Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says in order revoking bond
2 views
Skip to first unread message
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jun 12, 2012, 1:17:10 PM6/12/12
to
Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
in order revoking bond
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2894433/posts
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o o o
About the terrorist Goon Squad:
"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
<KalluM...@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
telling others what and when to post, where to post and
where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
<us...@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <jos...@gmail.com> who
displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <bh...@hotmail.com>
The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
favorite now is "fana...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "fan...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
many years.
-Updated on February 2, 2012-
in order revoking bond
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2894433/posts
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o o o
About the terrorist Goon Squad:
"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
<KalluM...@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
telling others what and when to post, where to post and
where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
<us...@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <jos...@gmail.com> who
displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <bh...@hotmail.com>
The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
favorite now is "fana...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "fan...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
many years.
-Updated on February 2, 2012-
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 14, 2012, 2:39:15 PM6/14/12
to
On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> in order revoking bond
Really?! The judge said that, huh?
> Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> in order revoking bond
The Starmaker
Jun 15, 2012, 1:51:07 AM6/15/12
to
streets, and
having a dis-repect of the law in a courtroom.
Judges don't care who you kill on the streets...
they only care about, can you explain it before they go to lunch for a
hour and a half?
Shouldn't there be a law against judges taking 1 & 1/2 hour lunches?
A hour and a half lunch anywhere else is a crime!
The Starmaker
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 15, 2012, 12:55:48 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 1:51 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> thepinkpantsuit wrote:
>
> > On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> > > in order revoking bond
>
> > Really?! The judge said that, huh?
>
> There is a difference with having a dis-respect for the law on the
> streets, and
> having a dis-repect of the law in a courtroom.
Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> thepinkpantsuit wrote:
>
> > On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> > > in order revoking bond
>
> > Really?! The judge said that, huh?
>
> There is a difference with having a dis-respect for the law on the
> streets, and
> having a dis-repect of the law in a courtroom.
straight to his credibility.
ray
Jun 15, 2012, 5:41:12 PM6/15/12
to
In article
<c683cefa-59eb-4b85...@x39g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
determine his credibility?
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
<c683cefa-59eb-4b85...@x39g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
determine his credibility?
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 15, 2012, 7:35:20 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 5:41 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c683cefa-59eb-4b85-935b-1a5f99f62...@x39g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
funds. Big dlf.
> In article
> <c683cefa-59eb-4b85-935b-1a5f99f62...@x39g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 1:51 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > thepinkpantsuit wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> > > > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > > > Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> > > > > in order revoking bond
>
> > > > Really?! The judge said that, huh?
>
> > > There is a difference with having a dis-respect for the law on the
> > > streets, and
> > > having a dis-repect of the law in a courtroom.
>
> > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > straight to his credibility.
>
> I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> determine his credibility?
.
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 1:51 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > thepinkpantsuit wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> > > > Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> > > > > Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> > > > > in order revoking bond
>
> > > > Really?! The judge said that, huh?
>
> > > There is a difference with having a dis-respect for the law on the
> > > streets, and
> > > having a dis-repect of the law in a courtroom.
>
> > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > straight to his credibility.
>
> I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> determine his credibility?
What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
funds. Big dlf.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Jun 15, 2012, 7:35:24 PM6/15/12
to
and haul his pimply-faced, lard-ass off to jail for lying to the
judge.
ray
Jun 15, 2012, 9:41:56 PM6/15/12
to
In article
<3c02f4ae-de0b-4c7d...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
the time. Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
<3c02f4ae-de0b-4c7d...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > straight to his credibility.
> >
> > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > determine his credibility?
> .
>
> What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> funds. Big dlf.
Difference? Yes. But both had their run-ins with the law. From what I
> > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > straight to his credibility.
> >
> > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > determine his credibility?
> .
>
> What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> funds. Big dlf.
understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
the time. Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 15, 2012, 10:47:05 PM6/15/12
to
> <3c02f4ae-de0b-4c7d-a415-9edc8428e...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
expenses. He couldn't have spent it if he didn't know he had it.
family will lie to keep him out of jail. That's a start.
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > > straight to his credibility.
>
> > > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > > determine his credibility?
> > .
>
> > What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> > teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> > wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> > funds. Big dlf.
>
> Difference? Yes. But both had their run-ins with the law. From what I
> understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
> the time. Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
Het set up the fund and he spent some of the money for living
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > > straight to his credibility.
>
> > > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > > determine his credibility?
> > .
>
> > What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> > teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> > wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> > funds. Big dlf.
>
> Difference? Yes. But both had their run-ins with the law. From what I
> understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
> the time. Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
expenses. He couldn't have spent it if he didn't know he had it.
>
> But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
It makes him a liar. A liar trying to stay out of jail. A liar whose
> But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
family will lie to keep him out of jail. That's a start.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 15, 2012, 10:56:39 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 7:35 pm, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
> <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> >Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >> Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> >> in order revoking bond
>
> >Really?! The judge said that, huh?
>
> Yep. Just before he ordered the bailiff to slap the cuffs on Z'man
> and haul his pimply-faced, lard-ass off to jail for lying to the
> judge.
Touche.
> >On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
> >Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >> Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> >> in order revoking bond
>
> >Really?! The judge said that, huh?
>
> Yep. Just before he ordered the bailiff to slap the cuffs on Z'man
> and haul his pimply-faced, lard-ass off to jail for lying to the
> judge.
Kickin&#39; Ass and Takin&#39; Names
Jun 16, 2012, 5:43:56 AM6/16/12
to
> <3c02f4ae-de0b-4c7d-a415-9edc8428e...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Right.
Happens to me all the time.
I mean, damn near every week anonymous people whom I've never met drop
$150,000 in my PayPal account and I don't find out about it for
months.
In fact, if you'd like to donate, send a few grand to my PayPal
account -- here's the account ID:
are_you_as_fucking_stu...@whatafool.com
> Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
>
> But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
You're right. But what DOES make him a murderer is chasing down an
innocent, unarmed person and shooting that same person for no reason,
without warning.
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > > straight to his credibility.
>
> > > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > > determine his credibility?
> > .
>
> > What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> > teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> > wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> > funds. Big dlf.
>
> Difference? Yes. But both had their run-ins with the law. From what I
> understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
> the time.
Z'man had no knowledge of the money donated at the time?
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > > straight to his credibility.
>
> > > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > > determine his credibility?
> > .
>
> > What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> > teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> > wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> > funds. Big dlf.
>
> Difference? Yes. But both had their run-ins with the law. From what I
> understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
> the time.
Right.
Happens to me all the time.
I mean, damn near every week anonymous people whom I've never met drop
$150,000 in my PayPal account and I don't find out about it for
months.
In fact, if you'd like to donate, send a few grand to my PayPal
account -- here's the account ID:
are_you_as_fucking_stu...@whatafool.com
> Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
>
> But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
innocent, unarmed person and shooting that same person for no reason,
without warning.
Charles Bell
Jun 16, 2012, 6:26:21 AM6/16/12
to
> <3c02f4ae-de0b-4c7d-a415-9edc8428e...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
That happens all the time. That his wife has been charged with
perjury marks the responsibilty on her.
> But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
One thing absolutely has nothing to do with other. That one may walk
in a gray area of the truth in order to stay out of jail on bond does
not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
pieces of mostly women’s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > > straight to his credibility.
>
> > > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > > determine his credibility?
> > .
>
> > What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> > teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> > wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> > funds. Big dlf.
>
> Difference? Yes. But both had their run-ins with the law. From what I
> understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
> the time. Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
>
It's likely that Zimmerman left all financial details to his wife.
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, apparently, he has both, which isn't surprising, and this goes
> > > > straight to his credibility.
>
> > > I wonder if they will take into account Martin's past actions to
> > > determine his credibility?
> > .
>
> > What relevance do they have to this case and most of it is typical
> > teen stuff. Zimmerman, however, has now lied to the court, and his
> > wife was arrested and charged with perjury for conspiring to hide
> > funds. Big dlf.
>
> Difference? Yes. But both had their run-ins with the law. From what I
> understand, Zimmerman had no knowledge of the money people donated at
> the time. Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
>
That happens all the time. That his wife has been charged with
perjury marks the responsibilty on her.
> But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
in a gray area of the truth in order to stay out of jail on bond does
not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
pieces of mostly women’s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
driver', a cousin claimed.
Charles Bell
Jun 16, 2012, 6:29:12 AM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 5:43 am, "Kickin&amp;#39; Ass and Takin&amp;#39;
> are_you_as_fucking_stupid_as_the_shit_you_...@whatafool.com
that. He shot a drug-ridden thug who attacked him.
>
> > Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> > lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
>
> > But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> > of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
>
> You're right. But what DOES make him a murderer is chasing down an
> innocent, unarmed person and shooting that same person for no reason,
> without warning.
>
Good. Then that does not make him a 'murderer' because he did not do
> > Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> > lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
>
> > But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> > of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
>
> You're right. But what DOES make him a murderer is chasing down an
> innocent, unarmed person and shooting that same person for no reason,
> without warning.
>
that. He shot a drug-ridden thug who attacked him.
ray
Jun 16, 2012, 7:57:52 AM6/16/12
to
In article
<a4ea6408-2578-4a20...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Tell me, how do you know about this money when you're sitting in jail?
Yes, he knew about the account, but if you remember, he turned himself
in and could not monitor it's activity. Besides that, only a fool would
go against the advice of his lawyer. And I'm sure his lawyer knew about
the account as well; it was all over the media. If we knew about this
account, his lawyer sure did.
So I question if there was enough in that account "at the time" to
really make a difference in the judges ruling.
> > Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> > lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
> >
> > But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> > of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
>
> You're right. But what DOES make him a murderer is chasing down an
> innocent, unarmed person and shooting that same person for no reason,
> without warning.
That's what he did? And you know this how? The 911 tape seems to tell
a much different version of the story than yours.
<a4ea6408-2578-4a20...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"Kickin&amp;#39; Ass and Takin&amp;#39; Names"
Yes, he knew about the account, but if you remember, he turned himself
in and could not monitor it's activity. Besides that, only a fool would
go against the advice of his lawyer. And I'm sure his lawyer knew about
the account as well; it was all over the media. If we knew about this
account, his lawyer sure did.
So I question if there was enough in that account "at the time" to
really make a difference in the judges ruling.
> > Truth? I don't know. I guess we will wait and see if his
> > lawyer wants to contest the ruling.
> >
> > But even if he did know about the funds and was only trying to stay out
> > of jail until the trial, that doesn't make him a murderer.
>
> You're right. But what DOES make him a murderer is chasing down an
> innocent, unarmed person and shooting that same person for no reason,
> without warning.
a much different version of the story than yours.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 7:37:40 AM6/16/12
to
jail. See the relationship now? Is this an acceptable conservative
position? Lie to the court to stay out of jail?
does
> not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
> addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
> and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
> pieces of mostly women’s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
> driver', a cousin claimed.
Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
flat.
ray
Jun 16, 2012, 9:37:29 AM6/16/12
to
In article
<62fb250d-4fde-438b...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
have been committing a crime (besides walking around intoxicated) but
neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
use the firearm to defend himself. This is why initial investigations
showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
law.
At the time of the autopsy, the only abrasions on Martin was his
knuckles which are consistent with the physical scars on Zimmerman. So
how did Zimmerman attack Martin when there were no signs of Martin being
attacked?
Face it, Martin attacked Zimmerman plain and simple. There is no way to
explain how Martin didn't have a way out if he were attacked by
Zimmerman. That complex is not that large, and in the time Martin ran
away from Zimmerman while he stayed on the phone with 911, Martin could
have run across that complex twice and still made it home.
Zimmerman should not be in jail in the first place. Nobody should spend
time in jail for obeying the law.
<62fb250d-4fde-438b...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> does
> > not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
> > addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
> > and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
> > pieces of mostly women¹s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
> > driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
> further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
> flat.
And you're so far to the left you're almost a Communist. Martin may not
> does
> > not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
> > addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
> > and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
> > pieces of mostly women¹s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
> > driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
> further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
> flat.
have been committing a crime (besides walking around intoxicated) but
neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
use the firearm to defend himself. This is why initial investigations
showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
law.
At the time of the autopsy, the only abrasions on Martin was his
knuckles which are consistent with the physical scars on Zimmerman. So
how did Zimmerman attack Martin when there were no signs of Martin being
attacked?
Face it, Martin attacked Zimmerman plain and simple. There is no way to
explain how Martin didn't have a way out if he were attacked by
Zimmerman. That complex is not that large, and in the time Martin ran
away from Zimmerman while he stayed on the phone with 911, Martin could
have run across that complex twice and still made it home.
Zimmerman should not be in jail in the first place. Nobody should spend
time in jail for obeying the law.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 10:55:10 AM6/16/12
to
> <62fb250d-4fde-438b-aa63-c66bca095...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>Martin may not
> have been committing a crime
May not? How about "was not."
(besides walking around intoxicated) but
> neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
> use the firearm to defend himself.
Right. Hence, if Martin wasn't committing a crime, there was no need
for Zimmerman to defend himself. In fact, it was Martin standing his
ground. Look closely at the convenience store video. Does the clerk
look afraid because he doesn't recognize a regular customer? Was
Martin acting strange or erratically? Starting trouble? The
convenience store clerk apparently had an entirely different
perception of Martin than did Zimmerman. Odd that, no? Especially with
a drawer filled with cash and a store ripe for shop lifting skittles
and iced tea.
>This is why initial investigations
> showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
> law.
Initial investigations gleaned only one side of the story. The story
of a man with the propensity to lie to keep himself out of jail.
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > does
> > > not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
> > > addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
> > > and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
> > > pieces of mostly women s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
> > > driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> > Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> > Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
> > further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
> > flat.
>
> And you're so far to the left you're almost a Communist.
Is that how the center looks to you?
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > does
> > > not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
> > > addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
> > > and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
> > > pieces of mostly women s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
> > > driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> > Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> > Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
> > further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
> > flat.
>
> And you're so far to the left you're almost a Communist.
>Martin may not
> have been committing a crime
(besides walking around intoxicated) but
> neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
> use the firearm to defend himself.
for Zimmerman to defend himself. In fact, it was Martin standing his
ground. Look closely at the convenience store video. Does the clerk
look afraid because he doesn't recognize a regular customer? Was
Martin acting strange or erratically? Starting trouble? The
convenience store clerk apparently had an entirely different
perception of Martin than did Zimmerman. Odd that, no? Especially with
a drawer filled with cash and a store ripe for shop lifting skittles
and iced tea.
>This is why initial investigations
> showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
> law.
of a man with the propensity to lie to keep himself out of jail.
ray
Jun 16, 2012, 11:20:57 AM6/16/12
to
In article
<80e21e95-c51e-4b94...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
stated Martin was on top beating the hell out of Zimmerman. As to how
that situation took place, there is only one witness--Zimmerman.
So Zimmmerman's story lined up with all evidence available. The gunshot
wound, the fact that Zimmerman detected (as he stated to the 911
operator) that Martin looked like he was "high or something," the
witnesses, Zimmerman's injuries, and Zimmermans account of what was
taking place while talking to the 911 operator. Police and detectives
found no evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's story. None.
So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
placate the blacks. As for the Convenience store clerk, he or she sees
people like Martin all the time. But there are no people who dressed
and acted like Martin in that gated community. Big difference.
So what you want to do is convict a man because he defended himself
according to the law. How do you convict a person who had severe
injuries and say that he was the attacker of a man who had absolutely no
injuries, especially when Martin had ample time to walk to his house
after he ran away from Zimmerman?
<80e21e95-c51e-4b94...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> May not? How about "was not."
>
> (besides walking around intoxicated) but
> > neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
> > use the firearm to defend himself.
>
> Right. Hence, if Martin wasn't committing a crime, there was no need
> for Zimmerman to defend himself. In fact, it was Martin standing his
> ground. Look closely at the convenience store video. Does the clerk
> look afraid because he doesn't recognize a regular customer? Was
> Martin acting strange or erratically? Starting trouble? The
> convenience store clerk apparently had an entirely different
> perception of Martin than did Zimmerman. Odd that, no? Especially with
> a drawer filled with cash and a store ripe for shop lifting skittles
> and iced tea.
>
> >This is why initial investigations
> > showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
> > law.
>
> Initial investigations gleaned only one side of the story. The story
> of a man with the propensity to lie to keep himself out of jail.
What other side of the story is there? Police interviewed witnesses who
> May not? How about "was not."
>
> (besides walking around intoxicated) but
> > neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
> > use the firearm to defend himself.
>
> Right. Hence, if Martin wasn't committing a crime, there was no need
> for Zimmerman to defend himself. In fact, it was Martin standing his
> ground. Look closely at the convenience store video. Does the clerk
> look afraid because he doesn't recognize a regular customer? Was
> Martin acting strange or erratically? Starting trouble? The
> convenience store clerk apparently had an entirely different
> perception of Martin than did Zimmerman. Odd that, no? Especially with
> a drawer filled with cash and a store ripe for shop lifting skittles
> and iced tea.
>
> >This is why initial investigations
> > showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
> > law.
>
> Initial investigations gleaned only one side of the story. The story
> of a man with the propensity to lie to keep himself out of jail.
stated Martin was on top beating the hell out of Zimmerman. As to how
that situation took place, there is only one witness--Zimmerman.
So Zimmmerman's story lined up with all evidence available. The gunshot
wound, the fact that Zimmerman detected (as he stated to the 911
operator) that Martin looked like he was "high or something," the
witnesses, Zimmerman's injuries, and Zimmermans account of what was
taking place while talking to the 911 operator. Police and detectives
found no evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's story. None.
So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
placate the blacks. As for the Convenience store clerk, he or she sees
people like Martin all the time. But there are no people who dressed
and acted like Martin in that gated community. Big difference.
So what you want to do is convict a man because he defended himself
according to the law. How do you convict a person who had severe
injuries and say that he was the attacker of a man who had absolutely no
injuries, especially when Martin had ample time to walk to his house
after he ran away from Zimmerman?
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 1:07:39 PM6/16/12
to
> <80e21e95-c51e-4b94-9904-d9fa676bd...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
himself from going to jail. The other party--the other side of this
altercation--is dead.
>The gunshot
> wound, the fact that Zimmerman detected (as he stated to the 911
> operator) that Martin looked like he was "high or something," the
> witnesses, Zimmerman's injuries, and Zimmermans account of what was
> taking place while talking to the 911 operator. Police and detectives
> found no evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's story. None.
But since we now have the video of Martin at the convenience store, we
can see his state of mind moments before the encounter. He is not
behaving menancingly, in fact, his exceediingly slow movements at the
store belie the quick reaction time necessary to do any real damage.
THC does that. Zimmerman did not even require hospital treatment for
his 'injuries.' A scrape is not life threatening. That is what the man
has. A scrape.
>
> So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
> placate the blacks.
Eww. Ugleh. Um, he's in jail for lying to the judge.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-report/55046944/1
Police report: Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'avoidable'. And it
substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
Alrighty then!
>
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > May not? How about "was not."
>
> > (besides walking around intoxicated) but
> > > neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
> > > use the firearm to defend himself.
>
> > Right. Hence, if Martin wasn't committing a crime, there was no need
> > for Zimmerman to defend himself. In fact, it was Martin standing his
> > ground. Look closely at the convenience store video. Does the clerk
> > look afraid because he doesn't recognize a regular customer? Was
> > Martin acting strange or erratically? Starting trouble? The
> > convenience store clerk apparently had an entirely different
> > perception of Martin than did Zimmerman. Odd that, no? Especially with
> > a drawer filled with cash and a store ripe for shop lifting skittles
> > and iced tea.
>
> > >This is why initial investigations
> > > showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
> > > law.
>
> > Initial investigations gleaned only one side of the story. The story
> > of a man with the propensity to lie to keep himself out of jail.
>
> What other side of the story is there?
>Police interviewed witnesses who
> stated Martin was on top beating the hell out of Zimmerman. As to how
> that situation took place, there is only one witness--Zimmerman.
That is correct. There is only one witness. That witness lies to keep
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > May not? How about "was not."
>
> > (besides walking around intoxicated) but
> > > neither was Zimmerman. He had every legal right to carry a firearm and
> > > use the firearm to defend himself.
>
> > Right. Hence, if Martin wasn't committing a crime, there was no need
> > for Zimmerman to defend himself. In fact, it was Martin standing his
> > ground. Look closely at the convenience store video. Does the clerk
> > look afraid because he doesn't recognize a regular customer? Was
> > Martin acting strange or erratically? Starting trouble? The
> > convenience store clerk apparently had an entirely different
> > perception of Martin than did Zimmerman. Odd that, no? Especially with
> > a drawer filled with cash and a store ripe for shop lifting skittles
> > and iced tea.
>
> > >This is why initial investigations
> > > showed that what Zimmerman did was well within the constraints of the
> > > law.
>
> > Initial investigations gleaned only one side of the story. The story
> > of a man with the propensity to lie to keep himself out of jail.
>
> What other side of the story is there?
>Police interviewed witnesses who
> stated Martin was on top beating the hell out of Zimmerman. As to how
> that situation took place, there is only one witness--Zimmerman.
himself from going to jail. The other party--the other side of this
altercation--is dead.
>
> So Zimmmerman's story lined up with all evidence available.
Naturally. There was no other side to the story.
> So Zimmmerman's story lined up with all evidence available.
>The gunshot
> wound, the fact that Zimmerman detected (as he stated to the 911
> operator) that Martin looked like he was "high or something," the
> witnesses, Zimmerman's injuries, and Zimmermans account of what was
> taking place while talking to the 911 operator. Police and detectives
> found no evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's story. None.
can see his state of mind moments before the encounter. He is not
behaving menancingly, in fact, his exceediingly slow movements at the
store belie the quick reaction time necessary to do any real damage.
THC does that. Zimmerman did not even require hospital treatment for
his 'injuries.' A scrape is not life threatening. That is what the man
has. A scrape.
>
> So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
> placate the blacks.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-report/55046944/1
Police report: Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'avoidable'. And it
substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
Alrighty then!
Charles Bell
Jun 16, 2012, 1:10:21 PM6/16/12
to
-- which was not true. That is not lying. The judge's decision to re-
evaluate his bail bond was based on the fact of there being more cash
avaliable to him than on any determination that he lied.
> does
>
> > not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
> > addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
> > and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
> > pieces of mostly women’s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
> > driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> Zimmerman.
broken, and grass stains on his back and Martin having no more than
scrapes on his knuckles do you not understand? In an alternative
universe you imagine, Zimmerman must have attacked Martin by throwing
himself down on the ground and hitting Martin's fists with his head
and nose.
> Past acts at school are irrelevant.
aggressive behavior and that Zimmerman's account of such a person
acting suspiciously, up to no good, plausible; whereas any accusation
that Zimmerman provoked an attack from Martin (rather than the other
way around) is preposterous.
Charles Bell
Jun 16, 2012, 1:26:21 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 1:07 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvo...
every nasty [expletive] in the world and you, and your whore mother,
should rot in hell, THAT GIVES YOU NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ASSAULT HIM IN
RETURN. In that worse case scenario of "fighting-words" provocation,
the guilty party is you who initiates the physical assault, not the
victim who "could have avoided the situation" by not yelling bad
things at you.
Zimmerman COULD HAVE run up to Martin and screamed at him: "N***ers
are not allowed in his neighborhood, and Martin still would be guilty
of assault if he sucker punched Zimmerman and threw him to the ground
and wailed on him, as he very likely did.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvo...
> Police report: Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'avoidable'. And it
> substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
> Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
>
If someone walks up to you on the street and yells at you that you are
> substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
> Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
>
every nasty [expletive] in the world and you, and your whore mother,
should rot in hell, THAT GIVES YOU NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ASSAULT HIM IN
RETURN. In that worse case scenario of "fighting-words" provocation,
the guilty party is you who initiates the physical assault, not the
victim who "could have avoided the situation" by not yelling bad
things at you.
Zimmerman COULD HAVE run up to Martin and screamed at him: "N***ers
are not allowed in his neighborhood, and Martin still would be guilty
of assault if he sucker punched Zimmerman and threw him to the ground
and wailed on him, as he very likely did.
The Starmaker
Jun 16, 2012, 1:34:35 PM6/16/12
to
advise their clients don't tell the truth.
>
> does
> > not say he ought to never have defended himself against a drug-
> > addicted thug suspended from school three times (graffiti, truancy
> > and drug possession) and caught with a flat-head screwdriver and 12
> > pieces of mostly women’s rings and earrings, and he 'swung on a bus
> > driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
> further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
> flat.
If all the black people in south la were to start walking down beverly hills...that would be considered a crime.
Even one black guy walking down beverly hills feels...frighten. Because he knows hes black and he knows being
black is a crime.
Those white guys will kill you just because you're ....black.
The cops will kill you're just because you're black!
Martin was commiting a crime, ...being black.
The Starmaker
And if a black person is wearing a pinkpantsuit? He's commiting a crime, he's a pimp!
http://www.misterbling.co.uk/images/PK0003_big.jpg
Is that you pink with a pinkpantsuit with your pimp in a pinkpantsuit?
ray
Jun 16, 2012, 1:49:56 PM6/16/12
to
In article
<1aaae712-14c5-4ab0...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Martin's lawyer said that Zimmerman should have listened to the
dispatcher about staying in his car. The dispatcher never told him to
stay in his car. Secondly, this article says that Martin was accosted
by Zimmerman. There is no evidence of this. They provided no names of
officers or links to such police reports.
Was it unavoidable? Sure it was, but that's not what's in question
here. What is in question is who attacked who and did Zimmerman legally
use his firearm within the constraints of the law.
A broken nose and a bashed back of the head is not a scratch. It is
evidence that there was a violent attack. If they convict Zimmerman
based on a store video, then there is no justice in this country. The
store video proves absolutely nothing.
If police had concluded that Zimmerman broke some sort of law, they
would have charged him that night. This piece you provided was extremely
biased. They report that Zimmerman called the cops three other
times--all black males. No kidding? Whites are a minority in that
gated community.
<1aaae712-14c5-4ab0...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But since we now have the video of Martin at the convenience store, we
> can see his state of mind moments before the encounter. He is not
> behaving menancingly, in fact, his exceediingly slow movements at the
> store belie the quick reaction time necessary to do any real damage.
> THC does that. Zimmerman did not even require hospital treatment for
> his 'injuries.' A scrape is not life threatening. That is what the man
> has. A scrape.
>
> >
> > So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
> > placate the blacks.
>
> Eww. Ugleh. Um, he's in jail for lying to the judge.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvon-shootin
> g-report/55046944/1
> Police report: Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'avoidable'. And it
> substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
> Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
Your link here is extremely questionable. According to this USA report,
> But since we now have the video of Martin at the convenience store, we
> can see his state of mind moments before the encounter. He is not
> behaving menancingly, in fact, his exceediingly slow movements at the
> store belie the quick reaction time necessary to do any real damage.
> THC does that. Zimmerman did not even require hospital treatment for
> his 'injuries.' A scrape is not life threatening. That is what the man
> has. A scrape.
>
> >
> > So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
> > placate the blacks.
>
> Eww. Ugleh. Um, he's in jail for lying to the judge.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvon-shootin
> g-report/55046944/1
> Police report: Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'avoidable'. And it
> substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
> Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
Martin's lawyer said that Zimmerman should have listened to the
dispatcher about staying in his car. The dispatcher never told him to
stay in his car. Secondly, this article says that Martin was accosted
by Zimmerman. There is no evidence of this. They provided no names of
officers or links to such police reports.
Was it unavoidable? Sure it was, but that's not what's in question
here. What is in question is who attacked who and did Zimmerman legally
use his firearm within the constraints of the law.
A broken nose and a bashed back of the head is not a scratch. It is
evidence that there was a violent attack. If they convict Zimmerman
based on a store video, then there is no justice in this country. The
store video proves absolutely nothing.
If police had concluded that Zimmerman broke some sort of law, they
would have charged him that night. This piece you provided was extremely
biased. They report that Zimmerman called the cops three other
times--all black males. No kidding? Whites are a minority in that
gated community.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 2:41:44 PM6/16/12
to
> <1aaae712-14c5-4ab0-aa1d-98c0691d6...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report
What does it say? "Homicide. Negligent Manslaughter. Unnecessary
killing to prevent an unlawful act."
>
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But since we now have the video of Martin at the convenience store, we
> > can see his state of mind moments before the encounter. He is not
> > behaving menancingly, in fact, his exceediingly slow movements at the
> > store belie the quick reaction time necessary to do any real damage.
> > THC does that. Zimmerman did not even require hospital treatment for
> > his 'injuries.' A scrape is not life threatening. That is what the man
> > has. A scrape.
>
> > > So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
> > > placate the blacks.
>
> > Eww. Ugleh. Um, he's in jail for lying to the judge.
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvo...
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But since we now have the video of Martin at the convenience store, we
> > can see his state of mind moments before the encounter. He is not
> > behaving menancingly, in fact, his exceediingly slow movements at the
> > store belie the quick reaction time necessary to do any real damage.
> > THC does that. Zimmerman did not even require hospital treatment for
> > his 'injuries.' A scrape is not life threatening. That is what the man
> > has. A scrape.
>
> > > So what we have here is a guy in jail because of media hype and to
> > > placate the blacks.
>
> > Eww. Ugleh. Um, he's in jail for lying to the judge.
>
> > g-report/55046944/1
> > Police report: Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'avoidable'. And it
> > substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
> > Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
>
> Your link here is extremely questionable. According to this USA report,
> Martin's lawyer said that Zimmerman should have listened to the
> dispatcher about staying in his car. The dispatcher never told him to
> stay in his car. Secondly, this article says that Martin was accosted
> by Zimmerman. There is no evidence of this. They provided no names of
> officers or links to such police reports.
Here is the report.
> > Police report: Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'avoidable'. And it
> > substantiates the fact that Martin was the confronted party, not
> > Zimmerman. Martin was standing his ground.
>
> Your link here is extremely questionable. According to this USA report,
> Martin's lawyer said that Zimmerman should have listened to the
> dispatcher about staying in his car. The dispatcher never told him to
> stay in his car. Secondly, this article says that Martin was accosted
> by Zimmerman. There is no evidence of this. They provided no names of
> officers or links to such police reports.
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report
What does it say? "Homicide. Negligent Manslaughter. Unnecessary
killing to prevent an unlawful act."
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 2:45:34 PM6/16/12
to
> > > driver', a cousin claimed.
>
> > Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> > Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
> > further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
> > flat.
>
> You never heard the police code DWB?
>
> If all the black people in south la were to start walking down beverly hills...that would be considered a crime.
>
> Even one black guy walking down beverly hills feels...frighten. Because he knows hes black and he knows being
> black is a crime.
>
> Those white guys will kill you just because you're ....black.
>
> The cops will kill you're just because you're black!
>
> Martin was commiting a crime, ...being black.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> And if a black person is wearing a pinkpantsuit? He's commiting a crime, he's a pimp!http://www.misterbling.co.uk/images/PK0003_big.jpg
>
> > Martin was committing no crime at the time he was attacked by
> > Zimmerman. Past acts at school are irrelevant. And, if you move any
> > further right on this, you'll fall off the face of the earth. It's
> > flat.
>
> You never heard the police code DWB?
>
> If all the black people in south la were to start walking down beverly hills...that would be considered a crime.
>
> Even one black guy walking down beverly hills feels...frighten. Because he knows hes black and he knows being
> black is a crime.
>
> Those white guys will kill you just because you're ....black.
>
> The cops will kill you're just because you're black!
>
> Martin was commiting a crime, ...being black.
>
> The Starmaker
>
>
> Is that you pink with a pinkpantsuit with your pimp in a pinkpantsuit?
Yes. How did you know?
> Is that you pink with a pinkpantsuit with your pimp in a pinkpantsuit?
Harold Burton
Jun 16, 2012, 2:46:17 PM6/16/12
to
In article
<62fb250d-4fde-438b...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<62fb250d-4fde-438b...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snicker
ray
Jun 16, 2012, 3:25:12 PM6/16/12
to
In article
<f96c6fb1-412e-4007...@d13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Then why wasn't he charged that night? Could it be that this officers
opinion was overruled by somebody higher up the ladder such as a
detective or chief?
WASHINGTON
"Why didnąt the Sanford, Fla., police arrest George Zimmerman after he
shot Trayvon Martin Feb. 26? Thatąs a question that today is more
relevant than ever amid reports the lead investigator in the case
thought Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter for his
actions.
The investigator, Chris Serino, was unconvinced by Zimmermanąs assertion
that he resorted to deadly force in self-defense, according to ABC News.
Mr. Serino filed an affidavit to that effect on the night of the killing.
But Serinoąs superiors, in turn, were apparently unconvinced by Serinoąs
reasoning. They did not take Zimmerman into custody because of two
words: łprobable cause.˛
łThe Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they
did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law,˛
writes legal analyst Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence
Institute, on the widely read legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.
Floridaą Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to
this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes
that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
all states. Zimmermanąs story has been that he was doing exactly that:
defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin
knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
Whether they were suspicious of his story would not have mattered. They
would have had to produce hard evidence to the contrary. The łprobable
cause˛ criterion is derived from the Constitution and is meant to
protect against unreasonable arrest.
łThe normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have
Śprobable causeą in order to arrest someone,˛ writes Kopel."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-ha
sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
<f96c6fb1-412e-4007...@d13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
opinion was overruled by somebody higher up the ladder such as a
detective or chief?
WASHINGTON
"Why didnąt the Sanford, Fla., police arrest George Zimmerman after he
shot Trayvon Martin Feb. 26? Thatąs a question that today is more
relevant than ever amid reports the lead investigator in the case
thought Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter for his
actions.
The investigator, Chris Serino, was unconvinced by Zimmermanąs assertion
that he resorted to deadly force in self-defense, according to ABC News.
Mr. Serino filed an affidavit to that effect on the night of the killing.
But Serinoąs superiors, in turn, were apparently unconvinced by Serinoąs
reasoning. They did not take Zimmerman into custody because of two
words: łprobable cause.˛
łThe Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they
did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law,˛
writes legal analyst Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence
Institute, on the widely read legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.
Floridaą Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to
this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes
that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
all states. Zimmermanąs story has been that he was doing exactly that:
defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin
knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
Whether they were suspicious of his story would not have mattered. They
would have had to produce hard evidence to the contrary. The łprobable
cause˛ criterion is derived from the Constitution and is meant to
protect against unreasonable arrest.
łThe normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have
Śprobable causeą in order to arrest someone,˛ writes Kopel."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-ha
sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 3:26:52 PM6/16/12
to
On Jun 16, 2:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <62fb250d-4fde-438b-aa63-c66bca095...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> In article
> <62fb250d-4fde-438b-aa63-c66bca095...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
From the Middle.
The Starmaker
Jun 16, 2012, 7:22:33 PM6/16/12
to
The White guy killed the Black guy, the police simply didn't see 'probable cause' to arrest him.
If it was the other way around, (black guy killing the white guy) then they will definitely see 'probable cause'.
What they call it, a blind eye, looking the other way?...
If a guy kills a cop, rarely does he ever make it to jail...
they just shoot and stand there without bothering to call the ambulance...
they got 'probable cause'.
They're PIGS!
The Starmaker
ray
Jun 16, 2012, 9:48:29 PM6/16/12
to
In article <4FDD15...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > ³The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have
> > Œprobable cause¹ in order to arrest someone,² writes Kopel."
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > ³The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have
> > Œprobable cause¹ in order to arrest someone,² writes Kopel."
> >
> > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-ha
> > sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
> >
>
> Some people just don't understand the law...
>
> The White guy killed the Black guy, the police simply didn't see 'probable
> cause' to arrest him.
>
> If it was the other way around, (black guy killing the white guy) then they
> will definitely see 'probable cause'.
>
> What they call it, a blind eye, looking the other way?...
>
> If a guy kills a cop, rarely does he ever make it to jail...
>
> they just shoot and stand there without bothering to call the ambulance...
> they got 'probable cause'.
>
> They're PIGS!
Really now? Then perhaps you can show me where this is written.
> > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-ha
> > sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
> >
>
> Some people just don't understand the law...
>
> The White guy killed the Black guy, the police simply didn't see 'probable
> cause' to arrest him.
>
> If it was the other way around, (black guy killing the white guy) then they
> will definitely see 'probable cause'.
>
> What they call it, a blind eye, looking the other way?...
>
> If a guy kills a cop, rarely does he ever make it to jail...
>
> they just shoot and stand there without bothering to call the ambulance...
> they got 'probable cause'.
>
> They're PIGS!
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 9:19:09 PM6/16/12
to
> <f96c6fb1-412e-4007-989a-d9794c810...@d13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police...
> shot Trayvon Martin Feb. 26? That s a question that today is more
have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
it. Before it ever became a media issue.
>
> > What does it say? "Homicide. Negligent Manslaughter. Unnecessary
> > killing to prevent an unlawful act."
>
> Then why wasn't he charged that night? Could it be that this officers
> opinion was overruled by somebody higher up the ladder such as a
> detective or chief?
>
> WASHINGTON
>
> "Why didn t the Sanford, Fla., police arrest George Zimmerman after he
> > What does it say? "Homicide. Negligent Manslaughter. Unnecessary
> > killing to prevent an unlawful act."
>
> Then why wasn't he charged that night? Could it be that this officers
> opinion was overruled by somebody higher up the ladder such as a
> detective or chief?
>
> WASHINGTON
>
> shot Trayvon Martin Feb. 26? That s a question that today is more
> relevant than ever amid reports the lead investigator in the case
> thought Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter for his
> actions.
>
> The investigator, Chris Serino, was unconvinced by Zimmerman s assertion
> thought Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter for his
> actions.
>
> that he resorted to deadly force in self-defense, according to ABC News.
> Mr. Serino filed an affidavit to that effect on the night of the killing.
> But Serino s superiors, in turn, were apparently unconvinced by Serino s
> Mr. Serino filed an affidavit to that effect on the night of the killing.
> reasoning. They did not take Zimmerman into custody because of two
> words: probable cause.
>
> The Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they
> did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law,
> writes legal analyst Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence
> Institute, on the widely read legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.
>
> Florida Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to
> The Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they
> did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law,
> writes legal analyst Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence
> Institute, on the widely read legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.
>
> this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes
> that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
> all states. Zimmerman s story has been that he was doing exactly that:
> that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
> defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin
> knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
> He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
>
> On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
> they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
> He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
>
> On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
> they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
it. Before it ever became a media issue.
Harold Burton
Jun 16, 2012, 10:48:34 PM6/16/12
to
In article
<26cad95e-2d5c-433c...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Except the the "stranger" didn't confront Trayvon, it was the other way
round, actually.
Too bad for that inconvenient fact.
snicker.
<26cad95e-2d5c-433c...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
round, actually.
Too bad for that inconvenient fact.
snicker.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 16, 2012, 10:56:02 PM6/16/12
to
> <26cad95e-2d5c-433c-a037-3fa789b1a...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
You can argue that with the office who wrote the report and the
investigators who found otherwise.
snicker.
investigators who found otherwise.
snicker.
The Starmaker
Jun 17, 2012, 12:44:59 AM6/17/12
to
ray wrote:
>
> In article <4FDD15...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > łThe normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have
>
> In article <4FDD15...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Śprobable causeą in order to arrest someone,˛ writes Kopel."
> > >
> > > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-ha
> > > sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
> > >
> >
> > Some people just don't understand the law...
> >
> > The White guy killed the Black guy, the police simply didn't see 'probable
> > cause' to arrest him.
> >
> > If it was the other way around, (black guy killing the white guy) then they
> > will definitely see 'probable cause'.
> >
> > What they call it, a blind eye, looking the other way?...
> >
> > If a guy kills a cop, rarely does he ever make it to jail...
> >
> > they just shoot and stand there without bothering to call the ambulance...
> > they got 'probable cause'.
> >
> > They're PIGS!
>
> Really now? Then perhaps you can show me where this is written.
>
I just wrote it!
> > > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-ha
> > > sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
> > >
> >
> > Some people just don't understand the law...
> >
> > The White guy killed the Black guy, the police simply didn't see 'probable
> > cause' to arrest him.
> >
> > If it was the other way around, (black guy killing the white guy) then they
> > will definitely see 'probable cause'.
> >
> > What they call it, a blind eye, looking the other way?...
> >
> > If a guy kills a cop, rarely does he ever make it to jail...
> >
> > they just shoot and stand there without bothering to call the ambulance...
> > they got 'probable cause'.
> >
> > They're PIGS!
>
> Really now? Then perhaps you can show me where this is written.
>
Charles Bell
Jun 17, 2012, 6:06:19 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 16, 10:56 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Except the the "stranger" didn't confront Trayvon, it was the other way
> > round, actually.
>
> > Except the the "stranger" didn't confront Trayvon, it was the other way
> > round, actually.
>
> You can argue that with the office who wrote the report and the
> investigators who found otherwise.
>
> investigators who found otherwise.
>
ray
Jun 17, 2012, 8:10:57 AM6/17/12
to
In article <4FDD60...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > > Œprobable cause¹ in order to arrest someone,² writes Kopel."
Which makes your assertions worthless.
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ray wrote:
> >
> > In article <4FDD15...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > ³The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have
> ray wrote:
> >
> > In article <4FDD15...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Œprobable cause¹ in order to arrest someone,² writes Kopel."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-h
> > > > a
> > > > sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some people just don't understand the law...
> > >
> > > The White guy killed the Black guy, the police simply didn't see
> > > 'probable
> > > cause' to arrest him.
> > >
> > > If it was the other way around, (black guy killing the white guy) then
> > > they
> > > will definitely see 'probable cause'.
> > >
> > > What they call it, a blind eye, looking the other way?...
> > >
> > > If a guy kills a cop, rarely does he ever make it to jail...
> > >
> > > they just shoot and stand there without bothering to call the
> > > ambulance...
> > > they got 'probable cause'.
> > >
> > > They're PIGS!
> >
> > Really now? Then perhaps you can show me where this is written.
> >
>
> I just wrote it.
> > > > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-h
> > > > a
> > > > sn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some people just don't understand the law...
> > >
> > > The White guy killed the Black guy, the police simply didn't see
> > > 'probable
> > > cause' to arrest him.
> > >
> > > If it was the other way around, (black guy killing the white guy) then
> > > they
> > > will definitely see 'probable cause'.
> > >
> > > What they call it, a blind eye, looking the other way?...
> > >
> > > If a guy kills a cop, rarely does he ever make it to jail...
> > >
> > > they just shoot and stand there without bothering to call the
> > > ambulance...
> > > they got 'probable cause'.
> > >
> > > They're PIGS!
> >
> > Really now? Then perhaps you can show me where this is written.
> >
>
Which makes your assertions worthless.
ray
Jun 17, 2012, 8:22:53 AM6/17/12
to
In article
<26cad95e-2d5c-433c...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<26cad95e-2d5c-433c...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Florida Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to
> > this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes
> > that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
> > all states. Zimmerman s story has been that he was doing exactly that:
> > defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin
> > knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
> > He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
> >
> > On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
> > they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
>
> There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> it. Before it ever became a media issue.
Wait a minute. What new evidence do you speak of? I didn't read
> > this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes
> > that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
> > all states. Zimmerman s story has been that he was doing exactly that:
> > defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin
> > knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
> > He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
> >
> > On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
> > they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
>
> There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> it. Before it ever became a media issue.
anything about new evidence. There is no new evidence. What we have is
a media trial, and the only reason Zimmerman was arrested is because of
all the hype and violent threats because of this story.
You do realize that in our system of justice, prosecution must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did indeed confront Martin.
That would be a hell of a sell.
First off, it makes absolutely no sense that a person planning an attack
on another individual would call the police first, and ask that they
meet with him. It makes no sense at all. Secondly, as the 911
recording indicates, Zimmerman stopped running after Martin a few
seconds after the dispatcher recommended he do so. Third, after he
stopped running after Martin, he stayed on the phone with 911 giving
Martin more than enough time to return to where he was staying.
Every shred of evidence points to Martin attacking Zimmerman, and not
one shred of evidence that it was the other way around. Martin was
doped up and a trouble maker.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 8:59:13 AM6/17/12
to
> <26cad95e-2d5c-433c-a037-3fa789b1a...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Florida Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to
> > > this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes
> > > that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
> > > all states. Zimmerman s story has been that he was doing exactly that:
> > > defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin
> > > knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
> > > He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
>
> > > On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
> > > they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
>
> > There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> > have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> > was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> > The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> > convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> > confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> > the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> > to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> > it. Before it ever became a media issue.
>
> Wait a minute. What new evidence do you speak of? I didn't read
> anything about new evidence. There is no new evidence. What we have is
> a media trial,
What we have here is a racist. And that racist is you.
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Florida Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to
> > > this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes
> > > that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually
> > > all states. Zimmerman s story has been that he was doing exactly that:
> > > defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin
> > > knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground.
> > > He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.
>
> > > On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that
> > > they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman.
>
> > There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> > have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> > was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> > The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> > convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> > confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> > the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> > to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> > it. Before it ever became a media issue.
>
> Wait a minute. What new evidence do you speak of? I didn't read
> anything about new evidence. There is no new evidence. What we have is
> a media trial,
Charles Bell
Jun 17, 2012, 9:38:15 AM6/17/12
to
Martin's fist with his nose and head is false . . .
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 9:41:26 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 17, 9:38 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:59 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 8:22 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> > > > have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> > > > was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> > > > The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> > > > convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> > > > confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> > > > the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> > > > to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> > > > it. Before it ever became a media issue.
>
> > > Wait a minute. What new evidence do you speak of? I didn't read
> > > anything about new evidence. There is no new evidence. What we have is
> > > a media trial,
>
> > What we have here is a racist. And that racist is you
>
> Assuming your theory that Zimmerman attacked -- without provocation --
> Martin's fist with his nose and head is false . . .
Assuming you have a FUCKING brain...........
> On Jun 17, 8:59 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 8:22 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> > > > have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> > > > was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> > > > The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> > > > convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> > > > confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> > > > the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> > > > to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> > > > it. Before it ever became a media issue.
>
> > > Wait a minute. What new evidence do you speak of? I didn't read
> > > anything about new evidence. There is no new evidence. What we have is
> > > a media trial,
>
> > What we have here is a racist. And that racist is you
>
> Assuming your theory that Zimmerman attacked -- without provocation --
> Martin's fist with his nose and head is false . . .
ray
Jun 17, 2012, 9:51:45 AM6/17/12
to
In article
<b750b361-c62b-499f...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
You can always tell when you won the debate. OWNED!
<b750b361-c62b-499f...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 10:29:08 AM6/17/12
to
> <b750b361-c62b-499f-9350-eec1d2b17...@f7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Lack of reading comprehension does not a winner make. That is why the
Sanford police report--filed before this became a high profile case--
and the subsequent incarceration of Zimmerman substantiate my
argument. But you're having a difficult time with reality. Doesn't
seem to fit your worldview.
Sanford police report--filed before this became a high profile case--
and the subsequent incarceration of Zimmerman substantiate my
argument. But you're having a difficult time with reality. Doesn't
seem to fit your worldview.
Charles Bell
Jun 17, 2012, 11:05:21 AM6/17/12
to
three and half miserable years whose only argument has ever been: You
are a racist.
And what will the next four years be like when those rulers have been
swept from at least the federal executive? "This is for Treyvon!"
unprovoked beatings and assaults by those whose rule-of-law is the
mob?
Charles Bell
Jun 17, 2012, 11:13:00 AM6/17/12
to
assigned duty in citizens' watch in following a suspect until the
police could arrive and that Zimmerman at some point attacked Martin's
fist with his nose and his head.
Any private citizen at any time can "follow" another private citizen
for any reason. He may say anything at any time to anyone he chooses
and *may* be subject to a nuisance complaint, at most, for either
stakling or disturbing the peace, but at no time may he be physically
assaulted for either his "following" or saying unwanted words.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 11:55:58 AM6/17/12
to
On Jun 17, 11:05 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:41 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 9:38 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 8:59 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 17, 8:22 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> > > > > > have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> > > > > > was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> > > > > > The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> > > > > > convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> > > > > > confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> > > > > > the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> > > > > > to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> > > > > > it. Before it ever became a media issue.
>
> > > > > Wait a minute. What new evidence do you speak of? I didn't read
> > > > > anything about new evidence. There is no new evidence. What we have is
> > > > > a media trial,
>
> > > > What we have here is a racist. And that racist is you
>
> > > Assuming your theory that Zimmerman attacked -- without provocation --
> > > Martin's fist with his nose and head is false . . .
>
> > Assuming you have a FUCKING brain
>
> And this is the type we have allowed to reign over us in the last
> three and half miserable years whose only argument has ever been: You
> are a racist.
Dude, I'm voting Romney.
> On Jun 17, 9:41 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 9:38 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 8:59 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 17, 8:22 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > There's the answer. And, now, after a complete investigation, they do
> > > > > > have enough evidence to contradict his story. You can say Zimmerman
> > > > > > was defending himself against Martin, but that is only half the story.
> > > > > > The other half is Martin, returning without incident from a
> > > > > > convenience store, was defending himself against a stranger who first
> > > > > > confronted him on a dark street. Zimmerman may or may not have had
> > > > > > the opportunity to retreat, but he definitely had the opportunity not
> > > > > > to confront. And that is exactly how the initial report characterizes
> > > > > > it. Before it ever became a media issue.
>
> > > > > Wait a minute. What new evidence do you speak of? I didn't read
> > > > > anything about new evidence. There is no new evidence. What we have is
> > > > > a media trial,
>
> > > > What we have here is a racist. And that racist is you
>
> > > Assuming your theory that Zimmerman attacked -- without provocation --
> > > Martin's fist with his nose and head is false . . .
>
> > Assuming you have a FUCKING brain
>
> And this is the type we have allowed to reign over us in the last
> three and half miserable years whose only argument has ever been: You
> are a racist.
You are a racist.
Charles Bell
Jun 17, 2012, 2:55:48 PM6/17/12
to
us in the last
three and half miserable years whose only argument has ever been:
"You are a racist."
And you may even prove that a vote for Romney will change nothing, and
three and half miserable years whose only argument has ever been:
"You are a racist."
what then will the next four years be like when Romney is President:
we will still have EVEN MORE "This is for Treyvon!" unprovoked
beatings and assaults by those whose rule-of-law is the mob.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 4:46:45 PM6/17/12
to
case ever hit the airwaves, and it was determined that Zimmerman was
negligent, not a standing his ground. It doesn't matter what the kid
was wearing or whether or not you approve . He was not committing a
crime and was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman, who did not
identify himself. Despite these obvious facts, you choose to blather
on.
>
> And you may even prove that a vote for Romney will change nothing, and
> what then will the next four years be like when Romney is President:
> we will still have EVEN MORE "This is for Treyvon!" unprovoked
> beatings and assaults by those whose rule-of-law is the mob.
The Starmaker
Jun 17, 2012, 5:23:34 PM6/17/12
to
The Starmaker
Jun 17, 2012, 5:30:46 PM6/17/12
to
The Starmaker
Jun 17, 2012, 5:35:31 PM6/17/12
to
Charles Bell
Jun 17, 2012, 5:42:51 PM6/17/12
to
officer's opinion that Zimmerman could have avoided the situation --
much like we could have avoided the WWII situation in letting
ourselves just get along with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.
> It doesn't matter what the kid
> was wearing or whether or not you approve . He was not committing a
> crime and was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman, who did not
> identify himself. Despite these obvious facts, you choose to blather
> on.
>
to and including blasting a hole into a thug who attacked him in spite
of your insinuation that Martin had done nothing to cause Zimmerman's
suspicion that Martin was exactly the thug that he was.
In a free country everyone has the right to do exactly everything
Zimmerman did respecting Martin, and Martin, of course, had every
right to do as he did when he left the convenience store and returned
home -- even to the extent of casing homes from the street in that
neighborhood for burglary, if that is what he did . There is no
evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation,
and there is every bit of evidence that Martin did. There was not then
and there is no reason now to arrest Zimmerman for following Martin,
not "identifying himself", or to have ever said anything to Martin, if
he did.
Charles Bell
Jun 17, 2012, 8:30:56 PM6/17/12
to
her for a 'date'. At most, in some localities, there is room for
nuisance complaint, and, of course, for stalking if it becomes a
pattern of repeated actions, or threat to do violence against a
person. The only complaint that could ever be held against Zimmerman
is if it can be shown that he *threatened* Martin with physical force
before Martin did anything.
ray
Jun 17, 2012, 9:02:32 PM6/17/12
to
In article
<dd6948bd-35b9-4ea4...@d13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Charles Bell <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > �Any private citizen at any time can "follow" another private citizen
explained to the dispatcher how Martin was staring him down and even
started to approach him. It seemed very likely that Martin had
something on his mind, and didn't like the fact that Zimmerman was there
watching his every move.
<dd6948bd-35b9-4ea4...@d13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Charles Bell <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > �Any private citizen at any time can "follow" another private citizen
> > > for any reason. He may say anything at any time to anyone he chooses
> > > and *may* be subject to a nuisance complaint, at most, for either
> > > stakling or disturbing the peace, but at no time may he be physically
> > > assaulted for either his "following" or saying unwanted words.
> >
> > How about following a girl at night
>
> Yes, even following a girl at night down a dark alley and asking for
> her for a 'date'. At most, in some localities, there is room for
> nuisance complaint, and, of course, for stalking if it becomes a
> pattern of repeated actions, or threat to do violence against a
> person. The only complaint that could ever be held against Zimmerman
> is if it can be shown that he *threatened* Martin with physical force
> before Martin did anything.
And even that would be a tough sell. Zimmerman (on the 911 recording)
> > > and *may* be subject to a nuisance complaint, at most, for either
> > > stakling or disturbing the peace, but at no time may he be physically
> > > assaulted for either his "following" or saying unwanted words.
> >
> > How about following a girl at night
>
> Yes, even following a girl at night down a dark alley and asking for
> her for a 'date'. At most, in some localities, there is room for
> nuisance complaint, and, of course, for stalking if it becomes a
> pattern of repeated actions, or threat to do violence against a
> person. The only complaint that could ever be held against Zimmerman
> is if it can be shown that he *threatened* Martin with physical force
> before Martin did anything.
explained to the dispatcher how Martin was staring him down and even
started to approach him. It seemed very likely that Martin had
something on his mind, and didn't like the fact that Zimmerman was there
watching his every move.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 9:56:18 PM6/17/12
to
What is the description of the crime? When was this description filed?
Before or after the media found out?
Your remark is about one
> officer's opinion that Zimmerman could have avoided the situation --
> much like we could have avoided the WWII situation in letting
> ourselves just get along with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.
>
> > It doesn't matter what the kid
> > was wearing or whether or not you approve . He was not committing a
> > crime and was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman, who did not
> > identify himself. Despite these obvious facts, you choose to blather
> > on.
>
> Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to do what he did right up
> to and including blasting a hole into a thug
What makes Martin any more of a thug than the incarcerated Zimmerman?
> > It doesn't matter what the kid
> > was wearing or whether or not you approve . He was not committing a
> > crime and was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman, who did not
> > identify himself. Despite these obvious facts, you choose to blather
> > on.
>
> Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to do what he did right up
> to and including blasting a hole into a thug
Did Martin ever spend any time incarcerated for lying to a judge?
>who attacked him in spite
> of your insinuation
subsequently investigated the incident.
Which part of this are you having trouble with?
ray
Jun 17, 2012, 10:12:38 PM6/17/12
to
In article
<61c993f3-57be-4a6f...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
The part I have trouble with is the officers superiors who stated there
was no probable cause for an arrest. What part of that are you having
trouble with?
<61c993f3-57be-4a6f...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
was no probable cause for an arrest. What part of that are you having
trouble with?
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 10:21:37 PM6/17/12
to
> <61c993f3-57be-4a6f-b11f-9713c68ef...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police...
>
> > What is the description of the crime? When was this description filed?
> > Before or after the media found out?
>
> > Your remark is about one
> > > officer's opinion that Zimmerman could have avoided the situation --
> > > much like we could have avoided the WWII situation in letting
> > > ourselves just get along with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.
>
> > That is one officer, one dispatcher and ultimately the DA, was it?
>
> > > > It doesn't matter what the kid
> > > > was wearing or whether or not you approve . He was not committing a
> > > > crime and was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman, who did not
> > > > identify himself. Despite these obvious facts, you choose to blather
> > > > on.
>
> > > Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to do what he did right up
> > > to and including blasting a hole into a thug
>
> > What makes Martin any more of a thug than the incarcerated Zimmerman?
> > Did Martin ever spend any time incarcerated for lying to a judge?
>
> > >who attacked him in spite
> > > of your insinuation
>
> > See police report. It is the opinion of those who first responded and
> > subsequently investigated the incident.
>
> > Which part of this are you having trouble with?
>
> The part I have trouble with is the officers superiors who stated there
> was no probable cause for an arrest. What part of that are you having
> trouble with?
None. He was over-ruled. By his superiors.
> > What is the description of the crime? When was this description filed?
> > Before or after the media found out?
>
> > Your remark is about one
> > > officer's opinion that Zimmerman could have avoided the situation --
> > > much like we could have avoided the WWII situation in letting
> > > ourselves just get along with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.
>
> > That is one officer, one dispatcher and ultimately the DA, was it?
>
> > > > It doesn't matter what the kid
> > > > was wearing or whether or not you approve . He was not committing a
> > > > crime and was under no obligation to respond to Zimmerman, who did not
> > > > identify himself. Despite these obvious facts, you choose to blather
> > > > on.
>
> > > Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to do what he did right up
> > > to and including blasting a hole into a thug
>
> > What makes Martin any more of a thug than the incarcerated Zimmerman?
> > Did Martin ever spend any time incarcerated for lying to a judge?
>
> > >who attacked him in spite
> > > of your insinuation
>
> > See police report. It is the opinion of those who first responded and
> > subsequently investigated the incident.
>
> > Which part of this are you having trouble with?
>
> The part I have trouble with is the officers superiors who stated there
> was no probable cause for an arrest. What part of that are you having
> trouble with?
Monosodio Glutamico
Jun 17, 2012, 10:26:54 PM6/17/12
to
> <61c993f3-57be-4a6f-b11f-9713c68ef...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police...
Victims need to start killing their offenders. THe US court system is
controlled by NIGGERS
controlled by NIGGERS
Monosodio Glutamico
Jun 17, 2012, 10:27:46 PM6/17/12
to
On Jun 12, 1:17 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> in order revoking bond
>
> Tuesday, June 12, 2012
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2894433/posts
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> o o o
>
> About the terrorist Goon Squad:
>
> "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
> telling others what and when to post, where to post and
> where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
> others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
> fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
> lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
> <u...@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
> is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
> heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
> Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <josh...@gmail.com> who
> displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
> the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <bh...@hotmail.com>
>
> The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
> through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
> else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
> favorite now is "fanab...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
> and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
> from "fana...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
> many years.
> -Updated on February 2, 2012-
Bring the mother fucking war home. Exterminate the Nigger Government
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says
> in order revoking bond
>
> Tuesday, June 12, 2012
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2894433/posts
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> o o o
>
> About the terrorist Goon Squad:
>
> "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri)
> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> tries his best to be a bully --
> telling others what and when to post, where to post and
> where not to post, deliberately publishing lies about
> others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but
> fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his
> lap dog Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"
> <u...@this.com>, and issues *death threats* to people),
> is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
> heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
> Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <josh...@gmail.com> who
> displays unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and
> the instigator who posts as "Bholu" <bh...@hotmail.com>
>
> The Goon Squad currently posts most of their abuse
> through eternal-september.org and by writing someone
> else's name or handle in the "From:" header -- their
> favorite now is "fanab...@gmail.com" (note the extra "b"
> and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
> from "fana...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for
> many years.
> -Updated on February 2, 2012-
Bring the mother fucking war home. Exterminate the Nigger Government
ray
Jun 17, 2012, 10:28:50 PM6/17/12
to
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 17, 2012, 11:05:17 PM6/17/12
to
> <1c97682b-5601-4141-9f94-6f0b749e2...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
It tells me that their investigation substantiated the original
reported submitted by the officer at the scene. In other words, they
cut out the middle man.
reported submitted by the officer at the scene. In other words, they
cut out the middle man.
The Starmaker
Jun 18, 2012, 2:29:05 AM6/18/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_watch
I think Zimmerman did a little more than...intervening. It's called Neighborhood Watch, not Neighborhood Kill.
Just like those cops did to rodney king..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4&feature=player_detailpage#t=16s
I guess those cops felt they didn't have 'probable cause' to arrest him right away..beat him first, then arrest him. By the book..
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 6:07:13 AM6/18/12
to
And that is why the responding officer's 'superior' had to step aside.
Ray is upset that the parents saw the report and realized mr.middleman
was putting in the fix.
>
> I think Zimmerman did a little more than...intervening. It's called Neighborhood Watch, not Neighborhood Kill.
>
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 6:36:42 AM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 2:29 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I guess those cops felt they didn't have 'probable cause' to arrest him right away..beat him first, then arrest him. By the book..
Kinda like Ray, who feels that black parents have no recourse when the
> I guess those cops felt they didn't have 'probable cause' to arrest him right away..beat him first, then arrest him. By the book..
original report written by the responding officer says negligent
homicide. The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
Zimmerman's bullshit.
Monosodio Glutamico
Jun 18, 2012, 6:43:03 AM6/18/12
to
Charles Bell
Jun 18, 2012, 7:48:27 AM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 6:36 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> Zimmerman's bullshit
The media frenzy was brought about by those who do not think it is
> erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> Zimmerman's bullshit
right that a man ought to defend himself -- that in all cases and in
all situations the police state ought to be here to regulate people
actions -- just like it is supposed that Zimmerman had no right to
follow Martin.
The judge has not decided anything. If he is not politically
pressured from above, he ought to dismiss the charge as spurious and
without evidenciary support, and Zimmerman ought to allege
prosecutorial misconduct.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 10:44:17 AM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 7:48 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:36 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > Zimmerman's bullshit
>
> The media frenzy was brought about by those who do not think it is
> right that a man ought to defend himself
Which part of the neighborhood watch description did you not
> On Jun 18, 6:36 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > Zimmerman's bullshit
>
> The media frenzy was brought about by those who do not think it is
> right that a man ought to defend himself
understand? Zimmerman was negligent. He manufactured a situation in
which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
Have a nice day.
Monosodio Glutamico
Jun 18, 2012, 12:08:35 PM6/18/12
to
are freedom hating tax sucking maggots.
ray
Jun 18, 2012, 5:11:50 PM6/18/12
to
In article
<258fef38-a640-4f06...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
it would have been different if the parties were white?
A supervisor is a supervisor for a reason: they know more than their
underlings. My boss knows more than me, and your boss knows more than
you. That's why they have the job of overseeing our work.
Now, an aggressor is not allowed to use his firearm for protection.
It's the same way in my state of Ohio. I know, because I am a CCW
holder.
Zimmerman did the right thing. He called the police about a suspicious
character. He did not confront Martin, but made it obvious he was
watching him. When Martin took off, that ended the situation. But
Martin apparently came back. When he did and attacked Zimmerman,
Zimmerman then had every legal right to protect himself. Why? Because
he was attacked.
If I decide to walk to the store for a pack of cigarettes, and once I
leave my driveway, I happen to be behind another pedestrian about fifty
feet in front of me, he does not have the right to attack me because I
am near him or going in the same direction as he is. I'm allowed to
defend myself if he attacks me for any reason.
The only thing Zimmerman did that did not make this an open and shut
case was when he was on the phone with 911 and admitted he was running
after Martin. That's it. That was most likely the only factor that
caused the officer to come to the conclusion that he came to. But
again, once Martin was gone, that ended the situation. Now if Zimmerman
was running after Martin and Martin turned around and beat Zimmerman up,
I would be on your side. I would say that Zimmerman should go to jail
for life.
<258fef38-a640-4f06...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think Zimmerman did a little more than...intervening. It's called
> > Neighborhood Watch, not Neighborhood Kill.
> >
> > Just like those cops did to rodney
> > king..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4&feature=player_detailpage#.
> > ..
> >
> > I guess those cops felt they didn't have 'probable cause' to arrest him
> > right away..beat him first, then arrest him. By the book..
>
> Kinda like Ray, who feels that black parents have no recourse when the
> original report written by the responding officer says negligent
> homicide. The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> Zimmerman's bullshit.
What does the race of his parents have to do with this situation? Think
> > I think Zimmerman did a little more than...intervening. It's called
> > Neighborhood Watch, not Neighborhood Kill.
> >
> > Just like those cops did to rodney
> > king..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4&feature=player_detailpage#.
> > ..
> >
> > I guess those cops felt they didn't have 'probable cause' to arrest him
> > right away..beat him first, then arrest him. By the book..
>
> Kinda like Ray, who feels that black parents have no recourse when the
> original report written by the responding officer says negligent
> homicide. The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> Zimmerman's bullshit.
it would have been different if the parties were white?
A supervisor is a supervisor for a reason: they know more than their
underlings. My boss knows more than me, and your boss knows more than
you. That's why they have the job of overseeing our work.
Now, an aggressor is not allowed to use his firearm for protection.
It's the same way in my state of Ohio. I know, because I am a CCW
holder.
Zimmerman did the right thing. He called the police about a suspicious
character. He did not confront Martin, but made it obvious he was
watching him. When Martin took off, that ended the situation. But
Martin apparently came back. When he did and attacked Zimmerman,
Zimmerman then had every legal right to protect himself. Why? Because
he was attacked.
If I decide to walk to the store for a pack of cigarettes, and once I
leave my driveway, I happen to be behind another pedestrian about fifty
feet in front of me, he does not have the right to attack me because I
am near him or going in the same direction as he is. I'm allowed to
defend myself if he attacks me for any reason.
The only thing Zimmerman did that did not make this an open and shut
case was when he was on the phone with 911 and admitted he was running
after Martin. That's it. That was most likely the only factor that
caused the officer to come to the conclusion that he came to. But
again, once Martin was gone, that ended the situation. Now if Zimmerman
was running after Martin and Martin turned around and beat Zimmerman up,
I would be on your side. I would say that Zimmerman should go to jail
for life.
ray
Jun 18, 2012, 5:14:54 PM6/18/12
to
In article
<cbc52a71-f7f8-4543...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Better listen to that 911 recording again. That's what Zimmerman did.
He called police and agreed to meet an officer at a certain location in
the community somewhere around the clubhouse. The dispatcher did not
tell him to wait right where he was at. He asked Zimmerman where he
would like to meet the officer.
<cbc52a71-f7f8-4543...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
He called police and agreed to meet an officer at a certain location in
the community somewhere around the clubhouse. The dispatcher did not
tell him to wait right where he was at. He asked Zimmerman where he
would like to meet the officer.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 5:44:56 PM6/18/12
to
> <cbc52a71-f7f8-4543-ad80-d94ba70a4...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
lie to the court, he mislead the public and used the donations for his
defense to pay his personal credit card bills.
>That's what Zimmerman did.
> He called police and agreed to meet an officer at a certain location in
> the community somewhere around the clubhouse. The dispatcher did not
> tell him to wait right where he was at. He asked Zimmerman where he
> would like to meet the officer.
Apparently he didn't wait.
>
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 7:48 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 6:36 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > > > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > > > Zimmerman's bullshit
>
> > > The media frenzy was brought about by those who do not think it is
> > > right that a man ought to defend himself
>
> > Which part of the neighborhood watch description did you not
> > understand? Zimmerman was negligent. He manufactured a situation in
> > which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
> > arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
>
> Better listen to that 911 recording again.
I'm busy listening to the newly released tapes. So, not only did he
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 7:48 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 18, 6:36 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > > > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > > > Zimmerman's bullshit
>
> > > The media frenzy was brought about by those who do not think it is
> > > right that a man ought to defend himself
>
> > Which part of the neighborhood watch description did you not
> > understand? Zimmerman was negligent. He manufactured a situation in
> > which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
> > arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
>
> Better listen to that 911 recording again.
lie to the court, he mislead the public and used the donations for his
defense to pay his personal credit card bills.
>That's what Zimmerman did.
> He called police and agreed to meet an officer at a certain location in
> the community somewhere around the clubhouse. The dispatcher did not
> tell him to wait right where he was at. He asked Zimmerman where he
> would like to meet the officer.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 6:01:02 PM6/18/12
to
> <258fef38-a640-4f06-88f9-fb965eb68...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
unfamiliar neighborhoods all time, particularly in the city.
Unfortunately, you brought race into it. The point is that when
Martin's parents realized the responding officer classified the
incident as negligent, etc., they demanded further review. What parent
wouldn't? Their child was an unarmed visitor walking through THEIR
neighborhood!
>
> A supervisor is a supervisor for a reason: they know more than their
> underlings. My boss knows more than me, and your boss knows more than
> you. That's why they have the job of overseeing our work.
Supervisors are not immune to making errors, particularly when one is
onsite and one is not. That is why supervisors are not the final word.
Management is.
>
> Now, an aggressor is not allowed to use his firearm for protection.
> It's the same way in my state of Ohio. I know, because I am a CCW
> holder.
>
> Zimmerman did the right thing. He called the police about a suspicious
> character. He did not confront Martin, but made it obvious he was
> watching him. When Martin took off, that ended the situation. But
> Martin apparently came back. When he did and attacked Zimmerman,
> Zimmerman then had every legal right to protect himself. Why? Because
> he was attacked.
> If I decide to walk to the store for a pack of cigarettes, and once I
> leave my driveway, I happen to be behind another pedestrian about fifty
> feet in front of me, he does not have the right to attack me because I
> am near him or going in the same direction as he is. I'm allowed to
> defend myself if he attacks me for any reason.
> The only thing Zimmerman did that did not make this an open and shut
> case was when he was on the phone with 911 and admitted he was running
> after Martin.
Ray! Repeat that to yourself a few times.
>
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I think Zimmerman did a little more than...intervening. It's called
> > > Neighborhood Watch, not Neighborhood Kill.
>
> > > Just like those cops did to rodney
> > > king..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4&feature=player_detailpage#.
> > > ..
>
> > > I guess those cops felt they didn't have 'probable cause' to arrest him
> > > right away..beat him first, then arrest him. By the book..
>
> > Kinda like Ray, who feels that black parents have no recourse when the
> > original report written by the responding officer says negligent
> > homicide. The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > Zimmerman's bullshit.
>
> What does the race of his parents have to do with this situation? Think
> it would have been different if the parties were white?
This could happen to anyone.. People get beaten up walking through
>
>
>
>
> thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I think Zimmerman did a little more than...intervening. It's called
> > > Neighborhood Watch, not Neighborhood Kill.
>
> > > Just like those cops did to rodney
> > > king..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4&feature=player_detailpage#.
> > > ..
>
> > > I guess those cops felt they didn't have 'probable cause' to arrest him
> > > right away..beat him first, then arrest him. By the book..
>
> > Kinda like Ray, who feels that black parents have no recourse when the
> > original report written by the responding officer says negligent
> > homicide. The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > Zimmerman's bullshit.
>
> What does the race of his parents have to do with this situation? Think
> it would have been different if the parties were white?
unfamiliar neighborhoods all time, particularly in the city.
Unfortunately, you brought race into it. The point is that when
Martin's parents realized the responding officer classified the
incident as negligent, etc., they demanded further review. What parent
wouldn't? Their child was an unarmed visitor walking through THEIR
neighborhood!
>
> A supervisor is a supervisor for a reason: they know more than their
> underlings. My boss knows more than me, and your boss knows more than
> you. That's why they have the job of overseeing our work.
onsite and one is not. That is why supervisors are not the final word.
Management is.
>
> Now, an aggressor is not allowed to use his firearm for protection.
> It's the same way in my state of Ohio. I know, because I am a CCW
> holder.
>
> Zimmerman did the right thing. He called the police about a suspicious
> character. He did not confront Martin, but made it obvious he was
> watching him. When Martin took off, that ended the situation. But
> Martin apparently came back. When he did and attacked Zimmerman,
> Zimmerman then had every legal right to protect himself. Why? Because
> he was attacked.
> If I decide to walk to the store for a pack of cigarettes, and once I
> leave my driveway, I happen to be behind another pedestrian about fifty
> feet in front of me, he does not have the right to attack me because I
> am near him or going in the same direction as he is. I'm allowed to
> defend myself if he attacks me for any reason.
> The only thing Zimmerman did that did not make this an open and shut
> case was when he was on the phone with 911 and admitted he was running
> after Martin.
Charles Bell
Jun 18, 2012, 6:45:40 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 10:44 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:48 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:36 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > > Zimmerman's bullshit
>
> > The media frenzy was brought about by those who do not think it is
> > right that a man ought to defend himself
>
> Which part of the neighborhood watch description did you not
> understand? Zimmerman was negligent.
The part where he is supposed to follow and keep track of the suspect
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:36 am, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The media frenzy was brought about by his superior, who
> > > erroneously reversed that decision. The judge,however, isn't buying
> > > Zimmerman's bullshit
>
> > The media frenzy was brought about by those who do not think it is
> > right that a man ought to defend himself
>
> Which part of the neighborhood watch description did you not
> understand? Zimmerman was negligent.
until the police arrived, for otherwise his duty is pointless. "We do
not need you to do that." [keep following him; at which suggestion,
Zimmerman ceased] was for his own protection, nothing about his duty,
and it proved prophetic in that Martin was an agressive thug who did
attack Zimmerman for following him.
Moreover, Zimmerman is *not* being charged with "negligent"
manslaughter, but rather for 2nd degree murder requiring some degree
of intent to kill. Your premise that there is some connection between
one policeman's opinion, that Zimmerman made a (negligent) mistake to
follow Martin, and the charge now against him is therefore completely
wrong, and one has nothing to do with the other.
> He manufactured a situation in
> which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
> arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
>
nose and head? Is that what you meant when you replied: "Assuming you
have a FUCKING brain."
Or does "Assuming you have a FUCKING brain " constitute your usual
reasoned response to a question?
Or does "Assuming you have a FUCKING brain" indicate the phase of your
menstrual cycle?
Charles Bell
Jun 18, 2012, 6:56:08 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 5:11 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> Now if Zimmerman
> was running after Martin and Martin turned around and beat Zimmerman up,
> I would be on your side. I would say that Zimmerman should go to jail
> for life.
>
Well, no, that would also be ridiculous, even if any stand-your-ground
> was running after Martin and Martin turned around and beat Zimmerman up,
> I would be on your side. I would say that Zimmerman should go to jail
> for life.
>
self-defense argument for Zimmerman then goes out the window. There
would have to be some evidence of intent to kill or even do harm, and
there is not. If Zimmerman ran after Martin and confronted him WITH
WORDS there still would be no case for Martin to "defend himself" with
violence, but a kind careless disregard for the safety and welfare of
others against Zimmerman then comes into play. I think THIS is what
the prosecutor is attempting to try the case on, but it is such a
long, impossible stretch to call that 2nd degree murder.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 8:07:17 PM6/18/12
to
Grow a penis.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 8:52:18 PM6/18/12
to
So, basically, what you're saying here is you're racist and sexist.
And wrong.
ray
Jun 18, 2012, 9:40:45 PM6/18/12
to
In article
<0c7c8146-04de-4571...@z2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
I disagree. If some stranger is running after you and you have no idea
why, then I think your only recourse is to defend yourself. I'm no
expert on Florida laws, but here in Ohio, you are disabled from using
firearm protection if you started a confrontation or escalated a
confrontation in any way.
In other words, somebody cuts me off and I give them the finger. They
in return stop their vehicle and approach me. At that point, my only
defense is to close my windows and lock the doors, and if possible, try
to escape their blockage. If I get out of my car and shoot the
people(s) approaching my car, I go to jail because I created or
escalated the situation even if they are coming towards me with a
weapon. At that point, I am not legally allowed to use my firearm for
protection.
When this case first came out, I read over the Florida laws, and they
were pretty similar to our laws here in Ohio if I remember correctly.
We were also trained that if you become involved in a heated situation
in a public place, vocally announce your intent to remove yourself from
the heated situation and that you are exiting the area for that reason.
So I think the case by the prosecution (if it's not thrown out of court)
is that Zimmerman somehow did just that: created or escalated a heated
situation. I disagree with it because Martin left the area and then
came back after Zimmerman hung up with 911. The secondary confrontation
was an entirely different thing since Zimmerman did not cause or
escalate a heated situation and Martin was well within distance of
safety. Martin came back for revenge because he felt dissed and perhaps
somewhat shameful that he ran away from Zimmerman in the first place.
He was high and not thinking straight.
In any event, when using a firearm in most (if not all) states, your
first legal order of defense is to leave a potential hostile situation.
But again, I don't see that in this case.
<0c7c8146-04de-4571...@z2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
why, then I think your only recourse is to defend yourself. I'm no
expert on Florida laws, but here in Ohio, you are disabled from using
firearm protection if you started a confrontation or escalated a
confrontation in any way.
In other words, somebody cuts me off and I give them the finger. They
in return stop their vehicle and approach me. At that point, my only
defense is to close my windows and lock the doors, and if possible, try
to escape their blockage. If I get out of my car and shoot the
people(s) approaching my car, I go to jail because I created or
escalated the situation even if they are coming towards me with a
weapon. At that point, I am not legally allowed to use my firearm for
protection.
When this case first came out, I read over the Florida laws, and they
were pretty similar to our laws here in Ohio if I remember correctly.
We were also trained that if you become involved in a heated situation
in a public place, vocally announce your intent to remove yourself from
the heated situation and that you are exiting the area for that reason.
So I think the case by the prosecution (if it's not thrown out of court)
is that Zimmerman somehow did just that: created or escalated a heated
situation. I disagree with it because Martin left the area and then
came back after Zimmerman hung up with 911. The secondary confrontation
was an entirely different thing since Zimmerman did not cause or
escalate a heated situation and Martin was well within distance of
safety. Martin came back for revenge because he felt dissed and perhaps
somewhat shameful that he ran away from Zimmerman in the first place.
He was high and not thinking straight.
In any event, when using a firearm in most (if not all) states, your
first legal order of defense is to leave a potential hostile situation.
But again, I don't see that in this case.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 10:40:19 PM6/18/12
to
> <0c7c8146-04de-4571-b13e-d74af04ef...@z2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
And that is why Martin ran; he was leaving a hostile situation. He had
no choice but to return to because he was living temporarily with his
father. Zimmerman essentially trapped him like an animal; the kid had
no way to get home. It is highly unlikely he had any knowledge of the
robberies occurring in area; it is highly unlikely he knew that any
neighborhood watch was in effect; he was not an outsider, he committed
no crime. Had he not been living in the neighborhood and returned to
confront, that may be different, but he had to return. His mistake was
not calling his dad. He called his girlfriend instead.
no choice but to return to because he was living temporarily with his
father. Zimmerman essentially trapped him like an animal; the kid had
no way to get home. It is highly unlikely he had any knowledge of the
robberies occurring in area; it is highly unlikely he knew that any
neighborhood watch was in effect; he was not an outsider, he committed
no crime. Had he not been living in the neighborhood and returned to
confront, that may be different, but he had to return. His mistake was
not calling his dad. He called his girlfriend instead.
Harold Burton
Jun 18, 2012, 10:48:33 PM6/18/12
to
In article
<02f956d6-62f9-4aa7...@x17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Nope. wrong way round, evidence says Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.
snicker
<02f956d6-62f9-4aa7...@x17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
snicker
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 18, 2012, 10:55:54 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 10:48 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <02f956d6-62f9-4aa7-bda7-f8c7076e3...@x17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, that is why Zimmerman is standing trial. Because the evidence
says Trayvon confronted him.
Have a nice evening!
> In article
> <02f956d6-62f9-4aa7-bda7-f8c7076e3...@x17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
says Trayvon confronted him.
Have a nice evening!
Charles Bell
Jun 19, 2012, 5:32:05 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 18, 8:07 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, Zimmerman is *not* being charged with "negligent"
> > manslaughter, but rather for 2nd degree murder requiring some degree
> > of intent to kill.
> >
> >Your premise that there is some connection between
> > one policeman's opinion, that Zimmerman made a (negligent) mistake to
> > follow Martin, and the charge now against him is therefore completely
> > wrong, and one has nothing to do with the other.
> > >
> > > He manufactured a situation in
> > > which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
> > > arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
>
> > Again, do you propose that Zimmerman attacked Martin's fist with his
> > nose and head? Is that what you meant when you replied: "Assuming you
> > have a FUCKING brain."
>
>
> On Jun 18, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, Zimmerman is *not* being charged with "negligent"
> > manslaughter, but rather for 2nd degree murder requiring some degree
> > of intent to kill.
> >
> >Your premise that there is some connection between
> > one policeman's opinion, that Zimmerman made a (negligent) mistake to
> > follow Martin, and the charge now against him is therefore completely
> > wrong, and one has nothing to do with the other.
> > >
> > > He manufactured a situation in
> > > which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
> > > arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
>
> > Again, do you propose that Zimmerman attacked Martin's fist with his
> > nose and head? Is that what you meant when you replied: "Assuming you
> > have a FUCKING brain."
>
>
> So, basically, what you're saying here is you're racist and sexist.
>
No. . . that you have had nothing of a relevant factual nature to
>
share and your entire argument relies on calling people "racist" and
without a "fucking brain"
Charles Bell
Jun 19, 2012, 5:31:25 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 18, 8:07 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, Zimmerman is *not* being charged with "negligent"
> > manslaughter, but rather for 2nd degree murder requiring some degree
> > of intent to kill.
> >
> >Your premise that there is some connection between
> > one policeman's opinion, that Zimmerman made a (negligent) mistake to
> > follow Martin, and the charge now against him is therefore completely
> > wrong, and one has nothing to do with the other.
> > >
> > > He manufactured a situation in
> > > which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
> > > arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
>
> > Again, do you propose that Zimmerman attacked Martin's fist with his
> > nose and head? Is that what you meant when you replied: "Assuming you
> > have a FUCKING brain."
>
>
> On Jun 18, 6:45 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, Zimmerman is *not* being charged with "negligent"
> > manslaughter, but rather for 2nd degree murder requiring some degree
> > of intent to kill.
> >
> >Your premise that there is some connection between
> > one policeman's opinion, that Zimmerman made a (negligent) mistake to
> > follow Martin, and the charge now against him is therefore completely
> > wrong, and one has nothing to do with the other.
> > >
> > > He manufactured a situation in
> > > which he'd have to defend himself instead of waiting for police to
> > > arrive at the scene. In other words, he started the fight.
>
> > Again, do you propose that Zimmerman attacked Martin's fist with his
> > nose and head? Is that what you meant when you replied: "Assuming you
> > have a FUCKING brain."
>
>
> So, basically, what you're saying here is you're racist and sexist.
>
>
Charles Bell
Jun 19, 2012, 6:10:10 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 18, 9:40 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article
> <0c7c8146-04de-4571-b13e-d74af04ef...@z2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> In article
> <0c7c8146-04de-4571-b13e-d74af04ef...@z2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 5:11 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Now if Zimmerman
> > > was running after Martin and Martin turned around and beat Zimmerman up,
> > > I would be on your side. I would say that Zimmerman should go to jail
> > > for life.
>
> > Well, no, that would also be ridiculous, even if any stand-your-ground
> > self-defense argument for Zimmerman then goes out the window. There
> > would have to be some evidence of intent to kill or even do harm, and
> > there is not. If Zimmerman ran after Martin and confronted him WITH
> > WORDS there still would be no case for Martin to "defend himself" with
> > violence, but a kind careless disregard for the safety and welfare of
> > others against Zimmerman then comes into play. I think THIS is what
> > the prosecutor is attempting to try the case on, but it is such a
> > long, impossible stretch to call that 2nd degree murder.
>
> I disagree. If some stranger is running after you and you have no idea
> why, then I think your only recourse is to defend yourself. I'm no
> expert on Florida laws, but here in Ohio, you are disabled from using
> firearm protection if you started a confrontation or escalated a
> confrontation in any way.
>
> In other words, somebody cuts me off and I give them the finger. They
> in return stop their vehicle and approach me.
Nothing illegal, yet.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 5:11 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Now if Zimmerman
> > > was running after Martin and Martin turned around and beat Zimmerman up,
> > > I would be on your side. I would say that Zimmerman should go to jail
> > > for life.
>
> > Well, no, that would also be ridiculous, even if any stand-your-ground
> > self-defense argument for Zimmerman then goes out the window. There
> > would have to be some evidence of intent to kill or even do harm, and
> > there is not. If Zimmerman ran after Martin and confronted him WITH
> > WORDS there still would be no case for Martin to "defend himself" with
> > violence, but a kind careless disregard for the safety and welfare of
> > others against Zimmerman then comes into play. I think THIS is what
> > the prosecutor is attempting to try the case on, but it is such a
> > long, impossible stretch to call that 2nd degree murder.
>
> I disagree. If some stranger is running after you and you have no idea
> why, then I think your only recourse is to defend yourself. I'm no
> expert on Florida laws, but here in Ohio, you are disabled from using
> firearm protection if you started a confrontation or escalated a
> confrontation in any way.
>
> In other words, somebody cuts me off and I give them the finger. They
> in return stop their vehicle and approach me.
> At that point, my only
> defense is to close my windows and lock the doors, and if possible, try
> to escape their blockage.
traffic violations]
> If I get out of my car and shoot the
> people(s) approaching my car, I go to jail because I created or
> escalated the situation even if they are coming towards me with a
> weapon. At that point, I am not legally allowed to use my firearm for
> protection.
>
You said that Zimmerman should go to jail if he had approached Martin
like the hypothetical road-raged driver approching you, right? But
you (Martin) are the one doing the shooting (sucker punching).
> When this case first came out, I read over the Florida laws, and they
> were pretty similar to our laws here in Ohio if I remember correctly.
> We were also trained that if you become involved in a heated situation
> in a public place, vocally announce your intent to remove yourself from
> the heated situation and that you are exiting the area for that reason.
>
have done to enrage Martin to attack him, and an attack by Martin is
not justified if Zimmerman only followed him, even annoyningly so,
even against Neighborhood-Watch rules. I also say: even if Zimmerman
said bad words -- without threats and certainly without brandishing
his weapon. Now you add that if Martin had said something of a warning
nature before attacking and then Zimmerman did not withdraw, and that
may also be true, I agree, but "Why are you following me?" even
angrily said is not that warning.
> So I think the case by the prosecution (if it's not thrown out of court)
> is that Zimmerman somehow did just that: created or escalated a heated
> situation. I disagree with it because Martin left the area and then
> came back after Zimmerman hung up with 911. The secondary confrontation
> was an entirely different thing since Zimmerman did not cause or
> escalate a heated situation and Martin was well within distance of
> safety. Martin came back for revenge because he felt dissed and perhaps
> somewhat shameful that he ran away from Zimmerman in the first place.
> He was high and not thinking straight.
>
away from their original stories, and if the prosecutor can use those
to express Zimmerman's lack of regard for the dangers of the situation
and subsequent lack of withdrawal, then there might be a case for
manslaughter, but in no way for 2nd degree murder.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 19, 2012, 8:22:28 AM6/19/12
to
rude.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 19, 2012, 8:30:27 AM6/19/12
to
> The fact is that some witnesses are now finessing their testimonies
> away from their original stories, and if the prosecutor can use those
> to express Zimmerman's lack of regard for the dangers of the situation
> and subsequent lack of withdrawal, then there might be a case for
> manslaughter, but in no way for 2nd degree murder.
I guess it's almost as difficult to tell a woman she's right as it is
a black man.
Gross.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 19, 2012, 8:49:56 AM6/19/12
to
Learn how to respect people. Or the next time I will be asking you how
you're typing with a mouth full of semen.
Harold Burton
Jun 19, 2012, 12:16:49 PM6/19/12
to
In article
<0ce48249-764b-4b43...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
You got it.
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecutio
n-immoral>
snicker
<0ce48249-764b-4b43...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecutio
n-immoral>
snicker
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 19, 2012, 12:57:56 PM6/19/12
to
> <0ce48249-764b-4b43-aded-e56d0b576...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
That's what you've got? Breittbart and Dershowitz, your answer to
Gloria Allred?
This was my favorite part:
"Arguing with a conservative is like arguing with a rock. The rock
might actually give the better argument."
Thee end.
Gloria Allred?
This was my favorite part:
"Arguing with a conservative is like arguing with a rock. The rock
might actually give the better argument."
Thee end.
ray
Jun 19, 2012, 5:42:45 PM6/19/12
to
In article
<02f956d6-62f9-4aa7...@x17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<02f956d6-62f9-4aa7...@x17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So I think the case by the prosecution (if it's not thrown out of court)
> > is that Zimmerman somehow did just that: created or escalated a heated
> > situation. I disagree with it because Martin left the area and then
> > came back after Zimmerman hung up with 911. The secondary confrontation
> > was an entirely different thing since Zimmerman did not cause or
> > escalate a heated situation and Martin was well within distance of
> > safety. Martin came back for revenge because he felt dissed and perhaps
> > somewhat shameful that he ran away from Zimmerman in the first place.
> > He was high and not thinking straight.
> >
> > In any event, when using a firearm in most (if not all) states, your
> > first legal order of defense is to leave a potential hostile situation.
> > But again, I don't see that in this case.
>
> And that is why Martin ran; he was leaving a hostile situation. He had
> no choice but to return to because he was living temporarily with his
> father. Zimmerman essentially trapped him like an animal; the kid had
> no way to get home. It is highly unlikely he had any knowledge of the
> robberies occurring in area; it is highly unlikely he knew that any
> neighborhood watch was in effect; he was not an outsider, he committed
> no crime. Had he not been living in the neighborhood and returned to
> confront, that may be different, but he had to return. His mistake was
> not calling his dad. He called his girlfriend instead.
I don't know if his father was there. They didn't even identify the
> > is that Zimmerman somehow did just that: created or escalated a heated
> > situation. I disagree with it because Martin left the area and then
> > came back after Zimmerman hung up with 911. The secondary confrontation
> > was an entirely different thing since Zimmerman did not cause or
> > escalate a heated situation and Martin was well within distance of
> > safety. Martin came back for revenge because he felt dissed and perhaps
> > somewhat shameful that he ran away from Zimmerman in the first place.
> > He was high and not thinking straight.
> >
> > In any event, when using a firearm in most (if not all) states, your
> > first legal order of defense is to leave a potential hostile situation.
> > But again, I don't see that in this case.
>
> And that is why Martin ran; he was leaving a hostile situation. He had
> no choice but to return to because he was living temporarily with his
> father. Zimmerman essentially trapped him like an animal; the kid had
> no way to get home. It is highly unlikely he had any knowledge of the
> robberies occurring in area; it is highly unlikely he knew that any
> neighborhood watch was in effect; he was not an outsider, he committed
> no crime. Had he not been living in the neighborhood and returned to
> confront, that may be different, but he had to return. His mistake was
> not calling his dad. He called his girlfriend instead.
body for a couple of days. Some have said that Martin attacked because
he was afraid. For one, if you fear somebody, you don't confront them.
Two, if you are afraid of somebody, you don't stay on the phone with
your girlfriend. You hang up on her and call police which he didn't do.
Now had he done that, the police would have explained who Zimmerman was
and why he was so curious about him.
When I was in martial arts years ago and was going through black belt, I
asked my teacher what would happen to me if I ever used one of the
several deadly moves he taught me against an opponent? He said my best
defense is to tell officials that I was violently attacked, disabled my
attacker, and went no further. Legally, there is a fine line between
assault and defense. So even if there was some evidence that Zimmerman
did attack Martin, he went way too far as Zimmerman was disabled from
further attack. He was bloody, crying out loud for help, and from what
I've read, blacking out. That's not self defense, that's assault.
Apparently Zimmerman was totally defenseless against Martin, and
physical examinations of both Martin and Zimmerman are evidence of that.
If you are attacked and are way in control of the fight, you don't keep
beating the attacker until you kill him. You go to jail for that stand
your ground law or not.
If you look at the map of the gated complex, where the shooting was, and
where Martin was staying, you would see that there was no place to trap
Martin. He wasn't shot in a blocked off alley.
ray
Jun 19, 2012, 5:52:17 PM6/19/12
to
In article
<51e93e42-00fb-47b5...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Your scenario is different than what I suggested. Zimmerman began to
run after Martin when he started to run. So the case I made was if
Martin turned around at that point and attacked Zimmerman and was then
shot, Martin should go to jail for life because he was not following
Martin, he was chasing him. That would have been altogether different.
> > So I think the case by the prosecution (if it's not thrown out of court)
> > is that Zimmerman somehow did just that: created or escalated a heated
> > situation. I disagree with it because Martin left the area and then
> > came back after Zimmerman hung up with 911. The secondary confrontation
> > was an entirely different thing since Zimmerman did not cause or
> > escalate a heated situation and Martin was well within distance of
> > safety. Martin came back for revenge because he felt dissed and perhaps
> > somewhat shameful that he ran away from Zimmerman in the first place.
> > He was high and not thinking straight.
> >
>
> The fact is that some witnesses are now finessing their testimonies
> away from their original stories, and if the prosecutor can use those
> to express Zimmerman's lack of regard for the dangers of the situation
> and subsequent lack of withdrawal, then there might be a case for
> manslaughter, but in no way for 2nd degree murder.
I think that's the reason this prosecutor went for second degree murder
in the first place; so it will be thrown out.
Look at it this way: would you want to be the judge, a juror, a witness
if this case is thrown out or Zimmerman found not guilty? I sure
wouldn't want to be. There are enough kooks out there to keep you
looking over your shoulders for the next five years. I'm sure these
witnesses are scared as hell already, and the trial didn't start yet.
<51e93e42-00fb-47b5...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
run after Martin when he started to run. So the case I made was if
Martin turned around at that point and attacked Zimmerman and was then
shot, Martin should go to jail for life because he was not following
Martin, he was chasing him. That would have been altogether different.
> > So I think the case by the prosecution (if it's not thrown out of court)
> > is that Zimmerman somehow did just that: created or escalated a heated
> > situation. I disagree with it because Martin left the area and then
> > came back after Zimmerman hung up with 911. The secondary confrontation
> > was an entirely different thing since Zimmerman did not cause or
> > escalate a heated situation and Martin was well within distance of
> > safety. Martin came back for revenge because he felt dissed and perhaps
> > somewhat shameful that he ran away from Zimmerman in the first place.
> > He was high and not thinking straight.
> >
>
> The fact is that some witnesses are now finessing their testimonies
> away from their original stories, and if the prosecutor can use those
> to express Zimmerman's lack of regard for the dangers of the situation
> and subsequent lack of withdrawal, then there might be a case for
> manslaughter, but in no way for 2nd degree murder.
in the first place; so it will be thrown out.
Look at it this way: would you want to be the judge, a juror, a witness
if this case is thrown out or Zimmerman found not guilty? I sure
wouldn't want to be. There are enough kooks out there to keep you
looking over your shoulders for the next five years. I'm sure these
witnesses are scared as hell already, and the trial didn't start yet.
Charles Bell
Jun 19, 2012, 6:10:59 PM6/19/12
to
people "racist and without a fucking brain" is the one who is *not*
the rude one.
Charles Bell
Jun 19, 2012, 6:41:30 PM6/19/12
to
> <51e93e42-00fb-47b5-bb3e-4620531f9...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, probably. But look at it this way:
You made a statement to the effect that if Zimmerman had done
something else, he should go to jail for life.
(1) Road rage individual (A) comes up to (B's) car when stopped at
some point, and makes rude gestures and calls B names, and B rolls up
his windows and locks his door.
Who, A or B, is the equivalent to Zimmerman and which to Martin,
assuming a point of action *before* Martin physically attacked
Zimmerman?
(2) Individual (A) takes a hammer and starts to beat on B's window.
Can B shoot A under the castle doctrine in Ohio or, more important,
the castle doctrine with stand-your-ground as in Florida?
You can see that the answer is not obvious, but I can see if B kills A
he could be charged with 2nd degree murder because A at the time of
his shooting was only damaging property . . . BUT . . . if B can argue
that he was in fear of his life, he could argue self-defense . . .
AND . . . in Florida he never had a "duty to retreat", say, by taking
off in his car. Or is it that every Martin supporter and Zimmerman
defamer claims that under all circumstances -- whether one is in fear
of his life or not -- he must retreat, if possible. and that stand-
your-ground is inherently wrong? And presumably Zimmerman's duty as a
neighborhood watcher is inherently wrong -- the characterization as a
"vigilante"?
> Zimmerman began to
> run after Martin when he started to run. So the case I made was if
> Martin turned around at that point and attacked Zimmerman and was then
> shot, Martin should go to jail for life because he was not following
> Martin, he was chasing him. That would have been altogether different.
>
I think you meant: ". . . Zimmerman should go to jail for
life . . ." I still say no because whether walking or running,
following is following, and is a legal activity unless one really
believes that at that point Martin feared for his life, and I say that
is a real stretch unless someone heard Zimmerman say something
threatening before or during the run. At best then, Martin is
individual (B) above who over-reacted as individual (A), like
Zimmerman, was *not* physically assaulting or necessarily threatening
to do so (unless someone heard (A) say something threatening before or
during his hammer attack).
You made a statement to the effect that if Zimmerman had done
something else, he should go to jail for life.
(1) Road rage individual (A) comes up to (B's) car when stopped at
some point, and makes rude gestures and calls B names, and B rolls up
his windows and locks his door.
Who, A or B, is the equivalent to Zimmerman and which to Martin,
assuming a point of action *before* Martin physically attacked
Zimmerman?
(2) Individual (A) takes a hammer and starts to beat on B's window.
Can B shoot A under the castle doctrine in Ohio or, more important,
the castle doctrine with stand-your-ground as in Florida?
You can see that the answer is not obvious, but I can see if B kills A
he could be charged with 2nd degree murder because A at the time of
his shooting was only damaging property . . . BUT . . . if B can argue
that he was in fear of his life, he could argue self-defense . . .
AND . . . in Florida he never had a "duty to retreat", say, by taking
off in his car. Or is it that every Martin supporter and Zimmerman
defamer claims that under all circumstances -- whether one is in fear
of his life or not -- he must retreat, if possible. and that stand-
your-ground is inherently wrong? And presumably Zimmerman's duty as a
neighborhood watcher is inherently wrong -- the characterization as a
"vigilante"?
> Zimmerman began to
> run after Martin when he started to run. So the case I made was if
> Martin turned around at that point and attacked Zimmerman and was then
> shot, Martin should go to jail for life because he was not following
> Martin, he was chasing him. That would have been altogether different.
>
life . . ." I still say no because whether walking or running,
following is following, and is a legal activity unless one really
believes that at that point Martin feared for his life, and I say that
is a real stretch unless someone heard Zimmerman say something
threatening before or during the run. At best then, Martin is
individual (B) above who over-reacted as individual (A), like
Zimmerman, was *not* physically assaulting or necessarily threatening
to do so (unless someone heard (A) say something threatening before or
during his hammer attack).
>
> I think that's the reason this prosecutor went for second degree murder
> in the first place; so it will be thrown out.
>
> Look at it this way: would you want to be the judge, a juror, a witness
> if this case is thrown out or Zimmerman found not guilty? I sure
> wouldn't want to be. There are enough kooks out there to keep you
> looking over your shoulders for the next five years. I'm sure these
> witnesses are scared as hell already, and the trial didn't start yet.
>
Still, to knowingly trump up a bogus charge is a crime.
> I think that's the reason this prosecutor went for second degree murder
> in the first place; so it will be thrown out.
>
> Look at it this way: would you want to be the judge, a juror, a witness
> if this case is thrown out or Zimmerman found not guilty? I sure
> wouldn't want to be. There are enough kooks out there to keep you
> looking over your shoulders for the next five years. I'm sure these
> witnesses are scared as hell already, and the trial didn't start yet.
>
ray
Jun 19, 2012, 7:43:56 PM6/19/12
to
In article
<a8a6b546-079b-4bd0...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
I don't think the law sees chasing somebody as simply following them.
Don't forget now that Martin is covered under the Stand Your Ground law
every bit as Zimmerman. I don't think it would be much of a stretch
because just about any jury would conclude that running after somebody
is chasing them and is threatening. You need not wait until somebody
hits you or jumps on you before you decide you are indeed being
attacked. Remember that the stand your ground law says "if you feel a
threat in any way." If some kook is chasing me in the rain just before
it gets dark, yes, I do feel a threat.
In Ohio, as long as you didn't start a fight or escalate a bad situation
into a violent one, yes, you can use your firearm for protection. Our
Castle Doctrine also extends to your vehicle if you have a CCW and
somebody is trying to break into your car. If I accidently cut somebody
off and they march out and try to pull me out of the car, break my
window to get at me, or point a gun at me, I have every right to gun
them down. They can't even write me a ticket.
What I've learned from taking the class and doing much reading on the
CCW laws is that they always make grey areas. For instance, our law
says you can use your firearm if "you believe" there is a threat of
"serious bodily harm" or death.
Okay, we know what death is, but what is serious bodily harm? It has no
legal definition. Is serious bodily harm a broken finger, a knocked out
tooth, a black eye? And how does one prove that I didn't believe I was
in a situation of this threat? There is no way to prove that I didn't
feel this way.
They write the laws this way for situations like the Martin case. This
way a jury or judge creates their own version of what these gray areas
mean if the situation is questionable. But in our state, you are
innocent until proven guilty. The law always sides with the legal
firearm carrier unless investigations prove otherwise.
<a8a6b546-079b-4bd0...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Don't forget now that Martin is covered under the Stand Your Ground law
every bit as Zimmerman. I don't think it would be much of a stretch
because just about any jury would conclude that running after somebody
is chasing them and is threatening. You need not wait until somebody
hits you or jumps on you before you decide you are indeed being
attacked. Remember that the stand your ground law says "if you feel a
threat in any way." If some kook is chasing me in the rain just before
it gets dark, yes, I do feel a threat.
In Ohio, as long as you didn't start a fight or escalate a bad situation
into a violent one, yes, you can use your firearm for protection. Our
Castle Doctrine also extends to your vehicle if you have a CCW and
somebody is trying to break into your car. If I accidently cut somebody
off and they march out and try to pull me out of the car, break my
window to get at me, or point a gun at me, I have every right to gun
them down. They can't even write me a ticket.
What I've learned from taking the class and doing much reading on the
CCW laws is that they always make grey areas. For instance, our law
says you can use your firearm if "you believe" there is a threat of
"serious bodily harm" or death.
Okay, we know what death is, but what is serious bodily harm? It has no
legal definition. Is serious bodily harm a broken finger, a knocked out
tooth, a black eye? And how does one prove that I didn't believe I was
in a situation of this threat? There is no way to prove that I didn't
feel this way.
They write the laws this way for situations like the Martin case. This
way a jury or judge creates their own version of what these gray areas
mean if the situation is questionable. But in our state, you are
innocent until proven guilty. The law always sides with the legal
firearm carrier unless investigations prove otherwise.
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 19, 2012, 6:34:13 PM6/19/12
to
Come back from the fringe.
Charles Bell
Jun 20, 2012, 6:26:42 AM6/20/12
to
> <a8a6b546-079b-4bd0-9218-c1815625d...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
It goes to intent. And Zimmerman, an official neighborhood watcher,
was bound by a rule to keep track of a suspect until the police
arrived. "Running" to do that in that context can only be seen -- at
most -- as an over-zealous performance of duty and nothing more. The
glitch in Zimmerman's defense is if a witness heard him say something
like: "Stop or I will shoot" or "Get out of my neighborhood, you
[expletive]."
> Don't forget now that Martin is covered under the Stand Your Ground law
> every bit as Zimmerman.
Only if Zimmerman could ever been seen as possibly threatening. For
example, you are walking along and someone comes running in your
direction, seemingly right at you (and this has happened to me a
couple of times), do you pull out a gun a shoot him? On the other
hand, I think Martin reacted like a paranoid thus because he was a
paranoid thug.
> I don't think it would be much of a stretch
> because just about any jury would conclude that running after somebody
> is chasing them and is threatening.
Nope. Not at all. A reasonable person under the circumstance that
Martin had been up to that time would have identified himself as a
guest of a resident at house X -- maybe not calmly and courteously --
but Martin was probably "up to no good" as Zimmerman surmised, and was
disposed to paranoia for at least that reason (and having pot in his
system, don't forget). And one cannot get around the fact of the
extreme unliklihood that Zimmerman was up to no good in following
Martin even if it appeared at some point he was chasing him. Just
maybe a person (Zimmerman) was trying to catch up to him (Martin) to
return his wallet? I liken it to the person opposite a road-raged
person who can never be as justified in taking out a gun and shooting
him unless there is an overt act of threatening physical aggression.
It is 'regretable' or 'avoidable' if and only if Martin was not up to
no good and was stupid or unwise not to have communicated that to
Zimmerman, or he could have avoided the situation even if he was up to
no good. Zimmerman had no proof of anything and cannot very well have
contradicted Martin's word, especially since he was rightfully in the
neighborhood, and Martin would have to be stupid or unwise or on drugs
to not understand that.
The difference between police action and citizen action -- and this is
very important -- is no citizen has to have "probable cause" to act on
any suspicion, and if and only if Zimmerman had chased him shouting
words like "Stop or I will shoot" or "Get out of my neighborhood, you
[expletive]" can he be faulted.
> You need not wait until somebody
> hits you or jumps on you before you decide you are indeed being
> attacked. Remember that the stand your ground law says "if you feel a
> threat in any way." If some kook is chasing me in the rain just before
> it gets dark, yes, I do feel a threat.
>
But the events leading up to that were not like that. Martin was
aware of someone following before that. So why is the burden only on
Zimmerman to have difused the situation?
> In Ohio, as long as you didn't start a fight or escalate a bad situation
> into a violent one, yes, you can use your firearm for protection. Our
> Castle Doctrine also extends to your vehicle if you have a CCW and
> somebody is trying to break into your car. If I accidently cut somebody
> off and they march out and try to pull me out of the car, break my
> window to get at me, or point a gun at me, I have every right to gun
> them down. They can't even write me a ticket.
>
> What I've learned from taking the class and doing much reading on the
> CCW laws is that they always make grey areas. For instance, our law
> says you can use your firearm if "you believe" there is a threat of
> "serious bodily harm" or death.
>
> Okay, we know what death is, but what is serious bodily harm? It has no
> legal definition. Is serious bodily harm a broken finger, a knocked out
> tooth, a black eye? And how does one prove that I didn't believe I was
> in a situation of this threat? There is no way to prove that I didn't
> feel this way.
>
So reversing this for Martin, how could Martin EVER have rightfully
believed that Zimmerman was threatening bodily harm in merely
following him? A road-raged individual is running up to your car
window. Shoot first, and ask questions later?
was bound by a rule to keep track of a suspect until the police
arrived. "Running" to do that in that context can only be seen -- at
most -- as an over-zealous performance of duty and nothing more. The
glitch in Zimmerman's defense is if a witness heard him say something
like: "Stop or I will shoot" or "Get out of my neighborhood, you
[expletive]."
> Don't forget now that Martin is covered under the Stand Your Ground law
> every bit as Zimmerman.
example, you are walking along and someone comes running in your
direction, seemingly right at you (and this has happened to me a
couple of times), do you pull out a gun a shoot him? On the other
hand, I think Martin reacted like a paranoid thus because he was a
paranoid thug.
> I don't think it would be much of a stretch
> because just about any jury would conclude that running after somebody
> is chasing them and is threatening.
Martin had been up to that time would have identified himself as a
guest of a resident at house X -- maybe not calmly and courteously --
but Martin was probably "up to no good" as Zimmerman surmised, and was
disposed to paranoia for at least that reason (and having pot in his
system, don't forget). And one cannot get around the fact of the
extreme unliklihood that Zimmerman was up to no good in following
Martin even if it appeared at some point he was chasing him. Just
maybe a person (Zimmerman) was trying to catch up to him (Martin) to
return his wallet? I liken it to the person opposite a road-raged
person who can never be as justified in taking out a gun and shooting
him unless there is an overt act of threatening physical aggression.
It is 'regretable' or 'avoidable' if and only if Martin was not up to
no good and was stupid or unwise not to have communicated that to
Zimmerman, or he could have avoided the situation even if he was up to
no good. Zimmerman had no proof of anything and cannot very well have
contradicted Martin's word, especially since he was rightfully in the
neighborhood, and Martin would have to be stupid or unwise or on drugs
to not understand that.
The difference between police action and citizen action -- and this is
very important -- is no citizen has to have "probable cause" to act on
any suspicion, and if and only if Zimmerman had chased him shouting
words like "Stop or I will shoot" or "Get out of my neighborhood, you
[expletive]" can he be faulted.
> You need not wait until somebody
> hits you or jumps on you before you decide you are indeed being
> attacked. Remember that the stand your ground law says "if you feel a
> threat in any way." If some kook is chasing me in the rain just before
> it gets dark, yes, I do feel a threat.
>
aware of someone following before that. So why is the burden only on
Zimmerman to have difused the situation?
> In Ohio, as long as you didn't start a fight or escalate a bad situation
> into a violent one, yes, you can use your firearm for protection. Our
> Castle Doctrine also extends to your vehicle if you have a CCW and
> somebody is trying to break into your car. If I accidently cut somebody
> off and they march out and try to pull me out of the car, break my
> window to get at me, or point a gun at me, I have every right to gun
> them down. They can't even write me a ticket.
>
> What I've learned from taking the class and doing much reading on the
> CCW laws is that they always make grey areas. For instance, our law
> says you can use your firearm if "you believe" there is a threat of
> "serious bodily harm" or death.
>
> Okay, we know what death is, but what is serious bodily harm? It has no
> legal definition. Is serious bodily harm a broken finger, a knocked out
> tooth, a black eye? And how does one prove that I didn't believe I was
> in a situation of this threat? There is no way to prove that I didn't
> feel this way.
>
believed that Zimmerman was threatening bodily harm in merely
following him? A road-raged individual is running up to your car
window. Shoot first, and ask questions later?
Charles Bell
Jun 20, 2012, 6:28:56 AM6/20/12
to
offers nothing at all to the disussion is not, in fact, rude?
thepinkpantsuit
Jun 20, 2012, 9:46:58 AM6/20/12
to
Zimmerman's misuse of funds. You, however, responded with ALL CAPS
SCREAMING, sexist and racist insults, and cursing. Par for the course.
Charles Bell
Jun 20, 2012, 5:41:49 PM6/20/12
to
> including
> Zimmerman's misuse of funds.
> You, however, responded with ALL CAPS
> SCREAMING, sexist and racist insults,
There you up there quoted:
> > > > > Because you are racist and without a fucking brain. Not to mention
> > > > > rude.
The Starmaker
Jun 20, 2012, 6:27:53 PM6/20/12
to
and let's say, it was a woman who caused those injuries...
and he shot her...
anyone would agree
those injuries were caused by her fighting for her life.
Martin was fighting for his life. Same type injuires a woman would
have given Zimmerman.
No matter what, Zimmerman will pay the consquenses of his actions.
They'll kill him in jail, or they will kill him in the streets.
He's going to have to wear a hoodie...all his life..
grow long hair and wear a dress.
He is better off moving to another country....far far away.
The streets will try him...and execute him no mater what any judge or
jury says.
The Starmaker
ray
Jun 20, 2012, 7:08:28 PM6/20/12
to
In article <4vi4u75ea3ns3pe7c...@4ax.com>,
that when he's found not guilty, they will take off the cuffs and escort
him to the street?
Secondly, if I seen a guy with injuries like that from a woman, I would
say he allowed this to happen to him because just about any man can
safely and successfully subdue a woman.
But this was no woman, this was a young man. A younger man, a more
violent man, and a physically stronger man.
So if not for this case and you showed me a picture of Zimmerman and ask
me what I thought happened, I would probably respond that he was a
victim of a violent attack. And if not for his rotting corpse in the
ground somewhere, Martin would be in jail right now for felonious
assault or possibly attempted murder charges.
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >So reversing this for Martin, how could Martin EVER have rightfully
> >believed that Zimmerman was threatening bodily harm in merely
> >following him? A road-raged individual is running up to your car
> >window. Shoot first, and ask questions later?
> >
>
>
> If you look at the picture of Zimmerman's injuries...
>
> and let's say, it was a woman who caused those injuries...
> and he shot her...
> anyone would agree
> those injuries were caused by her fighting for her life.
>
> Martin was fighting for his life. Same type injuires a woman would
> have given Zimmerman.
>
> No matter what, Zimmerman will pay the consquenses of his actions.
>
> They'll kill him in jail, or they will kill him in the streets.
>
> He's going to have to wear a hoodie...all his life..
>
> grow long hair and wear a dress.
>
> He is better off moving to another country....far far away.
>
>
> The streets will try him...and execute him no mater what any judge or
> jury says.
First off, you think the police don't have that all figured out? Think
> >So reversing this for Martin, how could Martin EVER have rightfully
> >believed that Zimmerman was threatening bodily harm in merely
> >following him? A road-raged individual is running up to your car
> >window. Shoot first, and ask questions later?
> >
>
>
> If you look at the picture of Zimmerman's injuries...
>
> and let's say, it was a woman who caused those injuries...
> and he shot her...
> anyone would agree
> those injuries were caused by her fighting for her life.
>
> Martin was fighting for his life. Same type injuires a woman would
> have given Zimmerman.
>
> No matter what, Zimmerman will pay the consquenses of his actions.
>
> They'll kill him in jail, or they will kill him in the streets.
>
> He's going to have to wear a hoodie...all his life..
>
> grow long hair and wear a dress.
>
> He is better off moving to another country....far far away.
>
>
> The streets will try him...and execute him no mater what any judge or
> jury says.
that when he's found not guilty, they will take off the cuffs and escort
him to the street?
Secondly, if I seen a guy with injuries like that from a woman, I would
say he allowed this to happen to him because just about any man can
safely and successfully subdue a woman.
But this was no woman, this was a young man. A younger man, a more
violent man, and a physically stronger man.
So if not for this case and you showed me a picture of Zimmerman and ask
me what I thought happened, I would probably respond that he was a
victim of a violent attack. And if not for his rotting corpse in the
ground somewhere, Martin would be in jail right now for felonious
assault or possibly attempted murder charges.
Charles Bell
Jun 20, 2012, 8:07:38 PM6/20/12
to
Zimmerman. That is why the propaganda value of the picture of Martin
at 13 (not 17) and of full-faced Zimmerman in his DOC jumpsuit was so
great for the liars who want to play out this war against justice and
of good over evil.
> Martin was fighting for his life. Same type injuires a woman would
> have given Zimmerman.
>
the ground of his head. Where are the fingernail scratches? Hit to the
groin? The ONLY injury sustained to Martin beyond the fatal gunshot
wound were scrapes to his knuckles. Do you believe that Zimmerman
attacked Martin's knuckles with his nose and head?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages