX's house, where my dad is shacking up with her, and I'm visiting". That was an unfortunate choice, and ended up costing him his life.

Meeting a question with force isn't always the best answer.

Please show proof of the wild unfounded allegations above.

In article ,
says...

On 5/7/13 2:49 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article , says...

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:24:35 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:


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.

I suppose THAT makes Martin guilty?

Just another piece of information.

Relevant how?

In that he was in a neighborhood where he was not known. He was a stranger in the area, reportedly acting in a suspicious way. That's how.

Bingo! I know who the little ******* hoodlums in my neighborhood are.

So you're going to kill them? And what about a stranger in your
neighborhood, how would you know that HE was a "hoodlum"? An awful lot
has been said right here in rec.boats that the kid had a "past". How did
Zimmerman know about his past, unless Zimmerman knew who he was?



Zimmerman was the one with the past, with several incompletely
prosecuted incidents of violence, including one against a woman.

It doesn't matter, FOX told them differently! It's called hypocritical.
You know, like Sanford, newly elected. It's okay for a right winger to
have an affair, but if a liberal does, they call him un-Godly, anti-
Christian, not fit for office, and on and on.

In article ,
says...

On 5/7/2013 5:06 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:24:35 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:


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.

I suppose THAT makes Martin guilty?

Just another piece of information.

Relevant how?

In that he was in a neighborhood where he was not known. He was a stranger in the area, reportedly acting in a suspicious way. That's how.

So he should die, eh?

He died as a result of an altercation with an armed citizen. Martin thought he was going to
beat down some guy and he ended up dying for his efforts.



Yup...

Prove it.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 7 May 2013 14:49:31 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

How did
Zimmerman know about his past, unless Zimmerman knew who he was?

====

He didn't need to know. Anyone walking aimlessly through a
neighborhood and looking into cars is immediately suspect. That is
usually criminal behavior and it's easy to spot.

So, everyone should shoot and kill anybody walking (NOT aimlessly)
through a neighborhood turning his head toward cars (allegedly). Got it.

In article ,
says...

On 5/7/2013 6:28 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/7/13 6:24 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2013 14:49:31 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

How did
Zimmerman know about his past, unless Zimmerman knew who he was?

====

He didn't need to know. Anyone walking aimlessly through a
neighborhood and looking into cars is immediately suspect. That is
usually criminal behavior and it's easy to spot.


There's no evidence the young man was doing anything other than talking
on a cell phone and carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Zimmerman,
on the other hand, has a recorded history of violence.

And so the kid's "history of violence" is hidden by the law, seems it
couldn't hide from lady justice...

So, just remember, if your kid is walking through a neighborhood and
isn't recognized, you'd except that if someone shot her dead, right?

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 7 May 2013 14:50:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Was it profiling or common sense that drew Zimms attention to the young
fella peering into car windows.

Common bigotry. It's the right wing way!

====

I disagree with that. I have called the cops on white kids who were
acting in exactly the same way. Suspicious behavior is what it is
and totally color blind.

Yeah, you did the right thing, you called the cops, you didn't kill the
kids.

On Wed, 8 May 2013 09:12:30 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 7 May 2013 14:49:31 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

How did
Zimmerman know about his past, unless Zimmerman knew who he was?

====

He didn't need to know. Anyone walking aimlessly through a
neighborhood and looking into cars is immediately suspect. That is
usually criminal behavior and it's easy to spot.

So, everyone should shoot and kill anybody walking (NOT aimlessly)
through a neighborhood turning his head toward cars (allegedly). Got it.

===

That's nonsense of course but you seem to have your mind made up
already, so what's the point of discussing it? Most importantly, the
courts will ultimately decide regardless of our opinions.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 8 May 2013 09:12:30 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 7 May 2013 14:49:31 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

How did
Zimmerman know about his past, unless Zimmerman knew who he was?

====

He didn't need to know. Anyone walking aimlessly through a
neighborhood and looking into cars is immediately suspect. That is
usually criminal behavior and it's easy to spot.

So, everyone should shoot and kill anybody walking (NOT aimlessly)
through a neighborhood turning his head toward cars (allegedly). Got it.

===

That's nonsense of course but you seem to have your mind made up
already, so what's the point of discussing it? Most importantly, the
courts will ultimately decide regardless of our opinions.

That's what happened!

On 5/8/13 12:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 08:12:55 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/8/13 7:45 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 8, 12:45 am, wrote:

At this point we should just let the court decide this.

That's what I've been saying all along.



Might be a more fair trial if it were held in a state not so gun crazy.

Why do you think it won't be fair?
Don't you believe the defendant is innocent until proven guilty?


In the legal system, I believe defendants are innocent unless proved
guilty. I don't have much confidence, however, in the legal system in a
state that encourages and sanctions "stand your ground" homicides, as
Florida does.