My take
 

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:18:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing.

Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who
overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established
in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure,
established in concert with the local police department. What he
did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure
recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the
police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop).

Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin.
Both actions are not illegal.

When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then
clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either
threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on
the concrete.

Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help.

The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot
Martin.

Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground.

That's it.

The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to
race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure
bull****.

I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well
if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think
it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the
call to dispatch.

No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all.

John (Gun Nut) H.

You didn't listen to the phone call did you?

No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Holy ****!!!!!! Are you THAT dense or have you gone insane like
Scotty??!!!!!

HOW did this all happen then? Did Martin walk up to Zimmerman's car and
yank him out and beat him?? Is that your take?

Well, at some point one walked up to the other and Martin smacked Zimmerman. Unlike you and Harry, I
will not make up bull**** in a silly attempt to prove a point.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

On 7/16/2013 3:53 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 7/16/2013 1:55 PM, Eisboch replied to Greg with:


--------------------------------------

I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal
record". He doesn't have a criminal police record period.
He was under suspension from school for having some pot residue in his
locker, but he doesn't have a criminal police record.



Then Scotty pipes up with:

He was "under suspicion" for a lot more than that... but I am not doing
your homework for you... then add what he "admitted freely", you know
the thousand pieces of evidence the prosecution kept from us until after
the defense closed it's case, you have a clear picture of exactly what
Treyvon was all about.

To which I (Eisboch) said:

Relax. All I said was that he does *not* have a criminal police record.


------------------------------

OMG Scott! You wonder why you get teased.

What I wrote is quoted above. It was in reply to a statement by Greg
that Martin has an "increasing criminal record".
I simply stated that Martin does *not* have a criminal record period.

Now you come back with this. It's an exact quote of what you just posted:

"No, you directly addressed the assertion that he (Martin) had an
*increasing* criminal record. I assumed your meant that you "disagree
with the (your) assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal
record"... when you said: I disagree with your assertion of Martin
having an "increasing criminal record".

(I confess. I have to spend some time dissecting that paragraph for a
while. Meanwhile, you added:)

"Sorry if I read it wrong... My point is (in case you decide to go back
and read what you wrote, and the context of the topic at hand) that it
seems that Martin indeed did have a great possibility of developing an
"increasing criminal record" sooner than later... But again, you could
have read you wrong:)"

The fact remains, Martin does *not* have a criminal record period.

Yup, right after you said and I quote, "I disagree with your assertion
of Martin having an "increasing criminal
record". Your words, not mine and that's the part of your quote I was
addressing...

Pretty simple really, I quoted you, and commented.. If you don't like my
opinion, why keep reading?
It's
not increasing. It's not decreasing. It doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, I'll try to figure out what, "But again, you could have read
you wrong" means.

Scott, I am not trying to poke fun at you, but I simply can't
understand what you are trying to write sometimes.

My take
 

On 7/17/2013 2:21 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:50:27 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/16/13 1:44 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 7/16/2013 1:34 PM, Eisboch wrote:


wrote in message ...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:42:25 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:


The kid was a thug, and he died because of it and nothing else...

It is clear he was on a track (statistically) to die, young, in a pool
of blood anyway. (black, school failure from a broken home and an
increasing criminal record)

The only anomaly was that a white guy shot him.
If it was just another black guy doing the shooting, this would not
have even made the news and it is likely nobody would have been
charged.

--------------------------------------

I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal
record". He doesn't have a criminal police record period.
He was under suspension from school for having some pot residue in his
locker, but he doesn't have a criminal police record.



He was "under suspicion" for a lot more than that...


Under suspicion? Any arrests? No? Then, bull****.

The cops arrest less 1% of the people who commit burglaries, even when
they have a pretty good idea who they are. That is why the term "known
to the police" is used for people who have never actually taken a
charge.
We had that here in our string of thefts. The cops said they were
pretty sure who it was but they still did not have any hard evidence.
After about a year they finally got what they needed ..,. after a
homeowner caught the guy and held him at gunpoint until the cops got
there. When they searched his house, they closed dozens of cases.


Take Whitey Bulger for example. He, like Treevon was under suspicion for
quite a few crimes before he was caught several decades later and arrested.

My take
 

In article , says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:16:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/16/13 1:14 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:34:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Snotty is more of a "thug" than Martin was.

And you sought a CCW so you could shoot him.
Ironic if nothing else


Shooting Scotty, unless he was in the act of home invasion, would be a
waste of a bullet.

Then why did you need a permit to carry outside your home?

Neighborhood watch.

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:18:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing.

Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who
overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established
in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure,
established in concert with the local police department. What he
did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure
recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the
police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop).

Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin.
Both actions are not illegal.

When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then
clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either
threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on
the concrete.

Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help.

The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot
Martin.

Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground.

That's it.

The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to
race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure
bull****.

I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well
if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think
it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the
call to dispatch.

No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all.

John (Gun Nut) H.

You didn't listen to the phone call did you?

No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Holy ****!!!!!! Are you THAT dense or have you gone insane like
Scotty??!!!!!

HOW did this all happen then? Did Martin walk up to Zimmerman's car and
yank him out and beat him?? Is that your take?

Well, at some point one walked up to the other and Martin smacked Zimmerman. Unlike you and Harry, I
will not make up bull**** in a silly attempt to prove a point.

John (Gun Nut) H.

That very thing is "made up". Where did you get the idea that the first
thing that happened was "Martin smacked Zimmerman?"

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:34:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:42:25 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:


The kid was a thug, and he died because of it and nothing else...

It is clear he was on a track (statistically) to die, young, in a pool
of blood anyway. (black, school failure from a broken home and an
increasing criminal record)

The only anomaly was that a white guy shot him.
If it was just another black guy doing the shooting, this would not
have even made the news and it is likely nobody would have been
charged.

--------------------------------------

I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing
criminal record". He doesn't have a criminal police record period.
He was under suspension from school for having some pot residue in his
locker, but he doesn't have a criminal police record.


We don't really know that. It is clear he was "known" to the police
from the jewelry and burglary tool incident but any juvenile record
beyond that is sealed.
It is clear that his trajectory was down. He certainly did not seem to
have much parental supervision.
He was missing at night for over 4 hours before they even looked
outside to see if he was there.
It makes you wonder what dad and the "girl friend" were doing if they
missed a gunshot, EMS, a bunch of cops and a crowd scene right outside
their door.

If my kid said he was going to the store for a bag of candy and he
didn't come back for over 4 hours, I would be out looking for him long
before that.

Zimmerman was "clearly known to the police" as well, from the assault on
an officer, the assault on his wife, and his constant calling them.

My take
 

On 7/17/13 8:34 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:34:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:42:25 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:


The kid was a thug, and he died because of it and nothing else...

It is clear he was on a track (statistically) to die, young, in a pool
of blood anyway. (black, school failure from a broken home and an
increasing criminal record)

The only anomaly was that a white guy shot him.
If it was just another black guy doing the shooting, this would not
have even made the news and it is likely nobody would have been
charged.

--------------------------------------

I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing
criminal record". He doesn't have a criminal police record period.
He was under suspension from school for having some pot residue in his
locker, but he doesn't have a criminal police record.


We don't really know that. It is clear he was "known" to the police
from the jewelry and burglary tool incident but any juvenile record
beyond that is sealed.
It is clear that his trajectory was down. He certainly did not seem to
have much parental supervision.
He was missing at night for over 4 hours before they even looked
outside to see if he was there.
It makes you wonder what dad and the "girl friend" were doing if they
missed a gunshot, EMS, a bunch of cops and a crowd scene right outside
their door.

If my kid said he was going to the store for a bag of candy and he
didn't come back for over 4 hours, I would be out looking for him long
before that.

Zimmerman was "clearly known to the police" as well, from the assault on
an officer, the assault on his wife, and his constant calling them.


I read "on the internets" somewhere there's a betting pool on Zimmerman.
Haven't seen the actual pool, though. :)

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:34:27 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


Zimmerman was "clearly known to the police" as well, from the assault on
an officer, the assault on his wife, and his constant calling them.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. He was arrested for
interfering with an arrest, the charge was dropped and the other
incident was a disagreement where BOTH were issued restraining orders
and no charges were ever filed.
They were also many years ago. I there was actually a criminal record,
he would not have a CCW.

And what is Martin's "criminal record" again?

My take
 

On 7/17/2013 9:54 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:34:27 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


Zimmerman was "clearly known to the police" as well, from the assault on
an officer, the assault on his wife, and his constant calling them.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. He was arrested for
interfering with an arrest, the charge was dropped and the other
incident was a disagreement where BOTH were issued restraining orders
and no charges were ever filed.
They were also many years ago. I there was actually a criminal record,
he would not have a CCW.

You won this argument a long time ago, but I suppose you have earned the
right to rub his nose in it.

My take
 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:32:06 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:18:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing.

Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who
overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established
in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure,
established in concert with the local police department. What he
did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure
recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the
police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop).

Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin.
Both actions are not illegal.

When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then
clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either
threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on
the concrete.

Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help.

The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot
Martin.

Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground.

That's it.

The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to
race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure
bull****.

I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well
if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think
it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the
call to dispatch.

No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all.

John (Gun Nut) H.

You didn't listen to the phone call did you?

No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Holy ****!!!!!! Are you THAT dense or have you gone insane like
Scotty??!!!!!

HOW did this all happen then? Did Martin walk up to Zimmerman's car and
yank him out and beat him?? Is that your take?

Well, at some point one walked up to the other and Martin smacked Zimmerman. Unlike you and Harry, I
will not make up bull**** in a silly attempt to prove a point.

John (Gun Nut) H.

That very thing is "made up". Where did you get the idea that the first
thing that happened was "Martin smacked Zimmerman?"

Show me where I used the phrase 'first thing'. Learn to read, and quit making up bull****.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 02:23:16 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

You left out

" ... and in the act of committing aggravated assault"

Loogy and Harry keep doing that.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:32:06 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:18:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing.

Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who
overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established
in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure,
established in concert with the local police department. What he
did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure
recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the
police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop).

Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin.
Both actions are not illegal.

When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then
clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either
threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on
the concrete.

Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help.

The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot
Martin.

Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground.

That's it.

The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to
race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure
bull****.

I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well
if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think
it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the
call to dispatch.

No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all.

John (Gun Nut) H.

You didn't listen to the phone call did you?

No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Holy ****!!!!!! Are you THAT dense or have you gone insane like
Scotty??!!!!!

HOW did this all happen then? Did Martin walk up to Zimmerman's car and
yank him out and beat him?? Is that your take?

Well, at some point one walked up to the other and Martin smacked Zimmerman. Unlike you and Harry, I
will not make up bull**** in a silly attempt to prove a point.

John (Gun Nut) H.

That very thing is "made up". Where did you get the idea that the first
thing that happened was "Martin smacked Zimmerman?"

Show me where I used the phrase 'first thing'. Learn to read, and quit making up bull****.

John (Gun Nut) H.

OH, so you admit that Zimmerman could have struck Martin first. NOW we
are getting somewhere. Thanks!

My take
 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

I reached the same conclusions about your 'expert' that the jury did.

There. It's been put up. Now shut up.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:40:26 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:32:06 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:18:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing.

Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who
overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established
in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure,
established in concert with the local police department. What he
did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure
recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the
police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop).

Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin.
Both actions are not illegal.

When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then
clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either
threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on
the concrete.

Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help.

The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot
Martin.

Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground.

That's it.

The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to
race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure
bull****.

I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well
if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think
it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the
call to dispatch.

No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all.

John (Gun Nut) H.

You didn't listen to the phone call did you?

No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Holy ****!!!!!! Are you THAT dense or have you gone insane like
Scotty??!!!!!

HOW did this all happen then? Did Martin walk up to Zimmerman's car and
yank him out and beat him?? Is that your take?

Well, at some point one walked up to the other and Martin smacked Zimmerman. Unlike you and Harry, I
will not make up bull**** in a silly attempt to prove a point.

John (Gun Nut) H.

That very thing is "made up". Where did you get the idea that the first
thing that happened was "Martin smacked Zimmerman?"

Show me where I used the phrase 'first thing'. Learn to read, and quit making up bull****.

John (Gun Nut) H.

OH, so you admit that Zimmerman could have struck Martin first. NOW we
are getting somewhere. Thanks!


Again, show me where I used the phrase 'first thing'. Learn to read, and quit making up bull****.
And, show me an admission of anything.

You and Harry can't even put up bull**** and keep it straight.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 2:57:43 PM UTC-4, John H wrote:


You and Harry can't even put up bull**** and keep it straight.



That's cause they're secretly lovers. One of them always has **** on a certain part of him.

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:40:26 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:32:06 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:18:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing.

Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who
overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established
in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure,
established in concert with the local police department. What he
did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure
recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the
police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop).

Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin.
Both actions are not illegal.

When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then
clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either
threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on
the concrete.

Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help.

The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot
Martin.

Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground.

That's it.

The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to
race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure
bull****.

I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well
if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think
it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the
call to dispatch.

No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all.

John (Gun Nut) H.

You didn't listen to the phone call did you?

No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Holy ****!!!!!! Are you THAT dense or have you gone insane like
Scotty??!!!!!

HOW did this all happen then? Did Martin walk up to Zimmerman's car and
yank him out and beat him?? Is that your take?

Well, at some point one walked up to the other and Martin smacked Zimmerman. Unlike you and Harry, I
will not make up bull**** in a silly attempt to prove a point.

John (Gun Nut) H.

That very thing is "made up". Where did you get the idea that the first
thing that happened was "Martin smacked Zimmerman?"

Show me where I used the phrase 'first thing'. Learn to read, and quit making up bull****.

John (Gun Nut) H.

OH, so you admit that Zimmerman could have struck Martin first. NOW we
are getting somewhere. Thanks!


Again, show me where I used the phrase 'first thing'. Learn to read, and quit making up bull****.
And, show me an admission of anything.

You and Harry can't even put up bull**** and keep it straight.

John (Gun Nut) H.

If it wasn't "first thing" then Zimmerman attacked Martin "first thing",
idiot.

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

I reached the same conclusions about your 'expert' that the jury did.

Cite?


There. It's been put up. Now shut up.

John (Gun Nut) H.

ESAD, Mr. Senility.

My take
 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:10:39 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

I reached the same conclusions about your 'expert' that the jury did.

Cite?

I just *said* it!!



There. It's been put up. Now shut up.

John (Gun Nut) H.

ESAD, Mr. Senility.

Hey, name-calling is good when you lose. Harry pretends he plonks. Maybe you should consider that
also.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

My take
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:10:39 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

I reached the same conclusions about your 'expert' that the jury did.

Cite?

I just *said* it!!



There. It's been put up. Now shut up.

John (Gun Nut) H.

ESAD, Mr. Senility.

Hey, name-calling is good when you lose. Harry pretends he plonks. Maybe you should consider that
also.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Do you mean like "****ing liberals"? Because a senile, stupid coot says
something it's true?!!

My take
 

On 7/17/13 5:29 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:10:39 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

I reached the same conclusions about your 'expert' that the jury did.

Cite?

I just *said* it!!



There. It's been put up. Now shut up.

John (Gun Nut) H.

ESAD, Mr. Senility.

Hey, name-calling is good when you lose. Harry pretends he plonks. Maybe you should consider that
also.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Do you mean like "****ing liberals"? Because a senile, stupid coot says
something it's true?!!



Once again, Herring is a tired, nasty, old racist who has seen his world
and the way he wants it change drastically. There is something to your
pointing out his encroaching senility, though. :)

My take
 

On 7/17/2013 5:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/17/13 5:29 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:10:39 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:25 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer

wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin.
If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have
happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the
middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch"
Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill
teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused
of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete
after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were
"very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or
believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or
realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX
again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have
near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no
evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

I reached the same conclusions about your 'expert' that the jury did.

Cite?

I just *said* it!!



There. It's been put up. Now shut up.

John (Gun Nut) H.

ESAD, Mr. Senility.

Hey, name-calling is good when you lose. Harry pretends he plonks.
Maybe you should consider that
also.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Do you mean like "****ing liberals"? Because a senile, stupid coot says
something it's true?!!



Once again, Herring is a tired, nasty, old racist who has seen his world
and the way he wants it change drastically. There is something to your
pointing out his encroaching senility, though. :)

Awesome! You and Loogie are having a synchronized meltdown. ;-)

My take
 

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:41:01 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/17/13 5:29 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:10:39 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:55:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


"These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid.
Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek.
He DID go after him.

They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was
"going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several
feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of
the community 4 minutes later..
It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the
police arrived.


You mean, he was stalking Martin.

But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that
they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty
theft.

...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose.

Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very
minor" or did you just not understand it?

Uh, the state's 'expert witnesses' weren't too 'expert' or believable. Before you say 'cite', check
the results of the trial.

John (Gun Nut) H.

What makes you think that they weren't "expert"? Do you know or realize
what their credentials are, or are you just lip syncing to FOX again?

Actually, I watched and listened to them on CNN. Fox didn't have near the coverage provided by CNN.
But then, FOX wasn't pushing for a guilty verdict with no evidence as were you, Harry, MSNBC, Al,
Jesse, CNN (and most of their 'analysts'), etc., etc.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Well then, show me where you came to the conclusion that the person
testifying was not an expert. It's that simple. Put up or shut up.

I reached the same conclusions about your 'expert' that the jury did.

Cite?

I just *said* it!!



There. It's been put up. Now shut up.

John (Gun Nut) H.

ESAD, Mr. Senility.

Hey, name-calling is good when you lose. Harry pretends he plonks. Maybe you should consider that
also.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Do you mean like "****ing liberals"? Because a senile, stupid coot says
something it's true?!!



Once again, Herring is a tired, nasty, old racist who has seen his world
and the way he wants it change drastically. There is something to your
pointing out his encroaching senility, though. :)

Such togetherness. It's inspiring, really. I'm happy to be a part of it. No more arguing and
bickering between you two lovebuds. It's great.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!