OT Racist lefties need not venture here.

[LonVanOstran]

You won't believe the truth anyway.

<http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/page/full/>

Lon

[nothermark]

Here is the lie:

"That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."

That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."


enjoy your "truth".

[Bruce S]

It id not only true, it has been admitted to by the police. There is no
evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman followed Martin.

--
Bruce
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -
Flannery O'Connor

[Hank]

On Apr 24, 1:27 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Here is the lie:
>
> > "That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
> > continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
> > conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
> > reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."
>
> > That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
> > fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."
>
> > enjoy your "truth".
>
> It id not only true, it has been admitted to by the police.  There is no
> evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman followed Martin.
>
> --
> Bruce

If I were on the jury, I would find it hard to believe that Z got hit
in the back of his head inside his car (not impossible tho). Also, how
did a scuffle happen if Z was inside his car? There are just too many
questions and no answers to assume anything.

Hank

[Bruce S]

He didn't have to be in his car just because he was not following
Martin. There is a lot of space between one and the other. Besides,
just because he stopped following is no reason to assume that he ever
re-entered his truck - he could have taken a walk around the
neighborhood - after all, he was neighborhood watching.

Remember, as I said and as the cop said, there is no evidence to
indicate that he did not stop following. That is not the same as saying
he got into his car.

[Bob Hatch]

On 4/24/2012 11:30 AM, Hank wrote:

> On Apr 24, 1:27 pm, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Here is the lie:
>>
>>> "That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
>>> continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
>>> conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
>>> reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."
>>
>>> That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
>>> fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."
>>
>>> enjoy your "truth".
>>
>> It id not only true, it has been admitted to by the police. There is no
>> evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman followed Martin.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce
>
> If I were on the jury, I would find it hard to believe that Z got hit
> in the back of his head inside his car (not impossible tho).

Who said he got back in his car besides you?

Also, how
> did a scuffle happen if Z was inside his car?

See above.

There are just too many
> questions and no answers to assume anything.

But you just did.

>
> Hank

Have you even bothered to read the transcript of the 911 call?

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html



--
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man
to pay for what he does not want merely because
you think it would be good for him.”
? Robert A. Heinlein

[dm_callier]

On Apr 24, 10:27 am, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 10:13 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:21:51 -0400, LonVanOstran

> > <Lvanost...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >> You won't believe the truth anyway.
>

> >> <http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/...>

>
> >> Lon
>
> > Here is the lie:
>
> > "That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
> > continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
> > conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
> > reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."
>
> > That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
> > fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."
>
> > enjoy your "truth".
>
> It id not only true, it has been admitted to by the police.  There is no
> evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman followed Martin.
>
> --
> Bruce
> The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.  -

> Flannery O'Connor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...Just the utterance of "OK" doesn't mean much...is there a
witness to whether or not Zimmerman followed Martin or is this just
more speculation about facts not in evidence?

[nothermark]

From what I can tell it's the speculation that the "Zimmerman did
nothing wrong" folks are hanging their hat on. ;-)

[LonVanOstran]

Can you prove that it's a lie, or are you simply judging without evidence?

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Surely, even someone as stupid as you should be able to distinguish the
difference between turning back toward his vehicle, and actually
REACHING that vehicle. But then, I often give people more credit than
they deserve.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

Since Zimmerman DID respond with "OK", maybe you could spell out just
what YOU "feel" the lie to be.

Lon

[Bruce S]

On 4/24/2012 1:15 PM, dm_callier wrote:
> On Apr 24, 10:27 am, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/24/2012 10:13 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:21:51 -0400, LonVanOstran
>>> <Lvanost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You won't believe the truth anyway.
>>

>>>> <http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/....>

>>
>>>> Lon
>>
>>> Here is the lie:
>>
>>> "That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
>>> continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
>>> conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
>>> reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."
>>
>>> That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
>>> fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."
>>
>>> enjoy your "truth".
>>
>> It id not only true, it has been admitted to by the police. There is no
>> evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman followed Martin.
>>
>

> LOL...Just the utterance of "OK" doesn't mean much...is there a
> witness to whether or not Zimmerman followed Martin or is this just
> more speculation about facts not in evidence?

A meaningless question. At this time (well as of last Friday anyway)
there was NO EVIDENCE to contradict Zimmerman when he said he stopped
following Martin. Here is a quote from Zimmerman's bail hearing: (Note
Omara is the attorney and Gilbreath is the lead prosecution investigator.)

"O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that
conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence
that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time?

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his
suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that
conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than
filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as
to who threw the first blow, no."

Pay close attention to the first question - the cop said there is no
evidence to Contradict Zimmerman.

[Bruce S]

So far no one here has said, "Zimmerman did nothing wrong." All they
have said is that, so far, no evidence has been presented that he did
anything wrong. And even the cop who testified at the bail hearing
confirmed that - there is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin, or
that Zimmerman started the fight.

[nothermark]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:27:33 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/24/2012 10:13 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:21:51 -0400, LonVanOstran
>> <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You won't believe the truth anyway.
>>>
>>> <http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/page/full/>
>>>
>>> Lon
>>
>> Here is the lie:
>>
>> "That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
>> continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
>> conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
>> reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."
>>
>> That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
>> fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."
>>
>>
>> enjoy your "truth".
>
>It id not only true, it has been admitted to by the police. There is no
>evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman followed Martin.

Yes there is. There is the conversation between M and his GF, the
tone of Z's reply and the fact that Z reported losing M about the time
he was told he did not need to follow him yet they still met up.

[Bob Hatch]

Mark knows a lot of things that just aren't so.

All they
> have said is that, so far, no evidence has been presented that he did
> anything wrong. And even the cop who testified at the bail hearing
> confirmed that - there is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin, or
> that Zimmerman started the fight.
>


--

[Bob Hatch]

Based on his posts on this subject so far, what do you think he believes?

[LonVanOstran]

Bob Hatch wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 3:27 PM, LonVanOstran wrote:
>> nothermark wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:21:51 -0400, LonVanOstran
>>> <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You won't believe the truth anyway.
>>>>
>>>> <http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/page/full/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lon
>>>
>>> Here is the lie:
>>>
>>> "That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
>>> continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
>>> conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
>>> reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."
>>>
>>> That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
>>> fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."
>>>
>>>
>>> enjoy your "truth".
>>
>>
>> Since Zimmerman DID respond with "OK", maybe you could spell out just
>> what YOU "feel" the lie to be.
>>
>> Lon
>
> Based on his posts on this subject so far, what do you think he believes?
>
>

Just about everything he sees on CNN and cpusa.org

Lon

Lon

[Lone Haranguer]

For a neighborhood watch person to follow a person of interest is
not stalking and not a crime.
Since Martin was a visitor in a gated community, it was his
responsibility to identify himself.
LZ

[Squire]

Linus.....l! You don't know piss from paint....

If Martin was watch commander and told Z to
stop so he could check his papers , Martin would
probably think about kicking Zs ass, like you would....

But if Z would have said...Bring yer black ass here,
I want to see your DL, Martin probably did strum
his head...

Why not be quite about it till we hear more facts ??
Squire

[Bruce S]

So it is your contention that the cop lied on the witness stand at last

friday's bail hearing? Here is what he said:

"O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that
conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence
that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time?

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his
suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that
conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than
filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as
to who threw the first blow, no."

Do you seee the part where he says there IS NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman
followed Martin, and there IS NO EVIDENCE about who threw the first punch.

If the cop can admit that there is no evidence, maybe you can too. Or
have you been holding out on us - were you in Florida to witness the
whole thing?

[Lone Haranguer]

What I posted is a fact. You just don't recognize one when you
see one.
LZ

[nothermark]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:16:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

No. My contention is that there is no absolute proof as in a witness
or camera that shows the whole episode start to finish. There is a
lot of circumstantial evidence to question if Z stopped, turned
around, and headed back to his truck when the dispatcher said
something indicating Z did not need to follow M. There is a valid
question that makes the first punch moot. Depending what part of the
law you choose one can assume Z was strolling down the sidewalk and M
attacked him with no provocation so Z was defending himself against
the aggressor M or we can assume M was trying to evade Z who was
aggressively hunting him down thus losing some or all of the
protection of self defense as a defense. In the latter assumption it
does not matter who threw the first punch as the episode started when
Z got out of his truck.

Z has a good attorney. If the prosecution is competent we could see
some good lawyering in this case. If not Z will walk. If that
happens expect a whole lot more shootings by cop wannabe's. The
backlash on that could be very bad for castle doctrine laws.

[Bruce S]

The words you are looking for are: There is no evidence.

> There is a
> lot of circumstantial evidence to question if Z stopped, turned
> around, and headed back to his truck when the dispatcher said
> something indicating Z did not need to follow M. There is a valid
> question that makes the first punch moot. Depending what part of the
> law you choose one can assume Z was strolling down the sidewalk and M
> attacked him with no provocation so Z was defending himself against
> the aggressor M or we can assume M was trying to evade Z who was
> aggressively hunting him down thus losing some or all of the
> protection of self defense as a defense. In the latter assumption it
> does not matter who threw the first punch as the episode started when
> Z got out of his truck.

Once again you demonstrate that you have no knowledge of the law. Even
if it turns out that Zimmerman threw the first punch, he could still
claim self defense. Read the law.

> Z has a good attorney. If the prosecution is competent we could see
> some good lawyering in this case. If not Z will walk. If that
> happens expect a whole lot more shootings by cop wannabe's. The
> backlash on that could be very bad for castle doctrine laws.

Anyone who cites either Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground when
discussing this incident has his head up his ass and knows not of what
he speaks.

[jerryosage]

Many people see the Castle and Stand Your Ground laws as giving us gun
toting Rednecks the authority to apply deadly force for what might get
the perp 180 days or less in county lockup if he was busted by LE.

And that pisses them off. They view us as Wild West Vigalantes taking
the Law into our own hands.

"He was legally MURDERED while committing (insert crime) that might
have gotten him 6 months in jail if convicted. Instead he got a
death sentence, that's just not right!!! and you don't see anything
wrong with that?"

Zimmerman applied deadly force properly, at least as far as, "If
deadly force is applied make sure there is only one story to tell -
your's".

Jerry O

[Republicans Are The REAL Liars!]

On Apr 23, 10:11 am, Juicey Brucey wrote:
> Once again you demonstrate that you have no knowledge of the law.  Even
> if it turns out that Zimmerman threw the first punch, he could still
> claim self defense.  Read the law.
>
> > Z has a good attorney.  If the prosecution is competent we could see
> > some good lawyering in this case.  If not Z will walk.  If that
> > happens expect a whole lot more shootings by cop wannabe's.  The
> > backlash on that could be very bad for castle doctrine laws.
>
> Anyone who cites either Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground when
> discussing this incident has his head up his ass and knows not of what
> he speaks.

> Juicey Brucey

I bet if Zimmerman came to Juicey's house and dropped his pants,
Juicey would drop to his knees and lick and kiss his honky murdering
ass....before moving around in front to finish the love job.

haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw

[Republicans Are The REAL Liars!]

On Apr 24, 10:54 pm, Jerry Osage wrote:
> Many people see the Castle and Stand Your Ground laws as giving us gun
> toting Rednecks the authority to apply deadly force for what might get
> the perp 180 days or less in county lockup if he was busted by LE.
> And that pisses them off.  They view us as Wild West Vigalantes
taking
> the Law into our own hands.
> "He was legally MURDERED while committing (insert crime) that might
> have gotten him 6 months in jail if convicted.   Instead he got a
> death sentence, that's just not right!!! and you don't see anything
> wrong with that?"
> Zimmerman applied deadly force properly, at least as far as, "If
> deadly force is applied make sure there is only one story to tell -
> your's".
> Jerry O

AND, ONCE AGAIN, THE DUMB FUCK RESERVATION INJUN ESPOUSES MURDER JUST
LIKE HIS LUNATIC ANCESTORS DID. THERE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN
RESERVATIONS, MASS GENOCIDE WAS THE REAL ANSWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
OFT-HEARD PHRASE, 'THE ONLY GOOD INDIAN IS A ............."

[nothermark]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:16:37 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I understand you are hanging your hat on interpreting an ambiguity in
one direction, the Police are saying it is an ambiguity, and I am
saying your interpretation is the less likely of the two reasonable
one's.

[nothermark]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:38:44 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:

The only way for Z to claim self defense is that he did nothing wrong.
If he admits chasing down M, Z becomes the aggressor and loses a lot
of self defense options.

[nothermark]

I'm not opposed to the castle doctrine. I am opposed to folks who
hunt down and kill somebody because they don't like them. I think
that clearly defines what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.

[Bob Hatch]

They didn't know each other, so how could Zimmerman not like Martin?

I think
> that clearly defines what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.

[Larry]

On 25 Apr 2012 05:56:00 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

>I'm not opposed to the castle doctrine. I am opposed to folks who
>hunt down and kill somebody because they don't like them. I think
>that clearly defines what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.

You think? Can you show us where you found the information to
develop this theory? Was it in the private email you get from Rev Al
Sharpton?

[Larry]

On 24 Apr 2012 22:13:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

>No. My contention is that there is no absolute proof as in a witness
>or camera that shows the whole episode start to finish.

Have you never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"?

[nothermark]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:45:38 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

It's all part of the same package.

[jerryosage]

On 25 Apr 2012 05:56:00 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:54:46 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:

>>
>>Many people see the Castle and Stand Your Ground laws as giving us gun
>>toting Rednecks the authority to apply deadly force for what might get
>>the perp 180 days or less in county lockup if he was busted by LE.
>>

>>Jerry O
>
>I'm not opposed to the castle doctrine. I am opposed to folks who
>hunt down and kill somebody because they don't like them. I think
>that clearly defines what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.

Since you are a clairvoyant, perhaps would enlighten me as to the
whereabouts of Hoffa's remains and what actually happened to Amelia
Earhart.

Or, perhaps, your thinking falls under the perview of Meyer's Law and
you aren't a clairvoyant at all.

Meyer's Law

Liberals see what they believe.
Conservatives believe what they see.

Jerry O

[D-R]

On 4/25/2012 9:16 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:

>
> They didn't know each other, so how could Zimmerman not like Martin?

Got a new Sig line that fits we who try to explain things to Mark!


--

AJ -- To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Payne

[Owen McKenzie]

On 4/24/2012 4:15 PM, dm_callier wrote:

> On Apr 24, 10:27 am, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/24/2012 10:13 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:21:51 -0400, LonVanOstran
>>> <Lvanost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You won't believe the truth anyway.
>>

>>>> <http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/...>

>>
>>>> Lon
>>
>>> Here is the lie:
>>
>>> "That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for
>>> continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that
>>> conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's
>>> reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."
>>
>>> That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in
>>> fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin."
>>
>>> enjoy your "truth".
>>
>> It id not only true, it has been admitted to by the police. There is no
>> evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman followed Martin.
>>

>> --
>> Bruce
>> The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -
>> Flannery O'Connor- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL...Just the utterance of "OK" doesn't mean much...is there a
> witness to whether or not Zimmerman followed Martin or is this just
> more speculation about facts not in evidence?

I'll do some speculation based on the transcript after the highlighted
part which ends with the dispatcher telling Zimmerman that they don't
need him to follow the suspect.

That part of the conversation sounds to me that Zimmerman was staying
put waiting for the police to arrive.

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL

"That may be YOUR point. MY point is to live each moment so as
to maximize the amount of complaining that can be done about said
moment, after the fact. It's not as easy as it looks." --jankplus

[Bruce S]

But so far, the lack of evidence is the only story that can be told in
court.

[Bruce S]

On 4/25/2012 3:50 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
> The only way for Z to claim self defense is that he did nothing wrong.
> If he admits chasing down M, Z becomes the aggressor and loses a lot
> of self defense options.

As often as that law has been posted here, you should have read it at
least once. The second paragraph says that even if Zimmerman started
the fight (even if he threw the first punch), when Martin responded to
that by trying to kill him, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself
with deadly force.

An example to make that clearer. Lets pretend that you and I are in the
bar having a drink and conversation. In a fit of pique I punch you in
the face, knocking you down. You get up, pull a knife and charge at me.
I CAN LEGALLY pull my gun and shoot you to defend myself because I am
now in fear for my life.

So, in this case, when Martin started beating Zimmerman's head on the
sidewalk, and attempted to smother him, Martin was using deadly force,
and Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force to defend himself.
Nothing about being followed gave Martin the right to respond with
deadly force.

[Bruce S]

On 4/25/2012 7:07 AM, D-R wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 9:16 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
>
>>
>> They didn't know each other, so how could Zimmerman not like Martin?
>
> Got a new Sig line that fits we who try to explain things to Mark!

Excellent.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:16:01 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:

Z was fixated on youg black males in hoodies as the folks who caused
problems in "his" neighborhood. That was the target of the "they
always get away" comment. It is also the basis for the profiling
comments.

[nothermark]

Yes,

Have you any concept of finding out the truth of what happened?

[nothermark]

I tried to lay it out for you twice. You rejected it before so there
is no reason to put in the effort again.

[Bruce S]

Another "feeling" with no evidence to support it.

[nothermark]

I do not claim clairvoyance. Few folks are arguing Z did not kill M.
The question to be decided is they circumstances. That is why it's in
Court.

[Larry]

On 25 Apr 2012 12:13:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

>
>I tried to lay it out for you twice. You rejected it before so there
>is no reason to put in the effort again.

You are 100% correct, I will always reject your "I think", it is not a
fact. You are just like the Rev Al Sharpton, convicting Zimmerman on
zero evidence. I hope you are proud that you are so much like the
Rev.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:32:00 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

Maybe. I have written the answer down enough times that you probably
can already guess what I would say so why say it one more time. It
will be interesting to see what the Prosecution comes up with.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:37:54 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No knife, no sidewalk, sufficient force to end the conflict.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:14:17 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not a "feeling". Stories from the neighbors. See what comes out in
the trial.

[nothermark]

The fact that I can lay out the line if reasoning and all you can do
is reject it pretty well spells out who is running on emotion.

FWIW, I will be off line for an indeterminate time period as I go
into surgery in the morning. The only reason for mentioning it is to
save you the trouble of pushing the "I run out" line.

[Bob Hatch]

Back to babbling "racist" comments with no proof and despite Z's
history. Kind of slimy of you.

[Hunter Hampton]

On 4/25/2012 7:51 PM, nothermark wrote:
> FWIW, I will be off line for an indeterminate time period as I go
> into surgery in the morning. The only reason for mentioning it is to
> save you the trouble of pushing the "I run out" line.

Good luck tomorrow Mark...... come back as soon as you can so know
you're okay.

hunter

[Bruce S]

If a person was interested in the truth, he would stick to the facts,
and not invent scenarios to fill in the gaps.

[Bruce S]

What you mean is you tried to convince him that your fantasies had some
merit.

[Bruce S]

You really are na moron - the knife was a hypothetical example. The
sidewalk was shown in a picture on the news the other day - and the
investigator said that the injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's
head being smashed on a hard surface.

[jerryosage]

I was/am under the impression that Z admitted to shooting, and
killing, M, and what is at question is whether it was justifiable.
Murder vs Justifiable Homicide, not whether Z actually shot and killed
M.

Jerry O.

[Kenneth Carter]

On Apr 25, 6:40 pm, Bob Hatch <bob.ha...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 10:10 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:16:01 -0700, Bob Hatch<bob.ha...@ymail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> On 4/25/2012 3:56 AM, nothermark wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:54:46 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:09:37 -0400, LonVanOstran
> >>>> <Lvanost...@gmail.com>   wrote:
>
> >>>>> Bob Hatch wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/24/2012 3:27 PM, LonVanOstran wrote:
> >>>>>>> nothermark wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:21:51 -0400, LonVanOstran
> >>>>>>>> <Lvanost...@gmail.com>   wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> You won't believe the truth anyway.
>

> >>>>>>>>> <http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/...>

You mean like your ass-buddy Lame VonDumber-Than-Dirt did in his OP
subject line?

[Robert Bonomi]

In article <4f9830e4$0$2216$c3e8da3$76a7...@news.astraweb.com>,

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Z was fixated on youg black males in hoodies as the folks who caused
>> problems in "his" neighborhood. That was the target of the "they
>> always get away" comment. It is also the basis for the profiling
>> comments.
>
>Another "feeling" with no evidence to support it.
>

According to some early press reports reported in this group, Zimmerman had
made _fifty_ calls to police in the preceding year regarding "young black
males" in his community.

It would be a reasonable expectation that someone performing guardian duties
for more than a year - that said person would know all the residents of the
community being guarded.

[Kenneth Carter]

On Apr 25, 11:46 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
wrote:
> In article <4f9830e4$0$2216$c3e8da3$76a7c...@news.astraweb.com>,

[Owen McKenzie]

I had read/heard about the number of calls, but not that they all were
about "young black males". Where did that come from?

I know, I know, "early press reports". :)

[Larry]

On 25 Apr 2012 19:51:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

>The fact that I can lay out the line if reasoning and all you can do
>is reject it pretty well spells out who is running on emotion.

I run on FACT you run on feelings. You may call it reasoning but it
is your feeling or hunch.

>
>FWIW, I will be off line for an indeterminate time period as I go
>into surgery in the morning. The only reason for mentioning it is to
>save you the trouble of pushing the "I run out" line.

Good luck with the surgery. I hope the end product is what you
desire.

[Lone Haranguer]

Let's check the 911 calls. If he reported "young black males"
then that is how the police would identify them. If they were
young black males sighted, should he have reported, old white
codgers?
LZ

[Vito]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>| wrote:
| >As often as that law has been posted here, you should have read it at
| >least once. The second paragraph says that even if Zimmerman started
| >the fight (even if he threw the first punch), when Martin responded to
| >that by trying to kill him, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself
| >with deadly force.
| >
| >An example to make that clearer. Lets pretend that you and I are in
the
| >bar having a drink and conversation. In a fit of pique I punch you in
| >the face, knocking you down. You get up, pull a knife and charge at
me.
| > I CAN LEGALLY pull my gun and shoot you to defend myself because I am
| >now in fear for my life.

FWIW the instructor who taught my Florida CC class said that his
consulting lawyer had said "No." But that was based on court decisions,
not the law itself, and was before the "stand your ground" law so ....
????

My only comment is that, considering the 'beating' Z has taken in the
press, that still isn't over, I'd bet he wishes he'd just taken the ass
kicking M was giving him.

| No knife, no sidewalk, sufficient force to end the conflict.

So, what was "sufficient force"? When I was a robust 250# of muscle
simply tossing the kid off me would have sufficed. Today, I prolly
couldn't do that. Could Zimmy? That's what the jury will need to decide
if it ever gets there.

[Lone Haranguer]

The question is; how much damage to the back of his head was
Zimmerman expected to tolerate before he was justified in
putting an end to it?

I was a skinny 150 lbs at 18 years of age but I had considerable
upper body strength from hauling 200 rounds of ammo to wherever
my aircraft was parked. Usually it was several trips each day
and 200 rounds of .50 caliber ammo weighs 68 lbs.
Trayvon Martin may have been in much better physical condition
and Zimmerman may have thought the gun was his only option.
LZ

[Vito]

"Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote

| The question is; how much damage to the back of his head was
| Zimmerman expected to tolerate before he was justified in

| putting an end to it?....

| Trayvon Martin may have been in much better physical condition
| and Zimmerman may have thought the gun was his only option.

The fact that M was atop Z proves that he was in better shape. OTOH,
given the BS Z has and will suffer, I suspect he'd prefer a tad more
damage to his hard head.

[Lone Haranguer]

He'll probably get the Bernard Goetz treatment to avoid rioting
and looting.
LZ

[nothermark]

Precisely the issue. If somebody is claiming self defense they need
reasonable circumstantial evidence to back up the claim. It seems
that was how the local prosecutor tried to slide it through. The
problem is there has been a lot of testimony come out that leaves a
doubt.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> Precisely the issue. If somebody is claiming self defense they need
> reasonable circumstantial evidence to back up the claim. It seems
> that was how the local prosecutor tried to slide it through. The
> problem is there has been a lot of testimony come out that leaves a
> doubt.

You, as usual, have the evidence and the doubt backwards. If someone
claims self defense, it's up the the prosecution to prove that it WASN'T
self defense.

Lon

[Bruce S]

On 4/29/2012 3:51 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> >I was/am under the impression that Z admitted to shooting, and
>> >killing, M, and what is at question is whether it was justifiable.
>> >Murder vs Justifiable Homicide, not whether Z actually shot and killed
>> >M.
>> >
>> >Jerry O.
>
> Precisely the issue. If somebody is claiming self defense they need
> reasonable circumstantial evidence to back up the claim. It seems
> that was how the local prosecutor tried to slide it through. The
> problem is there has been a lot of testimony come out that leaves a
> doubt.

And don't forget that when there is doubt, in our system, that means a
finding of NOT GUILTY.

[jerryosage]

I guess what threw me off was you stating that, "Few folks are arguing
that Z did not kill M." In the next sentances you wrote, "The

question to be decided is they circumstances." "That is why it's in
Court."

I took that to mean that that you thought it was about whether Z shot
M.

There is only one story to be told, and any doubt about what actually
went down only helps Z's case,

The police at the scene made the right call and all the uproar since
then hasn't changed the facts. It is just going to cost a lot of money
and cause Z more trouble than he deserves. Perhaps, he can sue for
wrongful arrest when it is all over and use the money to move to a
nice neighborhood.

[nothermark]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:42:21 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/29/2012 3:51 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> >I was/am under the impression that Z admitted to shooting, and
>>> >killing, M, and what is at question is whether it was justifiable.
>>> >Murder vs Justifiable Homicide, not whether Z actually shot and killed
>>> >M.
>>> >
>>> >Jerry O.
> >
>> Precisely the issue. If somebody is claiming self defense they need
>> reasonable circumstantial evidence to back up the claim. It seems
>> that was how the local prosecutor tried to slide it through. The
>> problem is there has been a lot of testimony come out that leaves a
>> doubt.
>
>And don't forget that when there is doubt, in our system, that means a
>finding of NOT GUILTY.

1. The doubt was about the veracity of Zimmerman's story.

2. Need a trial to get a finding.

[nothermark]

One always has the claim of self defense available. What the castle
doctrine really buys is the ability to avoid trial so as not to over
burden someone with legal fees to prove they are not guilty. I think
that was one of the Court appearances Z made or has scheduled soon.
The base problem was the local prosecutor letting Z go without pushing
the investigation more first. Martin's parents had enough political
savvy and money to hire a decent attorney to pry some of the details
loose and to get the media interested.
I doubt Z will have grounds for a wrongfull arrest suit unless the
local govenment is a real easy touch, some are. I also doubt that
Zimmerman will be found guilty of murder 2. OTOH I do not think he
should get a free pass for playing cop and ending up killing somebody
who was not committing a crime.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> 2. OTOH I do not think he
> should get a free pass for playing cop and ending up killing somebody
> who was not committing a crime.

How do you know he wasn't committing a crime?
Are you sure that attacking someone and pounding his head into the
ground isn't a crime?

Lon

[jerryosage]

On 30 Apr 2012 00:44:00 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

<Snip>

> OTOH I do not think he
>should get a free pass for playing cop and ending up killing somebody
>who was not committing a crime.

Aren't you assuming facts not in evidence when making that statement?

The above sentence sure doesn't fit the Innocent until proved guilty
foundation of our judicial system. In your system of justice
conjecture, hearsay, speculation, prejudice, etc. appear to be
admissible while passing judgment.

It also appears that you don't like, or condone, what happened, even
if Z was acting well within the constraints of the law.

You don't like the SYG Laws, and because of that you have condemned
and convicted Z for his actions from your first posts on this subject.
To me, that smacks of deep seated prejudices on several levels.

Jerry O.

[Bruce S]

But Martin WAS committing a crime - as soon as he bashed Zimmerman's
head against the sidewalk, he committed the crime of aggravated battery.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:59:20 -0500, Jerry Osage wrote:

>On 30 Apr 2012 00:44:00 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>> OTOH I do not think he
>>should get a free pass for playing cop and ending up killing somebody
>>who was not committing a crime.
>
>Aren't you assuming facts not in evidence when making that statement?
>
>The above sentence sure doesn't fit the Innocent until proved guilty
>foundation of our judicial system. In your system of justice
>conjecture, hearsay, speculation, prejudice, etc. appear to be
>admissible while passing judgment.

Let's see, first, I am speculating here not passing a sentence. AFAIK
that is pretty standard fair here.

Hearsay - we have Z's father's story on one side (Z turned around and
M jumped him and was banging his head on the side walk) that is pure
hearsay as he was not there. On the other we have two 911 tapes and 2
witnesses to various parts of the interplay between the man and the
boy. We also have the statement from Z's GF that is partly hearsay
and partly not. I know I went through a complete breakdown of this
several times so I am not going to attempt to do it again now.

Speculation is almost, if not always identified as such. Sources
cited most of the time. Now if you want to say some folks challenge
my sources I can live with that. As far as I can tell they are
knowledgeable and trying to be balanced. I cannot say the same for
most sources these days.

I'm trying to figure out who I am supposed to be prejudiced against.
If there was any prejudice it seems it would be by Z against young
black men in hoodies. Considering hoodies are ubiquitous I have to
wonder how he tells good folks from bad.

>
>It also appears that you don't like, or condone, what happened, even
>if Z was acting well within the constraints of the law.

If he was within the law I would not be objecting to the case but I
would to the law. It appears the law is OK but there is a big
question about how it applies here. The one clarification I would
like explained comes down to "if I start a fight with you and am
losing can I pull my gun and kill you?". I thought the answer was
"no" but now I am not positive it is.

>
>You don't like the SYG Laws, and because of that you have condemned
>and convicted Z for his actions from your first posts on this subject.
>To me, that smacks of deep seated prejudices on several levels.
>
>Jerry O.
>

not true. According to what Baxley described the law was supposed to
do I am in complete agreement with it. The only assumption I am
making is that Zimmerman kept following Martin and caught him.
Zimmerman admits killing Martin. That is not an issue. The issue is
under what circumstances it happened. I believe Martin's GF when she
said M said somebody was following him, M was walking away fast to
elude him and then "here he comes". That would make Z the aggressor
and make him responsible for what happened under "stand your ground".
If Z's attorney does a timeline and shows that he had turned around
and was heading back to his truck when he found M I will accept that
as an excuse.

What I object to is the idea that Z can chase somebody down to
apprehend them when he has no proof of any criminal behavior or
special powers to bother people. On one hand I'm appalled at what
some folks say I can legally do to a LEO, on the other I am very
troubled over citizen police killing folks who will not quietly have
their civil rights trampled on. Even if Z had stayed back 100 ft or
so or passed on by with a "good evening" he could have avoided the
conflict and watched until the police got there. Instead he
challenged Martin who was already feeling threatened by Z's stalking
and the situation deteriorated from there.

What I cannot figure out is what Z thought M would do if challenged.
If M really was a gangbanger and was armed he could have legally
turned around shooting Z dead on the spot and he would have been
justified in doing it.

I also do not thnk most folks understand what "stand your ground"
means. One part of it is supposed to determine who is the aggressor
party and who is the victim. The law is intended to protect the
victim.

[Larry]

On 30 Apr 2012 13:20:09 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

> Even if Z had stayed back 100 ft or
>so or passed on by with a "good evening" he could have avoided the
>conflict and watched until the police got there. Instead he
>challenged Martin who was already feeling threatened by Z's stalking
>and the situation deteriorated from there.

WOW! These are facts I was not aware of. Did the prosecutor bring
these facts to light today? Can you point to a URL for this
information?

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:24:08 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Under "stand your ground" he was acting in self defense.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
>> But Martin WAS committing a crime - as soon as he bashed Zimmerman's
>> >head against the sidewalk, he committed the crime of aggravated battery.
> Under "stand your ground" he was acting in self defense.

Explain how.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> The only assumption I am
> making is that Zimmerman kept following Martin and caught him.

Damn! How big does a stretch have to get before you won't make it?

Lon

[nothermark]

Considering that it was an opion comment not reporting and stated as
such in the part you cut off, the only fact is that it's about as
stupid to try to discuss anything with you as it is with LZ or Lon.

[Bruce S]

On 4/30/2012 11:20 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
> I also do not thnk most folks understand what "stand your ground"
> means. One part of it is supposed to determine who is the aggressor
> party and who is the victim. The law is intended to protect the
> victim.

Clearly you have no idea what the law says or means.

[Bruce S]

No, he really wasn't. Under SYG he had the right to use the necessary
force to defend himself. Bashing someone's head against the sidewalk is
not an appropriate defense against being watched.

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
> Considering that it was an opion comment not reporting and stated as
> such in the part you cut off, the only fact is that it's about as
> stupid to try to discuss anything with you as it is with LZ or Lon.

You nailed that one. You lack the mental capacity to keep up with any of
the above, so you spew bullshit and then hide when challenged.

Lon

[Lone Haranguer]

He's got a fertile imagination due to large guano deposits.
LZ

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:02:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/30/2012 11:20 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>
>> I also do not thnk most folks understand what "stand your ground"
>> means. One part of it is supposed to determine who is the aggressor
>> party and who is the victim. The law is intended to protect the
>> victim.
>
>Clearly you have no idea what the law says or means.

Clearly you and Baxley do not agree. He sponsored it.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:05:46 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

1. Witness's say they were on the grass, not the sidewalk.

2. Under stand your ground one is allowed to use sufficient force to
prevent being interfered with. Zimmerman was clearly interfering with
Martins's right as a resident to walk the streets of the neighborhood
he lived in. Zimmerman had no right to interfere with anybody's right
to transit the neighborhood. He just had half his neighbors afraid to
leave their houses.

[Bruce S]

I spent too much time watching courts tell legislators that what those
legislators thought a law meant was not what it actually said to care
what Baxley thinks.

I can think of cases from both AZ and NV in which laws were passed - and
everyone knew what those laws were supposed to mean - and then the State
Supreme Court reviewed those laws and informed everyone that what the
politicians had intended to write was not what they actually wrote.

In AZ it meant that hundreds of prisoners got out of prison over 2 years
sooner than the legislature intended, and in NV it meant that they spent
an extra 1.5 years in custody.

One thing I learned dealing with both those laws was to read what they
actually wrote, not what they meant to write. I spent most of my career
reading laws, I have a very good understanding of what they say,
regardless of what was intended.

[D-R]

On 4/30/2012 8:23 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>
> One thing I learned dealing with both those laws was to read what they
> actually wrote, not what they meant to write. I spent most of my career
> reading laws, I have a very good understanding of what they say,
> regardless of what was intended.

The law of unintended consequences !!!


--

AJ -- To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Payne

[Bruce S]

On 5/1/2012 6:16 AM, D-R wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 8:23 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>
>> One thing I learned dealing with both those laws was to read what they
>> actually wrote, not what they meant to write. I spent most of my career
>> reading laws, I have a very good understanding of what they say,
>> regardless of what was intended.
>
> The law of unintended consequences !!!

In the two cases I am thinking of it was not unintended consequences, it
was sloppy writing. The AZ law was supposed to guarantee that anyone
convicted of robbery with a gun spent a minimum of five years in prison
- no probation, no parole, no early release, just five yours inside.

But when they wrote the law, they specified that those prisoners could
not earn any "good time credits" toward the minimum time they must
serve. A smart lawyer figured out that if the law specified that good
time could not be used on the minimum time, but did not specify that it
could not be accrued toward the maximum release date, then it could
count towards the max.

What that meant was that a person with a five year sentence would end up
having a minimum release date five years in the future, but (due to good
time credits reducing the max) he would complete his sentence in 2.5 years.

As I said, not an unintended consequence per se, but sloppy writing that
could have been avoided simply by having someone read it with a critical
eye.

[D-R]

On 5/1/2012 12:50 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>
> As I said, not an unintended consequence per se, but sloppy writing that
> could have been avoided simply by having someone read it with a critical
> eye.
>

Totally agree with you but it is frustrating when a politician says
something to the effect of - that is not what I meant... Saw that
years ago with some "entitlement" legislation. Legislation meant to
restrict access to food stamps by foreign students actually gave them
access to more benefits.

[Bruce S]

On 5/1/2012 12:41 PM, D-R wrote:
> On 5/1/2012 12:50 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>
>> As I said, not an unintended consequence per se, but sloppy writing that
>> could have been avoided simply by having someone read it with a critical
>> eye.
>>
>
> Totally agree with you but it is frustrating when a politician says
> something to the effect of - that is not what I meant... Saw that years
> ago with some "entitlement" legislation. Legislation meant to restrict
> access to food stamps by foreign students actually gave them access to
> more benefits.

Unfortunately true far more often than it should be.

[Larry]

On 30 Apr 2012 17:02:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:

>
>Considering that it was an opion comment not reporting and stated as
>such in the part you cut off, the only fact is that it's about as
>stupid to try to discuss anything with you as it is with LZ or Lon.

When you state your (opion sic) maybe you should make it known that it
is your OPINION.

[nothermark]

It would seem it's fairly reasonable to assume things are opinion
unless there are supporting links. Even then one has to watch the
links.