EVIDENCE: Travon had bruised knuckles, Zimmerman suffered broken nose,

[J]

I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
needed to be taken.









http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Zimmerman-medical-report









The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the
Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken; he also
had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a
bruised upper lip, and a back injury. He was examined by the doctor the
day after the shooting. The three-page medical report will likely be
used as evidence for the defense.


Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that other than his gunshot
wound, the only injury on Martin was that the skin on his knuckles was
broken. Combined with the evidence from Zimmerman's medical report, the
logical conclusion is that Martin was beating up Zimmerman severely
before Zimmerman shot him.


Zimmerman was eager to get back to work, and visited the doctor,
according to ABC News, to “get legal clearance to return to work.”
Zimmerman was not hospitalized the night of the shooting. As ABC News
reports, “In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman complained of
stress and ‘occasional nausea when thinking about the violence.’” The
doctor made notes suggesting that it was “imperative” that Zimmerman
visit a “psychologist for evaluation.”


ABC News, of course, is the same outlet that originally released poorly
pixelated photos of Zimmerman the night of the incident from the police
station with the headline, “Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or
Bruises on George Zimmerman.” MSNBC followed suit with an article
headlined, "Police video of Zimmerman shows no sign of scuffle."


While it is now clear that the media got it entirely wrong as far as
what happened that night – they tried to paint it as a clear-cut
situation of “white Hispanic” Zimmerman stalking and shooting young
black man Trayvon Martin – ABC News is still attempting to lay the
predicate for the idea that Zimmerman was an unstable character
responsible for the violence. Today’s ABC News report on the medical
records states, “According to the report, prior to the shooting
Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that
can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer
than 10 percent of patients.” Thus far, however, ABC News has nothing to
say about the broken skin on Martin's knuckles.













--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, J <jdyo...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
> nothing

"...would have did nothing"

Seriously?

> if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
> needed to be taken.

Why is it okay for George Zimmerman to defend himself, but not okay for
Trayvon Martin to defend HIMself?

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[Christopher A. Lee]

The poice rules for active neighbourhood watch say not to do anythong
yourself but call them, and not to carry a gun.

Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin and called it in, but was told explicitly
not to follow him - which makes me wonder if he had done soon previous
occasions.

He was drving an unmarkked vehicle - around here they are painted
white and have something like "private security patrol" on the side,
nor was he wearing anything that identified himself.

He followed and accosted Trayvon with a "What are you doing here?" and
didn't even identify himself verbally.

If anybody can claim he was "standing his ground" as per Florida law
it woud have been Trayvon.

The police are trained what to do when they see something they think
is suspicious,so this sort of thing doesn't happen to innocent people.
They identify themselves as such.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:03:02 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>
>I wonder

Why you're so lonely?

[BroilJAB]

Remember that NBC forged the 911 tapes,
continually posted faked pictures, and
concealed evidence. After George Zimmer
is cleared, he likely will rake in million$
from NBC and CBS. Would love to act as
his attorney. There would be no remote
necessity for Trial. Simply contact their
Claims Agent and say, 'Pay up BIG, or
you will pay much BIGGER at trial'.
Remember Dr.Hatfill, and Richard Jewel,
whom the marxist media had tried to
crucify --and each filing suit for cash
'injury', with gratifying results.

[John Baker]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:20:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:

Leave it to IBen to *always* be on the wrong side.

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:5ks1vc....@news.alt.net:

>
> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
> Zimmeramn himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the
> action that needed to be taken.

Martin was minding his own business - why didn't Zimmerman?

[GOD LLC]

On May 16, 1:03 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
> needed to be taken.
>

> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Zimmerman-medical-...

> jdyou...@ymail.com

ABC is Disney bullshit trying to get more suckers to visit the Sanford/
Orlando area

[Lookout]

On the tape, which ran on NBC's "Today" show, Zimmerman appears to
tell dispatch, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks
black," before shooting Martin.

In fact, the full dialogue was as follows:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on
drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking
about.

DISPATCHER: OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.


What's the big deal? Zimmerman said "He looks black". They edited for
times sake..the meaning is still the same.

[Dakota]

Perhaps it was because he told the 911 attendant "those a**holes always
get away" and this time he damned well wasn't going to let a black kid
walking home from the store get away.

[harry k]

On May 15, 10:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
> needed to be taken.
>

> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Zimmerman-medical-...

> jdyou...@ymail.com

The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears to
be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.

Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even remotely
brings "stand y our ground law" into the case. Zimmeraman had no
opportunity to retreat.

Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of the
case.

Harry K

[de...@dudu.org]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:05:52 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Zimmerman, who is white, had been tailing the young African-American
in his car because he felt Martin was “a suspicious person.” At some
point, Zimmerman called 911. He told a dispatcher, "This guy looks
like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something," and said that
he was going to detain Martin because “These a**holes... They always
get away.” The dispatcher told Zimmerman that a unit was being
dispatched to the scene and asked Zimmerman to refrain from
approaching Martin.

[Lookout]

Because you're wrong.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 16, 9:25 am, Scheißekopf <Deep...@imafuckinglyingliberal.org>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:05:52 -0500, Lookout <mrlooko...@yahoo.com>

In response to a direct question by the Sanford PD dispatcher: it
wasn't an unsolicited, spontaneous statement on the part of George
Zimmerman, Andy.

Do try to "compress" the difference.

>
>> They edited for times sake..the meaning is still the same.
>

Then why did they apologize for the incident and fire the producer who
had the tape edited if it was "edited for times {SIC} sake," Andy?

Moreover:

NBC's Bad Edit Pre-dated Today Show And Still Appears on NBC News
Sites
By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 08:50:00 AM EST

Saturday and Sunday, Reuters reported it had interviewed MSNBC News
President Steve Capus and others at NBC and got "the fullest
explanation yet" of the network's racially-charged, misleading edit of
George Zimmerman's 911 call that appeared on the Today Show on March
27. It was just a matter of time pressures inherent in morning news
production, that was simply missed by the network's editorial
controls, which include senior broadcast producer oversight, script
editors, and sometimes legal standards review.

As part of the investigation, the producer who edited the call was
questioned extensively about motivation, and it was determined that
the person had cut the video clip down to meet a maximum time
requirement for the length of the segment - a common pressure in
morning television - and inadvertently edited the call in a way that
proved misleading.

In checking LexisNexis last night, I noticed the March 27 Today Show
segment was the second time the Today Show used the inappropriate
edit. The first was on March 22, 2012, in a segment titled "Fallout
from the Trayvon Martin shooting includes calls for Sanford police
chief to resign". The segment featured a live report by NBC reporter
Lilia Luciano in Sanford. The video, which was linked to by Luciano
that day on her Twitter Feed, has been removed from the Today Show
Website (although part of the transcript is still there, racial quote
and all). From the transcript on Lexis:

LUCIANO: ...the teen gunned down by Neighborhood Watchman George
Zimmerman last month as he walked through this gated community wearing
a hoodie.

(Clip from 911 call)

Mr. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks
black.

Unidentified 911 Operator: Did you see what he was wearing?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN: Yeah, a dark hoodie.

(End of clip)

This is the same thing the Today Show aired on March 27:

Luciano's live report on the March 22 Today Show, which included the
distorted quote, was followed by a discussion between Matt Lauer,
TODAY's legal correspondent Savannah Guthrie and commentator and
former prosecutor Star Jones. To their credit, none of them referred
to the words on the played clip. On the other hand, they also didn't
notice the clip falsely portrayed the 9/11 call. Neither, apparently,
did reporter Luciano or anyone at the editorial controls of the Today
Show.

According to the transcript of the call, here's what was actually
said:

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. …

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and
there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the
best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks
like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining

and he's just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans
or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was
just staring…

Again, while NBC's video for Luciano's March 22 Today Show segment has
been removed, the transcript is still there, with the misquote. It
reads:

reporter: the teen gunned down last month as he walked through this
gated community wearing a hoody.

>> he looks like he's up to no good. he looks black.

>> did you see what he was wearing?

>> yeah, a dark hoody.

But the Today Show is only half the story. Via Tom McGuire and Les
Jones, news articles on NBC 6 Miami's website ran the same misleading,
prejudicial edit in two articles days before either episode of Today
Show aired, on March 19 at 7:02 pm and March 20 at 8:10 pm. (Scroll to
the bottom of the articles for the original publication date and time.
You can also see the original dates match the dates comments began.)

I found a third article with an original date stamp of March 19 at 11:
21 pm (again, scroll to the bottom to see it.)

Incredibly, all three articles are still on NBC 6 Miami's website,,
distorted quote and all.

How did all these misquotes happen? As Les Jones discovered, and Tom
Maguire amplifies, they began with news articles posted on NBC 6
Miami's website on March 19 and 20.

The March 20 NBC 6 Miami article, by Jeff Burnside, has the headline
"Trayvon Martin's Shooter Defended By Fellow Neighborhood Watch
Captain." The distorted edit hardly seems like an oversight, since
there's a hyperlink under the prejudicial quote which leads to the
first article originally dated March 19 at 7:02 pm (since updated on
April 2 -- another missed chance to correct), headlined White House
Monitoring Trayvon Martin Case as Protests Mount. The authors of this
March 19 article are Christina Hernandez, Jeff Burnside and Edward B.
Colby. From the March 20 article by Jeff Burnside:

Their confrontation ended with Martin getting shot in the chest.“This
guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” Zimmerman told a
police dispatcher from his car. His father has said that Zimmerman is
Hispanic, grew up in a multiracial family, and is not racist.

When you click on the link, you go to the March 19 article, which
says:

On his call to police, Zimmerman called Martin, a junior at Krop
Senior High School in Miami, “a real suspicious guy.”

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” Zimmerman
said, while calling police from his car. He said Martin was wearing a
gray hoodie and had “his hand in his waistband.”

So the first article with the bad edit was by Christina Hernandez,
Jeff Burnside and Edward B. Colby on March 19. Christina Hernandez is
also the author of the article I found published later that night,
while Jeff Burnside is the author of the March 20 article. The Today
show segments aired March 22 and March 27.

As of today, Jeff Burnside still has a bio at NBC 6 Miami. Edward B.
Colby does not, although maybe he never did. Does he work for NBC or
is he a free-lancer or AP reporter? It's hard to tell. This February
12, 2012 article says it is written "By NBC Miami's Jeff Burnside and
Edward B. Colby and MSNBC Staff." This February 23 article has the
byline "Edward B. Colby, NBC Miami."And while the Associated Press is
also credited on the article Colby co-authored on Zimmerman, he wrote
a lot for NBC 6 Miami -- a search of its website shows more than 155
articles written or co-written by Colby.

Christina Hernandez is still listed on NBC 6 Miami's website, as is
her March 19 article, Father of Teen Shot in Sanford Working "To Bring
Justice For My Son", with the mangled, distorted edit of the call:

In his call to 911, Zimmerman said, "There's a real suspicious guy.
This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.
He looks black."

So the blatant, racially charged distortion of George Zimmerman's 911
call started on NBC 6 Miami on March 19, appearing in two articles by
three different writers. It was repeated on March 20 in an article
attributed to one of the three writers. The articles have been
updated, but the quotes remain. The mis-quote aired on the Today Show
on March 22 during a live segment with reporter Lilia Luciano, and
again on March 27 with reporter Ron Allen.

For NBC and MSNBC to characterize the error as a single episode caused
by a producer's time constraints in getting a video clip ready for
live morning television, which just unfortunately happened to be
missed by layers of editorial control, is not very convincing.

While of course I have no way of knowing, it seems to me the botched
editing was not an intentional attempt to smear George Zimmerman. I
think it was the result of carelessness, inattention and incompetence.
What's truly disturbing is that editorial controls at NBC, MSNBC and
NBC 6 Miami, all failed to catch the error, not once, but five times.
That's nothing short of inexcusable.

While the producer who put the clip together bears the initial blame,
as do the reporters who included it in their live segments and the
writers who included it in their articles, I think the people equally
accountable and deserving of being fired are the script editor, the
senior producers responsible for oversight, and those in the legal and
standards review departments. It was their job to catch errors before
they hit the airwaves and internet and they failed miserably. It's
like they were all out to lunch -- all day for seven days. And the
articles haven't been corrected to this day.

It also seems that NBC 6 Miami has a systemic problem. Their writers
are repeating false information from one story to the next, spreading
it like a virus. Not just one writer, but several. Not just one time,
but multiple times. Even after two weeks, and notwithstanding updates
to the original articles, the three articles with the distorted,
racially charged quote are still up on NBC 6 Miami's website. I think
the responsibility for that lies with NBC 6 Miami's senior management.
They need a jolt. Demoting them or transferring them to the boondocks
would be a good start. It would also send the appropriate message to
their replacements.

One last thought: Whatever happened to "fact-checkers?" Did NBC
eliminate their jobs as a cost-cutting move? If so, they should bring
them back. The sooner the better.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/9/43020/94141
>
> Zimmerman, who is white...
>
George Zimmerman is an Hispanic Democrat with black Peruvian roots in
his parentage, Scheißekopf; and your intentional act of ignoring that
fact is prima facie evidence of your racist dishonesty.

But, of course; you have already stated why no one should believe a
thing you write here:

"I didn't really think anybody would actually be gullible enough to
believe me."
--Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu", Sat, 05 Nov. 2011

As well as:

"ain't it great to be crazy?"
— Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu", Thu, 24 Mar 2011

And here's what you think about people who don't fall for your crap:

"If you people don't fucking wise up soon we are going
to have to start shooting you."

What's with that "we" shit, Scheißekopf; you have a mouse in your
pocket?

[John Baker]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT), harry k
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

He had the opportunity to avoid the entire incident by merely staying
in his truck as he was instructed to do and letting the police do the
investigating. For that matter, there *was* no incident until
Zimmerman created one. Martin wasn't bothering anyone until Zimmerman
decided to bother him.

Odd that I've not seen the Zimmerman supporters mentioning that...


>
>Harry K

[max headroom]

de...@dudu.org <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:m5e7r75ibkpvumhdq...@4ax.com:

> Zimmerman, who is white,...

Hispanic

> ... had been tailing the young African-American

> in his car because he felt Martin was "a suspicious person." At some

> point, Zimmerman called 911....

No, he called the non-emergency line.

> ... He told a dispatcher, "This guy looks

> like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something," and said that

> he was going to detain Martin...

Cite?

> ... because "These a**holes... They always

> get away." The dispatcher told Zimmerman that a unit was being
> dispatched to the scene and asked Zimmerman to refrain from
> approaching Martin.

The dispatcher told Zimmerman it wasn't necessary to tail him.

You have so many mistakes in your scenario, why do you wonder that no one finds you credible?

[max headroom]

John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in news:13o7r7l49nnmmpv57...@4ax.com:

> in his truck as he was instructed to do...

False.

> ... and letting the police do the

> investigating. For that matter, there *was* no incident until

> Zimmerman created one....

Cite?

> ... Martin wasn't bothering anyone until Zimmerman decided to bother him.

Cite?

> Odd that I've not seen the Zimmerman supporters mentioning that...

Maybe because they're all figments of your imagination.

[tirebiter]

On May 16, 4:34 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:20:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> >In article <5ks1vc.m09.1...@news.alt.net>, J <jdyou...@ymail.com>

It seems that Martin saw Zimmerman stalking him and tried to avoid
him. When Zimmerman eventually approached him, Martin asked why he
was following him. There is strong evidence that Zimmerman started
the physical attack.

Clearly Martin was scared about being pursued by Zimmerman and
although he did not initiate the fight, he didn't run away from it
either. He had the same right to be there as his attacker did.

But he found out too late he brought fists to a gun fight.

---
a.a. #2273

[Syd M.]

On May 16, 1:03 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
> beating the crap out of you.

Since it didn't happen, yer analogy is moot.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On May 16, 6:32 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Remember that NBC forged the 911 tapes,
> continually posted faked pictures, and
> concealed evidence. After George Zimmer
> is cleared,

Won't happen, bigot.

PDW

[Lookout]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:01 -0700, "max headroom"
<maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote:

>John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in news:13o7r7l49nnmmpv57...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT), harry k
>> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears to
>>> be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.
>
>>> Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even remotely
>>> brings "stand y our ground law" into the case. Zimmeraman had no
>>> opportunity to retreat.
>
>>> Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of the
>>> case.
>
>> He had the opportunity to avoid the entire incident by merely staying
>> in his truck as he was instructed to do...
>
>False.
>

Nope, true.

>
>> ... and letting the police do the
>> investigating. For that matter, there *was* no incident until
>> Zimmerman created one....
>
>Cite?
>

AHAHHAHHa

>
>> ... Martin wasn't bothering anyone until Zimmerman decided to bother him.
>
>Cite?
>

He was walking home.

>
>> Odd that I've not seen the Zimmerman supporters mentioning that...
>
>Maybe because they're all figments of your imagination.
>

Nah..you're just wrong again.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:m5e7r75ibkpvumhdq...@4ax.com:

So is Obama by that criteria. However, Obama looks black and Zimmerman
looks hispanic.

had been tailing the young African-American
> in his car

He wasn't in a car....he was in a truck per his own words.

because he felt Martin was “a suspicious person.” At some
> point, Zimmerman called 911.

He called the non-emergency line at Sanford PD.

He told a dispatcher, "This guy looks
> like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something," and said that
> he was going to detain Martin

No, he didn't. He made the comment about the always getting away when
he saw that Martin was headed for the back entrance to the community. He
never told the dispatcher that he was going to detain Martin.

because “These a**holes... They always
> get away.” The dispatcher told Zimmerman that a unit was being
> dispatched to the scene and asked Zimmerman to refrain from
> approaching Martin.

No, he didn't. The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" when
Zimmerman started chase Martin on foot and Zimmerman replied "OK".
Zimmerman then claims that he went to get a house number and was
approached by Martin when returning to his truck.



--

If you are trying find a laundry detergent that removes bloodstains
from clothing......perhaps, the problem is not your detergent...
You need to find a new circle of friends!!!


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

harry k <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:82031488-af12-483d-b95e-
6a5dd7...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com:

Correct on the SYG part.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:jle7r798au4pf4plo...@4ax.com:

Just what is he wrong about?

[RD Sandman]

John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in
news:13o7r7l49nnmmpv57...@4ax.com:

He was already out of his truck and following Martin when dispatch said,
"We don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman replied "OK".

and letting the police do the
> investigating. For that matter, there *was* no incident until
> Zimmerman created one. Martin wasn't bothering anyone until Zimmerman
> decided to bother him.
>
> Odd that I've not seen the Zimmerman supporters mentioning that...

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:r238r7dmg1323ijq9...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:01 -0700, "max headroom"
> <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in
>>news:13o7r7l49nnmmpv57...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT), harry k
>>> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears
>>>> to be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.
>>
>>>> Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even
>>>> remotely brings "stand y our ground law" into the case.
>>>> Zimmeraman had no opportunity to retreat.
>>
>>>> Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of
>>>> the case.
>>
>>> He had the opportunity to avoid the entire incident by merely
>>> staying in his truck as he was instructed to do...
>>
>>False.
>>
> Nope, true.

Nope. Zimmerman was already out of his truck when instructed by police
dispatch "We don't need you to do that" and he replied "OK".

[RD Sandman]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7be9c407-994d-486b-
ace1-fc2...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

And how do you know that? I don't know that for sure and neither do you.

[Syd M.]

On May 16, 2:20 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <5ks1vc.m09.1...@news.alt.net>, J <jdyou...@ymail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
> > nothing
>

> "...would have did nothing"
>
> Seriously?
>

> > if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was

> > beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
> > the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
> > himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
> > needed to be taken.
>

> Why is it okay for George Zimmerman to defend himself, but not okay for
> Trayvon Martin to defend HIMself?
>

Because Zimmerman is white, of course. Black people have no rights, at
least according to bigots like IBen.

PDW

[WangoTango]

In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...

>
> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did

> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was

> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
> needed to be taken.

What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to cower
down and submit to a loon?

[WangoTango]

In article <XnsA0558A7A...@216.196.121.131>, rdsandman
[spamremove]@comcast.net says...

> Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:jle7r798au4pf4plo...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT), harry k
> > <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On May 15, 10:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
> >>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
> >>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman
> >>> from the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
> >>> Zimmeramn himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the
> >>> action that needed to be taken.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Zimmerman-medical-
> >>> ...
> >>>

> >>> The medical report from George Zimmerman=3Fs family doctor after the
> >>> Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman=3Fs nose was broken; he

> >>> also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his
> >>> head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury. He was examined by the
> >>> doctor the day after the shooting. The three-page medical report
> >>> will likely be used as evidence for the defense.
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that other than his
> >>> gunshot wound, the only injury on Martin was that the skin on his
> >>> knuckles was broken. Combined with the evidence from Zimmerman's
> >>> medical report, the logical conclusion is that Martin was beating up
> >>> Zimmerman severely before Zimmerman shot him.
> >>>
> >>> Zimmerman was eager to get back to work, and visited the doctor,

> >>> according to ABC News, to =3Fget legal clearance to return to work.=3F

> >>> Zimmerman was not hospitalized the night of the shooting. As ABC

> >>> News reports, =3FIn addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman
> >>> complained of stress and =3Foccasional nausea when thinking about the
> >>> violence.=3F=3F The doctor made notes suggesting that it was
> >>> =3Fimperative=3F that Zimmerman visit a =3Fpsychologist for evaluation.=3F

> >>>
> >>> ABC News, of course, is the same outlet that originally released
> >>> poorly pixelated photos of Zimmerman the night of the incident from

> >>> the police station with the headline, =3FTrayvon Martin Video Shows No
> >>> Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman.=3F MSNBC followed suit with an

> >>> article headlined, "Police video of Zimmerman shows no sign of
> >>> scuffle."
> >>>
> >>> While it is now clear that the media got it entirely wrong as far as

> >>> what happened that night =3F they tried to paint it as a clear-cut
> >>> situation of =3Fwhite Hispanic=3F Zimmerman stalking and shooting young
> >>> black man Trayvon Martin =3F ABC News is still attempting to lay the

> >>> predicate for the idea that Zimmerman was an unstable character

> >>> responsible for the violence. Today=3Fs ABC News report on the medical
> >>> records states, =3FAccording to the report, prior to the shooting

> >>> Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications
> >>> that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but

> >>> in fewer than 10 percent of patients.=3F Thus far, however, ABC News

> >>> has nothing to say about the broken skin on Martin's knuckles.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> J Young
> >>> jdyou...@ymail.com
> >>
> >>The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears to
> >>be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.
> >>
> >>Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even remotely
> >>brings "stand y our ground law" into the case. Zimmeraman had no
> >>opportunity to retreat.
> >>
> >>Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of the
> >>case.
> >>
> >>Harry K
> >>
> > Because you're wrong.
> >
>
> Just what is he wrong about?

Well, at what point does Zimmermann going after the kid not come into
play? There would have been NO reason to retreat if he hadn't gone
after him in the first place. Initial force was applied by Zimmermann.

[WangoTango]

In article <XnsA0558AB0...@216.196.121.131>, rdsandman
[spamremove]@comcast.net says...
> >

> > He had the opportunity to avoid the entire incident by merely staying
> > in his truck as he was instructed to do
>
> He was already out of his truck and following Martin when dispatch said,
> "We don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman replied "OK".

Uh huh?
OK, doesn't mean he is going to comply...

[George Plimpton]

On 5/16/2012 2:12 PM, WangoTango wrote:
> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>
>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>> needed to be taken.
>
> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
> illegally "detain" you?

Zimmerman was not "chasing down" Martin and there is no evidence at all
that he "tried to illegally 'detain'" him.

[George Plimpton]

No, you have no reason whatever to conclude that. In fact, it is more
likely that Martin is the one who initiated violence, and *not*
defensively. Zimmerman says that Martin asked him if Zimmerman had a
"problem" with Martin, to which Zimmerman said no; Martin then allegedly
said, "Well, now you do" and slugged Zimmerman in the face.

The evidence, scant as it is, points to Martin being the aggressor.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:26:06 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

You're a complete liar. Clearly if Zimmerman had simply stayed in his
truck like the 911 operator informed him to do then this never would
have happened. He never would have had to claim stand your ground
immunity, and a decent teenage kid would not be dead. Worst part is
trash like you don't care a kid is dead.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Vigilante is the right word.

He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed weapons
permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
neighbourhood watch patrol".

Even if he gets off, which as the instigator he shouldn't, the law
will be changed to enforce this.

[George Plimpton]

I'm not a liar at all.

> Clearly if Zimmerman had simply stayed in his
> truck like the 911 operator informed him to do then this never would
> have happened.

Zimmerman had every right, and reason, to keep an eye on Martin. In
Zimmerman's opinion, Martin was behaving suspiciously.

> He never would have had to claim stand your ground
> immunity, and a decent teenage kid would not be dead.

"Decent teenage kid" my ass. There is more than ample evidence Martin
was headed into life as a thug.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:05 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

He was pursuing him contrary to the instructions of the 911 operator.
That much is a fact and is evidenced by the 911 tapes. Zimmerman
should have simply stayed in his truck and let the real police do
their jobs.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/16/2012 2:29 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>
>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>> needed to be taken.
>>
>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>> illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to cower
>> down and submit to a loon?
>
> Vigilante is the right word.

It's bullshit. He was no more a vigilante than my cat is.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/16/2012 2:31 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2012 2:12 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>>> needed to be taken.
>>>
>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>> illegally "detain" you?
>>
>> Zimmerman was not "chasing down" Martin and there is no evidence at all
>> that he "tried to illegally 'detain'" him.
>
> He was pursuing him contrary to the instructions of the 911 operator.

The police dispatcher - not a "911 operator" - did not issue
"instructions." He or she said that Zimmerman didn't "need" to follow
Martin. It wasn't a police command or order, and it has no force of law
of any kind.

> That much is a fact and is evidenced by the 911 tapes. Zimmerman
> should have simply stayed in his truck and let the real police do
> their jobs.

Zimmerman had every right, and in his mind adequate reason, to follow
Martin and try to observe him.

[Scout]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:13o7r7l49nnmmpv57...@4ax.com...

>>> what happened that night - they tried to paint it as a clear-cut

>>> situation of "white Hispanic" Zimmerman stalking and shooting young

>>> black man Trayvon Martin - ABC News is still attempting to lay the

>>> predicate for the idea that Zimmerman was an unstable character
>>> responsible for the violence. Today's ABC News report on the medical
>>> records states, "According to the report, prior to the shooting
>>> Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that
>>> can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer
>>> than 10 percent of patients." Thus far, however, ABC News has nothing to
>>> say about the broken skin on Martin's knuckles.
>>>
>>> --
>>> J Young
>>> jdyou...@ymail.com
>>
>>The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears to
>>be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.
>>
>>Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even remotely
>>brings "stand y our ground law" into the case. Zimmeraman had no
>>opportunity to retreat.
>>
>>Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of the
>>case.
>
> He had the opportunity to avoid the entire incident by merely staying
> in his truck as he was instructed to do

Excuse me, but please cite for me exactly when he was instructed to stay in
his truck?


I suggest that you don't know enough about the known facts to have an
informed opinion.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0558B7C7...@216.196.121.131...

> Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:r238r7dmg1323ijq9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:01 -0700, "max headroom"
>> <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in
>>>news:13o7r7l49nnmmpv57...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT), harry k
>>>> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears
>>>>> to be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.
>>>
>>>>> Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even
>>>>> remotely brings "stand y our ground law" into the case.
>>>>> Zimmeraman had no opportunity to retreat.
>>>
>>>>> Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of
>>>>> the case.
>>>
>>>> He had the opportunity to avoid the entire incident by merely
>>>> staying in his truck as he was instructed to do...
>>>
>>>False.
>>>
>> Nope, true.
>
> Nope. Zimmerman was already out of his truck when instructed by police
> dispatch "We don't need you to do that" and he replied "OK".

And that had to do with following....not getting out of his truck.

[Scout]

"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a1de32c5...@news.east.earthlink.net...

True....but then it wasn't a command either.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:33:45 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 5/16/2012 2:31 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/16/2012 2:12 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>>> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>>>> needed to be taken.
>>>>
>>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>>> illegally "detain" you?
>>>
>>> Zimmerman was not "chasing down" Martin and there is no evidence at all
>>> that he "tried to illegally 'detain'" him.
>>
>> He was pursuing him contrary to the instructions of the 911 operator.
>
>The police dispatcher - not a "911 operator" - did not issue
>"instructions." He or she said that Zimmerman didn't "need" to follow
>Martin. It wasn't a police command or order, and it has no force of law
>of any kind.

Of course now you must play word games. Reasonable people understand
what the "dispatcher" was instructing Zimmerman to do. Private
citizens should not be pursuing "suspects"

>
>
>> That much is a fact and is evidenced by the 911 tapes. Zimmerman
>> should have simply stayed in his truck and let the real police do
>> their jobs.
>
>Zimmerman had every right, and in his mind adequate reason, to follow
>Martin and try to observe him.

No, he's clearly as crazy as you are.

[Scout]

"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.2a1de2d9c...@news.east.earthlink.net...

Never unless he violated some law by doing so.

Can you cite any law he violated by following Martin?

> There would have been NO reason to retreat if he hadn't gone
> after him in the first place.

True, and if Martin had stayed home it would also have been a moot issue, or
if a dog had started chasing Martin, or if Martin had a drink of water and
an apple instead.

Sure, we can play what-if all day long, but none of it is relevant to the
confrontation that occurred.

> Initial force was applied by Zimmermann.

Cite.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:ut68r71ot718hs1sv...@4ax.com...

Cite that Zimmerman was told this.

You claim to know the facts in the case Dudu, so either you can cite your
source for this, or we can simply accept that Klaus needs to document yet
another lied told by you.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:m5e7r75ibkpvumhdq...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:05:52 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 03:32:49 -0700 (PDT), BroilJAB
>><Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Remember that NBC forged the 911 tapes,
>>>continually posted faked pictures, and
>>>concealed evidence. After George Zimmer
>>>is cleared, he likely will rake in million$
>>>from NBC and CBS. Would love to act as
>>>his attorney. There would be no remote
>>>necessity for Trial. Simply contact their
>>>Claims Agent and say, 'Pay up BIG, or
>>>you will pay much BIGGER at trial'.
>>>Remember Dr.Hatfill, and Richard Jewel,
>>>whom the marxist media had tried to
>>>crucify --and each filing suit for cash
>>>'injury', with gratifying results.
>>
>>On the tape, which ran on NBC's "Today" show, Zimmerman appears to
>>tell dispatch, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks
>>black," before shooting Martin.
>>
>>In fact, the full dialogue was as follows:
>>
>> ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on
>>drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking
>>about.
>>

>> DISPATCHER: OK, and this guy - is he black, white or Hispanic?

>>
>> ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
>>
>>
>>What's the big deal? Zimmerman said "He looks black". They edited for
>>times sake..the meaning is still the same.
>

> Zimmerman, who is white, had been tailing the young African-American
> in his car because he felt Martin was "a suspicious person." At some
> point, Zimmerman called 911. He told a dispatcher, "This guy looks

> like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something," and said that

> he was going to detain Martin because "These a**holes... They always

> get away." The dispatcher told Zimmerman that a unit was being
> dispatched to the scene and asked Zimmerman to refrain from
> approaching Martin.

Cite that the dispatcher told him to refrain from approaching Martin.

You can do that at the same time you cite that the dispatcher told him to
stay in his truck.

[Scout]

"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.2a1de263e...@news.east.earthlink.net...

> In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>
>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>> needed to be taken.
>
> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
> illegally "detain" you?

Show that Zimmerman chased down Martin and attempt to 'detain' him.

If you can't then your question is bogus because it's built on false
premises.

[Scout]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2q68r75cv3bee19di...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>
>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>> needed to be taken.
>>
>>What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to cower
>>down and submit to a loon?
>
> Vigilante is the right word.

No it's not, but I will accept this demonstration of your ignorance.

> He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed weapons
> permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
> neighbourhood watch patrol".

He wasn't on patrol so your point is moot.

Oh, and FYI, different Neighborhood Watch programs handle things
differently. Where I live, if you have a permit it's not against policy for
you to carry if you chose.

> Even if he gets off, which as the instigator he shouldn't, the law
> will be changed to enforce this.

Why?

[de...@dudu.org]

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

[RD Sandman]

WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2a1de2d9c...@news.east.earthlink.net:

There would have been no reason to retreat if Zimmerman had not decided
to go to Target for groceries or Martin hadn't decided to go to 7/11 for
iced tea and Skittles. Just how far back do you wish to take it.
Perhaps, if Zimmerman had been put in prison 5 years earlier and Martin
hadn't been suspended from school......

Initial force was applied by
> Zimmermann.

And you know this how? I don't know that, I wasn't there and neither
were you. So far, no facts have been presented as to who started the
actual physical contact.

[RD Sandman]

WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2a1de32c5...@news.east.earthlink.net:

That I cannot address and neither can you. We can go by what was said on
the audio. Neither of us know for sure exactly what happened after that.

[RD Sandman]

WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2a1de263e...@news.east.earthlink.net:

> In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>
>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
Zimmeramn
>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>> needed to be taken.
>
> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
> illegally "detain" you?

We don't know that that is what happened. Was it? Possibly. Do you know
for sure? Nope.

I guess Martin was bound by your logic to cower
> down and submit to a loon?

We don't even know for sure who approached who in the final
confrontation.

[RD Sandman]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:2q68r75cv3bee19di...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>
>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman
>>> from the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
>>> Zimmeramn himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the
>>> action that needed to be taken.
>>
>>What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to
>>cower down and submit to a loon?
>
> Vigilante is the right word.
>
> He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed weapons
> permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
> neighbourhood watch patrol".

Couple points here. Yes, he was member of his local neighborhood watch.
However, it was not a member of the national organization. Two, he was
not on duty that night, he was on his way to Target to buy some
groceries. Three, he was licensed to carry that firearm by the State of
Florida.

> Even if he gets off, which as the instigator he shouldn't,

We dont know who the final "instigator" was.

the law
> will be changed to enforce this.

Which law is that?

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:s478r7hi9sp5hbljm...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:05 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/16/2012 2:12 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman
>>>> from the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
>>>> Zimmeramn himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the
>>>> action that needed to be taken.
>>>
>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>> illegally "detain" you?
>>
>>Zimmerman was not "chasing down" Martin and there is no evidence at
>>all that he "tried to illegally 'detain'" him.
>
> He was pursuing him contrary to the instructions of the 911 operator.

It wasn't a 911 operator. It was a non emergency number for the Sanford
Police Department. John Johnston produced that tidbit.

> That much is a fact and is evidenced by the 911 tapes. Zimmerman
> should have simply stayed in his truck and let the real police do
> their jobs.

Zimmerman, apparently, was not in his truck when he received that advice.
He was on foot chasing after Martin and a few seconds later lost him.

[de...@dudu.org]

He should not have been chasing Martin, regardless.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:0a88r79o0fpr4eb5s...@4ax.com:

Zimmerman was NOT in his truck when that exchange occurred. He had
already parked it on Twin Trees and was following Martin on foot. Per
Zimmerman, at that point he lost Martin and went to get a house number
for the police when they showed up. His statement says he was approached
by Martin when he was returning to the truck.

>>You can do that at the same time you cite that the dispatcher told him
>>to stay in his truck.
>>
>

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:b698r79tmjilq057p...@4ax.com:

Perhaps, perhaps not. I used the term chasing him loosely. Martin told
his girlfriend he was being followed and didn't know why. His girl
friend told him to run....apparently he did as that was the point where
Zimmerman lost track of him.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 16, 5:00 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
>
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:2q68r75cv3bee19di...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango

>> <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>In article <5ks1vc.m09.1...@news.alt.net>, jdyou...@ymail.com says...

>
>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman
>>>> from the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
>>>> Zimmeramn himself, can know the danger he was experiencing
>>>> and the action that needed to be taken.
>
>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>> illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to
>>> cower down and submit to a loon?
>
>> Vigilante is the right word.
>
>> He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed
>> weapons permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
>> neighbourhood watch patrol".
>
> Couple points here. Yes, he was member of his local neighborhood watch.
>

Point of fact here, RD: George Zimmermman _was_ the `neighborhood
watch' for the Retreat at Twin Lakes: lock, stock and Kel-Tec barrel.

>
> However, it was not a member of the national organization.
>

The Libs in this news group choose to ignore this fact.

They keep trying to claim that Zimmerman was "bound" to follow the
"guidelines" of an organization (USAonWatch.org) that he didn't even
belong to.

And as Ronnie said:

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're
ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan

>
> Two, he was not on duty that night, he was on his way to Target
> to buy some groceries.
>
> Three, he was licensed to carry that firearm by the State of Florida.
>

>> Even if he gets off, which as the instigator he shouldn't,...

>
> We dont know who the final "instigator" was.
>

>> ...the law will be changed to enforce this.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:28:41 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:

>On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:26:06 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:

>>The evidence, scant as it is, points to Martin being the aggressor.
>
>You're a complete liar. Clearly if Zimmerman had simply stayed in his
>truck like the 911 operator informed him to do then this never would
>have happened. He never would have had to claim stand your ground
>immunity, and a decent teenage kid would not be dead. Worst part is
>trash like you don't care a kid is dead.

If either of them could claim "stand your ground" it would have been
Trayvon Martin.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/16/2012 2:41 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:33:45 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2012 2:31 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2012 2:12 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>>>> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>>>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>>>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>>>>> needed to be taken.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>>>> illegally "detain" you?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman was not "chasing down" Martin and there is no evidence at all
>>>> that he "tried to illegally 'detain'" him.
>>>
>>> He was pursuing him contrary to the instructions of the 911 operator.
>>
>> The police dispatcher - not a "911 operator" - did not issue
>> "instructions." He or she said that Zimmerman didn't "need" to follow
>> Martin. It wasn't a police command or order, and it has no force of law
>> of any kind.
>
> Of course now you must play word games.

There is no game being played here. You race-obsessed leftists are the
ones who have been insisting, wrongly, that a police command was given
to Zimmerman that he disobeyed.

> Reasonable people understand
> what the "dispatcher" was instructing Zimmerman to do. Private
> citizens should not be pursuing "suspects"

Zimmerman wasn't "pursuing" Martin. He was attempting to follow him to
keep an eye on him. It unquestionably was his right to do so.

>>> That much is a fact and is evidenced by the 911 tapes. Zimmerman
>>> should have simply stayed in his truck and let the real police do
>>> their jobs.
>>
>> Zimmerman had every right, and in his mind adequate reason, to follow
>> Martin and try to observe him.
>
> No, he's clearly as crazy as you are.

He isn't crazy, and neither am I. Zimmerman had every right, and in his
own mind perfectly good reason, to follow Martin.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/16/2012 2:46 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2a1de263e...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>
>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>> needed to be taken.
>>
>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>> illegally "detain" you?
>
> Show that Zimmerman chased down Martin and attempt to 'detain' him.

The left, with a precise race-based script to follow, have to torture
the language in order to adhere to the script. So, while the word
"follow" is the correct word to use - Zimmerman followed Martin - they
have to torture the language in order to try to substitute "stalk",
"pursue", "chase", and so on.

[RD Sandman]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9f279ef2-5974-4253-a597-
911b7d...@ec4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> On May 16, 5:00 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:2q68r75cv3bee19di...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango
>>> <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <5ks1vc.m09.1...@news.alt.net>, jdyou...@ymail.com says...
>>
>>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman
>>>>> from the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
>>>>> Zimmeramn himself, can know the danger he was experiencing
>>>>> and the action that needed to be taken.
>>
>>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>>> illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to
>>>> cower down and submit to a loon?
>>
>>> Vigilante is the right word.
>>
>>> He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed
>>> weapons permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
>>> neighbourhood watch patrol".
>>
>> Couple points here. Yes, he was member of his local neighborhood
watch.
>>
> Point of fact here, RD: George Zimmermman _was_ the `neighborhood
> watch' for the Retreat at Twin Lakes: lock, stock and Kel-Tec barrel.

I didn't claim he wasn't the ONLY member. ;) Mostly because I didn't
know.

>> However, it was not a member of the national organization.
>>
> The Libs in this news group choose to ignore this fact.
>
> They keep trying to claim that Zimmerman was "bound" to follow the
> "guidelines" of an organization (USAonWatch.org) that he didn't even
> belong to.

Yep.

[RD Sandman]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:l6b8r7964jv7kppd1...@4ax.com:

That's possible but how do you know that as a fact? We don't know who
started the actual confrontation.

[George Plimpton]

He wasn't.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:48:40 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:2q68r75cv3bee19di...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango
>> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>>> needed to be taken.
>>>
>>>What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>>illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to cower
>>>down and submit to a loon?
>>
>> Vigilante is the right word.
>
>No it's not, but I will accept this demonstration of your ignorance.

No need to lie.

>> He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed weapons
>> permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
>> neighbourhood watch patrol".
>
>He wasn't on patrol so your point is moot.

He went out on regular patrols.

According to Wikipedia he claims he was performing an errand.

And he was told not to follow Trayvon

>Oh, and FYI, different Neighborhood Watch programs handle things
>differently. Where I live, if you have a permit it's not against policy for
>you to carry if you chose.

That will change.

It was policy in Sanford that they don't.

>> Even if he gets off, which as the instigator he shouldn't, the law
>> will be changed to enforce this.
>
>Why?

To prevent this sort of homicide happening again, imbecile.

[George Plimpton]

Unlikely. The accumulating evidence points to Martin being the aggressor.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:s478r7hi9sp5hbljm...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:05 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:

>
>>On 5/16/2012 2:12 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>>> needed to be taken.
>>>
>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>> illegally "detain" you?
>>

>>Zimmerman was not "chasing down" Martin and there is no evidence at all
>>that he "tried to illegally 'detain'" him.
>
> He was pursuing him contrary to the instructions of the 911 operator.

Point of order.... There is no evidence that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin
either before or after that comment was made. Nor was Zimmerman instructed
NOT to follow Martin.

Really Dudu, after all this time you should be better aware of the facts of
this case.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:5m78r75rrlvmllp7u...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:33:45 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/16/2012 2:31 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:05 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2012 2:12 PM, WangoTango wrote:
>>>>> In article<5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>>>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
>>>>>> Zimmeramn
>>>>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>>>>> needed to be taken.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>>>> illegally "detain" you?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman was not "chasing down" Martin and there is no evidence at all
>>>> that he "tried to illegally 'detain'" him.
>>>
>>> He was pursuing him contrary to the instructions of the 911 operator.
>>
>>The police dispatcher - not a "911 operator" - did not issue
>>"instructions." He or she said that Zimmerman didn't "need" to follow
>>Martin. It wasn't a police command or order, and it has no force of law
>>of any kind.
>
> Of course now you must play word games.

Translation: Sticking to the facts.

> Reasonable people understand
> what the "dispatcher" was instructing Zimmerman to do.

No, the only people here who seem to 'understand' what you're claiming was
said are those who have generally shown themselves to be utterly
unreasonable.

>Private
> citizens should not be pursuing "suspects"

Agreed, and there was no evidence that Zimmerman was pursuing anyone.

Following perhaps, but that's not pursuing.

Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:0a88r79o0fpr4eb5s...@4ax.com...

So in Duduland follow means approach?

I accept your admission you neither understand the meaning of these words,
nor that you can support your claim.

[James Burns]

Hypothetically, would Zimmerman have been justified in feeling
even more threatened by Martin if Martin had been following him,
instead of just walking slowly and looking around?

How completely unsurprising it would be if Martin felt he had
every right to walk to the store, and a perfectly good reason
"in his own mind" to feel threatened by being followed.
Unfortunately, we can't ask Martin about that, because he is dead.

It seems to me that your objection can only be that Martin
did not shoot and kill Zimmerman. It cannot be that you are
claiming that Martin should not have stood his ground, because
you seem to have enormous respect for this Florida Stand Your
Ground law.

Martin had bruised knuckles, and Zimmerman had a broken nose
(perhaps -- I haven't seen the news stories). And Martin had
a hole in his chest, and Zimmerman had a gun. Don't forget to
mention that, while you're speculating on what happened.

[Scout]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:5cb8r7djgg44fio8n...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:48:40 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:2q68r75cv3bee19di...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango
>>> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
>>>>> Zimmeramn
>>>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>>>> needed to be taken.
>>>>
>>>>What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to
>>>>illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to cower
>>>>down and submit to a loon?
>>>
>>> Vigilante is the right word.
>>
>>No it's not, but I will accept this demonstration of your ignorance.
>
> No need to lie.

Then isn't it a good thing that I didn't need to?

>>> He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed weapons
>>> permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
>>> neighbourhood watch patrol".
>>
>>He wasn't on patrol so your point is moot.
>
> He went out on regular patrols.

Sure, but THIS time he was going to Target to go shopping.

> According to Wikipedia he claims he was performing an errand.

So he wasn't on patrol by your own source.

> And he was told not to follow Trayvon

No he wasn't. He was told it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin.
That's a far cry from being told not to.

>>Oh, and FYI, different Neighborhood Watch programs handle things
>>differently. Where I live, if you have a permit it's not against policy
>>for
>>you to carry if you chose.
>
> That will change.

I doubt it. Our Neighborhood Watch is pretty liberal about leaving that
choice up to the individual. Nor do I think you will ever be in a position
to alter that.

> It was policy in Sanford that they don't.

Cite.

Oh, and let's not forget that it's a moot point anyway since you're already
agreed he wasn't on patrol.

>>> Even if he gets off, which as the instigator he shouldn't, the law
>>> will be changed to enforce this.
>>
>>Why?
>
> To prevent this sort of homicide happening again, imbecile.

Why? You think changing the rules on Neighborhood Watches would impact what
someone can carry when they are running errands?

Further, assuming this was really self defense, why exactly would you be
opposed to self defense?

Finally, let's assume for a moment that you can ACTUALLY manage to pass some
sort of law that prevents one from carrying while on Neighborhood Watch.

Next Meeting:
Head official: On the matter of new business, due to changes in the law we
are no longer calling ourselves a "Neighborhood Watch" we are now a
"Community Patrol". This change in organizational name will not have any
impact on our policies or procedures, but those of you with hats, shirts,
etc with "Neighborhood Watch" on them are advised to cease wearing those
items if you're going to carry weapons. All members are advised to get new
hats, shirts, etc with the new organizational. name if you go in for that
sort of thing. Any discussion?
Head official: Now moving on to.....

Yep, your law will cease to have any impact within about 7 days of it's
passage, and long before it goes into effect.

[Scout]

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f279ef2-5974-4253...@ec4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

And it should be noted that even those "guidelines" aren't required to be
followed even by the national organization. Hence why they are guidelines
and not rules.
Indeed, the National organization specifically states that each Watch
program should adjust the program to suit themselves.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:b698r79tmjilq057p...@4ax.com...

Maybe, but unless it was illegal he could do so.

[Scout]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l6b8r7964jv7kppd1...@4ax.com...

Not if he was the one that stated the physical conflict.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/16/2012 4:15 PM, James Burns wrote:
> George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/16/2012 2:41 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:33:45 -0700, George Plimpton
>>> <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>>>> Zimmerman had every right, and in his mind adequate reason,
>>>> to follow Martin and try to observe him.
>>>
>>> No, he's clearly as crazy as you are.
>>
>> He isn't crazy, and neither am I. Zimmerman had every right,
>> and in his own mind perfectly good reason, to follow Martin.
>
> Hypothetically, would Zimmerman have been justified in feeling
> even more threatened by Martin if Martin had been following him,
> instead of just walking slowly and looking around?

I'm sure Zimmerman would have been uneasy had Martin, or anyone else,
been following him. Being uneasy doesn't necessarily mean feeling
threatened.

>
> How completely unsurprising it would be if Martin felt he had
> every right to walk to the store, and a perfectly good reason
> "in his own mind" to feel threatened by being followed.
> Unfortunately, we can't ask Martin about that, because he is dead.

Martin apparently was uneasy over being followed, based on what he told
his girlfriend on the phone. However, if indeed he approached and
confronted Zimmerman, that's not the reaction I'd expect from a 17 year
old "innocent" kid dealing with a bigger person. In fact, there is
conjecture that Martin successfully eluded Zimmerman, only to double
back and try to turn the tables on Zimmerman.

>
> It seems to me that your objection can only be that Martin
> did not shoot and kill Zimmerman. It cannot be that you are
> claiming that Martin should not have stood his ground, because
> you seem to have enormous respect for this Florida Stand Your
> Ground law.

My objection is that Martin appears to have initiated the confrontation.
Zimmerman told the police he lost site of Martin, and that suddenly
Martin appeared and confronted him.

> Martin had bruised knuckles, and Zimmerman had a broken nose
> (perhaps -- I haven't seen the news stories). And Martin had
> a hole in his chest, and Zimmerman had a gun. Don't forget to
> mention that, while you're speculating on what happened.

Are you suggesting that Martin incurred bruised knuckles after Zimmerman
shot him? How would that work?

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 16, 3:19 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
>
> Lookout <mrlooko...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:5c26r7lq8aljrhnk4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:19:40 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>>>"Gray Guest" <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA054D89CF49FFWe...@88.198.244.100...
>
>>>> ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose,
>>>> Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting
>>>> PHOTO: George Zimmerman appears for a bond hearing with his attorney
>>>> Mark O'Mara, left, at the John E. Polk Correctional Facility on
>>>> April 12, 2012 in Sanford, Fla.
>>>> By MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) and SENI TIENABESO (@senijr_abc)
>>>> May 15, 2012
>
>>>> A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon
>>>> Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC
>>>> News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture"
>>>> of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head
>>>> and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an
>>>> alleged altercation.
>
>>>> Zimmerman faces a second degree murder charge for the Feb. 26
>>>> shooting that left the unarmed 17-year-old high school junior dead.
>>>> Zimmerman has claimed self defense in what he described as a life
>>>> and death struggle that Martin initiated by accosting him, punching
>>>> him in the face, then repeatedly bashing his head into the pavement.
>
>>>> Also today, a trove of documents are being examined by lawyers for
>>>> both the defense and prosecution as part of discovery in Zimmerman's
>>>> trial -- including 67 CDs worth of documents, video of Martin on the night
>>>> of the shooting, his autopsy report and videos of Zimmerman's
>>>> questioning by police.
>
>>>> Zimmerman's three-page medical report is included in those documents
>>>> that the defense could use as evidence.
>
>>>> Watch World News with Diane Sawyer for the latest on the Trayvon
>>>> Martin shooting and the trial of George Zimmerman.
>
>>>> The morning after the shooting, on Feb. 27, Zimmerman sought
>>>> treatment at the offices of a general physician at a family practice
>>>> near Sanford, Fla. The doctor notes Zimmerman sought an appointment
>>>> to get legal clearance to return to work.
>>>> Making The Case: George Zimmerman Watch Video
>>>> George Zimmerman Charged for Travon Martin's Death Watch Video
>>>> Zimmerman Charged, Appears in Court Watch Video
>
>>>> The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper
>>>> lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of
>>>> his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch
>>>> long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News
>>>> last month.
>
>>>> But the report also shows Zimmerman declined hospitalization the
>>>> night of the shooting, and then declined the advice of his doctor to
>>>> make a follow- up appointment with an ear nose and throat doctor.
>
>>>> In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman complained of stress
>>>> and "occasional nausea when thinking about the violence." But he
>>>> was not diagnosed with a concussion. The doctor noted that it was
>>>> "imperative" that
>>>> Zimmerman "be seen with [sic] his psychologist for evaluation."
>
>>>> According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been
>>>> prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side
>>>> effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10
>>>> percent of patients.
>
>>>> A neighbor told ABC News that the day after the shooting he saw
>>>> Zimmerman as he spoke to officers outside his home. He too recalled
>>>> seeing black eyes and significant swelling -- as well as a bandage over
>>>> his nose.
>
>>>> Moments after the shooting Zimmerman told eyewitnesses he shot
>>>> Martin in self defense. He later told officers his head was being
>>>> pounded into the pavement and that he feared for his life, but that
>>>> it was only when Martin seemed to reach for the gun wedges in his
>>>> waistband that Zimmerman drew his
>>>> weapon and fired directly into Martin's chest -- killing him.
>
>>>> The medical notes may bolster Zimmerman's claim that he acted
>>>> in self-defense because he was being attacked. However, the
>>>> prosecution contends that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation
>>>> after profiling the teen, who was walking home after buying skittles
>>>> and ice tea. They prosecution says Martin was breaking no laws and
>>>> was not disturbing anyone as he walked back
>>>> to his father's girlfriend's home.
>
>>>> Zimmerman was granted a $150,000 bail and has since been in deep
>>>> hiding since his April 20 bail hearing.
>
>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532
>
>>>> --
>>>> I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only
>>>> way to be sure.
>
>>>> What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran
>>>> and the Democrat National Covention.
>
>>>>http://nukeitfromorbit.com/
>
>>>Ah, heck, looks like Dudu is screwed again, after all those times he
>>>claimed there were no injuries and no evidence of any injuries and no
>>>evidence that Zimmerman had been assaulted....
>
>> 'the day AFTER".
>
>> We're still waiting for the EMT reports and police reports.
>
>> You jumped the gun again, dumbass. That's a trait of an immature
>> individual.
>
>> So come back when you grow up, ok?
>
> Speaking of immature individuals........and you show up.
>
You missed Andy's half-assed attempt at making a "point," RD.

He's actually thinking that George Zimmerman pulled a Charles
'Scorpio' Davis¹ and between the time Sanford PD released him when
they completed their FOUR HOUR interrogation and the time he was
examined by his doctor the next morning he hired a "big black guy" to
beat him up, break his nose, blacken his eyes and lacerate his head;
just so that he could claim that Trayvon did it.

Of course, for that to have actually happened, one must ignore the
photo taken by the Retreat at Twin Lakes resident only _minutes_ after
Martin's assault on Zimmerman and Zimmerman''s self-defensive shooting
of Martin:

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4f915bb76bb3f7ab59000054/george-zimmerman-bloody-head.jpg

"Oh wait...I look like a complete asshole"
--Andy "mrLookout" Hull, Sat, June 11 2011

"it's just the anal retentives who like to find something to bitch
about. When they can't complain about your post then they
look for the unimportant shit."
--Andy "mrLookout" Hull, Tue, 19 Feb 2008

Yea, Andy: like the _truth_: a concept totally foreign to you.

>
> --
>
> If you are trying find a laundry detergent that removes bloodstains
> from clothing......perhaps, the problem is not your detergent...
> You need to find a new circle of friends!!!
>
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman)

¹http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066999/

[Gray Guest]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
news:XnsA0558A6B4...@216.196.121.131:

> harry k <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:82031488-af12-483d-b95e-
> 6a5dd7...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com:

>
>> On May 15, 10:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
> Zimmeramn
>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>> needed to be taken.
>>>

>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Zimmerman-
> medical-...
>>>
>>> The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the
>>> Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken; he
> also
>>> had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a
>>> bruised upper lip, and a back injury. He was examined by the doctor
> the
>>> day after the shooting. The three-page medical report will likely be
>>> used as evidence for the defense.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that other than his
> gunshot
>>> wound, the only injury on Martin was that the skin on his knuckles was
>>> broken. Combined with the evidence from Zimmerman's medical report,
> the
>>> logical conclusion is that Martin was beating up Zimmerman severely
>>> before Zimmerman shot him.
>>>
>>> Zimmerman was eager to get back to work, and visited the doctor,
>>> according to ABC News, to “get legal clearance to return to work.”
>>> Zimmerman was not hospitalized the night of the shooting. As ABC News
>>> reports, “In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman complained
> of
>>> stress and ‘occasional nausea when thinking about the violence.’” T
>> he
>>> doctor made notes suggesting that it was “imperative” that Zimmerman
>>> visit a “psychologist for evaluation.”
>>>
>>> ABC News, of course, is the same outlet that originally released
> poorly
>>> pixelated photos of Zimmerman the night of the incident from the
> police
>>> station with the headline, “Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or
>>> Bruises on George Zimmerman.” MSNBC followed suit with an article
>>> headlined, "Police video of Zimmerman shows no sign of scuffle."
>>>
>>> While it is now clear that the media got it entirely wrong as far as
>>> what happened that night – they tried to paint it as a clear-cut
>>> situation of “white Hispanic” Zimmerman stalking and shooting young
>>> black man Trayvon Martin – ABC News is still attempting to lay the
>>> predicate for the idea that Zimmerman was an unstable character
>>> responsible for the violence. Today’s ABC News report on the medical
>>> records states, “According to the report, prior to the shooting

>>> Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that
>>> can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer

>>> than 10 percent of patients.” Thus far, however, ABC News has nothing
> t
>> o
>>> say about the broken skin on Martin's knuckles.
>>>
>>> --
>>> J Young
>>> jdyou...@ymail.com
>>
>> The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears to
>> be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.
>>
>> Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even remotely
>> brings "stand y our ground law" into the case. Zimmeraman had no
>> opportunity to retreat.
>>
>> Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of the
>> case.
>>
>> Harry K
>>
>
> Correct on the SYG part.
>

Kinda hard to retreat when you are laying on the ground getting your head
beat in.

[Gray Guest]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7be9c407-994d-486b-ace1-
fc23fa...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On May 16, 1:03 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>> beating the crap out of you.
>

> Since it didn't happen, yer analogy is moot.
>
> PDW
>

Yes, no self respecting liberal would ever carry a legal firearm.

[Gray Guest]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:2q68r75cv3bee19di...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:12:55 -0400, WangoTango

><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <5ks1vc....@news.alt.net>, jdyo...@ymail.com says...
>>>

>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was

>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman from
>>> the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault, Zimmeramn
>>> himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the action that
>>> needed to be taken.
>>

>>What would *YOU* do if some vigilante chased you down and tried to

>>illegally "detain" you? I guess Martin was bound by your logic to cower
>>down and submit to a loon?
>
> Vigilante is the right word.
>
> He was a wannabe rentacop who even though he had a concealed weapons
> permit, was not supposed to be carrying on his "volunteer
> neighbourhood watch patrol".
>

> Even if he gets off, which as the instigator he shouldn't, the law
> will be changed to enforce this.
>

To enforce what?

[de...@dudu.org]

Why do you keep lying when it's so easy to prove you are full of shit:

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]


>

>Following perhaps, but that's not pursuing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

pur·sue
[per-soo] Show IPA verb, pur·sued, pur·su·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
2.
to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
3.
to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object,
purpose, etc.).
4.
to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
5.
to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an
inquiry, studies, etc.).

>
>Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>

No they should just call the police. And you for once should try not
lying.

[George Plimpton]

Forget it. The police pursue someone; Zimmerman was only following Martin.

[John Baker]

Can you imagine the flood of outrage from the rightards if Zimmerman
had been black and Martin white?

Racist hypocrites, the whole fucking lot of them.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:dsj8r7t6qgjt8ghls...@4ax.com...

Ok, I acknowledge your ignorance of the English language and specifically
the meanings of follow and pursue.

>>Following perhaps, but that's not pursuing.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
>

> pur新ue
> [per-soo] Show IPA verb, pur新ued, pur新u搏ng.

> verb (used with object)
> 1.
> to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
> 2.
> to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
> 3.
> to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object,
> purpose, etc.).
> 4.
> to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
> 5.
> to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an
> inquiry, studies, etc.).

Which has what exactly to do with following someone??

>>Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>>
> No they should just call the police.

He did.

> And you for once should try not
> lying.

I leave the lying to you....since you do so much of it.

[Scout]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:v7p8r7d3edekil0ag...@4ax.com...

Haven't noticed that anyone here other than some racist liberals would think
that it would matter.

> Racist hypocrites, the whole fucking lot of them.

You certainly are. Otherwise, why do you think it's a matter of race?

[de...@dudu.org]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:47:35 -0400, "Scout"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

It's so funny when you get desperate and pathetic.

>
>>>Following perhaps, but that's not pursuing.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
>>
>> pur新ue
>> [per-soo] Show IPA verb, pur新ued, pur新u搏ng.
>> verb (used with object)
>> 1.
>> to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
>> 2.
>> to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
>> 3.
>> to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object,
>> purpose, etc.).
>> 4.
>> to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
>> 5.
>> to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an
>> inquiry, studies, etc.).
>
>Which has what exactly to do with following someone??

They're synonyms, moron.

>
>
>>>Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>>>
>> No they should just call the police.
>
>He did.

And they told him not to follow him.

>
>> And you for once should try not
>> lying.
>
>I leave the lying to you....since you do so much of it.
>

You've just done it about 5 times in this short thread.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:vqq8r75mvkikrpn6g...@4ax.com...

Dudu surrenders without a fight.

>>>>Following perhaps, but that's not pursuing.
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
>>>
>>> pur新ue
>>> [per-soo] Show IPA verb, pur新ued, pur新u搏ng.
>>> verb (used with object)
>>> 1.
>>> to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
>>> 2.
>>> to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
>>> 3.
>>> to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object,
>>> purpose, etc.).
>>> 4.
>>> to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
>>> 5.
>>> to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an
>>> inquiry, studies, etc.).
>>
>>Which has what exactly to do with following someone??
>
> They're synonyms, moron.

Nope.

One involves actually attempting to catch...the other does not.

>>>>Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>>>>
>>> No they should just call the police.
>>
>>He did.
>
> And they told him not to follow him.

Wrong again, they said it wasn't necessary for him to follow. That's a LONG
way from telling him NOT to follow.

You've been told this and shown this over and over. I can only take that to
mean you are intentionally lying about the circumstances.

>>> And you for once should try not
>>> lying.
>>
>>I leave the lying to you....since you do so much of it.
>>
> You've just done it about 5 times in this short thread.

No, your calling it a lie, doesn't make it one. Though your claim may be a
lie if it isn't.

[J]

On 5/16/2012 2:29 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:03:02 -0700, J<jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder
>
> Why you're so lonely?


Thinking is a foreign concept to you, obviously.


--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Räy Fischer]

You lose.

>>>> Following perhaps, but that's not pursuing.
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
>>>
>>> pur新ue
>>> [per-soo] Show IPA verb, pur新ued, pur新u搏ng.
>>> verb (used with object)
>>> 1.
>>> to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
>>> 2.
>>> to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
>>> 3.
>>> to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object,
>>> purpose, etc.).
>>> 4.
>>> to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
>>> 5.
>>> to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an
>>> inquiry, studies, etc.).
>>
>> Which has what exactly to do with following someone??
>
> They're synonyms,

They're not, you fucking cunt. "B" follows "A" in the alphabet, you
goddamned fucking distempered mackerel cunt. Is "B" pursuing "A"?

I'm going to kick your fucking ass. Get your affairs in order.

>>
>>>> Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>>>>
>>> No they should just call the police.
>>
>> He did.
>
> And they told him not to follow him.

No, they didn't, cunt.

>>> And you for once should try not
>>> lying.
>>
>> I leave the lying to you....since you do so much of it.
>>
> You've just done it about

Fuck off. Get your affairs in order, cunt.

[Lookout]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:34:42 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:m5e7r75ibkpvumhdq...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:05:52 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 03:32:49 -0700 (PDT), BroilJAB
>>><Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Remember that NBC forged the 911 tapes,
>>>>continually posted faked pictures, and
>>>>concealed evidence. After George Zimmer
>>>>is cleared, he likely will rake in million$
>>>>from NBC and CBS. Would love to act as
>>>>his attorney. There would be no remote
>>>>necessity for Trial. Simply contact their
>>>>Claims Agent and say, 'Pay up BIG, or
>>>>you will pay much BIGGER at trial'.
>>>>Remember Dr.Hatfill, and Richard Jewel,
>>>>whom the marxist media had tried to
>>>>crucify --and each filing suit for cash
>>>>'injury', with gratifying results.
>>>
>>>On the tape, which ran on NBC's "Today" show, Zimmerman appears to
>>>tell dispatch, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks
>>>black," before shooting Martin.
>>>
>>>In fact, the full dialogue was as follows:
>>>
>>> ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on
>>>drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking
>>>about.
>>>

>>> DISPATCHER: OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?

>>>
>>> ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
>>>
>>>
>>>What's the big deal? Zimmerman said "He looks black". They edited for
>>>times sake..the meaning is still the same.
>>
>> Zimmerman, who is white,
>

>So is Obama by that criteria. However, Obama looks black and Zimmerman
>looks hispanic.
>
"looks"? That's your criteria?
You're so fucking shallow

>
> had been tailing the young African-American
>> in his car
>

>He wasn't in a car....he was in a truck per his own words.

>
>because he felt Martin was “a suspicious person.” At some
>> point, Zimmerman called 911.
>

>He called the non-emergency line at Sanford PD.

>
> He told a dispatcher, "This guy looks
>> like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something," and said that
>> he was going to detain Martin
>

>No, he didn't. He made the comment about the always getting away when
>he saw that Martin was headed for the back entrance to the community. He
>never told the dispatcher that he was going to detain Martin.

>
>
>because “These a**holes... They always
>> get away.” The dispatcher told Zimmerman that a unit was being
>> dispatched to the scene and asked Zimmerman to refrain from
>> approaching Martin.
>

>No, he didn't. The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" when
>Zimmerman started chase Martin on foot and Zimmerman replied "OK".
>Zimmerman then claims that he went to get a house number and was
>approached by Martin when returning to his truck.

[Lookout]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:36:48 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:jle7r798au4pf4plo...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:21:36 -0700 (PDT), harry k
>> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 15, 10:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

>>>> I wonder how many liberals crying for 'poor' Travon would have did
>>>> nothing if they were carrying a legal firearm while this animal was
>>>> beating the crap out of you. It's easy to judge George Zimmerman
>>>> from the comfort of your home but only the victim of this assault,
>>>> Zimmeramn himself, can know the danger he was experiencing and the
>>>> action that needed to be taken.
>>>>

>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Zimmerman-medical-
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the
>>>> Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken; he
>>>> also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his
>>>> head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury. He was examined by the
>>>> doctor the day after the shooting. The three-page medical report
>>>> will likely be used as evidence for the defense.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that other than his
>>>> gunshot wound, the only injury on Martin was that the skin on his
>>>> knuckles was broken. Combined with the evidence from Zimmerman's
>>>> medical report, the logical conclusion is that Martin was beating up
>>>> Zimmerman severely before Zimmerman shot him.
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman was eager to get back to work, and visited the doctor,
>>>> according to ABC News, to “get legal clearance to return to work.”
>>>> Zimmerman was not hospitalized the night of the shooting. As ABC
>>>> News reports, “In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman
>>>> complained of stress and ‘occasional nausea when thinking about the

>>>> violence.’” The doctor made notes suggesting that it was

>>>> “imperative” that Zimmerman visit a “psychologist for evaluation.”
>>>>
>>>> ABC News, of course, is the same outlet that originally released
>>>> poorly pixelated photos of Zimmerman the night of the incident from
>>>> the police station with the headline, “Trayvon Martin Video Shows No
>>>> Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman.” MSNBC followed suit with an
>>>> article headlined, "Police video of Zimmerman shows no sign of
>>>> scuffle."
>>>>
>>>> While it is now clear that the media got it entirely wrong as far as
>>>> what happened that night – they tried to paint it as a clear-cut
>>>> situation of “white Hispanic” Zimmerman stalking and shooting young
>>>> black man Trayvon Martin – ABC News is still attempting to lay the
>>>> predicate for the idea that Zimmerman was an unstable character
>>>> responsible for the violence. Today’s ABC News report on the medical
>>>> records states, “According to the report, prior to the shooting
>>>> Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications
>>>> that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but
>>>> in fewer than 10 percent of patients.” Thus far, however, ABC News

>>>> has nothing to say about the broken skin on Martin's knuckles.

>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> J Young
>>>> jdyou...@ymail.com
>>>
>>>The entire case, if Zimmerman's version is correct (and it appears to
>>>be so), is a pure out and out case of self defense.
>>>
>>>Nowhere in all the reporting have I seen one thing that even remotely
>>>brings "stand y our ground law" into the case. Zimmeraman had no
>>>opportunity to retreat.
>>>
>>>Odd that I have not seen that pointed out in all the reporting of the
>>>case.
>>>
>>>Harry K
>>>

>> Because you're wrong.
>>
>
>Just what is he wrong about?

He said Zimmerman had no chance to retreat.
Zimmerman admitted, as you sited earlier, that Zimmerman "CHASED"
Martin.

That proves he had a chance to retreat.

[Lookout]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:42:44 -0500, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in

>news:r238r7dmg1323ijq9...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:01 -0700, "max headroom"
>> <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in

>>>news:13o7r7l49nnmmpv57...@4ax.com:

>>>> He had the opportunity to avoid the entire incident by merely
>>>> staying in his truck as he was instructed to do...
>>>
>>>False.
>>>
>> Nope, true.
>
>Nope. Zimmerman was already out of his truck when instructed by police
>dispatch "We don't need you to do that" and he replied "OK".
>
And then he CHASED Martin.
This made Zimmerman the aggressor.

[Lookout]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:31:11 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On 5/16/2012 2:29 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:03:02 -0700, J<jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder
>>
>> Why you're so lonely?
>
>
>Thinking is a foreign concept to you, obviously.
>

Ahhh...another lonely troll with no life
In-Reply-To: <urs6r7lk35qj106eq...@4ax.com>

[max headroom]

de...@dudu.org <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:ut68r71ot718hs1sv...@4ax.com:

> You're a complete liar. Clearly if Zimmerman had simply stayed in his

> truck like the 911 operator informed him to do...

Why do you keep repeating this lie?!?

> ... then this never would

> have happened. He never would have had to claim stand your ground

> immunity,...

Why do you keep repeating this lie?!?

> ... and a decent teenage kid would not be dead. Worst part is

> trash like you don't care a kid is dead.

Why do you keep repeating this lie?!?

[max headroom]

de...@dudu.org <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:vqq8r75mvkikrpn6g...@4ax.com:

Try this one, Einstein--

If the Top Cop tells a minion to "tail" a suspect, the minion should:

A) Follow him

B) Pursue him

C) Chase him

Think real hard now.


I can probably save time by inserting ...




[crickets.wav]




... already, since I know you can't honestly answer this without admitting you're wrong.

>>>> Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.

>>> No they should just call the police.

>> He did.

> And they told him not to follow him.

Luckily for Klaus, he didn't start counting instances of lies repeated.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:03:02 -0700, J wrote:


>
> The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the
> Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken; he also
> had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a
> bruised upper lip, and a back injury. He was examined by the doctor the
> day after the shooting. The three-page medical report will likely be used
> as evidence for the defense.
>

A report from his family doctor the day after the "assault"? Couldn't he
get a note from his mom? That would be just as credible.

Anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out that if you just
killed someone, in self-defense, it might be helpful to have your injuries
documented immediately by a hospital Emergency Room team. Even if his
story is try, he should go to jail for being an idiot.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:49:28 -0700, Räy Fischer <rfîsher@sönic.net>
wrote:

>>>> pur·sue
>>>> [per-soo] Show IPA verb, pur·sued, pur·su·ing.

>>>> verb (used with object)
>>>> 1.
>>>> to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
>>>> 2.
>>>> to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
>>>> 3.
>>>> to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object,
>>>> purpose, etc.).
>>>> 4.
>>>> to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
>>>> 5.
>>>> to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an
>>>> inquiry, studies, etc.).
>>>
>>> Which has what exactly to do with following someone??
>>
>> They're synonyms,
>
>They're not, you fucking cunt. "B" follows "A" in the alphabet, you
>goddamned fucking distempered mackerel cunt. Is "B" pursuing "A"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

Not ALL defintions or usages of a word apply in ALL situation. That's
why words in our language usually have multiple meanings.

>
>I'm going to kick your fucking ass. Get your affairs in order.

With what? Your obvious lacking of education in English which clearly
didn't surpass the 6th grade.?

>
>
>>>
>>>>> Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>>>>>
>>>> No they should just call the police.
>>>
>>> He did.
>>
>> And they told him not to follow him.
>
>No, they didn't, cunt.

Oh, yes, they did. The dispatcher was merely being polite. Obviously
he meant: "Do NOT follow"

>
>
>>>> And you for once should try not
>>>> lying.
>>>
>>> I leave the lying to you....since you do so much of it.
>>>
>> You've just done it about
>
>Fuck off. Get your affairs in order, cunt.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA

too funny. You people are crazy as you are stupid.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 23:17:51 -0400, "Scout"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

Cite, or shut the fuck up loser.

>
>
>>>>>Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>>>>>
>>>> No they should just call the police.
>>>
>>>He did.
>>
>> And they told him not to follow him.
>
>Wrong again, they said it wasn't necessary for him to follow. That's a LONG
>way from telling him NOT to follow.

The guy was being polite. He thought he was just dealing with a sane
member of he public. Clearly he meant "Do NOT follow"

>
>You've been told this and shown this over and over. I can only take that to
>mean you are intentionally lying about the circumstances.

No, as usual, you are desperately attempting to redefine terms to suit
your ignorance and prejudice.

[Jim Burns]

On 5/16/2012 7:27 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/16/2012 4:15 PM, James Burns wrote:

>> It seems to me that your objection can only be that Martin
>> did not shoot and kill Zimmerman. It cannot be that you are
>> claiming that Martin should not have stood his ground, because
>> you seem to have enormous respect for this Florida Stand Your
>> Ground law.
>
> My objection is that Martin appears to have initiated the
> confrontation. Zimmerman told the police he lost site of Martin,
> and that suddenly Martin appeared and confronted him.

Why shouldn't Martin have felt threatened by Zimmerman?

It's one thing to tell our children that we shouldn't be
afraid of Officer Friendly, he's here to help us, but
Zimmerman was not a cop, he was some guy following Martin
in a car through a sleeping neighborhood.

Even if you want to claim that YOU would not feel threatened,
can you deny that many people would?

>> Martin had bruised knuckles, and Zimmerman had a broken nose
>> (perhaps -- I haven't seen the news stories). And Martin had
>> a hole in his chest, and Zimmerman had a gun. Don't forget to
>> mention that, while you're speculating on what happened.
>
> Are you suggesting that Martin incurred bruised knuckles after
> Zimmerman shot him? How would that work?

Even assuming your description of the details is correct,
are you claiming that Martin should not have been able to
stand his own ground? Why would that be?

[George Plimpton]

You said they're synonyms. They aren't. If you're pursuing someone
then you're following him, but if you're following him you're not
necessarily pursuing him. There's a difference in meaning, a difference
of you fucking racist leftists are fully aware. The *entire* reason
you're using words like "stalk" and "pursue" and "chase" is because
you're aware of the difference.

>> I'm going to kick your fucking ass. Get your affairs in order.
>
> With what? Your obvious lacking of education in English which clearly
> didn't surpass the 6th grade.?
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and yes, at times private citizens should follow suspects.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No they should just call the police.
>>>>
>>>> He did.
>>>
>>> And they told him not to follow him.
>>
>> No, they didn't, cunt.
>
> Oh, yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cf59r7lq52hbf5r8l...@4ax.com:

It would be much easier to communicate with you if you understood
context.