>> How is that relevant? If he had actually robbed the convenience store,
>> say with a knife, that might be relevant, but shoplifted? Who cares?
> Repeating myself....
> Pretend you are Zimmerman's lawyer. You are trying to convince a jury that > Martin was acting very suspiciously, as if he was looking for something to > steal. As Zimmerman's lawyer, would you want to introduce evidence that > Martin actually DID steal something minutes before, if you could?
OK, I see that.. looking for a small piece of the puzzle. But the other side to that is, OK, how was he acting suspiciously, is there any evidence or corroboration from his statements on the 911 call? And even if he was, Zimmerman had no business approaching him, so it still comes down to do they believe Martin came back at him? Also, would a sneak thief do that? In that sense it might backfire because a thief would keep running.
> OK, I see that.. looking for a small piece of the puzzle. But the other
> side to that is, OK, how was he acting suspiciously, is there any
> evidence or corroboration from his statements on the 911 call?
I thought he might claim Trayvon was looking into cars as he walked by, or something like that, but Zimmerman's brother was on Piers Morgan tonight and I *thought* I heard him say his brother thought Trayvon was suspicious because he was walking in the rain without taking cover like people do in Florida?? I hope I heard that wrong (the show was just on in the background) because it makes little sense at all. I think this is a big problem for Zimmerman, having his family out in the press giving statements for him. He should just let his lawyers do the talking.
On Mar 29, 10:32 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> OK, I see that.. looking for a small piece of the puzzle. But the other side
> to that is, OK, how was he acting suspiciously, is there any evidence or
> corroboration from his statements on the 911 call? And even if he was,
> Zimmerman had no business approaching him,
First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman
approached Martin. Second of all, Zimmerman DID have business
approaching Martin. As was established to my satisfaction in the
discussion of the Hankins incident, any citizen has a perfect right to
question a stranger in his neighborhood, if he thinks that stranger is
acting suspiciously.
Third of all, Zimmerman was the OFFICIAL neighborhood watch captain.
Got that? OFFICIAL. He was not, as some media and some liars on this
newsgroup have claimed, the SELF-APPOINTED neighborhood watch captain.
"At the time the homeowners association decided to organize a
neighborhood watch, George Zimmerman was the only volunteer. He was
then chosen as the neighborhood watch coordinator by his neighbors,
according to Wendy Dorival, who organizes Neighborhood Watch for the
Sanford Police Department. The February 2012 Homeowner association
newsletter requested that crime victims "call our captain, George
Zimmerman" after calling the police. “He [Zimmerman] once caught a
thief and an arrest was made,” said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the
homeowners association."
So if Zimmerman did indeed approach and question Martin because he
thought Martin was acting suspiciously, he most certainly had business
doing so. If an ordinary citizen has the right to question a
suspicious stranger, the OFFICIAL neighborhood watch captain most
certainly has that right.
> >never going to happen. nifong, the stevens case, and on and on ... lawyer
> >whores have a very hard time doing what's right.
> I spoke with a lawyer today. Great guy with a reputation for
> integrity. He likes to help people. I've decided to hire him to
> represent me in a negotiation.
you should hire someone to do nearly everything for you.
> > That's my point. You tell me what suspicious behavior would be for a guy
> > carrying stolen skittles.
> I'm not sure what you are saying.
Yea, I know. (Nice try).
Jerry 'n Vegas
Pretend you are Zimmerman's lawyer.
> You are trying to convince a jury that Martin was acting very > suspiciously, as if he was looking for something to steal. As > Zimmerman's lawyer, would you want to introduce evidence that Martin > actually DID steal something minutes before, if you could?
>>> That's my point. You tell me what suspicious behavior would be for a guy
>>> carrying stolen skittles.
>> I'm not sure what you are saying.
> Yea, I know. (Nice try).
You didn't answer my question. Let's try again:
Pretend you are Zimmerman's lawyer.
You are trying to convince a jury that Martin was acting very
suspiciously, as if he was looking for something to steal. As
Zimmerman's lawyer, would you want to introduce evidence that Martin
actually DID steal something minutes before, if you could?
> On 3/29/2012 8:22 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > On Mar 29 2012 10:31 AM, BillB wrote:
> >> Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before,
> > Do you normally argue this way? Pull hypotheticals out of your ass (or
> > off racist website jpegs) and then lengthily posit what it means if they
> > are true. Christ, you are making JERRY look like a competent investigator.
> I am asking the same question Zimmerman's lawyer will be asking his > investigators. Where's the receipt? Did he purchase that stuff?
You actually think that can, and would be, asked?
(And you're a lawyer?)
Jerry
> I understand you have pitiful reading comprehension skills, but Jerry > asked me how that could be relevant, and I was simply explaining that to > him.
> Stop taking it out on me just because you couldn't find a third tier law > school that would have you.
> > Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before,
> Do you normally argue this way? Pull hypotheticals out of your ass (or
> off racist website jpegs) and then lengthily posit what it means if they
> are true. Christ, you are making JERRY look like a competent investigator.
> > > That's my point. You tell me what suspicious behavior would be for a guy
> > > carrying stolen skittles.
> > I'm not sure what you are saying. Pretend you are Zimmerman's lawyer. > > You are trying to convince a jury that Martin was acting very > > suspiciously, as if he was looking for something to steal. As > > Zimmerman's lawyer, would you want to introduce evidence that Martin > > actually DID steal something minutes before, if you could?
> Suspicious behavior would be looking over his shoulder to see if he had
> been caught.
Or looking to see why somebody is following you. There are a whole relm of
'furtive actions' we used a policemen. I can assure you that, "looking
behind you while walking down the street" is not one of them.
> Jerry - "This content is currently unavailavle" Feb 28, 5:53 pm
> Steam - "Opened up right away for me" Feb 28, 6:50 pm
> Susan - "no you didn't. don't lie. Jerry says its unavailable. Feb 28,
> 7:28 pm
> Jerry - No "I" didn't say that. But then, this is just another in a long
> list of you dodging by posting links, rather than addressins posts. Feb
> 29, 5:28 pm
> > On 3/29/2012 8:22 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > On Mar 29 2012 10:31 AM, BillB wrote:
> > >> Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before,
> > > Do you normally argue this way? Pull hypotheticals out of your ass (or
> > > off racist website jpegs) and then lengthily posit what it means if they
> > > are true. Christ, you are making JERRY look like a competent
investigator.
> > I am asking the same question Zimmerman's lawyer will be asking his > > investigators. Where's the receipt? Did he purchase that stuff?
> You actually think that can, and would be, asked?
> (And you're a lawyer?)
Jerry - "This content is currently unavailavle" Feb 28, 5:53 pm
Steam - "Opened up right away for me" Feb 28, 6:50 pm
Susan - "no you didn't. don't lie. Jerry says its unavailable. Feb 28,
7:28 pm
Jerry - No "I" didn't say that. But then, this is just another in a long
list of you dodging by posting links, rather than addressins posts. Feb
29, 5:28 pm
> On 3/29/2012 8:22 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > On Mar 29 2012 10:31 AM, BillB wrote:
> >> Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before,
> > Do you normally argue this way? Pull hypotheticals out of your ass (or
> > off racist website jpegs) and then lengthily posit what it means if they
> > are true. Christ, you are making JERRY look like a competent investigator.
> I am asking the same question Zimmerman's lawyer will be asking his > investigators. Where's the receipt?
Who THE FUCK keeps a skittles receipt???
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
> I'm sure he paid. It would have come out by now if he hadn't. All they > had to do was check the register tape. The clerk probably remembered too.
I just read another article about young angelic Treyvan. Apparently the
authorities kept his body as a "John Doe" for two days since he had no ID
on him. His father, and father's girlfriend (who he was staying with
while on his second suspension from school, this one for drugs, the first
for having stolen property and burglary tools in his backpack) never
bothered to report him missing, or call any police or hospitals to see
where he was for 2 days. His girlfriend, who he was talking to when he
was "murdered" didn't even bother to tell anybody about the shocking end
to the phone call. LOL.
> I just read another article about young angelic Treyvan. Apparently the
> authorities kept his body as a "John Doe" for two days since he had no ID
> on him. His father, and father's girlfriend (who he was staying with
> while on his second suspension from school, this one for drugs, the first
> for having stolen property and burglary tools in his backpack) never
> bothered to report him missing, or call any police or hospitals to see
> where he was for 2 days. His girlfriend, who he was talking to when he
> was "murdered" didn't even bother to tell anybody about the shocking end
> to the phone call. LOL.
None of that surprises me having taken a quick look through his Facebook page and those of his friends and associates. None of it looked anything like a black version of the Cleavers.
> On 3/30/2012 6:01 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Mar 29 2012 2:20 PM, BillB wrote:
> >> On 3/29/2012 2:05 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >>> That's my point. You tell me what suspicious behavior would be for a guy
> >>> carrying stolen skittles.
> >> I'm not sure what you are saying.
> > Yea, I know. (Nice try).
> You didn't answer my question.
Yea, I answered it. It's something he could not do. It's not about how
Martin was acting.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Let's try again:
> Pretend you are Zimmerman's lawyer.
> You are trying to convince a jury that Martin was acting very
> suspiciously, as if he was looking for something to steal. As
> Zimmerman's lawyer, would you want to introduce evidence that Martin
> actually DID steal something minutes before, if you could?
> > I'm sure he paid. It would have come out by now if he hadn't. All they > > had to do was check the register tape. The clerk probably remembered too.
> I just read another article about young angelic Treyvan. Apparently the
> authorities kept his body as a "John Doe" for two days since he had no ID
> on him. His father, and father's girlfriend (who he was staying with
> while on his second suspension from school, this one for drugs, the first
> for having stolen property and burglary tools in his backpack) never
> bothered to report him missing, or call any police or hospitals to see
> where he was for 2 days. His girlfriend, who he was talking to when he
> was "murdered" didn't even bother to tell anybody about the shocking end
> to the phone call. LOL.
And in the end, has nothing to do with anything. He could be a convicted
murderer. He could have been a bank robber on the loose. It would STILL
have nothing to do with the facts of Zimmerman's stalking and confronting
him.
> > On 3/29/2012 8:22 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > On Mar 29 2012 10:31 AM, BillB wrote:
> > >> Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before,
> > > Do you normally argue this way? Pull hypotheticals out of your ass (or
> > > off racist website jpegs) and then lengthily posit what it means if they
> > > are true. Christ, you are making JERRY look like a competent
investigator.
> > I am asking the same question Zimmerman's lawyer will be asking his > > investigators. Where's the receipt?
> Who THE FUCK keeps a skittles receipt???
This is just Bill BullShit. The question would have nothing to do with
anything. The answer would mean nothing. It goes nowhere. It leads
nowhere. Bill's in desperation mode.
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:58:07 -0700, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >> OK, if Zimmerman had turned arount to leave and was walking back to his
SUV, > >> and then was attacked by the kid, how is Zimmerman the aggressor?
> >Zimmerman turning around from what? From doing what that would intice the
> >kid to attack him?
> Perhaps. But, by turning around and walking away, he was no longer
> enticing anything.
So there would be no reason for the kid to attack him.
> >> You suggest that he was the aggressor by stopping and
> >> confronting the kid in the first place;
> >BINGO! You figured it out.
> Unfortunately, this is a ridiculous position to take.
So how is the kid the aggressior by being stopped or followed?
> >> >> "In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back
> >> >> to his SUV
> >> > Turned around from what? I'll tell you what; his confrontation with the
> >> > kid. Did the kid wave Zimmerman's car to a stop in order to have a fight
> >> > with a total stranger? Fuck no. Zimmerman was the aggressor all the way.
> >> > He picks a fight, and when he's losing, he shoots the kid.
> >> Have you lost your mind or is this a fake Jerry?
> Pretend you are Zimmerman's lawyer.
> You are trying to convince a jury that Martin was acting very
> suspiciously, as if he was looking for something to steal. As
> Zimmerman's lawyer, would you want to introduce evidence that Martin
> actually DID steal something minutes before, if you could?
Sure, but it probably wouldn't mitigate Martin's lawyer bringing up Zimmerman's history of drunken violence.
> > Pretend you are Zimmerman's lawyer.
> > You are trying to convince a jury that Martin was acting very
> > suspiciously, as if he was looking for something to steal. As
> > Zimmerman's lawyer, would you want to introduce evidence that Martin
> > actually DID steal something minutes before, if you could?
> Sure, but it probably wouldn't mitigate Martin's lawyer bringing up > Zimmerman's history of drunken violence.
> Jim
Bill's off on a tangent. Where is Zimmerman's lawyer going with this
questioning? Is he attempting to justify Zimmerman's stopping Martin?
Regardless of how Martin is acting, it was still not Zimmerman's place to
stop Martin. This is simply not a line of questioning Zimmerman's lawyer
would be allowed to follow.
Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012, 9:36am (CDT-2) From:
jerr...@cox.net (VegasJerry) On Mar 26 2012 1:28 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote: Ramashiva, March 15 -- http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/0d0c30679ce92c2b "Second of all, when police arrived, Zimmerman's nose and the back of
his head were bloody, and his back was wet. Zimmerman claimed there had
been a scuffle, and that seems likely. We have no way of knowing who
started the fight, but what likely happened is that Martin punched
Zimmerman in the nose and knocked him to the ground. Realizing he was
getting his ass kicked, Zimmerman pulled out his pistol and shot
Martin." Orlando Sentinel, March 26 -- http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin... "With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch
volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then
Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the
sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities
have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel. "That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been
corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. "Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night,
Feb. 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police
what he says happened. "In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to
his SUV ------------------------
Turned around from what? I'll tell you what; his confrontation with the
kid. Did the kid wave Zimmerman's car to a stop in order to have a fight
with a total stranger? Fuck no. Zimmerman was the aggressor all the way.
He picks a fight, and when he's losing, he shoots the kid. Jerry (= nitwit clairvoyant) ============================
Of course Jerry's preposterous supposition fails to menton that asking
questions of a total stranger was/is part of the job, but tell that to
some liberal. Rights, rights, and more rights you know. He also failed
to include the tiny detail of the kid possibly going for the gun. And
that paints an entirely different picture at that point.
============================
when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground,
and began beating him." William Coleman (ramashiva) -------
