OT: Ramashiva calls another one

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

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-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

"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 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)

[O-PGManager]

I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
for no reason). What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
suffice)

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

---- 

[bub]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:06:00 -0700, "O-PGManager"
<ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
>deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
>suffice)

i would say having your head slammed into the sidewalk over and over
is more than a ego thing

[~M~]

"O-PGManager" wrote in message news:8r5749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
>for no reason).

Break-ins is a reason, and stalking is an overstatement.

>What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
>deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
>suffice)

If Zimmerman never initiated physical contact, tried to retreat, then was
assaulted, then he clearly has a self-defense argument.


--
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."
- Robert A. Heinlein

[Will in New Haven]

On Mar 26, 5:06 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
> for no reason).  What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> suffice)

Have you ever been beaten up by a big teenage kid? Death is not out of
the question in a situation like that. And injury short of death _can_
lead to justified self-defense. I'm not saying it WAS justified. But I
wasn't there _and neither were you_ Why don't we do something really
unique and have a grand jury look at the evidence and then have a
trial if the grand jury decides we should.

I was really indignant when it looked as if the authorities were going
to brush this off but it looks like they can't get away with that, and
that's good.

--
Will in New Haven

[brewmaster]

You mean, don't go off half cocked and let the system work?

But Jerry always supports the system when a cop is involved, and he says
Zimmerman will fry for this. I'm confused.

--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master

--- 

[Will in New Haven]

On Mar 26, 7:23 pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Mar 26 2012 5:06 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 5:06 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
> > > for no reason).  What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> > > deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> > > suffice)
>
> > Have you ever been beaten up by a big teenage kid? Death is not out of
> > the question in a situation like that. And injury short of death _can_
> > lead to justified self-defense. I'm not saying it WAS justified. But I
> > wasn't there _and neither were you_ Why don't we do something really
> > unique and have a grand jury look at the evidence and then have a
> > trial if the grand jury decides we should.
>
> > I was really indignant when it looked as if the authorities were going
> > to brush this off but it looks like they can't get away with that, and
> > that's good.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> You mean, don't go off half cocked and let the system work?

Yes. Now that being upset about it got them to kick-start the system.

>
> But Jerry always supports the system when a cop is involved, and he says
> Zimmerman will fry for this.  I'm confused.

The guy wasn't a cop. If he was a cop it wouldn't matter to Jerry if
the victim WAS a baby.

[O-PGManager]

On Mar 26 2012 8:06 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> On Mar 26, 5:06 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
> > for no reason).  What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> > deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> > suffice)
>
> Have you ever been beaten up by a big teenage kid? Death is not out of
> the question in a situation like that. And injury short of death _can_
> lead to justified self-defense. I'm not saying it WAS justified. But I
> wasn't there _and neither were you_ Why don't we do something really
> unique and have a grand jury look at the evidence and then have a
> trial if the grand jury decides we should.

I agree with you (though I find it near totally implausible that the
situation couldn't have been diffused without the deadly firing). Most of
the outrage stems from the fact that this hasn't happened. I think we can
both agree there is enough evidence (a dead body, Zimmerman initiated the
confrontation, Zimmerman disobeyed 911 requests not to engage, etc.) that
the case should go to a grand jury.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

____________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:8r5749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
> for no reason). What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> suffice)

Ever had someone grab your hair/head and pound your head into the sidewalk?
There's no guarantee they will stop.

Also, I thought Zimmerman said that the kid went for his gun.

[O-PGManager]

I'm sure he said a lot of things. Easy to do when the other guy can no
longer speak. This article is a great summation of why these selectively
leaked details only further the case that the police completely botched
this:

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/dishonoring_trayvon_martin/

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

------ 

[Mossingen]

"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:snq749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Mar 26 2012 10:58 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8r5749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>>
>>
>> >I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking
>> >him
>> > for no reason). What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
>> > deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
>> > suffice)
>>
>>
>> Ever had someone grab your hair/head and pound your head into the
>> sidewalk?
>> There's no guarantee they will stop.
>>
>> Also, I thought Zimmerman said that the kid went for his gun.
>
> I'm sure he said a lot of things. Easy to do when the other guy can no
> longer speak. This article is a great summation of why these selectively
> leaked details only further the case that the police completely botched
> this:
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/dishonoring_trayvon_martin/

Maybe they investigated it and found the credible evidence to support
Zimmerman's version.

[O-PGManager]

On Mar 27 2012 7:21 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:snq749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Mar 26 2012 10:58 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> >> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:8r5749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> >I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking
> >> >him
> >> > for no reason). What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> >> > deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> >> > suffice)
> >>
> >>
> >> Ever had someone grab your hair/head and pound your head into the
> >> sidewalk?
> >> There's no guarantee they will stop.
> >>
> >> Also, I thought Zimmerman said that the kid went for his gun.
> >
> > I'm sure he said a lot of things. Easy to do when the other guy can no
> > longer speak. This article is a great summation of why these selectively
> > leaked details only further the case that the police completely botched
> > this:
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/dishonoring_trayvon_martin/
>
>
>
> Maybe they investigated it and found the credible evidence to support
> Zimmerman's version.

Where are the pictures of his wounds? Why was he not demanded to get
medical attention after the incident that could corroborate his story?

[BillB]

On 3/27/2012 6:28 AM, O-PGManager wrote:


> Where are the pictures of his wounds?

Where is the receipt for the Skittles?

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

LMFAO! Good one!


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Will in New Haven]

On Mar 26, 10:25 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Mar 26 2012 8:06 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 5:06 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
> > > for no reason).  What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> > > deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> > > suffice)
>
> > Have you ever been beaten up by a big teenage kid? Death is not out of
> > the question in a situation like that. And injury short of death _can_
> > lead to justified self-defense. I'm not saying it WAS justified. But I
> > wasn't there _and neither were you_ Why don't we do something really
> > unique and have a grand jury look at the evidence and then have a
> > trial if the grand jury decides we should.
>
> I agree with you (though I find it near totally implausible that the
> situation couldn't have been diffused without the deadly firing).  Most of
> the outrage stems from the fact that this hasn't happened.  I think we can
> both agree there is enough evidence (a dead body, Zimmerman initiated the
> confrontation, Zimmerman disobeyed 911 requests not to engage, etc.) that
> the case should go to a grand jury.

Oh, Hell yeah. When it looked as if the case would be quashed
entirely, I was very angry and felt that all the protesting was
justified. I still believe that the case would have been quietly put
aside if it weren't for the anger and protest.

Now, I think we see what happens.

[Will in New Haven]

On Mar 27, 7:21 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

>
> news:snq749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26 2012 10:58 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>

> >> "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

> >>news:8r5749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
> >> >I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking
> >> >him
> >> > for no reason).  What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> >> > deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> >> > suffice)
>
> >> Ever had someone grab your hair/head and pound your head into the
> >> sidewalk?
> >> There's no guarantee they will stop.
>
> >> Also, I thought Zimmerman said that the kid went for his gun.
>
> > I'm sure he said a lot of things.  Easy to do when the other guy can no
> > longer speak.  This article is a great summation of why these selectively
> > leaked details only further the case that the police completely botched
> > this:
>
> >http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/dishonoring_trayvon_martin/
>
> Maybe they investigated it and found the credible evidence to support
> Zimmerman's version

If they think he's innocent, they should make sure that evidence gets
presented to a grand jury _for Zimmerman's sake_

If he's innocent, he needs to go through the process. If he's guilty,
he needs to go through the process.

[popinjay999]

On Mar 26, 7:58 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

>
> Ever had someone grab your hair/head and pound your head into the sidewalk?
> There's no guarantee they will stop.
>

That in itself could be deadly and is enough to shoot someone for. If
Trayvon was vicious enough to slam Zimmerman's head on cement, then
deadly force used against him was justified.

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

"It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[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-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community
>
> "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

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)

------- 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 26 2012 4:13 PM, ~M~ wrote:

> "O-PGManager" wrote in message news:8r5749x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
> >I also figured there was a scuffle (that Zimmerman started by stalking him
> >for no reason).
>
> Break-ins is a reason, and stalking is an overstatement.
>
> >What remains unanswered is why Zimmerman needed to use
> >deadly force. (protecting his wounded ego after a beatdown shouldn't
> >suffice)
>
> If Zimmerman never initiated physical contact,

Yet he did. You think the kid waved Zimmerman over, for no reason, and
asked him to get out of his car?

Jerry

tried to retreat, then was
> assaulted, then he clearly has a self-defense argument.
>
>
> --
> "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
> other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
> Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
> with their lives and freedoms."
> - Robert A. Heinlein

________________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

Bullshit; this is simply you making up a position for me. What's new?


Jerry

and he says
> Zimmerman will fry for this. I'm confused.
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> --- 

----- 

[~M~]

"VegasJerry" wrote in message news:i17949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>> If Zimmerman never initiated physical contact,

>Yet he did. You think the kid waved Zimmerman over, for no reason, and
>asked him to get out of his car?

Cite?


--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012

[Dutch]

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:6Wjcr.26627$OX6....@newsfe13.iad...

> On 3/27/2012 6:28 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
>
>> Where are the pictures of his wounds?
>
> Where is the receipt for the Skittles?

Exactly! Who doesn't keep receipts for bags of candy? Little thief deserved
to die.

[Dutch]

"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89873542-2564-4cd6...@t8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 27, 7:13 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2012 6:28 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
>> > Where are the pictures of his wounds?
>
>> Where is the receipt for the Skittles?
>
> LMFAO! Good one!

The key piece of the puzzle. If that receipt cannot be found to confirm his
innocence then Zimmerman obviously did the world a favor by getting rid of
another candy thief..

[Mossingen]

"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:c493cb23-0548-48c6...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

If he's innocent, he needs to go through the process. If he's guilty,
he needs to go through the process.

__________________


Absolutely false. "Going through the process" is an extended, agonizing,
expensive ordeal that leaves criminal defendants bankrupt and traumatized,
even if they are acquitted. If he's innocent, then the government needs to
leave him alone. It takes character and a strong personality in government
to do something like that in a case like this one.

Plus, you are asking the wrong question. It's not a question of whether
he's "innocent" or not. You have to remember, in the context of a criminal
case, it's never a "whodunit", it's always a "can the state prove it?"

It appears to me like the cops and prosecutors looked at this case and
thought about it in terms of the high burden of proof. Is there enough
evidence to prove him guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Just
because there is a lot of publicity and angry calls to prosecute the guy,
actually doing so when it is clear that the evidence is not there to convict
is irresponsible by public officials.

[Mossingen]

"VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6u6949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>> "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?

[phlash74]

I agree with you in general; however, I need a cite that the prosecutors
looked at this case and decided it wasn't worth going to the grand jury
over. I don't believe cops should be making that call in most cases,
particularly when there's a homicide involved. Their job imo should be to
gather all available evidence, make an arrest if feasible, and allow the
DA to do THEIR job and determine whether the case should go to a grand
jury.

I think Will's right - if it weren't for the outcry, the cops probably
would have just let this go.

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

----- 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Mar 27, 10:36 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

> "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message

It would be pretty fucking funny if the store clerk who was on duty
came forward and said he remembers Martin being in the store, but he
is positive Martin didn't buy any Skittles. This could probably be
verified by examining the electronic record of sales during the time
frame we know Martin was in the store.

The media beatification of what we now know was nothing more than a
run-of-the-mill street punk has been absolutely sickening, and I laugh
every time more evidence emerges of how far from a saint Martin
actually was.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 27 2012 11:22 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> "Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:c493cb23-0548-48c6...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If he's innocent, he needs to go through the process. If he's guilty,
> he needs to go through the process.
>
>
> __________________
>
>
> Absolutely false. "Going through the process" is an extended, agonizing,
> expensive ordeal that leaves criminal defendants bankrupt and traumatized,
> even if they are acquitted. If he's innocent, then the government needs to
> leave him alone. It takes character and a strong personality in government
> to do something like that in a case like this one.
>
> Plus, you are asking the wrong question. It's not a question of whether
> he's "innocent" or not. You have to remember, in the context of a criminal
> case, it's never a "whodunit", it's always a "can the state prove it?"
>
> It appears to me like the cops and prosecutors looked at this case and
> thought about it in terms of the high burden of proof.

No, they did not. They took no forensic and took no blood test of the
shooter. This is even required if an officer shoots someone.

Jerry 'n Vegas

Is there enough
> evidence to prove him guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Just
> because there is a lot of publicity and angry calls to prosecute the guy,
> actually doing so when it is clear that the evidence is not there to convict
> is irresponsible by public officials.

------ 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 27 2012 9:54 AM, ~M~ wrote:

> "VegasJerry" wrote in message news:i17949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
>
> >> If Zimmerman never initiated physical contact,
>
> >Yet he did. You think the kid waved Zimmerman over, for no reason, and
> >asked him to get out of his car?
>
> Cite?

Cite a question? How about you answering it?


Jerry

>
>
> --
> "The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
> - Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012

--- 

[Clave]

"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8c3264c0-6671-4d20...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> The media beatification of what we now know was nothing more than a
> run-of-the-mill street punk has been absolutely sickening, and I laugh
> every time more evidence emerges of how far from a saint Martin
> actually was.

Yep. Every new piece of information seems to point more and more toward the
fact that the kid deserved to get shot.

Jim

[VegasJerry]

Inability to address my statement, noted.


Jerry

------ 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Mar 27, 11:59 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mar 27 2012 9:54 AM, ~M~ wrote:

> > >Yet he did. You think the kid waved Zimmerman over, for no reason, and
> > >asked him to get out of his car?

> > Cite?

> Cite a question? How about you answering it?

Jerry, stop playing word games. The way you worded the question, it
is obvious you are asserting that Martin did NOT wave Zimmerman over
for no reason and ask him to get out of the car.

You could save a lot of your time and time of others if you would just
deal with the obvious meaning of words and not play word games.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[VegasJerry]

What has that to do with him being accosted?


Jerry 'n Vegas









>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

--- 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 27 2012 12:11 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

> On Mar 27, 11:59 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27 2012 9:54 AM, ~M~ wrote:
>
> > > >Yet he did. You think the kid waved Zimmerman over, for no reason, and
> > > >asked him to get out of his car?
>
> > > Cite?
>
> > Cite a question? How about you answering it?
>
> Jerry, stop playing word games.

I was not playing word games. I asked stright forward questions.

> The way you worded the question, it
> is obvious you are asserting that Martin did NOT wave Zimmerman over
> for no reason and ask him to get out of the car.

And that's your answer to the question?


Jerry

> You could save a lot of your time and time of others if you would just
> deal with the obvious meaning of words and not play word games.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

--- 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Mar 27, 12:15 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> > It would be pretty fucking funny if the store clerk who was on duty
> > came forward and said he remembers Martin being in the store, but he
> > is positive Martin didn't buy any Skittles.  This could probably be
> > verified by examining the electronic record of sales during the time
> > frame we know Martin was in the store.

> > The media beatification of what we now know was nothing more than a
> > run-of-the-mill street punk has been absolutely sickening, and I laugh
> > every time more evidence emerges of how far from a saint Martin
> > actually was.

> What has that to do with him being accosted?

Nothing. I wasn't discussing anyone being accosted. I was discussing
a tangential issue. And the evidence at this point does not remotely
support the claim that Zimmerman accosted Martin. You need to go back
and review the evidence, including Zimmerman's version of events, some
of which has been corroborated by other witnesses.

So far, I am not aware of any evidence which contradicts Zimmerman's
version of events, and the police say all the evidence they have
supports Zimmerman's version.

You know, Jerry, it's just possible that Zimmerman is telling the
truth. That's what innocent men do.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[~M~]

"VegasJerry" wrote in message news:pkg949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>I was not playing word games. I asked stright forward questions.

My answer to your question is I don't know if the kid waved Zimmerman over
or asked him to get out of the car.

Now, back to your claim...
I didn't realize you would be confused by my leaving your entire sentence
in. I don't know how I could have made that mistake.
Let me do this again, though I'm sure you will still not provide a citation.

<ME> If Zimmerman never initiated physical contact,

<YOU>Yet he did.

If you know Zimmerman initiated physical contact, you should share this
information with police and the media, since no one else seems to know that.
So, share with us first.


--
"Actually, I'm an out-of-the-closed [sic] Independent."
- Jerry Sturdivant, 3/23/2011 Telling the biggest lie in RGP history

...until

"Jerry (on bail) 'n Vegas"
- Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/20/2011

...but not to outdo himself

"By behind them, you mean for the cause? If it's not peaceful, you're not
for the cause? I went to jail, are you still for the cause?"
- Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/23/2011

...Liars like Jerry make things up to cover their bullshit, like so...

"When the put me in the pattywagon [sic] I was 'jailed.' Now are you behind
OWS
or not?"
- Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/23/2011

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Mar 27, 12:22 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mar 27 2012 12:11 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

> > On Mar 27, 11:59 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > On Mar 27 2012 9:54 AM, ~M~ wrote:

> > > > >Yet he did. You think the kid waved Zimmerman over, for no reason, and
> > > > >asked him to get out of his car?

> > > > Cite?

> > > Cite a question? How about you answering it?

> > Jerry, stop playing word games.

> I was not playing word games. I asked stright forward questions.

> > The way you worded the question, it
> > is obvious you are asserting that Martin did NOT wave Zimmerman over
> > for no reason and ask him to get out of the car.

> And that's your answer to the question?

No, Jerry. You didn't ask me the question, and I have no interest in
answering it.

I was just pointing out one of your bad habits which causes you to get
into a lot of endless threads where nothing of substance is said.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[mo_ntresor]

On Mar 27 2012 12:22 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> If he's innocent, he needs to go through the process. If he's guilty,
> he needs to go through the process.
>
> __________________
>
> Absolutely false. "Going through the process" is an extended, agonizing,
> expensive ordeal that leaves criminal defendants bankrupt and traumatized,
> even if they are acquitted. If he's innocent, then the government needs to
> leave him alone. It takes character and a strong personality in government
> to do something like that in a case like this one.
>
> Plus, you are asking the wrong question. It's not a question of whether
> he's "innocent" or not. You have to remember, in the context of a criminal
> case, it's never a "whodunit", it's always a "can the state prove it?"
>
> It appears to me like the cops and prosecutors looked at this case and
> thought about it in terms of the high burden of proof. Is there enough
> evidence to prove him guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Just
> because there is a lot of publicity and angry calls to prosecute the guy,
> actually doing so when it is clear that the evidence is not there to convict
> is irresponsible by public officials.

never going to happen. nifong, the stevens case, and on and on ... lawyer
whores have a very hard time doing what's right.

mo_ntresor

________________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

One problem is the practice of having judges and district attorneys be
elected, thus vulnerable to public pressure to do what's popular rather
than what's right.

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[mo_ntresor]

On Mar 27 2012 4:49 PM, phlash74 wrote:

> > never going to happen. nifong, the stevens case, and on and on ... lawyer
> > whores have a very hard time doing what's right.
>

> One problem is the practice of having judges and district attorneys be
> elected, thus vulnerable to public pressure to do what's popular rather
> than what's right.

cnn still shows the 13 year old tray in football getup next to the mug
shot of zimms. the pressure to sacrifice is enormous, and standing
between civilization and the unwashed herd of unthinking media muppets
(dutch, billb, others) are professional liars.

mo_ntresor

____________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 27 2012 12:38 PM, ~M~ wrote:

> "VegasJerry" wrote in message news:pkg949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
> >I was not playing word games. I asked stright forward questions.
>
> My answer to your question is I don't know if the kid waved Zimmerman over
> or asked him to get out of the car.
>
> Now, back to your claim...
> I didn't realize you would be confused by my leaving your entire sentence
> in. I don't know how I could have made that mistake.
> Let me do this again, though I'm sure you will still not provide a citation.
>
> <ME> If Zimmerman never initiated physical contact,
>
> <YOU>Yet he did.
>
> If you know Zimmerman initiated physical contact, you should share this
> information with police and the media,

I don't have to; they already know this. Zimmerman did not remain where he
was; he continued; thereby initiating the contact. Why are you having
trouble understanding this? Everyone else seems to get it.


Jerry 'n Vegas

since no one else seems to know that.
> So, share with us first.
>
>
> --
> "Actually, I'm an out-of-the-closed [sic] Independent."
> - Jerry Sturdivant, 3/23/2011 Telling the biggest lie in RGP history
>

> ....until

>
> "Jerry (on bail) 'n Vegas"
> - Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/20/2011
>

> ....but not to outdo himself

>
> "By behind them, you mean for the cause? If it's not peaceful, you're not
> for the cause? I went to jail, are you still for the cause?"
> - Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/23/2011
>

> ....Liars like Jerry make things up to cover their bullshit, like so...

>
> "When the put me in the pattywagon [sic] I was 'jailed.' Now are you behind
> OWS
> or not?"
> - Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/23/2011

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 27 2012 12:28 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

> On Mar 27, 12:15 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > It would be pretty fucking funny if the store clerk who was on duty
> > > came forward and said he remembers Martin being in the store, but he
> > > is positive Martin didn't buy any Skittles.  This could probably be
> > > verified by examining the electronic record of sales during the time
> > > frame we know Martin was in the store.
>
> > > The media beatification of what we now know was nothing more than a
> > > run-of-the-mill street punk has been absolutely sickening, and I laugh
> > > every time more evidence emerges of how far from a saint Martin
> > > actually was.
>
> > What has that to do with him being accosted?
>
> Nothing. I wasn't discussing anyone being accosted. I was discussing
> a tangential issue. And the evidence at this point does not remotely
> support the claim that Zimmerman accosted Martin.

Yea, actually it does. Zimmerman persued Martin. Martin, in a phone call
with a girl, stated he was being persued. Yet you don't see this an
evidence?

> You need to go back
> and review the evidence, including Zimmerman's version of events, some
> of which has been corroborated by other witnesses.

Suddenly, a month later, a witness appears? Heh!


Jerry

>
> So far, I am not aware of any evidence which contradicts Zimmerman's
> version of events, and the police say all the evidence they have
> supports Zimmerman's version.
>
> You know, Jerry, it's just possible that Zimmerman is telling the
> truth. That's what innocent men do.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

------- 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 27 2012 1:03 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

> On Mar 27, 12:22 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27 2012 12:11 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 11:59 am, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27 2012 9:54 AM, ~M~ wrote:
>
> > > > > >Yet he did. You think the kid waved Zimmerman over, for no reason,
and
> > > > > >asked him to get out of his car?
>
> > > > > Cite?
>
> > > > Cite a question? How about you answering it?
>
> > > Jerry, stop playing word games.
>
> > I was not playing word games. I asked stright forward questions.
>
> > > The way you worded the question, it
> > > is obvious you are asserting that Martin did NOT wave Zimmerman over
> > > for no reason and ask him to get out of the car.
>
> > And that's your answer to the question?
>
> No, Jerry. You didn't ask me the question, and I have no interest in
> answering it.

But you're addressing my question.

>
> I was just pointing out one of your bad habits which causes you to get
> into a lot of endless threads where nothing of substance is said.

Except it was addressed and finally answered.

Buzz off.

Jerry 'n Vegas






>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

____________________________________________________________________ 

[~M~]

"VegasJerry" wrote in message news:j5ib49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>I don't have to; they already know this. Zimmerman did not remain where he
>was; he continued; thereby initiating the contact. Why are you having
>trouble understanding this? Everyone else seems to get it.

Failure to provide any evidence noted.

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 28 2012 7:40 AM, ~M~ wrote:

> "VegasJerry" wrote in message news:j5ib49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
>
>
> >I don't have to; they already know this. Zimmerman did not remain where he
> >was; he continued; thereby initiating the contact. Why are you having
> >trouble understanding this? Everyone else seems to get it.
>
>
>
> Failure to provide any evidence noted.

Your failure to know what evidence means, noted.


Jerry

----- 

[~M~]

"VegasJerry" wrote in message news:7lnb49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>Your failure to know what evidence means, noted.

Learn to lose.

[Mossingen]

"VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:5kf949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

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? You
suggest that he was the aggressor by stopping and confronting the kid in the
first place; thus, even if he was turning to leave the situation he would
still be the aggressor. That is total horseshit under the law and common
sense.

[Mossingen]

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lcs949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> never going to happen. nifong, the stevens case, and on and on ... lawyer
> whores have a very hard time doing what's right.

For defense lawyer whores, the path is usually pretty straightforward with
little ambiguity. We have to advocate for the client to the maximim allowed
by the law and contest the State's case on every material point, even if we
know "the truth".

For lawyer whores who are prosecutors, there are often close judgment calls.
Those lawyer whores are supposed to be guided by "doing justice" and not
just advocating a position like their defense counterparts. I have spoken
to more than one prosecutor lawyer whore who has taken the position that the
victim is their client and they will do what they can to punish the accused.

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 28 2012 9:42 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5kf949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Mar 27 2012 11:24 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:6u6949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> "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?
> >
> > Inability to address my statement, noted.
>
>
> 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?

> You suggest that he was the aggressor by stopping and
> confronting the kid in the first place;

BINGO! You figured it out.


Jerry 'n Vegas

thus, even if he was turning to leave the situation he would
> still be the aggressor. That is total horseshit under the law and common
> sense.

----- 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Mar 28, 1:58 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> > You suggest that he was the aggressor by stopping and
> > confronting the kid in the first place;

> BINGO! You figured it out.

Yes, Jerry. He figured out what you are suggesting. When are you
going to figure out that what you are suggesting is speculation not
supported by any evidence which has been made public?


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[O-PGManager]

On Mar 27 2012 2:48 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

> On Mar 27, 10:36 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:89873542-2564-4cd6...@t8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Mar 27, 7:13 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> > >> On 3/27/2012 6:28 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > >> > Where are the pictures of his wounds?
>
> > >> Where is the receipt for the Skittles?
>
> > > LMFAO!  Good one!
>
> > The key piece of the puzzle. If that receipt cannot be found to confirm his
> > innocence then Zimmerman obviously did the world a favor by getting rid of
> > another candy thief.
>
> It would be pretty fucking funny if the store clerk who was on duty
> came forward and said he remembers Martin being in the store, but he
> is positive Martin didn't buy any Skittles.

Because clearly he couldn't have procured the skittles legally at another
time. You people are really sick. Slandering the dead kid as a thief
without a shred of evidence.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 3/28/2012 7:37 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Because clearly he couldn't have procured the skittles legally at another
> time. You people are really sick. Slandering the dead kid as a thief
> without a shred of evidence.

So where's the receipt?

[otter]

Your superior intellect can't come up possibilities other than stealing?
Perhaps
- he threw it in the trash can?
- he littered and threw it on the ground?
- he didn't take the receipt from the clerk, and the clerk threw it away?

[VegasJerry]

What would having, or not having, a receipt prove?


Jerry 'n Vegas

----- 

[BillB]

On 3/29/2012 7:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> What would having, or not having, a receipt prove?

That he's not a Skittle rustler?

Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before, that
might lend more credence to Zimmerman's allegation that he saw someone
who was acting very suspicious and looking for trouble (maybe for
something else to steal), which might help support Zimmerman's decision
to make the initial approach.

I'm just going by memory, but after the 911 operator said "you don't
need to [follow him]," didn't Zimmerman say something to the effect,
"These assholes always get away?"

I have a feeling he approached Trayvon with the intent of "detaining
him" for a minute or two until the police got there, so he wouldn't "get
away," like the rest of the (black) "assholes". Trayvon would have none
of it, and was already prepared to defend himself against what he
perceived as a stalker (remember he told his girlfriend he refused to
run?). Trayvon surprises Zimmerman by landing a good shot or two,
because he hangs with gangbangers and grew up fighting. Zimmerman goes
down. Trayton jumps on him, so Zimmerman draws and fires.

The broken nose and smashing-head-on-pavement stories were made up
bullshit. This was just a case of a run-of-the-mill coward panicking the
second he felt someone had the best of him, the only real problem being
he had a gun to panic with. I'm sure he would have had no problem
rolling the 140lb Trayvon off of him and pinning him if he didn't lose
his shit.

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 29 2012 7:31 AM, BillB wrote:

> On 3/29/2012 7:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > What would having, or not having, a receipt prove?
>
> That he's not a Skittle rustler?
>
> Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before, that
> might lend more credence to Zimmerman's allegation that he saw someone
> who was acting very suspicious and looking for trouble (maybe for
> something else to steal),

Stealing Skittles? How do you act suspicious after histing a bag of
Skittles?
(You did say, "Seriously.")


Jerry

which might help support Zimmerman's decision
> to make the initial approach.
>
> I'm just going by memory, but after the 911 operator said "you don't
> need to [follow him]," didn't Zimmerman say something to the effect,
> "These assholes always get away?"
>
> I have a feeling he approached Trayvon with the intent of "detaining
> him" for a minute or two until the police got there, so he wouldn't "get
> away," like the rest of the (black) "assholes". Trayvon would have none
> of it, and was already prepared to defend himself against what he
> perceived as a stalker (remember he told his girlfriend he refused to
> run?). Trayvon surprises Zimmerman by landing a good shot or two,
> because he hangs with gangbangers and grew up fighting. Zimmerman goes
> down. Trayton jumps on him, so Zimmerman draws and fires.
>
> The broken nose and smashing-head-on-pavement stories were made up
> bullshit. This was just a case of a run-of-the-mill coward panicking the
> second he felt someone had the best of him, the only real problem being
> he had a gun to panic with. I'm sure he would have had no problem
> rolling the 140lb Trayvon off of him and pinning him if he didn't lose
> his shit.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 3/29/2012 8:51 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Mar 29 2012 7:31 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/2012 7:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>>
>>> What would having, or not having, a receipt prove?
>>
>> That he's not a Skittle rustler?
>>
>> Seriously though, if he was out stealing stuff minutes before, that
>> might lend more credence to Zimmerman's allegation that he saw someone
>> who was acting very suspicious and looking for trouble (maybe for
>> something else to steal),
>
> Stealing Skittles? How do you act suspicious after histing a bag of
> Skittles?
> (You did say, "Seriously.")

You were a cop, Jerry. You've never seen a suspect snooping around as if
he's looking for something to steal?

[VegasJerry]

That's my point. You tell me what suspicious behavior would be for a guy
carrying stolen skittles.


Jerry

---- 

[BillB]

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. 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?

[BTSinAustin]

On Mar 26 2012 4:28 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-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community
>
> "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 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)

Exactly. Now the hysterical hand wringers have shut up and we've seen
the actual pictures it makes more sense.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[bratt]

Suspicious behavior would be looking over his shoulder to see if he had
been caught.


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

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

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:37:26 -0700, "O-PGManager"
<ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Mar 27 2012 2:48 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
>> On Mar 27, 10:36 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:89873542-2564-4cd6...@t8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > On Mar 27, 7:13 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > >> On 3/27/2012 6:28 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Where are the pictures of his wounds?
>>
>> > >> Where is the receipt for the Skittles?
>>
>> > > LMFAO!  Good one!
>>
>> > The key piece of the puzzle. If that receipt cannot be found to confirm his
>> > innocence then Zimmerman obviously did the world a favor by getting rid of
>> > another candy thief.
>>
>> It would be pretty fucking funny if the store clerk who was on duty
>> came forward and said he remembers Martin being in the store, but he
>> is positive Martin didn't buy any Skittles.
>
>Because clearly he couldn't have procured the skittles legally at another
>time. You people are really sick. Slandering the dead kid as a thief
>without a shred of evidence.

Um, dOpie, are you familiar with the meaning of the words "would" and
"if"?

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:43:01 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>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.

[BillB]

On 3/29/2012 6:32 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> 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.

Sounds like just about every lawyer I've ever met, and that would be a
number in the hundreds. I wonder how many lawyers mo knows? Do you think
many lawyers would hang out with someone as crass and immature as mo? I
don't. Certainly no Canadian lawyer.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:58:33 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Ever had someone grab your hair/head and pound your head into the sidewalk?
>There's no guarantee they will stop.

This makes me feel fortunate that, at my age, grabbing my hair is not
likely to be very effective.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:05:09 -0700, "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 27 2012 11:24 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:6u6949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>>
>>

>> >> "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?
>
>Inability to address my statement, noted.

I guess it's the real Jerry, after all.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:58:07 -0700, "VegasJerry" <jer...@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.

>
>> 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.

[O-PGManager]

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.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

-------- 

[BillB]

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?

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.

[Dutch]

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:iR9dr.10165$dq4....@newsfe23.iad...

> 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?

How is that relevant? If he had actually robbed the convenience store, say
with a knife, that might be relevant, but shoplifted? Who cares?

[BillB]

On 3/29/2012 8:42 PM, Dutch wrote:


> 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....

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Mar 29, 8:42 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

> > I am asking the same question Zimmerman's lawyer will be asking his
> > investigators. Where's the receipt? Did he purchase that stuff?

> How is that relevant? If he had actually robbed the convenience store, say
> with a knife, that might be relevant, but shoplifted? Who cares?

Because it makes it more plausible that he might have been casing the
area for residential burglaries, as Zimmerman apparently suspected.
Plus, it helps deconstruct the preposterous beatification of Martin
conducted by the media.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[fffurken]

On Mar 30, 4:48 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > How is that relevant? If he had actually robbed the convenience store, say
> > with a knife, that might be relevant, but shoplifted? Who cares?
>
> Because it makes it more plausible that he might have been casing the
> area for residential burglaries

Let's add 0.1% more plausible? Howzat?

[fffurken]

On Mar 30, 4:42 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

> How is that relevant? If he had actually robbed the convenience store, say
> with a knife, that might be relevant, but shoplifted? Who cares?

Lawyer whores, of course.

[Dutch]

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:W3adr.12295$Ce4....@newsfe21.iad...

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.

[BillB]

On 3/29/2012 10:32 PM, Dutch 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?

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.

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Neighborhood_watch

"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.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[mo_ntresor]

On Mar 29 2012 7:32 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> >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.

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

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).


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?

-------- 

[BillB]

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. Let's try again:

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 29 2012 8:34 PM, BillB wrote:

> 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.

________________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 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.

That's because I was.

Jerry (taking a bow) 'n Vegas

>
> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> -------- 

----- 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 29 2012 3:15 PM, bratt wrote:

> On Mar 29 2012 4:20 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. 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

>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
> _____________________________________________________________________ 

---- 

[BillB]

On 3/30/2012 6:06 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> You actually think that can, and would be, asked?

I don't *think* it can and would be. I know so. (assuming a competent
defense)

> (And you're a lawyer?)

I was a practicing criminal lawyer. Were you?

[bratt]

On Mar 30 2012 8:06 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Mar 29 2012 8:34 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > 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

Why wouldn't it be?

[O-PGManager]

On Mar 29 2012 11:34 PM, BillB wrote:

> 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???

[BillB]

On 3/30/2012 7:43 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Who THE FUCK keeps a skittles receipt???

I have all mine. Don't you?

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.

[brewmaster]

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.

--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master

------- 

[BillB]

On 3/30/2012 9:14 AM, brewmaster wrote:

> 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.

[VegasJerry]

No, I was a police officer and have been in court enough to know it's not
a question that would be asked.

Jerry 'n Vegas

----- 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 30 2012 6:06 AM, BillB wrote:

> 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?

-------- 

[VegasJerry]

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.

Jerry 'n Vegas

>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>

> -------�

____________________________________________________________________�

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 30 2012 7:43 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Mar 29 2012 11:34 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > 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.

Jerry

>
> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> --- 

____________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 29 2012 6:44 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:58:07 -0700, "VegasJerry" <jer...@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?


Jerry

______________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Mar 29 2012 6:41 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:05:09 -0700, "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 27 2012 11:24 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:6u6949x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> "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?
> >
> >Inability to address my statement, noted.
>
> I guess it's the real Jerry, after all.

Yep. Perhas you might try addressing it.

------- 

[Clave]

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message

news:8didr.12360$Ce4....@newsfe21.iad...

<...>

> 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

[VegasJerry]

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.


Jerry

-------- 

[Tom D]

Re: OT: Ramashiva calls another one

Group: rec.gambling.poker Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012, 9:36am (CDT-2) From:
jer...@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-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community
"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)
------- 

[BillB]

On 3/30/2012 11:50 AM, VegasJerry wrote

> No, I was a police officer and have been in court enough...

lol...good one, Jerry.