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.