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

....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

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

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


alleged murder...

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

On Apr 30, 5:38*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

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

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

Another troll.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:20:04 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

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


alleged murder...

Yup.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

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

On Apr 30, 7:27*pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:

I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

And that's where it should be played out. In the court room. Not by
biased reporting and public opinion.

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

On 4/30/2013 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.


He is just making the rounds through the topics... looking for his
fight. He needed to see if you were still here...

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

On 4/30/13 10:32 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 4/30/2013 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.


He is just making the rounds through the topics... looking for his
fight. He needed to see if you were still here...


What a brain-dead little twerp you are. I'm not looking for a fight, nor
am I interested in insulting your wife, your kids, your pet dog. Doing
that is your rice bowl around here, little twerp.

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

On 5/1/13 12:47 AM, 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.



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

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

On 4/30/13 9:44 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:27 pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:

I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

And that's where it should be played out. In the court room. Not by
biased reporting and public opinion.


Right, because we ordinary folks have no right to discuss current events.

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

On May 1, 5:28*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:44 PM, Tim wrote:









On Apr 30, 7:27 pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:

I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

And that's where it should be played out. In the court room. Not by
biased reporting and public opinion.

Right, because we ordinary folks have no right to discuss current events.

discuss all you want, but is it proper to condemn someone without a
benefit of a fair trial?

After all Harry, your title of this thread says you do.

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

On 5/1/13 7:19 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 1, 5:28 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:44 PM, Tim wrote:









On Apr 30, 7:27 pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:

I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

And that's where it should be played out. In the court room. Not by
biased reporting and public opinion.

Right, because we ordinary folks have no right to discuss current events.

discuss all you want, but is it proper to condemn someone without a
benefit of a fair trial?

After all Harry, your title of this thread says you do.


Zimmerman shot the kid. Zimmerman for whatever reason is not claiming he
was standing his ground. I think Zimmerman provoked a fight and then
when he was called out on it, he went to get his gun. I don't know what
the result of a "fair trial" may be in a gun happy state.

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

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!

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

In article ,
says...

On 4/30/2013 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.


He is just making the rounds through the topics... looking for his
fight. He needed to see if you were still here...

YOU are.

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

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

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."

=======

Zimmerman's lawyer can still raise the "Stand Your Ground" defense
during the trial. I think he wanted to avoid the risk of presenting
that defense twice. The hearing judge would have been under a great
deal of political pressure just like the original prosecutor. The
jury will be under no political pressure at all, and it seems unlikely
that they will be able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most likely outcome is either acquittal or a hung jury.

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

wrote:
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.

Alleged beating

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

On 5/1/13 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

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.

Judges are elected political hacks here and up there in a blue county
I imagine O'Mara trusts a jury more.


Scalia and Thomas are political hacks.

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

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.

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

On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:00:45 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

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."

=======

Zimmerman's lawyer can still raise the "Stand Your Ground" defense
during the trial. I think he wanted to avoid the risk of presenting
that defense twice. The hearing judge would have been under a great
deal of political pressure just like the original prosecutor. The
jury will be under no political pressure at all, and it seems unlikely
that they will be able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most likely outcome is either acquittal or a hung jury.

You're right. This way he can see what the prosecution has before making the final decision.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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

On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:33:50 -0400, wrote:

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.

Alleged politics.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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

On 5/1/13 1:33 PM, wrote:
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.


When you are facing a hotheaded asshole like Zimmerman who is
threatening you with a pistol, I suppose it is ok to fight back, eh?

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

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.

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

On 5/1/13 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:08:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 1:33 PM, wrote:
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.


When you are facing a hotheaded asshole like Zimmerman who is
threatening you with a pistol, I suppose it is ok to fight back, eh?

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.

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

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.

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

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:26:46 -0400, 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.

Do you actually believe that?

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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

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?

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

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:08:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 1:33 PM, wrote:
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.


When you are facing a hotheaded asshole like Zimmerman who is
threatening you with a pistol, I suppose it is ok to fight back, eh?

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?

Yes there is evidence. Domestic violence, resisting arrest, and battery
on a law enforcement officer. He got out of them by pleading nolo after
agreeing to an intervention.

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

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.

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

On 5/1/13 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?



Participation in this newsgroup. :)

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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!!!!!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.