BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:41 PM

Not a lawyer but as a former law enforcement officer the prosecution and defense are entitled to anything that was in possession at the time of the crime or alleged crime. If you withhold anything in discovery the case can be overturned. Yes a judge makes that decision but he is open to having the case retried or thrown out. You bet the prosecution has his cell phone, give the defense the other it is just smart. I respectfully disagree with those who say don't

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:56 PM

Bobert,


You are the one who is strong at proclamations but weak or entirely failing in logic or honesty...



"That's projectionism on your part...

Proclaiming that you have answered the question and actually having provided a reasonable answer are two different things..."

You have never addressed my response, except to say that it is not reasonable. Why, Can you even give a reason you reject it out of hand besides your conviction that Zimmerman should be lynched to make up for past injustices of the system?

You have never provided any reason that the evidence SHOULD be withheld from the Defense, yet continue to protest any statement that the prosecution needs to play by the law in order to have a fair trial

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:25 PM

Screaming again, I see, bb...

Now, if you want to re-answer the original question about the so-called evidence and can do it without SCREAMING then I will respond to it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:50 PM

Aww, c'mon Bobert. ONE word in caps is not exactly screaming - it's just emphasis.

From my POV, both of you - and Greg, too - have gotten to the point where there's way more personal attacks and emotive language in your posts than actual discussion. One person says something nasty/baits the other person - who responds in kind - and the "debate" deteriorates from there.

Makes it kinda pointless to "discuss" it, don't it?

I respect all of you, think you're all intelligent guys and can see where you're coming from. I'd just like to see debate without all the personal animosity. Passion does not require antagonistic behavior...

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 11:43 AM

Bobert,

"From: Bobert - PM
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:25 PM

Screaming again, I see, bb...

Now, if you want to re-answer the original question about the so-called evidence and can do it without SCREAMING then I will respond to it...

B~"

So, *You* can scream, and that is ok, but when *I* do so, it is wrong?
The previous post was emphasis- And you have still not addressed my last three posts.




Send me to the back of the bus.


As I stated, a person who requires one set of rules for those he agrees with, and another set for those he does not agree with is a bigot. You are busy qualifying.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 12:12 PM

Send me to the back of the bus.

I'm starting to believe that BullshitBruce thinks he's a Negro, instead of just a jackass.

So, Bullshit: how old were you in 1963?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 12:22 PM

YorkshireYankee ...Right on!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:28 PM

Trying to make a point with a single post!

Right, how about this.

Bobert worries that the defence will try to prejudice the case. He is RIGHT!

Given half a chance, they WILL! Simple.

Bruce is concerned that the prosecution will try to prejudice the case to secutre a conviction. He is RIGHT!

Given half a chance, they WILL! Simple.

Bruce believes that the prosecution should hand over to the defence, anything which MIGHT be evidence. He is RIGHT!

They SHOULD!

Bobert believes that the phone cannot contain anything which would constitute evidence.

He is not in a position to make that statement, since only two of many possible saved items have been mentioned.

True that, on the face of it, those two would be irrelevant, except as pertaining to the victim's character, and even that is dubious given that replica and toy guns look frighteningly real these days.

But nobody except the prosecution knows what else is on that phone, and that is why the defence must have sight of it, if a conviction is not to be overturned on appeal.

THE JUDGE is the only person qualified to rule upon the admissibility of such evidence, since he is (supposedly) the only impartial party involved.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM

Don T.

I agree with your entire post- though I did give a hypothetical text that would probably be admissible as evidence.

But since you "SHOUTED", Bobert will not bother to read anything you wore- Only he and those who support him are allowed to "SHOUT" . The rest of us are 2nd class people who should know their place and not bring up anything to disturb those who are (self-defined) "correct"

And that is what I am the most annoyed with.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:45 PM

Again, for Bobert and his sensitive ego- with emphasis removed, so he can understand.




Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM

And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this:

"I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him."

Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants.



Such a text message *might* lead a reasonable jury to believe that Zimmerman was attacked, and that makes a difference, doesn't it?







"He stalked the kid, the kid died, shot with his gun."

or

"He followed a suspected burglar, was attacked by the suspect, and in fear of his life while having his head pounded into the cement, shot the suspect with his gun"

Whether he showed good judgement in following the suspect I will not state- but *this* is as likely as any other scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:49 PM

Greggie boy,

"I'm starting to believe that BullshitBruce thinks he's a Negro, instead of just a jackass."

So, *you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Ni**er"?

And Bobert supports you, or at least keeps quiet because you help attack those he disagrees with...

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

btw, Bobert,

"If" is a conditional- I do not claim that the statement *is* on the phone, but *if* it was, it would have a good chance of being admissible. I will continue to point this out each time you claim there is no reason for the prosecution to obey the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:15 PM

Well well, first Greg slurs Bruce because he says he is Jewish, and now it's because , "*you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Nigger"? (I put back the G's, as not to be 'discriminatory')..It sounds like if he is using these words, as a debasing tool and tactic, because he's run out of 'other' derogatory names, it sounds like he's got some REAL bigotry issues....that's one reason I've called him a 'so-called liberal'!..among other hypocrites on here...hey Greg, come on, clean up your act..starting with your ugly hatreds in your head...I'm surprised Bobart hasn't jumped your shit for it, already.......unless....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:23 PM

GfS


Greggie boy had stated

"I'm starting to believe that BullshitBruce thinks he's a Negro, instead of just a jackass."



I stated that

So, *you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Ni**er"?

Since he used "just" in *his* posting. He considers that *any* second class citizen must refer to Negros, from his postings.

And Bobert never says one word about how those who support him are being "rude, boorish and 99% wrong", you know- that would be from the other set of rules he has for the "master" group that agree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:44 PM

The wordage might have been what it was, but the intent is obviously there....however, your point is 'so noted'.

Bobert is just a soled out Democrat. He doesn't get past their 'talking points', and stays confined within them..though I love the guy...the problem is, is that he is more dedicated to the Democrat Party, than they are to him, his best interests, or America's....they are just the other shills for the banksters, just like the Republicans, so that the national dialogue is also confined to what the party dictates that it 'should be'.....but what it really is, is distraction fodder, to keep the American people blinded, and occupied with bullshit issues, while steering us away from the bigger picture....and to keep the partisans, who think that they are so astute in such matters, preoccupied and busy with mental masturbation!!!

Sorry guys, but that's the way it REALLY is!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 03:01 PM

Don, every day, in thousands of cases, the lawyers for the parties decide what they are obliged to disclose. It's part of the disclosure process. You need to read up on your legal practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:07 PM

Okay, Bruce... Let's say that Martin had said that he was going to check out a house to burglarize and beat the crap out of the owner of the house... Let's also say that he had said this just the night before...

Unless Zimmerman knew that this prior to following and murdering Martin why is it relevant...

We do character witnesses for defend0ants, not murder victims...

The bottom line here is simple... In the South we have way too many judges who are either elected or appointed by the local powers at be... That is my beef here...

It's not that I don't believe that it's up to the judge to put a gag order in place on the prosecutor and defense attorney... It's that the South, especially, has a very bad record with "wink, wink" justice...

Any "fair minded" judge would/should have issued a gag order...

It's not that Zimmerman won't get a fair trial...

It's that Martin won't and he doesn't have any right to appeal...

And for the record, it is very unusual for me to SCREAM... When I was using "caps" to write "scream" it wasn't a form of screaming... It was a way of getting you to associate the word with the intent... If you don't get that copy my post and take it to an English professor and have him or her explain it to you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:33 PM

So, *you* rate Negros as below jackasses, as well as considering "Black and a Democrat " the same as "dumb Ni**er"?

Since he used "just" in *his* posting. He considers that *any* second class citizen must refer to Negros, from his postings.

All YOUR words, BeardedBullshit, not mine. In addition to other problems, you apparently have difficulty in reading and/or comprehending the English Language.

Get help.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM

""But since you "SHOUTED", Bobert will not bother to read anything you wore- Only he and those who support him are allowed to "SHOUT" .""

The difference BB is that I wasn't shouting AT Bobert!

Emphasis on certain words will clarify the meaning and intent of a passage.

"Answer my question!" when capitalised is shouting at the recipient, and I have to say I would share Bobert's anger at that.

None of which, of course alters my viewpoint on the topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:11 AM

""Don, every day, in thousands of cases, the lawyers for the parties decide what they are obliged to disclose. It's part of the disclosure process. You need to read up on your legal practice.""

UK law Richard!

US law, as practised, seems (and I'm open to correction on this) to take a rather different view.

They seem to be saying that if the prosecution has it, the defence must be fully aware of it too.

Maybe they don't place as much trust in their lawyers as seems to be the case here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:15 AM

""Bobert is just a soled out Democrat. He doesn't get past their 'talking points',""

Goofus, FFS get off your political hobbyhorse.

This thread is about a specific court case, so keep the political claptrap for the political threads you so love to destroy.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:22 AM

Well, Don that is not what the words I provided from a respected US university say is the US law. Not that anyone here seemed to notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 08:15 AM

Bobert, You state:
"Okay, Bruce... Let's say that Martin had said that he was going to check out a house to burglarize and beat the crap out of the owner of the house... Let's also say that he had said this just the night before...

Unless Zimmerman knew that this prior to following and murdering Martin why is it relevant...
"


It would be relevant, because the defense has stated that it is using self-defense as it's plea. The "fact" that Martin had stated he would attack "anyone who tried to stop him" would strengthen the defense claim that Trevor *did* attack Zimmerman, and support the plea of self defense. Otherwise, it is entirely Zimmerman's word.

The present defense story is that Zimmerman followed Martin ( a mistake in my opinion, but he had his reasons) and confronted him. Zimmerman then claims he was attacked by Martin, and was having his head beaten against the ground. In self-defense, Zimmerman shot Martin.

I *do* *not* *know* the truth of this story- and neither do you. But to deny Zimmerman his rights to a fair trial because of past injustices in the legal system is wrong, as wrong as lynching someone because of his skin color.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 08:18 AM

Zimmerman is going to jail.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:07 AM

So, bb, stand your ground is fine for Zimmerman but not Martin even thou Martin wasn't armed... Is he not allowed to defend himself???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 10:39 AM

No, Bobert, *Please* learn to read what is written.

"
So, bb, stand your ground is fine for Zimmerman but not Martin even thou Martin wasn't armed... C

1. Zimmerman is ++not++ using "Stand Your Ground"

He is using self defense, claiming that after confronting Martin ("Hey! What are you doing here?") he (Zimmerman) was attacked ++by++ Martin and was having his (Zimmerman's) head pounded into a bloody pulp.

2. ++If++ you attack me with your fists, and are inflicting bodily harm on me, and I am in fear of my life, I   ++will++   shoot you if I have a gun.


"Is he not allowed to defend himself???"

++That++ is what the trial is supposed to determine - ++Who++ was attacking and who was defending themselves.

Are you stating that Zimmerman was ++not++ allowed to defend himself if he was attacked??

++If++ Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, Zimmerman is in the wrong.
++If++ Martin physically attacked Zimmerman after a verbal confrontation, ++Martin++ was in the wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:05 AM

Who instigated the conflict, bb???

Martin, who was walking home from a convenience store or...

...Zimmerman who was told by the police to stay in his car???

No spin, dude... Just answer the question...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:07 AM

In any case, it was a tragedy- but lynching a person who might have been defending himself from an attack ++regardless++ of the color of his skin is ++wrong++.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM

Cross-posted.
Bobert,

"Who instigated the conflict, bb???

Martin, who was walking home from a convenience store or...

...Zimmerman who was told by the police to stay in his car???

No spin, dude... Just answer the question..."



++You++ have already spun it like a top.


How about


Who instigated the conflict, Bobert??

Martin, who was walking around possibly looking to break in, steal stuff, and beat up some white boy, (As ++you++ said, Zimmerman could not know why Martin was there- but could ask) or...

...Zimmerman who was the neighborhood watch in an area with previous breakins, who asked someone he saw why he was there and was physically attacked and having his head beaten into mush?????

No spin, dude... Just answer the question...

Suppose it had been an older Black preacher and a white skinhead, and the skinhead was killed. ++If++ that makes a difference, ++you++ are the one in the wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:29 AM

1. As a neighborhood watch person Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed... That has been reported by a member of a nation citizen's watch association...

2. Zimmerman had a criminal history involving violence and perhaps shouldn't have been allowed to be a neighborhood watch person to begin with...

3. You are wrong as wrong can be, bb about the instigation... Zimmerman has never denied that he got out of of his vehicle... Nor has he denied that he approached Martin... Nor has he denied that he had a gun... This is just simple "common sense" to anyone who has any common sense... Perhaps you don't get it but it is common sense... Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his vehicle (the police told him to stay in his vehicle) then there wouldn't have been a murder... That is plain as day and night... That makes Zimmerman the instigator...

4. Again, Martin had a right to defend himself against someone who had instigated the conflict... You would, I would and Martin tried...

These are the facts of the case... This isn't about what Martin said that isn't related to the case... The only exception would be if Martin knew Zimmerman and made statements that he was going to try to harm Zimmerman... That would be the only exception... That is not that case...

No, I'm not spinning at all here, bb... As you will see as this case goes along what I am saying is what the case is about and what you are saying is just...

...noise...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:35 AM

I disagree with you, Bobert, and think that a trial judge should determine guilt, not a public opinion poll , and even someone I think is guilty deserves to have a fair trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:43 AM

Bobert,


"1. As a neighborhood watch person Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed... That has been reported by a member of a nation citizen's watch association..."

Standards differ in various areas. I do not know the Florida standards- Do you?



"2. Zimmerman had a criminal history involving violence and perhaps shouldn't have been allowed to be a neighborhood watch person to begin with..."

I ++agree++. That does not make him guilty of murder.



"3. You are wrong as wrong can be, bb about the instigation... Zimmerman has never denied that he got out of of his vehicle... Nor has he denied that he approached Martin... Nor has he denied that he had a gun... This is just simple "common sense" to anyone who has any common sense... Perhaps you don't get it but it is common sense... Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his vehicle (the police told him to stay in his vehicle) then there wouldn't have been a murder... That is plain as day and night... That makes Zimmerman the instigator..

So, If I am in a bad area, and the operator tells me to stay in my car, and I get out because I see suspicious people, ++I++ am the instigator if one of them kills me?



"4. Again, Martin had a right to defend himself against someone who had instigated the conflict... You would, I would and Martin tried..."

And you claim Zimmerman did not have that right, ++even++ if he was attacked physically after asking a verbal question???

++As++ ++I++ ++posted++, the trial is to determine who was at fault- ++Your++ statement as to Zimmerman's guilt is just "noise"

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 12:52 PM

1. There are national standards for neighborhood watches, bruce... The operative word in neighborhood watch is, ahhhhh, watch... That is the backbone of the program everywhere... The difference between a neighborhood watch program and armed security is night and day... Armed security are people who have specific training in weapons... If you can find one neighborhood watch group that arms untrained watchers please feel free to offer up your source... If not, then this argument of yours is null and void...

2. We agree but if Martin (the victim) gets a fair trial, Zimmerman has to be convicted of, at the very least, wrongful death...

3. There is a name for someone, other than a law enforcement officer, who gets out of his car with a gun because he is suspicious... It's called vigilante...

4. You miss the point yet again... If the conflict was initiated by Zimmerman then nothing that followed absolves Zimmerman from liability... Once Zimmerman made the initial contact, which BTW is not in dispute, then Martin had every right to defend himslef...

Bottom line, Part 649: The only way that anything that was on Martin's cell phone that could be relevant to this case would have to involved this case... Since Martin and Zimmerman didn't know one another at the time of the "encounter" there can be nothing on that phone that can be used as "evidence"... Zimmerman's attorney knows this yet he has used the media to try to poison the jury pool... The judge is negligent and derelict here in not imposing a gag order...

And, yes, I do know quite a bit of law... When I was in business I had the opportunity to represent my company in court well over 20 times against "real lawyers" and in all but one of those cases won the rest of them... Got to where the "real lawyers", most of whom I knew personally, would try to settle rather than litigate... No brag, just fact...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 01:24 PM

"If the conflict was initiated by Zimmerman then nothing that followed absolves Zimmerman from liability... Once Zimmerman made the initial contact, which BTW is not in dispute, then Martin had every right to defend himslef..."


OK, I meet you on the street, and ++You++ say "What are you doing here?" I take this as an attack, and start beating your head against the ground. You shoot me- ++You++ as the instigator are guilty of murder?

That is what you are saying

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 01:31 PM

In the UK one is allowed to use reasonable force in self defence. Shooting an unarmed man might well not count. I have explained this above. The US belief that resort to a firearm is socially normative is out of whack by many other countries' standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:11 PM

This case isn't an "Okay, I meet you on the street" case, bruce... This is a case where the victim was stalked and confronted... That is a major difference...

The facts of the case as we know them are that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle with a gun and confronted the victim... That isn't at all the scenario that you have just presented... Your scenario has nothing to do with the realities of this case...

I mean, your posts are like spin on crack cocaine... If you were my lawyer I'd fire you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:18 PM

If I were your lawyer I would quit, since you don't listen to what I said.

The scenario I presented is what the defense in this case is presenting, and thus is significant in terms of the allowable evidence- ++If++ there were texts that indicated that Martin would attack someone who tried to stop him, hat would support the Defense claim that Zimmerman was attacked.

OK, have it your way- violate Zimmerman's rights, convict him in a mock trial, and have him get off for the mistrial. Then ++You++ can take credit for the (many) deaths and destruction from the riots after the "miscarriage" of justice.

Since that is what ++you++ want.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:31 PM

The US belief that resort to a firearm is socially normative is out of whack by many other countries' standards.

Its also out of whack with the standards of many - if not most - thinking people here in the US too, Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:35 PM

I once had a friend—a guitar student of mine—who was also a gun enthusiast. I joined him a number of times at the firing range, bought myself a target pistol, and thorough enjoyed popping holes in paper at 25 yards.

But my friend carried a Colt .45 automatic with him at all times. He had a concealed weapons permit, and he was never without the pistol. His wife told me that he even slept with it on the bedside table.

There were a number of incidents. One night he very nearly shot a mutual friend approaching him whom he did not immediately recognize. Out with the .45 and drew a bead on Buzz's chest and was about to pull the trigger when he suddenly realized who it was.

Another time, he whipped out the .45 and took aim at someone trying to flee from a hit-and-run accident and got himself arrested by the police, who already had the situation in hand. My friend (ex-friend—I came to the conclusion that he was just too damned dangerous to be around—and his wife divorced him after a couple of years of marriage) was arrested by the police and his gun was confiscated. And his concealed weapons permit was rescinded for a three month period. He was told by the judge, in no uncertain terms, that the hit-and-run accident did not justify the use of lethal force.

So I know this kind of person.

They have a gun, they fancy themselves Defenders of Law and Order—and they are itching to shoot someone!!.

A black teen-ager, walking in the evening, wearing a "hoody," and carrying "something" in his hand (a box of candy he had just purchase at a convenience store), and Zimmerman assumed was casing the neighborhood, was just too big a temptation!

The police told him to cool it, but he went ahead anyway.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:47 PM

Yup, Don... That's the case at hand...

BB wants to make it about Zimmerman being lynched or not getting a fair trial... What a bunch of baloney... Zimmerman's attorney is already getting away with stuff that most reasonable and non-partisan judges would have stopped immediately which does not bode well for justice being served here... Shaping up like O.J., Part II...

The point that Martin doesn't get an appeal seems to have shot right over bb's head... It's Martin who isn't going to get a fair trial... As for the lynching... Black kid with hoodie??? He got a 9mm lynching...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 08:08 AM

I repeat, Bobert:



OK, I meet you on the street, and ++You++ say "What are you doing here?" I take this as an attack, and start beating your head against the ground. You shoot me (after getting your head pounded)

++You++ as the instigator are guilty of murder?



You have stated that you, as the instigator, are guilty of at least 2nd degree murder.

You have never answered any of my questions, nor acknowledged that I did provide an example of possible evidence that could be on the phone.

You have made a presumption of guilt on this, denying the basic tenant of American Justice that innocence is presumed, and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

What can I say but that you are advocating a lynching to enforce your view of what happened? Where do you come off any different from the KKK, or other racist groups?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 08:34 AM

Your logic escapes reason, bb...

Guess better...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 08:43 AM

Bobert,

I have tried to explain, but you refuse to address the issues.

Your failure to comprehend simple conditionals is not my problem.

Your failure to understand that a trial is to determine guilt, not rubber-stamp public opinion ++is++ of concern to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:04 AM

Yes, you have tried to explain... The problem is that your logic is badly flawed as you are having to invent scenarios that do not relate to the case...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:15 AM

Wrong, Bobert.

Try to learn what a conditional is, someday.

I gave a set of scenarios that the Defense has stated it will be using, thus justifying the phone information as evidence. Any further "judgement" should be done by the ++Judge++ and not the prosecution, as ++You++ have stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:30 AM

Sorry, bruce, but I'm right and you are wrong...

A thousand more of your posts won't change that...

Like a learned clinical psychologist once told me when I was a socail worker, "You can't argue with irrational people"... He was right...

You can spin out a thousand more irrational/illogical posts but...

...I'm done with you...

Bye...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:44 AM

And you, being "Right," would string Zimmerman up .


So what is the difference between you and the Klan? The color of your sheet? The fact "You" know you are right and they are "Wrong"?

You are correct in that one cannot argue with an irrational person. Maybe you should look i the mirror sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 10:52 AM

So what is the difference between you and the Klan

The KLAN? "LYNCHING"?? "The color of your sheet"??

This poses another question: What is the difference between yourself and an obnoxious, irrational, ignorant, foul-mouther asshole?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 11:00 AM

"What is the difference between yourself and an obnoxious, irrational, ignorant, foul-mouther asshole?"


That's easy- I am "beardedbruce", not "GregF".

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM

Pretty limp-dick response, Beardy. Where's your usual verbosity & rapier-like wit?