| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#32
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
My take
On 7/16/2013 2:37 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing. Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure, established in concert with the local police department. What he did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop). Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin. Both actions are not illegal. When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose. Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on the concrete. Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help. The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot Martin. Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground. That's it. The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure bull****. I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the call to dispatch. No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all. John (Gun Nut) H. You didn't listen to the phone call did you? No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. John (Gun Nut) H. Arren't you tiring of the Loogieisms, especially since Harry is adopting them. |
|
#33
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
On 7/16/2013 1:55 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 7/16/2013 1:34 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:42:25 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: The kid was a thug, and he died because of it and nothing else... It is clear he was on a track (statistically) to die, young, in a pool of blood anyway. (black, school failure from a broken home and an increasing criminal record) The only anomaly was that a white guy shot him. If it was just another black guy doing the shooting, this would not have even made the news and it is likely nobody would have been charged. -------------------------------------- I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal record". He doesn't have a criminal police record period. He was under suspension from school for having some pot residue in his locker, but he doesn't have a criminal police record. He was "under suspicion" for a lot more than that... but I am not doing your homework for you... then add what he "admitted freely", you know the thousand pieces of evidence the prosecution kept from us until after the defense closed it's case, you have a clear picture of exactly what Treyvon was all about. --------------------------------- Relax. All I said was that he does *not* have a criminal police record. No, you directly addressed the assertion that he (Martin) had an *increasing* criminal record. I assumed your meant that you "disagree with the (your) assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal record"... when you said: I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal record". Sorry if I read it wrong... My point is (in case you decide to go back and read what you wrote, and the context of the topic at hand) that it seems that Martin indeed did have a great possibility of developing an "increasing criminal record" sooner than later... But again, you could have read you wrong  |
|
#34
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 7/16/2013 1:55 PM, Eisboch replied to Greg with: -------------------------------------- I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal record". He doesn't have a criminal police record period. He was under suspension from school for having some pot residue in his locker, but he doesn't have a criminal police record. Then Scotty pipes up with: He was "under suspicion" for a lot more than that... but I am not doing your homework for you... then add what he "admitted freely", you know the thousand pieces of evidence the prosecution kept from us until after the defense closed it's case, you have a clear picture of exactly what Treyvon was all about. To which I (Eisboch) said: Relax. All I said was that he does *not* have a criminal police record. ------------------------------ OMG Scott! You wonder why you get teased. What I wrote is quoted above. It was in reply to a statement by Greg that Martin has an "increasing criminal record". I simply stated that Martin does *not* have a criminal record period. Now you come back with this. It's an exact quote of what you just posted: "No, you directly addressed the assertion that he (Martin) had an *increasing* criminal record. I assumed your meant that you "disagree with the (your) assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal record"... when you said: I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal record". (I confess. I have to spend some time dissecting that paragraph for a while. Meanwhile, you added "Sorry if I read it wrong... My point is (in case you decide to go back and read what you wrote, and the context of the topic at hand) that it seems that Martin indeed did have a great possibility of developing an "increasing criminal record" sooner than later... But again, you could have read you wrong "The fact remains, Martin does *not* have a criminal record period. It's not increasing. It's not decreasing. It doesn't exist. Meanwhile, I'll try to figure out what, "But again, you could have read you wrong" means. Scott, I am not trying to poke fun at you, but I simply can't understand what you are trying to write sometimes. |
|
#35
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
In article ,
says... On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:54:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/16/13 1:12 PM, wrote: On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "These assholes always get away". Yep, meek and timid. Answer to "are you following him"..... "YES". Very meek. He DID go after him. They were about 10-15 feet apart when he first saw Martin. If he was "going after" Martin, the confrontation would have happened several feet from the front gate, 15 seconds later not down in the middle of the community 4 minutes later.. It is clear he tried to keep his distance and "watch" Martin until the police arrived. You mean, he was stalking Martin. But Scotty and Greg have cleared it up! It's okay to kill teens that they think are "thugs", who've smoked pot and were accused of petty theft. ...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose. Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences. John (Gun Nut) H. Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very minor" or did you just not understand it? |
|
#36
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
|
|
#37
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
|
|
#38
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
|
|
#39
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
In article -
september.org, says... In article , says... ...and has you on the ground hitting your head on concrete after breaking your nose. Makes good sense. You just need to complete your sentences. John (Gun Nut) H. Did you not hear the expert witness say that the injuries were "very minor" or did you just not understand it? Another expert witness said otherwise. Here. You don't have ask for a cite. http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...10/NEWS01/3071 00037/Pathologist-Zimmerman-case-supports-defense-claims I immediately discounted what your "expert" witness said. As I've said, I've been knocked out 3 times in fistfights. (When I got to 0-3 I quit.) One was a shot directly on/over the eye. I still remember the ring he was wearing. The other 2 were to the jaw. In NONE of those cases did I have a visible injury. One of the jaw shots gave me a sore jaw for that day. The only other time I was knocked out when I got blind- sided with a 2x4. That blackened an eye, and I needed a few stitches. These type of fight injuries are variable depending on a lot of things. Zimmerman looked pretty messed up to me. There was no mistaking he had been thrashed. Treyvon had no injuries except a bullet hole. Of course this all means absolutely nothing to you. But I felt like saying it, so it's all good. |
|
#40
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:16:08 -0400, Hank© wrote:
On 7/16/2013 2:37 PM, John H wrote: On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Here's my take on the Zimmerman/Martin thing. Zimmerman is a well intentioned law enforcement wannabe civilian who overstepped the boundaries of the recommended procedures established in the "Neighborhood Crime Watch" organizational structure, established in concert with the local police department. What he did was not illegal, but was contrary to recommended procedure recommended by the Neighborhood Crime Watch representative from the police department. (She is also a civilian and not a cop). Really doesn't matter when he left his car or if he "followed" Martin. Both actions are not illegal. When he confronted Martin, some words were exchanged. Martin then clobbered Zimmerman with a haymaker to the nose. Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin jumped on top of him and either threw some more punches and/or started smacking Zimmerman's head on the concrete. Zimmerman tried to resist and started screaming for help. The beating continued. Zimmerman found his gun and shot Martin. Martin fell backwards and then onto the ground. That's it. The rest of the bull**** being promoted in the media with regard to race issues, hate crime, etc., is nothing but that ..... pure bull****. I agree, and like I've said all along, I would have fought back as well if Zimmerman had confronted me in a threatening manner. Why do I think it was in a threatening manner, you'll ask? Because of the tone of the call to dispatch. No evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin at all. John (Gun Nut) H. You didn't listen to the phone call did you? No phone call was evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. John (Gun Nut) H. Arren't you tiring of the Loogieisms, especially since Harry is adopting them. That twosome is getting very tiring. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![John H[_2_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
