Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New Major Player Weighs in on Zimmerman - Trayvon Case
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Ken Pitts
Apr 21, 2012, 10:10:26 AM4/21/12
to
Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises me. I
guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his own
conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
Ken
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral
guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his own
conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
Ken
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral
Ken Pitts
Apr 21, 2012, 11:17:38 AM4/21/12
to
This is what results from the race baiting of so-called reverends
Jackson and Sharpton.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420
Ken
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS
Apr 21, 2012, 3:50:50 PM4/21/12
to
It's easy to assume Dersh is another knee-jerk liberal but he really
isn't. He has taken some decidedly non-PC views over the years. Still
he is jewish and we have to wonder what he's really up to.
Alan Baker
Apr 21, 2012, 4:12:52 PM4/21/12
to
In article
<5898fa27-335a-4d85...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
What a pity you didn't read what he actually said, as opposed to simply
the splashy headline...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
<5898fa27-335a-4d85...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
the splashy headline...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Ken Pitts
Apr 21, 2012, 6:08:04 PM4/21/12
to
While I was failing to read the article I cited, this jumped out so I
posted it. It also jumped onto my screen that Dr Dershowitz was
describing the actions of the prosecution.
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates
undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but
borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the
truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the
whole truth is a lie."
Ken
Ken
Carbon
Apr 21, 2012, 6:56:10 PM4/21/12
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:08:04 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Pitts <kenpitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises me. I
>> guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his own
>> conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
>>
> On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Pitts <kenpitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises me. I
>> guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his own
>> conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecu...
>
> While I was failing to read the article I cited, this jumped out so I
> posted it. It also jumped onto my screen that Dr Dershowitz was
> describing the actions of the prosecution.
>
> Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates
> undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but
> borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the
> truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the
> whole truth is a lie."
There is too much scrutiny of this case for there to be any screw-ups.
>
> While I was failing to read the article I cited, this jumped out so I
> posted it. It also jumped onto my screen that Dr Dershowitz was
> describing the actions of the prosecution.
>
> Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates
> undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but
> borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the
> truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the
> whole truth is a lie."
My assumption was that the prosecution had access to evidence that the
general public did not, which was what led them to charge murder 2
instead of manslaughter. But, it could be they're a bunch of screw-ups
and are going to produce another OJ-like verdict.
That would be bad, since Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid.
Ken Pitts
Apr 21, 2012, 7:06:23 PM4/21/12
to
was trying to leave when Trayvon jumped him? How about the blood
seeping from his head? Backs up the contention that Trayon was banging
his head on the curb.
Ken
Carbon
Apr 21, 2012, 7:44:19 PM4/21/12
to
moon is made out of green cheese. The question is, what does the
evidence support? At this point, all we know for sure is that Zimmerman
Ken Pitts
Apr 21, 2012, 8:18:09 PM4/21/12
to
head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
That Trayvon had him down and was banging his head on a curb. It's as
if a neighborhood watchman following a suspicious person in his
community rules out anything happening subsequenty.
Look at Drudge Report. See Zimmerman's head with blood all over it.
Captioned with "ABC News Exclusive". I guess that is mythical also.
You are so sure that Trayvon is without blame. I guess Zimmerman
inflicted these injuries on himself. Or, I guess because Trayvon is
black, he can do anything at all without anyone standing up to him.
And I am sure this assault is fine with you since the two thugs who
did it are both black.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420
Ken
la...@pivotforpower.com
Apr 21, 2012, 8:17:46 PM4/21/12
to
Larry
Alan Baker
Apr 21, 2012, 9:00:04 PM4/21/12
to
In article
<2405765.316.1335053866088.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlp2>,
The poor and the desperate commit more crimes, Larry.
<2405765.316.1335053866088.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlp2>,
Carbon
Apr 21, 2012, 9:13:02 PM4/21/12
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:17:46 -0700, la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2012 8:17:38 AM UTC-7, Ken Pitts wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Pitts <kenpitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises me.
>>> I guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his
>>> own conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
>>
> On Saturday, April 21, 2012 8:17:38 AM UTC-7, Ken Pitts wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Pitts <kenpitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises me.
>>> I guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his
>>> own conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
>>
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecu...
>>
>> This is what results from the race baiting of so-called reverends
>> Jackson and Sharpton.
>>
>> http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420
>
>>
>> This is what results from the race baiting of so-called reverends
>> Jackson and Sharpton.
>>
>> http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420
>
> We're all sorry that blacks seems to commit more crimes than whites,
> but them is the facts.
And that would have meaning if blacks were treated as impartially as
> but them is the facts.
whites in court.
http://goo.gl/19ZLP
Carbon
Apr 21, 2012, 9:15:48 PM4/21/12
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:44 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:06:23 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>>
>>> Can you not admit that there may have been a fight and that Zimmerman
>>> was trying to leave when Trayvon jumped him? How about the blood
>>> seeping from his head? Backs up the contention that Trayon was banging
>>> his head on the curb.
>>
>> I suppose it's possible. It's also possible that the back side of the
>> moon is made out of green cheese. The question is, what does the
>> evidence support? At this point, all we know for sure is that Zimmerman
>> stalked and killed an unarmed kid.
>
> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this once?
> On Apr 21, 6:44 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:06:23 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>>
>>> Can you not admit that there may have been a fight and that Zimmerman
>>> was trying to leave when Trayvon jumped him? How about the blood
>>> seeping from his head? Backs up the contention that Trayon was banging
>>> his head on the curb.
>>
>> I suppose it's possible. It's also possible that the back side of the
>> moon is made out of green cheese. The question is, what does the
>> evidence support? At this point, all we know for sure is that Zimmerman
>> stalked and killed an unarmed kid.
>
> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
Ken Pitts
Apr 21, 2012, 9:29:30 PM4/21/12
to
How about that goon admitting that he attacked a white man because of
Trayvon?
Ken
Carbon
Apr 21, 2012, 9:36:15 PM4/21/12
to
you are disconnected from reality.
> How about that goon admitting that he attacked a white man because of
> Trayvon?
Trayvon Martin killing.
Alan Baker
Apr 21, 2012, 9:42:46 PM4/21/12
to
Ken Pitts
Apr 21, 2012, 9:50:15 PM4/21/12
to
defending himself? You reject that possibility without qualification.
Zimmerman claims his head was being banged against a curb. Now we have
a photo with a bleeding injury on the back of his head. ABC News
claims exclusive rights to the photo.
Perhaps you need to recall what is required for a conviction in this
country. The fact that Zimmerman acted with malice, not in his own
defense, has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr Dershowitz
seems to think the prosecutor is rushing to judgement and excluding
evidence that does not aid her case. He also stated that this case
(2nd degree murder) should be dismissed out of hand. Seems like
manslaughter would be a more reasonable charge.
Ken
kenpitts
Apr 21, 2012, 10:13:04 PM4/21/12
to
degree murder has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden
of proof is on the prosecution as it should be. Zimmerman claims his
head was being banged against a curb. Now we have a photo from ABC
News of a bleeding injury on the back of Zimmerman's head. That could
be considered reasonable doubt. Could it not ?
I would also think the proximity of the shot could be determined by
analyzing Trayvon's clothes. If they were scuffling, there should be
flash burns. That will come out in the trial, I'm sure.
Ken
Alan Baker
Apr 21, 2012, 10:16:25 PM4/21/12
to
In article
<7cb55f06-98c6-4fab...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
the possibility of an altercation.
> Zimmerman claims his head was being banged against a curb. Now we have
> a photo with a bleeding injury on the back of his head. ABC News
> claims exclusive rights to the photo.
Again: how does "exclusive rights" come into this?
>
> Perhaps you need to recall what is required for a conviction in this
> country. The fact that Zimmerman acted with malice, not in his own
> defense, has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr Dershowitz
> seems to think the prosecutor is rushing to judgement and excluding
> evidence that does not aid her case. He also stated that this case
> (2nd degree murder) should be dismissed out of hand. Seems like
> manslaughter would be a more reasonable charge.
That's not what Dershowtitz said at all.
<7cb55f06-98c6-4fab...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Ken Pitts <kenpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:36 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> >
> > >>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
> > >>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
> >
> > >> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
> > >> once?
> >
> > > You think the wound on Zimmerman's head is not factual?
> >
> > Again. If you think it proves Zimmerman's version of the events in toto
> > you are disconnected from reality.
> >
> > > How about that goon admitting that he attacked a white man because of
> > > Trayvon?
> >
> > Well gosh Ken, I guess that would be totally fucking irrelevant to the
> > Trayvon Martin killing.
>
> Doesn't Zimmerman's injury open up the possibility that he was
> defending himself? You reject that possibility without qualification.
The injury (if it really existed at the time of the shooting) opens up
> On Apr 21, 8:36 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> >
> > >>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
> > >>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
> >
> > >> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
> > >> once?
> >
> > > You think the wound on Zimmerman's head is not factual?
> >
> > Again. If you think it proves Zimmerman's version of the events in toto
> > you are disconnected from reality.
> >
> > > How about that goon admitting that he attacked a white man because of
> > > Trayvon?
> >
> > Well gosh Ken, I guess that would be totally fucking irrelevant to the
> > Trayvon Martin killing.
>
> Doesn't Zimmerman's injury open up the possibility that he was
> defending himself? You reject that possibility without qualification.
the possibility of an altercation.
> Zimmerman claims his head was being banged against a curb. Now we have
> a photo with a bleeding injury on the back of his head. ABC News
> claims exclusive rights to the photo.
>
> Perhaps you need to recall what is required for a conviction in this
> country. The fact that Zimmerman acted with malice, not in his own
> defense, has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr Dershowitz
> seems to think the prosecutor is rushing to judgement and excluding
> evidence that does not aid her case. He also stated that this case
> (2nd degree murder) should be dismissed out of hand. Seems like
> manslaughter would be a more reasonable charge.
Alan Baker
Apr 21, 2012, 10:18:00 PM4/21/12
to
In article
<c73c7a87-8e71-453d...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> I would also think the proximity of the shot could be determined by
> analyzing Trayvon's clothes. If they were scuffling, there should be
> flash burns. That will come out in the trial, I'm sure.
Yup.
But for right now, you'll suppose anything and believe anything that
tends to exonerate Zimmerman while simultaneously objecting to any
suppositions that you disagree with.
<c73c7a87-8e71-453d...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
kenpitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:36 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> >
> > >>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
> > >>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
> >
> > >> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
> > >> once?
> >
> > > You think the wound on Zimmerman's head is not factual?
> >
> > Again. If you think it proves Zimmerman's version of the events in toto
> > you are disconnected from reality.
> >
> > > How about that goon admitting that he attacked a white man because of
> > > Trayvon?
> >
> > Well gosh Ken, I guess that would be totally fucking irrelevant to the
> > Trayvon Martin killing.
>
> Remember what it takes to get a conviction in this country. Second
> degree murder has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden
> of proof is on the prosecution as it should be. Zimmerman claims his
> head was being banged against a curb. Now we have a photo from ABC
> News of a bleeding injury on the back of Zimmerman's head. That could
> be considered reasonable doubt. Could it not ?
Not unless it can be shown that the photo was taken at the time.
> On Apr 21, 8:36 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:29:30 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 8:15 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> >
> > >>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
> > >>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
> >
> > >> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
> > >> once?
> >
> > > You think the wound on Zimmerman's head is not factual?
> >
> > Again. If you think it proves Zimmerman's version of the events in toto
> > you are disconnected from reality.
> >
> > > How about that goon admitting that he attacked a white man because of
> > > Trayvon?
> >
> > Well gosh Ken, I guess that would be totally fucking irrelevant to the
> > Trayvon Martin killing.
>
> Remember what it takes to get a conviction in this country. Second
> degree murder has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden
> of proof is on the prosecution as it should be. Zimmerman claims his
> head was being banged against a curb. Now we have a photo from ABC
> News of a bleeding injury on the back of Zimmerman's head. That could
> be considered reasonable doubt. Could it not ?
>
> I would also think the proximity of the shot could be determined by
> analyzing Trayvon's clothes. If they were scuffling, there should be
> flash burns. That will come out in the trial, I'm sure.
But for right now, you'll suppose anything and believe anything that
tends to exonerate Zimmerman while simultaneously objecting to any
suppositions that you disagree with.
Howard Brazee
Apr 22, 2012, 10:14:10 AM4/22/12
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:00:04 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>The poor and the desperate commit more crimes, Larry.
That is true. But the biggest crimes are committed by the powerful.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
wrote:
>The poor and the desperate commit more crimes, Larry.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 10:34:13 AM4/22/12
to
In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
into question. The prosecution has screwed the pooch already.
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:08:04 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Pitts <kenpitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises me. I
> >> guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his own
> >> conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
> >>
> >> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecu...
> >
> > While I was failing to read the article I cited, this jumped out so I
> > posted it. It also jumped onto my screen that Dr Dershowitz was
> > describing the actions of the prosecution.
> >
> > Dershowitz continued, ?An affidavit that willfully misstates
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:08:04 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Pitts <kenpitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises me. I
> >> guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his own
> >> conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
> >>
> >> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecu...
> >
> > While I was failing to read the article I cited, this jumped out so I
> > posted it. It also jumped onto my screen that Dr Dershowitz was
> > describing the actions of the prosecution.
> >
> > undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but
> > borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the
> > truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the
> > whole truth is a lie."
>
> There is too much scrutiny of this case for there to be any screw-ups.
> My assumption was that the prosecution had access to evidence that the
> general public did not, which was what led them to charge murder 2
> instead of manslaughter. But, it could be they're a bunch of screw-ups
> and are going to produce another OJ-like verdict.
>
> That would be bad, since Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid.
Too bad the defense has already gotten the affidavit's veracity called
> > borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the
> > truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the
> > whole truth is a lie."
>
> There is too much scrutiny of this case for there to be any screw-ups.
> My assumption was that the prosecution had access to evidence that the
> general public did not, which was what led them to charge murder 2
> instead of manslaughter. But, it could be they're a bunch of screw-ups
> and are going to produce another OJ-like verdict.
>
> That would be bad, since Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid.
into question. The prosecution has screwed the pooch already.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 10:39:34 AM4/22/12
to
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 11:14:32 AM4/22/12
to
store, and then claimed self-defense.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 11:21:50 AM4/22/12
to
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 11:57:04 AM4/22/12
to
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 11:58:17 AM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
Ken
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 12:07:54 PM4/22/12
to
I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another black
person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did he? No.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 12:36:43 PM4/22/12
to
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 12:41:03 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:36:43 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:21:50 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>
> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:21:50 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
>>>>>> once?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>
>>> That is an interesting theory. But, it doesn't hold up under
>>> scrutiny.
>>
>> How do you imagine that?
>
> Your method of discussion makes you easily dismiss-able.
If you weren't an idiot you'd realize your problem is that you're an
>>>>>> once?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>
>>> That is an interesting theory. But, it doesn't hold up under
>>> scrutiny.
>>
>> How do you imagine that?
>
> Your method of discussion makes you easily dismiss-able.
idiot.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 12:40:33 PM4/22/12
to
suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to describe
his physical characteristics. However, if your only news sources have
are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have been misled by
the NBC again.
The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 12:52:54 PM4/22/12
to
William Clark
Apr 22, 2012, 1:01:57 PM4/22/12
to
In article <MPG.29fdfe8...@news.giganews.com>,
No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
criminal.
Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
criminal.
Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
bkn...@conramp.net
Apr 22, 2012, 1:07:13 PM4/22/12
to
On 22 Apr 2012 16:41:03 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
Shhhh. He may understand, stop posting, and we will only have
Horvath to laugh at. :-)
wrote:
Horvath to laugh at. :-)
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 1:22:41 PM4/22/12
to
neighborhood. Eight reported burglaries in a year. Would have been
worse if they were not a gated community.
The subject of race was brought up by the 911 operator. Why will you
not ever consider that he may be telling the truth? I agree he should
have backed off if instructed to do so. But, does he lose the right to
defend himself because he didn't?
Ken
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 1:27:46 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
What does that matter if he was defending himself?
Ken
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
Ken
Alan Baker
Apr 22, 2012, 1:28:19 PM4/22/12
to
In article
<0df64f02-7b57-4d25...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
But does Trayvon lose his right to defend himself, Ken?
<0df64f02-7b57-4d25...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
Alan Baker
Apr 22, 2012, 1:32:44 PM4/22/12
to
In article
<0b612243-9c03-4a6b...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
But we have only his word for that.
And we know he was much larger than Trayvon Martin, and Trayvon Martin
was unarmed.
<0b612243-9c03-4a6b...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
And we know he was much larger than Trayvon Martin, and Trayvon Martin
was unarmed.
Alan Baker
Apr 22, 2012, 1:36:53 PM4/22/12
to
In article <8g48p75pq700tjeam...@4ax.com>,
...just that those that are evil have more capability to do damage.
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:00:04 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The poor and the desperate commit more crimes, Larry.
>
> That is true. But the biggest crimes are committed by the powerful.
Also true, but it doesn't mean the powerful are more evil...
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:00:04 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The poor and the desperate commit more crimes, Larry.
>
> That is true. But the biggest crimes are committed by the powerful.
...just that those that are evil have more capability to do damage.
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 1:41:49 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 12:07 pm, bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2012 16:41:03 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:36:43 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >> In article <pan.2012.04.22.15.57...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> On 22 Apr 2012 16:41:03 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:36:43 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.15.14...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> >>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
> >>>>>>> once?
>
> >>>>>> What are the known facts?
>
> >>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
> >>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>
> >>>> That is an interesting theory. But, it doesn't hold up under
> >>>> scrutiny.
>
> >>> How do you imagine that?
>
> >> Your method of discussion makes you easily dismiss-able.
>
> >If you weren't an idiot you'd realize your problem is that you're an
> >idiot.
>
> Shhhh. He may understand, stop posting, and we will only have
> Horvath to laugh at. :-)
Nice..............
>
> >>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
> >>>>>>> once?
>
> >>>>>> What are the known facts?
>
> >>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
> >>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>
> >>>> That is an interesting theory. But, it doesn't hold up under
> >>>> scrutiny.
>
> >>> How do you imagine that?
>
> >> Your method of discussion makes you easily dismiss-able.
>
> >If you weren't an idiot you'd realize your problem is that you're an
> >idiot.
>
> Shhhh. He may understand, stop posting, and we will only have
> Horvath to laugh at. :-)
Ken
William Clark
Apr 22, 2012, 3:43:20 PM4/22/12
to
stalk with a gun? You wingnuts are just so desperate.
Right.
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 4:12:44 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0b612243-9c03-4a6b-b682-332d7492a...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
First of all, I am not a wingnut. I am a mainstream conservative. I
work for a living. I am a homeowner. My wife and I pay our taxes and
we also pay our bills.
There is a witness who says that Trayvon was getting the best of
Zimmerman in a physical altercation. Plus there is the photo of the
back of Zimmerman's head bleeding. I believe that there will be more
evidence to come out in the trial and let the chips fall where they
may. I just hope this does not turn out to be a travesty like the OJ
trial. (ie how could the jury ignore that Ron Goldman's blood was
found in the white Bronco?)
I am not desperate at all.
Otherwise, best regards.
Ken
state.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0b612243-9c03-4a6b-b682-332d7492a...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
work for a living. I am a homeowner. My wife and I pay our taxes and
we also pay our bills.
There is a witness who says that Trayvon was getting the best of
Zimmerman in a physical altercation. Plus there is the photo of the
back of Zimmerman's head bleeding. I believe that there will be more
evidence to come out in the trial and let the chips fall where they
may. I just hope this does not turn out to be a travesty like the OJ
trial. (ie how could the jury ignore that Ron Goldman's blood was
found in the white Bronco?)
I am not desperate at all.
Otherwise, best regards.
Ken
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 4:31:32 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:40:33 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>
> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
>>>>>> once?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>
>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>
>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>
>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>> black person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did he?
>> No.
>
> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to describe
> his physical characteristics. However, if your only news sources have
> are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have been misled by
> the NBC again.
>
> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
No. 911 did. Which is exactly what I said. Learn to read.
>>>>>> once?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>
>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>
>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>
>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>> black person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did he?
>> No.
>
> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to describe
> his physical characteristics. However, if your only news sources have
> are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have been misled by
> the NBC again.
>
> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 6:14:59 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:27:46 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
>> In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
>> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>>>
> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
>> In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
>> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just
>>>>>>>> this once?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>>>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>>>
>>>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>>>> black person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did
>>>> he? No.
>>>
>>> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
>>> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to
>>> describe his physical characteristics. However, if your only news
>>> sources have are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have
>>> been misled by the NBC again.
>>>
>>> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
>>>
>>> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
>>
>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>> criminal.
>>
>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>
> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
You serious? Zimmerman stalked and killed a kid who was staying in that
>>>>>>>> this once?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>>>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>>>
>>>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>>>> black person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did
>>>> he? No.
>>>
>>> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
>>> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to
>>> describe his physical characteristics. However, if your only news
>>> sources have are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have
>>> been misled by the NBC again.
>>>
>>> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
>>>
>>> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
>>
>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>> criminal.
>>
>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>
> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 6:17:55 PM4/22/12
to
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 6:56:23 PM4/22/12
to
witness. Remember the photo of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of his
head. Short of Zimmerman initiating the hostilities, it doesn't matter
what happened leading up to that. That has been reported.
http://themoderatevoice.com/142394/new-trayvon-martin-twist-witness-reportedly-tells-police-martin-attacked-zimmernan/
And you will find some reason for this witness to not be considered
reliable if he makes it to the witness stand. You'd have some kind of
problem if it was Mother Teresa with a halo over her head. Of course,
you always assume this posture.
http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil.html
Ken
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 7:07:21 PM4/22/12
to
discredit this one also.
Ken
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 7:54:08 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:56:23 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:27:46 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
>>> state.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>>>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>>>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>>>> criminal.
>>>>
>>>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>>>
>>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>>
>> You serious? Zimmerman stalked and killed a kid who was staying in
>> that neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>
> He does if he was getting his ass kicked. That has been reported by a
> witness. Remember the photo of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of his
> head. Short of Zimmerman initiating the hostilities, it doesn't matter
> what happened leading up to that. That has been reported.
Zimmerman stalked the kid, AFTER the 911 operator told him to stand
> On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:27:46 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
>>> state.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>>>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>>>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>>>> criminal.
>>>>
>>>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>>>
>>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>>
>> You serious? Zimmerman stalked and killed a kid who was staying in
>> that neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>
> He does if he was getting his ass kicked. That has been reported by a
> witness. Remember the photo of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of his
> head. Short of Zimmerman initiating the hostilities, it doesn't matter
> what happened leading up to that. That has been reported.
down. True or false? If you kill someone because you're losing a fight
that you picked, that is not self defense. Sweet pickled Jesus, I hope
you understand that much.
Did you read your cite? If not, feel free to do so now.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:00:07 PM4/22/12
to
In article <clark-365859....@news.eternal-september.org>,
cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
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. znd this guy is he white, black or Hispanic?"
> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah"
Dispatcher: "Ok, we don't need you to do that."
The police never told Zimmerman to back off. You and your buddies have
said that there was an inference in being told "we don't need you to do
that" being told to back off but in the same breath you call Zimmerman
an idiot. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either he was smart enough
to understand the inference or he is an idiot. You will have a difficult
time convincing a jury that Zimmerman was stupid and smart at the same
time.
cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
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. znd this guy is he white, black or Hispanic?"
> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
Zimmerman: "Yeah"
Dispatcher: "Ok, we don't need you to do that."
The police never told Zimmerman to back off. You and your buddies have
said that there was an inference in being told "we don't need you to do
that" being told to back off but in the same breath you call Zimmerman
an idiot. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either he was smart enough
to understand the inference or he is an idiot. You will have a difficult
time convincing a jury that Zimmerman was stupid and smart at the same
time.
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 8:01:01 PM4/22/12
to
Your more traditional source is Fox News.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:03:48 PM4/22/12
to
In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
You have proof that Zimmerman stalked Martin or did he just follow him?
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:05:38 PM4/22/12
to
"back-off".
> > Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
>
> You're a joke.
mind.
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 8:07:41 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:00:07 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <clark-365859....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
that" as something other than "stand the fuck down right now". Maybe
Zimmerman was an idiot like you.
> In article <clark-365859....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>> criminal.
>
> 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. znd this guy is he white, black or Hispanic?"
>
>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>
> Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
>
> Zimmerman: "Yeah"
>
> Dispatcher: "Ok, we don't need you to do that."
>
> The police never told Zimmerman to back off. You and your buddies have
> said that there was an inference in being told "we don't need you to
> do that" being told to back off but in the same breath you call
> Zimmerman an idiot. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either he was
> smart enough to understand the inference or he is an idiot. You will
> have a difficult time convincing a jury that Zimmerman was stupid and
> smart at the same time.
A retarded person could possibly interpret "Ok, we don't need you to do
>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>> criminal.
>
> 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. znd this guy is he white, black or Hispanic?"
>
>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>
> Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
>
> Zimmerman: "Yeah"
>
> Dispatcher: "Ok, we don't need you to do that."
>
> The police never told Zimmerman to back off. You and your buddies have
> said that there was an inference in being told "we don't need you to
> do that" being told to back off but in the same breath you call
> Zimmerman an idiot. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either he was
> smart enough to understand the inference or he is an idiot. You will
> have a difficult time convincing a jury that Zimmerman was stupid and
> smart at the same time.
that" as something other than "stand the fuck down right now". Maybe
Zimmerman was an idiot like you.
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 8:09:34 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 7:01 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:07:21 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:27:46 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>
> >>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>
> >> You serious? Zimmerman stalked and killed a kid who was staying in
> >> that neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>
> > Same story, reported from a more traditional source. You'll choose to
> > discredit this one also.
>
> >http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-z...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:07:21 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:27:46 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>
> >>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>
> >> You serious? Zimmerman stalked and killed a kid who was staying in
> >> that neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>
> > Same story, reported from a more traditional source. You'll choose to
> > discredit this one also.
>
>
> Your more traditional source is Fox News.
A local Fox station. You are really drinking the KoolAid if you think
> Your more traditional source is Fox News.
their straight news is not credible. Fox has conservative pundits.
MSNBC has leftists. I'm sure you believe MSNBC.
Ken
William Clark
Apr 22, 2012, 8:14:16 PM4/22/12
to
In article <MPG.29fe659...@news.giganews.com>,
The 911 dispatcher did, and Zimmerman had nothing but his own prejudices
to identify the kid as "real suspicious" in the first place. There is no
"inference" in being told "we don't needy you to do that" - it's bloody
obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. Apparently that is
something else Zimmerman shares with you wingnuts, busy re-writing
history so desperately.
to identify the kid as "real suspicious" in the first place. There is no
"inference" in being told "we don't needy you to do that" - it's bloody
obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. Apparently that is
something else Zimmerman shares with you wingnuts, busy re-writing
history so desperately.
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 8:01:04 PM4/22/12
to
saying that Martin started it.
I read it. Did you?
"But one man's testimony could be key for the police.
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me:
'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not
want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up
Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of
Zimmerman.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating
up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he
was dead at that point," John said."
That sure sounds to me like Trayvon was kicking Zimmerman's ass. Now,
explain to me if this is true, why does Zimmerman not get to defend
himself. If someone is on top of me banging my head on a curb and I
have a gun, I open fire period. What happened previously is of no
consequence.
A caveat here is the audio experts saying that the screams belonged to
Trayvon. I recognize that. I have recognized that.
You are totally inflexible, just like Bobby accuses me of being.
Ken
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 8:14:35 PM4/22/12
to
watch much television. Anyway, your Fox News cite has this:
"Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The
dispatcher told Zimmerman not to. And from that moment to the shooting,
details are few."
It's from Fox News so it must be true. Right?
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:14:30 PM4/22/12
to
Zimmerman "to stand down." Remember Zimmerman is one of the white-
Hispanic racist types.
> Did you read your cite? If not, feel free to do so now.
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 8:24:04 PM4/22/12
to
networks also. Mostly. You are so twisted that you believe Fox twists
the straight news reporting. They would be shut down in an instant if
they got the facts wrong on a major news story. I always thought you
leftists had a problem with Hannity and all the rest.
One other thing, it was the reporting of a local Fox Network
affiliate, not Fox News. Have a look.
Ken
bkn...@conramp.net
Apr 22, 2012, 8:31:48 PM4/22/12
to
On 23 Apr 2012 00:14:35 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
MSNBC is a cable outlet but the web site MSNBC.com is a different
company altogether, made up of NBC News with Brian Williams and also
the Today Show crew. There is a link for Maddow and Chris Mathews but
they don't have space on the site, so it isn't the liberal news view
as MSNBC-TV.
company altogether, made up of NBC News with Brian Williams and also
the Today Show crew. There is a link for Maddow and Chris Mathews but
they don't have space on the site, so it isn't the liberal news view
as MSNBC-TV.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:35:42 PM4/22/12
to
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 8:35:16 PM4/22/12
to
News.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/c090bbaac462abd3
Ken
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:38:12 PM4/22/12
to
If you did you wouldn't be pushing your argument.
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 8:39:14 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 7:07 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:00:07 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > In article <clark-365859.13015722042...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:00:07 -0400, BAR wrote:
tangential at best. "Sir, please quit following the subject." would be
equivalent to "stand the F down right now".
Ken
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 8:44:19 PM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 7:14 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <MPG.29fe6590d18687e0...@news.giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <clark-365859.13015722042...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> > > In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
We don't needy you to do that? Go back to Great Britain and learn
proper English.
Ken
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <MPG.29fe6590d18687e0...@news.giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <clark-365859.13015722042...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> > > In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
proper English.
Ken
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:44:42 PM4/22/12
to
In article <clark-446A27....@news.eternal-september.org>,
No, the 911 dispatcher did not.
You are claiming a minority is committing racism on another minority.
Isn't racism the sole domain of the white man? When you ask our current
AG people of color are not capable of being racists.
You are claiming a minority is committing racism on another minority.
Isn't racism the sole domain of the white man? When you ask our current
AG people of color are not capable of being racists.
BAR
Apr 22, 2012, 8:53:43 PM4/22/12
to
In article <jv79p795vsaqqfl6e...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC
MSNBC and NBC News launched broadcasts from their new studios at NBC's
"30 Rock" complex in New York City on October 22, 2007.[29] After
extensive renovations of the associated studios, NBC essentially merged
its entire news operation into one building, and all MSNBC broadcasts,
as well as the NBC Nightly News program, originate in the new studios.
More than 12.5 hours of live television across the NBC News family
originate from the New York studios daily. MSNBC is also expected to
expand West Coast operations, as the channel recently[when?] announced
new studios near the Universal Studios lot, which will assemble all NBC
West Coast news operations in one building. MSNBC's Master Control did
not make the move to 30 Rock. It remained in the old Secaucus
headquarters until it completed its move to the NBC Universal Network
Origination Center located inside the CNBC Global Headquarters building
in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, on December 21, 2007. Shortly
thereafter, Major League Baseball firmed up a long-term lease of the
former MSNBC building to become the home studios of MLB Network, which
launched from the facility on January 1, 2009.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32027560/
The Msnbc Digital Network is a collection of innovative and powerful
news brands that deliver the most compelling, diverse and visually
engaging stories on your platform of choice. The world-class brands
featured in the digital network include msnbc.com, TODAY, NBC Nightly
News, msnbc TV, NBC Sports, Newsvine, EveryBlock and BreakingNews.com.
We provide something for every news consumer with our comprehensive
offerings that deliver the best in breaking news, original journalism,
lifestyle features, commentary and local updates down to the block
level.
Sounds like MSNBC and MSNBC in all of it's forms are so entertwined with
NBC, now owned by Comcast, that the they are not distinguishable from
one another.
bkn...@conramp.net says...
MSNBC and NBC News launched broadcasts from their new studios at NBC's
"30 Rock" complex in New York City on October 22, 2007.[29] After
extensive renovations of the associated studios, NBC essentially merged
its entire news operation into one building, and all MSNBC broadcasts,
as well as the NBC Nightly News program, originate in the new studios.
More than 12.5 hours of live television across the NBC News family
originate from the New York studios daily. MSNBC is also expected to
expand West Coast operations, as the channel recently[when?] announced
new studios near the Universal Studios lot, which will assemble all NBC
West Coast news operations in one building. MSNBC's Master Control did
not make the move to 30 Rock. It remained in the old Secaucus
headquarters until it completed its move to the NBC Universal Network
Origination Center located inside the CNBC Global Headquarters building
in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, on December 21, 2007. Shortly
thereafter, Major League Baseball firmed up a long-term lease of the
former MSNBC building to become the home studios of MLB Network, which
launched from the facility on January 1, 2009.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32027560/
The Msnbc Digital Network is a collection of innovative and powerful
news brands that deliver the most compelling, diverse and visually
engaging stories on your platform of choice. The world-class brands
featured in the digital network include msnbc.com, TODAY, NBC Nightly
News, msnbc TV, NBC Sports, Newsvine, EveryBlock and BreakingNews.com.
We provide something for every news consumer with our comprehensive
offerings that deliver the best in breaking news, original journalism,
lifestyle features, commentary and local updates down to the block
level.
Sounds like MSNBC and MSNBC in all of it's forms are so entertwined with
NBC, now owned by Comcast, that the they are not distinguishable from
one another.
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 9:09:32 PM4/22/12
to
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 9:10:39 PM4/22/12
to
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 9:11:55 PM4/22/12
to
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 9:19:34 PM4/22/12
to
exclusive on the picture of Zimmernan's head bleeding like a stuck
pig. You didn't seem to have a problem with that.
For instance, channel 4 here in DFW used to be the CBS affiliate for
years. Due to various purchases and such, they became the Fox Network
affiliate. Clarice Tinsley has been a talking head for channel 4 for
decades, way before Fox Network or Fox News even existed. Do you
think she became a right wing maniac manipulating the news all over
the place since her station became affiliated with Fox Network? I
don't. I think that she is the same Clarice.
http://www.unclebarky.com/dfw_files/440ed33d265a88c65db28f4895cc4f2d-876.html
Ken
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 9:20:59 PM4/22/12
to
alleged criminal who turned out to be an innocent kid walking home from
the store. He could have just followed the kid home, which would have
been creepy and weird enough on its own. But no. He had to go and
fucking kill him.
And that would be tragic enough on its own. But now, having no real
evidence to the contrary, ideologues like yourself insist on defending
Zimmerman. Why? You have no earthly idea what happened. Jesus.
bkn...@conramp.net
Apr 22, 2012, 9:30:16 PM4/22/12
to
>Sounds like MSNBC and MSNBC in all of it's forms are so entertwined with
>NBC, now owned by Comcast, that the they are not distinguishable from
>one another.
Only to someone who can't read. Since you were so enamored of
>NBC, now owned by Comcast, that the they are not distinguishable from
>one another.
Wikipedia here's the first couple of paragraphs on their listing for
MSNBC.
MSNBC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MSNBC (stylized as msnbc) is a cable news channel based in the United
States available in the US, South Africa, the Middle East and Canada.
Its name is derived from the most common abbreviations for Microsoft
and the National Broadcasting Company.[6]
msnbc.com, a separate company, is the central news website for the NBC
News family, featuring interactivity and multimedia plus original
stories and video which augment the content from NBC News and
partners.[7
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 9:36:20 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:19:34 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> On Apr 22, 8:09 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:35:16 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 7:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mostly use the aggregator news.google.com for news. I really
>>>> don't watch much television. Anyway, your Fox News cite has this:
>>>>
>>>> "Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen.
>>>> The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to. And from that moment to the
>>>> shooting, details are few."
>>>>
>>>> It's from Fox News so it must be true. Right?
>>>
>>> Local Fox Network affiliate reporting. Not Fox News. Get it? Not Fox
>>> News.
>>
>> You're the one who produced the myfoxtampabay.com cite. Are you going
>> to stand behind it, or what?
>
> I'm standing behind it. Just like I stood behind ABC News and their
> exclusive on the picture of Zimmernan's head bleeding like a stuck
> pig. You didn't seem to have a problem with that.
Ok. So, according to your cite, 911 told Zimmerman to stand down and he
> On Apr 22, 8:09 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:35:16 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 7:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mostly use the aggregator news.google.com for news. I really
>>>> don't watch much television. Anyway, your Fox News cite has this:
>>>>
>>>> "Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen.
>>>> The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to. And from that moment to the
>>>> shooting, details are few."
>>>>
>>>> It's from Fox News so it must be true. Right?
>>>
>>> Local Fox Network affiliate reporting. Not Fox News. Get it? Not Fox
>>> News.
>>
>> You're the one who produced the myfoxtampabay.com cite. Are you going
>> to stand behind it, or what?
>
> I'm standing behind it. Just like I stood behind ABC News and their
> exclusive on the picture of Zimmernan's head bleeding like a stuck
> pig. You didn't seem to have a problem with that.
didn't. A short time later, Trayvon Martin was dead.
Agree?
kenpitts
Apr 22, 2012, 10:13:54 PM4/22/12
to
that the 911 operator was not emphatic enough. Additionally, where did
we get the transcript of the 911 call? I believe that is in the public
domain. Even though NBC News tried to filter it.
Ken
Carbon
Apr 22, 2012, 11:16:41 PM4/22/12
to
Alan Baker
Apr 22, 2012, 11:29:40 PM4/22/12
to
In article
<68e7d1da-17a5-413b...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
kenpitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <0b612243-9c03-4a6b-b682-332d7492a...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > > > > > nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> >
> > "Defending himself"? From an unarmed teenager that he has decided to
> > stalk with a gun? You wingnuts are just so desperate.
> >
> > Right.
>
> First of all, I am not a wingnut. I am a mainstream conservative. I
> work for a living. I am a homeowner. My wife and I pay our taxes and
> we also pay our bills.
And you spend your free time looking for bad behaviour by black
athletes...
>
> There is a witness who says that Trayvon was getting the best of
> Zimmerman in a physical altercation. Plus there is the photo of the
Really? What is this witness's name?
> back of Zimmerman's head bleeding. I believe that there will be more
A photo we have no idea of when it was taken...
> evidence to come out in the trial and let the chips fall where they
Of course you believe it, Ken: it fits your racial agenda.
> may. I just hope this does not turn out to be a travesty like the OJ
> trial. (ie how could the jury ignore that Ron Goldman's blood was
> found in the white Bronco?)
>
> I am not desperate at all.
>
> Otherwise, best regards.
>
> Ken
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
<68e7d1da-17a5-413b...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
kenpitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <0b612243-9c03-4a6b-b682-332d7492a...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > kenpitts <ken.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> > > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > > In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
> >
> > > > > BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> > > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > > In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
> >
> > > > > > In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > > > > > nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > > > > > > >>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > > > > > > >>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from
> > > > > > > >>>>> Zimmerman's
> > > > > > > >>>>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending
> > > > > > > >>>>> himself?
> >
> > > > > > > >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > > > > > > >>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > > > > > > >>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from
> > > > > > > >>>>> Zimmerman's
> > > > > > > >>>>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending
> > > > > > > >>>>> himself?
> >
> > > > > > The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
> >
> >
> > > > > > Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
> >
> >
> > > > > No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
> > > > > thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
> > > > > walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
> > > > > criminal.
> >
> > > > > thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
> > > > > walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
> > > > > criminal.
> >
> > > > > Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
> >
> >
> > > > What does that matter if he was defending himself?
> >
> > > > Ken
> >
> >
> > "Defending himself"? From an unarmed teenager that he has decided to
> > stalk with a gun? You wingnuts are just so desperate.
> >
> > Right.
>
> First of all, I am not a wingnut. I am a mainstream conservative. I
> work for a living. I am a homeowner. My wife and I pay our taxes and
> we also pay our bills.
And you spend your free time looking for bad behaviour by black
athletes...
>
> There is a witness who says that Trayvon was getting the best of
> Zimmerman in a physical altercation. Plus there is the photo of the
Really? What is this witness's name?
> back of Zimmerman's head bleeding. I believe that there will be more
A photo we have no idea of when it was taken...
> evidence to come out in the trial and let the chips fall where they
Of course you believe it, Ken: it fits your racial agenda.
> may. I just hope this does not turn out to be a travesty like the OJ
> trial. (ie how could the jury ignore that Ron Goldman's blood was
> found in the white Bronco?)
>
> I am not desperate at all.
>
> Otherwise, best regards.
>
> Ken
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
Apr 22, 2012, 11:30:31 PM4/22/12
to
In article
<3f810f84-ce2b-4997...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
kenpitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> head. Short of Zimmerman initiating the hostilities, it doesn't matter
> what happened leading up to that. That has been reported.
>
> http://themoderatevoice.com/142394/new-trayvon-martin-twist-witness-reportedly
> -tells-police-martin-attacked-zimmernan/
>
> And you will find some reason for this witness to not be considered
> reliable if he makes it to the witness stand. You'd have some kind of
> problem if it was Mother Teresa with a halo over her head. Of course,
> you always assume this posture.
>
> http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil
> .html
<3f810f84-ce2b-4997...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
kenpitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:27:46 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > > On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> > > state.edu> wrote:
> > >> In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
> > >> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > >>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > >>>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > >>>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > >>>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >
> > > On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
> > > state.edu> wrote:
> > >> In article <MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
> > >> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > >>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > >>>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > >>>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > >>>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >
> > >>>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just
> > >>>>>>>> this once?
> >
> > >>>>>>> What are the known facts?
> >
> > >>>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
> > >>>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
> >
> > >>>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
> >
> > >>>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
> > >>>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
> >
> > >>>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
> > >>>> black person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did
> > >>>> he? No.
> >
> > >>> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
> > >>> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to
> > >>> describe his physical characteristics. However, if your only news
> > >>> sources have are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have
> > >>> been misled by the NBC again.
> >
> > >>> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
> >
> > >>> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
> >
> > >> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
> > >> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
> > >> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
> > >> criminal.
> >
> > >> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
> >
> > > What does that matter if he was defending himself?
> >
> > >>>>>>>> this once?
> >
> > >>>>>>> What are the known facts?
> >
> > >>>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
> > >>>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
> >
> > >>>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
> >
> > >>>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
> > >>>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
> >
> > >>>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
> > >>>> black person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did
> > >>>> he? No.
> >
> > >>> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
> > >>> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to
> > >>> describe his physical characteristics. However, if your only news
> > >>> sources have are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have
> > >>> been misled by the NBC again.
> >
> > >>> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
> >
> > >>> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
> >
> > >> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
> > >> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
> > >> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
> > >> criminal.
> >
> > >> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
> >
> > > What does that matter if he was defending himself?
> >
> > You serious? Zimmerman stalked and killed a kid who was staying in that
> > neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>
> > neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>
> He does if he was getting his ass kicked. That has been reported by a
> witness. Remember the photo of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of his
No, Ken: that hasn't been reported. You're making it up and you know it.
> witness. Remember the photo of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of his
> head. Short of Zimmerman initiating the hostilities, it doesn't matter
> what happened leading up to that. That has been reported.
>
> -tells-police-martin-attacked-zimmernan/
>
> And you will find some reason for this witness to not be considered
> reliable if he makes it to the witness stand. You'd have some kind of
> problem if it was Mother Teresa with a halo over her head. Of course,
> you always assume this posture.
>
> http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil
> .html
Alan Baker
Apr 22, 2012, 11:32:59 PM4/22/12
to
In article
<3e8df5a5-bd7b-4392...@f37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> 'help, helpŠand I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
>
> His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up
> Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of
> Zimmerman.
No. The police never said that.
>
> "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating
> up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he
> was dead at that point," John said."
>
> That sure sounds to me like Trayvon was kicking Zimmerman's ass. Now,
> explain to me if this is true, why does Zimmerman not get to defend
> himself. If someone is on top of me banging my head on a curb and I
> have a gun, I open fire period. What happened previously is of no
> consequence.
Why does Trayvon not get to defend HIMSELF, Ken?
>
> A caveat here is the audio experts saying that the screams belonged to
> Trayvon. I recognize that. I have recognized that.
Except for the point in this post where you lie and claim the police
have said that the screams on the 911 calls were Zimmerman's: something
they never said.
>
> You are totally inflexible, just like Bobby accuses me of being.
And you are willing to lie to make the black kid the bad guy.
<3e8df5a5-bd7b-4392...@f37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
>
> The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not
> want to be shown on camera.
Riiiiiiight. Sounds very believable.
> Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
>
> The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not
> want to be shown on camera.
>
> His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up
> Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of
> Zimmerman.
>
> "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating
> up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he
> was dead at that point," John said."
>
> That sure sounds to me like Trayvon was kicking Zimmerman's ass. Now,
> explain to me if this is true, why does Zimmerman not get to defend
> himself. If someone is on top of me banging my head on a curb and I
> have a gun, I open fire period. What happened previously is of no
> consequence.
>
> A caveat here is the audio experts saying that the screams belonged to
> Trayvon. I recognize that. I have recognized that.
have said that the screams on the 911 calls were Zimmerman's: something
they never said.
>
> You are totally inflexible, just like Bobby accuses me of being.
Alan Baker
Apr 22, 2012, 11:34:13 PM4/22/12
to
In article
<5120c334-fc5a-4fd7...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Minor head wounds--even self-inflicted ones--bleed a lot, Ken.
>
> For instance, channel 4 here in DFW used to be the CBS affiliate for
> years. Due to various purchases and such, they became the Fox Network
> affiliate. Clarice Tinsley has been a talking head for channel 4 for
> decades, way before Fox Network or Fox News even existed. Do you
> think she became a right wing maniac manipulating the news all over
> the place since her station became affiliated with Fox Network? I
> don't. I think that she is the same Clarice.
>
> http://www.unclebarky.com/dfw_files/440ed33d265a88c65db28f4895cc4f2d-876.html
>
> Ken
<5120c334-fc5a-4fd7...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> For instance, channel 4 here in DFW used to be the CBS affiliate for
> years. Due to various purchases and such, they became the Fox Network
> affiliate. Clarice Tinsley has been a talking head for channel 4 for
> decades, way before Fox Network or Fox News even existed. Do you
> think she became a right wing maniac manipulating the news all over
> the place since her station became affiliated with Fox Network? I
> don't. I think that she is the same Clarice.
>
> http://www.unclebarky.com/dfw_files/440ed33d265a88c65db28f4895cc4f2d-876.html
>
> Ken
BAR
Apr 23, 2012, 6:24:12 AM4/23/12
to
that you pull your dictionary off the shelf and look them up.
BAR
Apr 23, 2012, 6:27:03 AM4/23/12
to
When it gets into court and the 911 dispatcher is on the witness stand
and it is found that the 911 dispatcher has told people explicitly not
to do things during previous calls then your argument will fall apart.
BAR
Apr 23, 2012, 6:31:43 AM4/23/12
to
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:39:14 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 7:07 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:00:07 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>
> >>> The police never told Zimmerman to back off. You and your buddies
> >>> have said that there was an inference in being told "we don't need
> >>> you to do that" being told to back off but in the same breath you
> >>> call Zimmerman an idiot. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either
> >>> he was smart enough to understand the inference or he is an idiot.
> >>> You will have a difficult time convincing a jury that Zimmerman was
> >>> stupid and smart at the same time.
> >>
> >> A retarded person could possibly interpret "Ok, we don't need you to
> >> do that" as something other than "stand the fuck down right now".
> >> Maybe Zimmerman was an idiot like you.
> >
> > The 911 operator should have been more direct. What was said is
> > tangential at best. "Sir, please quit following the subject." would be
> > equivalent to "stand the F down right now".
>
> The whole issue is Zimmerman's pathological eagerness to apprehend this
> alleged criminal who turned out to be an innocent kid walking home from
> the store. He could have just followed the kid home, which would have
> been creepy and weird enough on its own. But no. He had to go and
> fucking kill him.
Zimmerman was a cop wannabe and he was trying to protect his
> > On Apr 22, 7:07 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:00:07 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>
> >>> The police never told Zimmerman to back off. You and your buddies
> >>> have said that there was an inference in being told "we don't need
> >>> you to do that" being told to back off but in the same breath you
> >>> call Zimmerman an idiot. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either
> >>> he was smart enough to understand the inference or he is an idiot.
> >>> You will have a difficult time convincing a jury that Zimmerman was
> >>> stupid and smart at the same time.
> >>
> >> A retarded person could possibly interpret "Ok, we don't need you to
> >> do that" as something other than "stand the fuck down right now".
> >> Maybe Zimmerman was an idiot like you.
> >
> > The 911 operator should have been more direct. What was said is
> > tangential at best. "Sir, please quit following the subject." would be
> > equivalent to "stand the F down right now".
>
> The whole issue is Zimmerman's pathological eagerness to apprehend this
> alleged criminal who turned out to be an innocent kid walking home from
> the store. He could have just followed the kid home, which would have
> been creepy and weird enough on its own. But no. He had to go and
> fucking kill him.
neighborhood from additional criminal acts as he stated in his contact
with the 911 dispatcher.
> And that would be tragic enough on its own. But now, having no real
> evidence to the contrary, ideologues like yourself insist on defending
> Zimmerman. Why? You have no earthly idea what happened. Jesus.
We questioned anyone who didn't belong here. We kept our eyes on the
criminals who live in the townhouses and condos across the field. Were
we justified? Yes, because these criminals bragged about stealing items
from cars and decks while they were on the school bus. Both
neighborhoods ride the same bus to school.
BAR
Apr 23, 2012, 6:35:13 AM4/23/12
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Apr 23, 2012, 7:54:27 AM4/23/12
to
one time doesn't make them the same company.
Read again moron.
William Clark
Apr 23, 2012, 8:30:26 AM4/23/12
to
In article <MPG.29fe700...@news.giganews.com>,
Yes, the dispatcher did, but I can understand how you are scrabbling
around for anything to add some shred of decency to this fiasco. Keep at
it - it is hilarious to watch.
around for anything to add some shred of decency to this fiasco. Keep at
it - it is hilarious to watch.
William Clark
Apr 23, 2012, 8:31:24 AM4/23/12
to
In article
<e4665ae8-06ea-40a2...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Another version of the race card, Kenny? My, my, they are really coming
out from under their rocks.
<e4665ae8-06ea-40a2...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
out from under their rocks.
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:13:44 AM4/23/12
to
Carbon wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 6:44 pm, Carbon<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:06:23 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you not admit that there may have been a fight and that Zimmerman
>>>> was trying to leave when Trayvon jumped him? How about the blood
>>>> seeping from his head? Backs up the contention that Trayon was banging
>>>> his head on the curb.
>>>
>>> I suppose it's possible. It's also possible that the back side of the
>>> moon is made out of green cheese. The question is, what does the
>>> evidence support? At this point, all we know for sure is that Zimmerman
>>> stalked and killed an unarmed kid.
>>
>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
>
> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this once?
LOL!
>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from Zimmerman's
>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending himself?
>
> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this once?
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:16:01 AM4/23/12
to
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> In article<pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> What are the known facts?
>
> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from the
> store, and then claimed self-defense.
Facts, lol!
>
> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from the
> store, and then claimed self-defense.
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:21:50 AM4/23/12
to
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>> In article<pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>
> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or not,
> I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>
> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another black
> person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did he? No.
Sorry to pull a Baker on you, but they did NOT tell him to back off.
>
> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or not,
> I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>
> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another black
> person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did he? No.
They said "you don't need to do that". And if you listen to the 911
call, Zimmerman didnt know the race of the person until be faced him.
But you keep up the DailyKOS narrative.
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:23:18 AM4/23/12
to
William Clark wrote:
>> In article
>> <0b612243-9c03-4a6b...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> kenpitts<ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark<cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
>>> state.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article<MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
>> In article
>> <0b612243-9c03-4a6b...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> kenpitts<ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark<cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
>>> state.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article<MPG.29fdfe8d28581f3b...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BAR<sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BAR<sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<pan.2012.04.22.16.07...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article<pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from
>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman's
>>>>>>>>>>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending
>>>>>>>>>>> himself?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> once?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>>
>>>>>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>>>
>>>>>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>>>>>> not,
>>>>>> I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>>>
>>>>>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>>>>>> black
>>>>>> person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did he? No.
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article<pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from
>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman's
>>>>>>>>>>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending
>>>>>>>>>>> himself?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> once?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>>
>>>>>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>>>
>>>>>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>>>>>> not,
>>>>>> I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>>>
>>>>>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>>>>>> black
>>>>>> person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did he? No.
>>>>
>>>>> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
>>>>> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to describe
>>>>> his physical characteristics. However, if your only news sources have
>>>>> are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have been misled by
>>>>> the NBC again.
>>>>
>>>>> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
>>>>
>>>>> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
>>>>
>>>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>>>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>>>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>>>> criminal.
>>>>
>>>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>>>>> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to describe
>>>>> his physical characteristics. However, if your only news sources have
>>>>> are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have been misled by
>>>>> the NBC again.
>>>>
>>>>> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
>>>>
>>>>> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
>>>>
>>>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>>>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>>>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>>>> criminal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>>>
>>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>>>
>>> Ken
>
> "Defending himself"? From an unarmed teenager that he has decided to
> stalk with a gun? You wingnuts are just so desperate.
>
> Right.
Clueless Clark, right on que.
>
> "Defending himself"? From an unarmed teenager that he has decided to
> stalk with a gun? You wingnuts are just so desperate.
>
> Right.
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:26:04 AM4/23/12
to
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:56:23 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:56:23 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 5:14 pm, Carbon<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:27:46 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>>> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark<cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
>>>> state.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>>>>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>>>>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>>>>> criminal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>>>>
>>>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 12:01 pm, William Clark<cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
>>>> state.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, he reported a person he thought looked suspicious. Not the same
>>>>> thing, because it was just his biased perspective that turned a kid
>>>>> walking to his Dad's house, with a bag of Skittles, into a probable
>>>>> criminal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he killed him, even though the police told him to back off.
>>>>
>>>> What does that matter if he was defending himself?
>>>
>>> You serious? Zimmerman stalked and killed a kid who was staying in
>>> that neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>>
>>> that neighborhood. The aggressor doesn't get to claim self-defense.
>>
>> He does if he was getting his ass kicked. That has been reported by a
>> witness. Remember the photo of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of his
>> head. Short of Zimmerman initiating the hostilities, it doesn't matter
>> what happened leading up to that. That has been reported.
>
> Zimmerman stalked the kid, AFTER the 911 operator told him to stand
> down. True or false? If you kill someone because you're losing a fight
> that you picked, that is not self defense. Sweet pickled Jesus, I hope
> you understand that much.
>
> Did you read your cite? If not, feel free to do so now.
WHat evidence do you have that Zimmerman started it?
>> witness. Remember the photo of Zimmerman bleeding from the back of his
>> head. Short of Zimmerman initiating the hostilities, it doesn't matter
>> what happened leading up to that. That has been reported.
>
> Zimmerman stalked the kid, AFTER the 911 operator told him to stand
> down. True or false? If you kill someone because you're losing a fight
> that you picked, that is not self defense. Sweet pickled Jesus, I hope
> you understand that much.
>
> Did you read your cite? If not, feel free to do so now.
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:29:48 AM4/23/12
to
BAR wrote:
> In article<pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
> In article<pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
> Zimmerman "to stand down." Remember Zimmerman is one of the white-
> Hispanic racist types.
>
>> Did you read your cite? If not, feel free to do so now.
>
> Did you read the 911 transcript?
>> Did you read your cite? If not, feel free to do so now.
>
White-hispanic. Ever wonder why this new racial term was coined just for
this incident?
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:35:56 AM4/23/12
to
MNMikeW
Apr 23, 2012, 10:39:28 AM4/23/12
to
William Clark
Apr 23, 2012, 10:43:35 AM4/23/12
to
In article <9vl6um...@mid.individual.net>,
Illiterate again, Mikey - what you are trying to say is "right on CUE".
james
Apr 23, 2012, 10:46:10 AM4/23/12
to
"Carbon" wrote in message
news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:18:09 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you not seen the latest pics of blood oozing from
>>>>> Zimmerman's
>>>>> head. Why is it so fantastic that Zimmerman was defending
>>>>> himself?
>>>>
>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just this
>>>> once?
>>>
>>> What are the known facts?
>>
>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>> the
>> store, and then claimed self-defense.
>
> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>not,
>I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>black
>person in his neighborhood,
Zim said he wasn't sure, Alan.
> they told him to back off. Did he? No.
not "don't follow him".
Are you going to rally in Tallahassee against the "stand your ground"
law?
Do you walk unarmed through the nigger neighborhoods in your area at
night?
Are you the type who thinks that when they invade your home you're
going to have all the time in the world to call 911?
If you did get through do you think they will show at your house in 60
seconds?
If you answered yes - then your as big a fool as you sound, Alan.
james
Apr 23, 2012, 10:50:52 AM4/23/12
to
"Carbon" wrote in message
news:pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <pan.2012.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:58:17 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>
>>> On Apr 22, 10:14 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:39:34 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2012.04.22.01.15...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it kill you to limit yourself to the known facts, just
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> once?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>
>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>
>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> once?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the known facts?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid on his way home from
>>>> the store, and then claimed self-defense.
>>>
>>> His claim may be valid. You dismiss it without any consideration.
>>
>> Since you have absolutely no idea if Zimmerman's story is valid or
>> not, I have to wonder why you're so rabid about defending him.
>>
>> What is a fact is that when Zimmerman called 911 to report another
>> black person in his neighborhood, they told him to back off. Did
>> he?
>> No.
>
> What is a fact is that Zimmerman called the police and reported a
> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to
> describe
> his physical characteristics. However, if your only news sources
> have
> are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have been misled
> by
> the NBC again.
>
> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
>No. 911 did. Which is exactly what I said. Learn to read.
> suspicious person. The next fact is that police asked him to
> describe
> his physical characteristics. However, if your only news sources
> have
> are NBC or affiliated with NBC we can see how you have been misled
> by
> the NBC again.
>
> The police never told Zimmerman to "back off."
Never said that.
> Your facts, as usual, have no basis in reality.
You got your "facts" wrong.
james
Apr 23, 2012, 10:57:03 AM4/23/12
to
"BAR" wrote in message
news:MPG.29fde0e...@news.giganews.com...
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:08:04 -0700, Ken Pitts wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Pitts <kenpitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dr Allen Dershowitz - Dream Team Member - this really surprises
> >> me. I
> >> guess I shouldn't be. He has looked at the facts and reached his
> >> own
> >> conclusion without being swayed by political correctness.
> >>
> >> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecu...
> >
> > While I was failing to read the article I cited, this jumped out
> > so I
> > posted it. It also jumped onto my screen that Dr Dershowitz was
> > describing the actions of the prosecution.
> >
> > Dershowitz continued, ?An affidavit that willfully misstates
> > undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical
> > but
> > borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the
> > truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of
> > the
> > whole truth is a lie."
>
> There is too much scrutiny of this case for there to be any
> screw-ups.
> My assumption was that the prosecution had access to evidence that
> the
> general public did not, which was what led them to charge murder 2
> instead of manslaughter. But, it could be they're a bunch of
> screw-ups
> and are going to produce another OJ-like verdict.
>
> That would be bad, since Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed
> kid.
>Too bad the defense has already gotten the affidavit's veracity
>called
>into question. The prosecution has screwed the pooch already.
The only reason this is even going to trial is because of the rallies
put together by Rev Al, Jessie Jackson, etc..
I lived in NY where the Tawana Brawley fiasco took place. They should
have arrested all those activist monkeys for costing the taxpayers
millions on a lie, and ruining reputations.
Alan Baker
Apr 23, 2012, 12:01:55 PM4/23/12
to
In article <9vl6rv...@mid.individual.net>,
That is incorrect.
He didn't state the race of the person in his initial report to 911, but
he gave it when they asked.
> But you keep up the DailyKOS narrative.
He didn't state the race of the person in his initial report to 911, but
he gave it when they asked.
> But you keep up the DailyKOS narrative.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages