On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:20:53 -0400, wrote:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for
justifiable use of force.

Do note that says from prosecution and from civil actions. Different
things. GZ did not claim immunity in the prosecution, but he is immune
from civil action because he committed no crime.

"...immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant
(for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them).
Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills,
property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the
injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the
assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a
wrongful death suit." From Wiki.

Nevada law is missing the crucial element of protection from civil
liability. IOW, In Nevada you could be sued by the family even though
you were justified in the use of force.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:39:35 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/26/2013 3:00 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:51:02 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/26/2013 1:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:51:04 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear
from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he
shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with
history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.

GZ has no felony convictions.. There WILL not be ANY civil case from
the feds or the family. End of story.


How are you certain there will be no civil suit brought by the family?

Just read the law; regarding self defense in Florida. Right there in
black and white.

You mean this?: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/776.013

Cite "Castle Doctrine".

There is no phrase "castle doctrine" in Florida Statutes than I could
find on searching. What specific statute are you referring to?

Self defense. The Castle Doctrine is a legal doctrine. All the folks
on fire about "stand your ground" will not find the phrase is not in
the law in Florida; nor "castle doctrine". Look in the self defense
law.

Origins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#Origins

On Friday, July 26, 2013 12:51:04 PM UTC-4, NorMinn wrote:
On 7/26/2013 8:31 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,

"Robert Green" wrote:





in flames. It saddens and worries me that now starving small local papers

just can't afford to maintain a remote bureau covering state news and so it

goes largely uncovered nowadays and that's not a good thing.





Heck I live in Indy where the state news IS home town news and I share

your concerns....



I am watching the effing History Channel now and it's all about Civil War

ghosts. I'd say that's proof we can't afford to dumb down the news for

people with IQ's on a par with my dog's. If they can't undestand that "he's

black" is just a description and not a racist comment, they need to smarten

up. The news doesn't need to dumb down. That way lies madness.

Actually in this case, it was the people who are supposed to smart

(Jackson, Sharpton, etc.) that were trying to make it into a racist

comment. I am less concerned about not slapping down the Great Unwashed

than those who are considered leaders.



I've seen plenty to disagree with from Jackson and, especially,

Sharpton, but I try to understand where they are coming from. Anyone

who thinks bigotry and prejudice are dead is a moron....


No one would argue that they don't exist. I would argue
that they are not the main problem that face blacks today.



Jackson and

Sharpton reacted much in the way they have when there was really

horrible treatment of blacks and, if it happened the same way 999,999

times one way, then the millionth time it was the same old same old.




Of course they do. They've made careers and a business out
of doing that.



I have known cops who were privately but open about being racist, and

one, especially, to an extreme degree. Now that it is not PC to hate

blacks openly, the bigots have gays and Muslims to hate.



I'm not retrying GZ/TM, but there are things about the event that really

don't make sense, starting with taking a drug screen from the SHOOTING

VICTIM and not the shooter! WTF!

T was tested because it's part of a routine autopsy for a
homicide. Z wasn't tested because under FL law, they can't
test someone for other than a DUI, unless the person asks for
it, consents to it, or they have a warrant. And apparently the
police didn't try to get a warrant. Whether they would have
succeeded had they tried, IDK. But you have a good point.
In any shooting incident like this, where self-defense is going to be an issue, the law should probably be changed so
that the police can directly get a drug test. But I'll bet
you'll hear holy hell from the defense lawyers, ACLU, etc.




TM (according to coroner's report)

had a GSW straight and level into left side of sternum, at a right

angle...now, if I'm under someone with a gun in my holster, how do I

draw and fire a clear shot at such an angle?

Seems straightforward to me.


And if TM was "pummelling

GZ MMA style"(GZ being the MMA trainee), as one witness stated, how did

TM have only one 1/4" by 1/8" abrasion on his ring finger of his left

hand?


Do you really think Z beat himself up? Z said T was
beating him up, witness John Good is the one who saw it
and said it was MMA style. Z had plenty of wounds consistent
with his story. How much proof do you need?



If TM was ready to fight, why did he drop his cell phone and not

put it into his pocket?



IDK, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant. How about the
fact that his friend girl, who was on the phone with T at the
time the incident started, says she believes T threw the first
punch? That's a lot more compelling than where T's phone was
or wasn't. And if T felt threatened by Z, why didn't he call
911?



GZ's whole record of phone calls to police, over about ten years, is

online in PDF format....how many times do you call the cops about

potholes? Geesh! His calls relate to his frame of mind and history, up

to time of shooting, of being on prescription drugs for anxiety. Having

been trained, with good grades, in criminology and neighborhood watch,

why was he alone, armed and following a suspicious party? Just plain

****ing stupid?



You focus on one isolated event where things ended badly.
There are tens of thousands of similar events, where
someone watching out for the neighborhood, sees someone
they believe suspicious, calls the police, then keeps an
eye on them until police arrive. There are countless
assaults, robberies, murders prevented by people doing
exactly that.








GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear

from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he

shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with

history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.


The history of violence was one incident when he was 20, drunk
and shoved a police officer who was questioning a friend
for under age drinking. It was resolved by Z entering an
alcohol program and the charges were dropped.
The alleged domestic violence accusation was made by his
girlfriend. She got a restraining order against Z, and Z got
one against her. Both those events occurred 8 years ago.
AFAIK, Z has never been arrested or charged with domestic violence.

I'd also point out that if he was so violent, how come
nothing ever happened in all the other calls he made
to police over the years? If he was the violent, out of
control vigilante that some would like you to believe,
why was there not a single other person that he engaged
with that they could find to testify against Z?

In article ,
wrote:


Not really true. The law says if they do try to sue and he prevails in
the immunity hearing that he has postponed so far, the plaintiff pays
all damages he may have incurred plus legal fees. I assume that is why
O'mara deferred the hearing. He wants the money.
O'mara would get fees and a third of whatever Zimmerman was awarded.
I wonder if it could be transfered to Federal Court? Right off it
would seem doubtful since they are both FL citizens, but one never
knows.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 7/26/2013 1:32 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:16:01 -0400, wrote:

The civil case will be interesting.

I doubt the Martin family is going to risk a civil suit. Loser pays in
Florida in the self defense statute and a court has already spoken on
self defense.

Under Florida self defense law, Zimmerman is immune from a civil case
by the family (Castle Doctrine). The law gives him immunity and he
cannot be sued -- unless he was found guilty, then the family could
file a civil case. Only then

The feds cannot prove a hate crime related to race, so that one is out
the window, too.

We will also hear a lot more about what a thug Martin was.

Angela Corey held back exculpatory evidence from the defense. The
defense is entitled to this evidence under discovery.

The IT guy she fired, for exposing this says there was also photos on
under aged girls (not in a good way). Aside from the guns, plants,
etc.

This case was a political coup d'état. Angela Corey should be
disbarred from law practice.


Isn't it interesting how P.L.L.C.F., Progressive Liberal Leftist
Commiecrat Freaks can justify all the lying cheating and stealing they
do because they are so much smarter and better than everyone else. When
those of their ilk get into government or the criminal justice system
and do anything, "The end justifies the means". Whenever there is a
criminal prosecution brought for political reasons you can be certain
that the prosecutor will withhold any exculpatory evidence in their
possession or revert to an old legal move where they bury the other side
in paper, hiding the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

TDD

"Bob_Villa" wrote in message
...
On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:25:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:


(Never mind the irony of the words "crack" shot and "cocaine" being used
100

years ago!)


and a little more than 100 years ago "Coke" (as in Coca Cola) was
formulated to have cocaine in it. Later caffeine was substituted for it.

I wonder if there's some Coke museum somewhere that's still got bottles of
the real McCoy? Somewhere buried in the depths of the CocaCola HQ?

I also wonder if Annie Oakley would have tested positive for cocaine because
she drank CocaCola? (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Norminn" wrote in message
On 7/26/2013 8:31 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

I've seen plenty to disagree with from Jackson and, especially,
Sharpton, but I try to understand where they are coming from. Anyone
who thinks bigotry and prejudice are dead is a moron....Jackson and
Sharpton reacted much in the way they have when there was really
horrible treatment of blacks and, if it happened the same way 999,999
times one way, then the millionth time it was the same old same old.

There are still plenty of blacks and whites alive who remember segregated
washrooms and "back of the bus" rules. I remember being surprised when we
took a family road trip down south in the late 50's how different things
were in Georgia, Florida and Mississippi compared to NYC.

I have known cops who were privately but open about being racist, and
one, especially, to an extreme degree. Now that it is not PC to hate
blacks openly, the bigots have gays and Muslims to hate.

Based on a recent post here by GS, I don't even think you can say it's no
longer PC to hate blacks openly. Depends on the venue. This is where the
RNC is falling down, perhaps fatally. *Most* young people grew up in a much
more equal world and have a hard time relating to the racist attitudes of
the older white folks that make up the base of the R party. Unless the RNC
leaders figure out how to reverse that trend, there are going to be fewer
and fewer of them elected each year. Let them cling to the spike caused by
the 2008 crash as proof they're winning. Fatal error.

I'm not retrying GZ/TM, but there are things about the event that really
don't make sense, starting with taking a drug screen from the SHOOTING
VICTIM and not the shooter! WTF! TM (according to coroner's report)
had a GSW straight and level into left side of sternum, at a right
angle...now, if I'm under someone with a gun in my holster, how do I
draw and fire a clear shot at such an angle? And if TM was "pummelling
GZ MMA style"(GZ being the MMA trainee), as one witness stated, how did
TM have only one 1/4" by 1/8" abrasion on his ring finger of his left
hand? If TM was ready to fight, why did he drop his cell phone and not
put it into his pocket?

I can explain GZ's injuries by TM falling over on him after being shot at
close range. TM's skull hit GZ in the face (ever been head-butted? It
*really* hurts!) Your other points are well-taken. The prosecution didn't
do a good enough job explaining the forensics and overcharged GZ to boot.
If, as was claimed by one witness, GZ was getting pounded MMA style, he
should have been mussed up a lot more. No DNA on Travon? Very suspicious
if he really had been pounding away at GZ. More dubious shootings will
occur and that will create a wave that will wash over and sweep away SYG
laws. People don't have an unlimited tolerance for questionable killings.
Nor do they want someone's irrational fear to end their *own* lives.

A jury verdict means that 6 or 12 people, usually with very little *real*
legal or forensic experience, came to a conclusion based on the narrow set
of facts our legal system lets them consider. It's like what my driver's ed
teacher used to say: "What does a flashing rear left turn signal mean? . . .
That the driver's turn signal bulb isn't burned out." Lawyers trying their
case out before test juries learned a long time ago that jury X may convict
but jury Y, hearing the same trial proceedings won't.

So it's not very prudent to read a lot into any particular jury verdict.
Look at the arguments over trivialities that break out here and imagine six
AHR members on a jury. (-:

Jury verdicts are all over the map and many lawyers believe jury verdicts
are a "spin the wheel" sort of process. It's why in really big trials much
money is spent on jury analysts who try to help lawyers strike jurors they
believe will vote against them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-...ay-with-murder

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God,"
she said. "And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions
and answers he has to deal with."

GZ's troubles are not over. OJ didn't *really* get away, either, and is now
begging for parole because he's such a nice guy. GZ will be forgotten about
faster by his new "friends" then he will by the many people who thought he
got away with murder. I wouldn't want to be him in a million years. He's
the poster boy for PFS people. (-: Right now, there's someone thinking to
themselves, as GZ did, that "these assholes always get away" and is
planning, like GZ, to change that. GZ knows it, too, and I'll bet if he
could take back that bullet, he would.

GZ's whole record of phone calls to police, over about ten years, is
online in PDF format...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...plete-log.html

43. Jan. 29, 2012 - 5:38 p.m.
Type: TEL
Subject: Disturbance
Report: Children "running and playing in the street"

What a pinhead! And they gave this guy a gun? "Hey you kids, get off my
lawn!!"

More importantly, the calls do reveal that he was reporting an awful lot of
suspicious blacks. I wonder if the kids were black, too? By my count, the
DOJ *could* make a profiling case against GZ if further investigation shows
a number of the calls were about blacks. The call log is insufficient but
incident reports might shed more light. I bet Holder's folks have reviewed
them all. The only whites reported, AFAICT, are white Ford trucks and a
white and brown pitbull. GZ may not be out of the woods by a long shot.
Mostly the calls prove what a sad, easily angered little man he was.

.how many times do you call the cops about
potholes? Geesh! His calls relate to his frame of mind and history, up
to time of shooting, of being on prescription drugs for anxiety.

Was he on prescription meds? Many people, including some here, don't seem
to realize that is grounds for revocation of a CWL in many states.

Having
been trained, with good grades, in criminology and neighborhood watch,
why was he alone, armed and following a suspicious party? Just plain
****ing stupid?

PFS. I like that! (-: In my years as a police reporter, he is the
spitting image of the classic police wannabe. At least in my jurisdiction,
if you want to go riding around armed, you have to show a need to do so and
the training and ability to do so. I went through 80 hours of classes, 40
extra because my employer wanted a litigation shield so they could answer
any suit with "Look, he's not just some PFS guy off the street we handed a
gun to!" Over and over the instructors told us: "You are not the police,
you do not have police powers. If you train a gun on someone who doesn't
warrant it, you will end up being sued, perhaps charged and definitely
disarmed." I really take exception to the concept of dumb-as-dirt citizens
with very little gun or legal training taking to the streets armed with 14
round Glocks.

The big problem with SYG, as I see it, is that it removes the worry in your
head that if you're wrong, bad things will happen to you.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ing-on/1233133

A law that allows two armed drug dealers to have a running shoot-out through
Miami exchanging dozens of shots *without being charged* is a bad law. I
don't want to be killed in the crossfire between two PFS people.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/2...-trip-for.html

A judge in Leon County, Terry P. Lewis, said in 2010 that thanks to Stand
Your Ground, rival gangs could engage in an OK Corral-style shootout on the
streets in broad daylight, and since gangs have good reason to fear each
other, everyone could walk.It will be the defense of Michael Dunn, who
unloaded his 9mm into an SUV carrying four teenagers who upset him with
their loud hip-hop music, and who told police he thought they were a bunch
of gang members who raised a gun at him. No gun was found, and 17-year-old
Jordan Davis is dead. After the shooting, Dunn and girlfriend went back to
their hotel and got a pizza.

This is wrong, and Stand Your Ground laws won't stand forever because they
are already leading to cold-blooded killers walking off scot-free. Even the
extreme law and order types who approved the laws in the first place will
find that hard to tolerate.

GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear
from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he
shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with
history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.

There may *be* no civil case. The NRA and ALEC worked hard to draft the
laws that they introduced in statehouses across the US. While I applaud
their attempts to insure that legitimate self-defense shooters weren't
unduly penalized, they made some serious omissions.

The most important is that *every* homicide be investigated by trained and
competent homicide investigators. Photos and other forensic evidence needs
to be collected *right away* in the event a case is not what it seemed a
first blush (for instance, a string of previous violent encounters). The
Martin shooting will start pulling the pendulum in the other direction as
more people ask "Who *pushed* for these changes to self-defense laws that
have been working pretty well for perhaps 100 years?"

--
Bobby G.

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 07-25-2013 22:40, Robert Green wrote:
Home schoolers typically want to withdraw from the normal educational
system
so they can perpetuate religious ignorance and teach Creationism (more
aptly
named Cretinism) to their usually very poorly socialized offspring. At

You obviously know very little about home-schooling. Many are
non-religious, and many of the religious ones are more concerned
with what they perceive as an over-all anti-religious bias.

First of all, you know nothing of what I know about home schooling, which is
quite a bit. You would have us believe you have magical understanding of
the inner workings of my mind from one paragraph. Which is more likely?
That you've been in my brain? Or that I have known several home-schoolers
and all of them were a little off the mark? (-:

Second of all, what you snipped out is how angry I am at the home school
lobby for their opposition to something REPUBLICAN Senator and former
Presidential Candidate Bob Dole wanted very much for the US to take the
world lead on. That alone tells me that as a group, home schoolers are not
well-informed, hold many prejudices based on fear and opposed something that
would have enforced America's role as "leader of the free world." And they
weren't afraid to stomp on a sick, frail elder statesman to do it. That is
enough for me to think very badly of them. Which I freely admit I do.
Very, very, VERY badly. But wait, there's more!

Let's talk from facts instead of your baseless assumptions of my lack of
subject knowledge. That way someone might be tempted to believe you, Wes.
But only tempted:

The 2007 survey showed 83.3% of home-schooling parents named "a desire to
provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason to
home-school. . . . Christopher Lubienski, professor of education policy at
the University of Illinois, says that though some home-schooled students
become high achievers, they may have done as well in a normal school
setting. "There's really not good evidence that it's a better model for
children," he says. He says some parents "just aren't qualified to provide
the education for their children." source:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...lar/53095020/1

Were you home schooled? It seems so or you might know what the word
"typically" means as I used it. It doesn't mean every damn one of them. It
coincides perfectly with your claim of "many." So WTF are you on about,
then? You either don't know what the word means, or you're looking to make
trouble. Which is it?

When my polytheist friend decided to home school, her greatest problem was
finding a curriculum guide that didn't favor one particular religious group.
Her biggest gripe? The embedding of Creationism in the science tracks and
subtly throughout the rest of the units. Hence my comment was based on
knowing a person who tried to get hold of a religiously neutral curriculum
to teach her kids by. She tried very hard and finally had to help start a
group that would seek to publish a theologically neutral learning program
because in this jurisdiction, none existed and an approved curriculum was
required to home school.

If the public education is so bad, add some tutoring to your child's
education, join the PTA or run for the school board. Socialization is an
important part of a child's growth and it's sorely absent in home-schooling.
I've listened to plenty of stories from teacher friends of having to deal
with home-schooled kids whose parents suddenly dumped them back into the
public system. These kids were "typically" so miserably educated at home by
know-it-all parents that they almost never regained their educational or
sociological footing.

Do some excel? Of course, but many have real troubles according to college
graduation rates - at least in studies *not* compiled by the home school
lobby! Their studies prove nothing but "goodness and light" hyperbole
alert comes out of home schooling. Another clue they're not on the up and
up. They did a self-review and found nothing at all wrong. So we have the
morally superior, the religiously weird and those who believe themselves
perfect making up the bulk of home schoolers. I double down on my original
evaluation.

Some home-schooled kids do really well, but since in most cases their
identical twins did not go to public school, it's hard to tell if they
wouldn't have done equally as well in public school - or better.

Wes, the fact that *you* considered HS'ing your kid only reinforces my point
that home-schoolers are generally strange people. Some have a mistrust of
society, some a poor understanding of childhood education principles or a
religious fervor or a sense of moral superiority. Or they have some other
problem that makes them want to turn their own children into social isolates
and misfits who may be completely misinformed about real science and taught
to believe in mythology.

We'll just say you have "some other problem" because I only know you
superficially from your postings. Strangely, you magically seem to know all
that I know, or at least enough to say that "I know very little" about
something with no real proof. Are you sure you weren't home schooled? (-:
That would be a home-schooled kid's sort of mistake: believing something
with no direct evidence.

But let's forget all that because I want you to tell ME how I can become an
expert like you in the operation and knowledge level of other people's minds
from reading a single paragraph? That's an amazing skill!

While you may love home schoolers to death, in my book their ill-informed,
irrational fears got a very ill Bob Dole backstabbed on perhaps his last
public appearance before the Senate and perhaps on earth. A man whose boots
they were not fit to lick. He pulled himself from near death to see the
Senate spit on him after PROMISING their support but caving in to home
schooling misfits and their bizarre views of the world. Would you want to
end your career and perhaps your life on a note like that? That's the
"morally superior" showing off their morally superior behavior - in a pig's
eye. I think home schoolers aren't worth the greased jack pin to ram them
into hell. At least after that performance.

I knew and liked Bob Dole and worked with him and Lloyd Bentsen on a number
of occasions. For the home school lobby to rise against Dole is something I
will never forgive them for, and I didn't like them very much to begin with,
based on direct experience. Love 'em if you want, but they proved to me how
stupid and prejudiced they are as a group because it was their lobby that
crapped on both Bob Dole and his distinguished record as a United States
Senator.

Hopefully now you have a better understanding of what I know of home
schooling and why I once simply disliked the home school lobby but now I
deeply despise them.

--
Bobby G.

On 07-27-2013 01:00, Robert Green wrote:
The 2007 survey showed 83.3% of home-schooling parents named "a desire to
provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason to

Which you somehow warped into "want to teach creationism"

--
Wes Groleau

€œA man with an experience is never
at the mercy of a man with an argument.€�
€” Ron Allen

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 07-27-2013 01:00, Robert Green wrote:

The 2007 survey showed 83.3% of home-schooling parents named "a desire
to
provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason to

Which you somehow warped into "want to teach creationism"

There's only one thing warped around here, and it's your ability to read
english. If you had bothered to read carefully, you'd know I used both
external statistics and personal experience to make my case. In contrast,
you offered nothing but your flapping gums to try to make yours, and failed
miserably. Oh well.

I'll bet you were confused. How could a guy who's been labeled a "lib loon"
have such a strong, positive opinion of a great man like Bob Dole,
REPUBLICAN US Senator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dole

--
Wes Groleau

"A man with an experience is never
at the mercy of a man with an argument."
- Ron Allen

Wow, even your automatic sig line is dissing you!

You really *are* having a bad day. I related my actual experience with my
home schooling friends and the teachers who have had to rescue HS'ed kids
and you came with a lame insult and zero facts.

A-tweet, you really know how to get served. (-: This one's a classic.
You've made history!

P.S. Did you know your name spells GREW A LOUSE when anagrammed? It also
spells LOUSE WAGER which is exactly the bad, buggy bet you made coming after
me with nothing but insults. Thank you for playing. Please plonk me so I
don't have to school you any more. Wes, you're a mediocre student, I'm
afraid.

Oh, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain my position in
detail.

(-: Have a nice day!

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Bob_Villa" wrote in message
...
On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:25:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:


(Never mind the irony of the words "crack" shot and "cocaine" being used
100

years ago!)


and a little more than 100 years ago "Coke" (as in Coca Cola) was
formulated to have cocaine in it. Later caffeine was substituted for it.

I wonder if there's some Coke museum somewhere that's still got bottles of
the real McCoy? Somewhere buried in the depths of the CocaCola HQ?

I also wonder if Annie Oakley would have tested positive for cocaine because
she drank CocaCola? (-:

--
Bobby G.

One of my all time fave cartoons was following the "New" Coke fiasco. It
was in the board room of Coke, in the background was a TV screen with
"Coke Returns To Original Formula" written on it. The assembled board is
looking perplexed. Under the cartoon it said "Where are we going to get
all that cocaine?"
(Okay, maybe you had to be there)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message

Zimmermann did not drag Martin behind his truck. He shot
him while he
was getting his ass kicked.

Had Zimmerman not initiated the chain of events by
stalking Martin,
this death would not have occurred.


With all your unsubstantiated assumptions, it's no wonder
people believe the media is slanted.
You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims, but act
like they are facts.
As someone that says he worked as a journalist, you should
know better.
As hard as they tried to hang GZ, I'm sure that the DAs
office and investigators are much smarter than you and
normin and would have uncovered anything that would have
convicted GZ. Just look how hard they worked to keep facts
about TM out of the trial to make him look like an angel
Doubts are not facts!
Here's are some *facts* for you

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...burglary-tool/


http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zi...rtin-shooting/


http://www.scribd.com/doc/87840105/Z...nford-Churches

I doubt that any of this will change your slanted views.
And for one that says he edited news for airing, you sure
can write a bloated rant and make a lot of unsubstantiated
claims that even *you* can't back up.
As many have said, if TM was in fear, why was it GZ that
called 911 and not TM? TM should have gotten to the safety
of his fathers girlfriends home and waited until the police
got there and not doubled back to confront GZ. If he had
done anything remotely responsible, he would be alive today

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Whenever there is a
criminal prosecution brought for political reasons you can be certain
that the prosecutor will withhold any exculpatory evidence in their
possession or revert to an old legal move where they bury the other side
in paper, hiding the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

When the DA found out they had drawn a short straw, they wanted to add
3rd Degree murder and call it "child abuse". Citing more than a dozen
cases which was dumped on the Defense early one morning.

Fortunately, the Judge denied the DA's attempt to change the game.

On 7/27/2013 1:38 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Whenever there is a
criminal prosecution brought for political reasons you can be certain
that the prosecutor will withhold any exculpatory evidence in their
possession or revert to an old legal move where they bury the other side
in paper, hiding the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

When the DA found out they had drawn a short straw, they wanted to add
3rd Degree murder and call it "child abuse". Citing more than a dozen
cases which was dumped on the Defense early one morning.

Fortunately, the Judge denied the DA's attempt to change the game.


So the P.L.L.C.F. prosecutor wanted to change the rules in the middle of
the game. How typical of those of their ilk. "Legal procedures, we
don't need no stinking legal procedures!" ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:19:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 1:38 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Whenever there is a
criminal prosecution brought for political reasons you can be certain
that the prosecutor will withhold any exculpatory evidence in their
possession or revert to an old legal move where they bury the other side
in paper, hiding the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

When the DA found out they had drawn a short straw, they wanted to add
3rd Degree murder and call it "child abuse". Citing more than a dozen
cases which was dumped on the Defense early one morning.

Fortunately, the Judge denied the DA's attempt to change the game.


So the P.L.L.C.F. prosecutor wanted to change the rules in the middle of
the game. How typical of those of their ilk. "Legal procedures, we
don't need no stinking legal procedures!" ^_^

TDD

Angela Corey is a Republican.

Alan Dershowitz: DOJ should investigate Zimmerman prosecutor

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/huckabee/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2546520123001/alan-dershowitz-doj-should-investigate-zimmerman-prosecutor/?playlist_id=86920

On 7/24/13 7:16 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

A lot snipped.

Actually it was pretty much the same. They edited a crucial part of
the phone call to make it look like he was racist. So in your view,
Sharpton, Jackson, et al, who are making the racist assertion aren't
normal (something we actually agree on..grin).

More snipped.

I just learned Jackson and Sharpton aren't exactly new. I
thought of their type as the aftermath of the 60s civil rights movement.

In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their
troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their
wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances,
because they do not want to lose their jobs.

From Carpe Diem: http://tinyurl.com/m8klka3

On 7/27/2013 6:10 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/24/13 7:16 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

A lot snipped.

Actually it was pretty much the same. They edited a crucial part of
the phone call to make it look like he was racist. So in your view,
Sharpton, Jackson, et al, who are making the racist assertion aren't
normal (something we actually agree on..grin).

More snipped.

I just learned Jackson and Sharpton aren't exactly new. I
thought of their type as the aftermath of the 60s civil rights movement.

In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their
troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their
wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances,
because they do not want to lose their jobs.

From Carpe Diem: http://tinyurl.com/m8klka3

Thanks for the link. I'd been hearing some talk show hosts speaking
about what Booker T. Washington observed so many years ago. ^_^

TDD

On 7/27/2013 4:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 10:38:57 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 7:26 AM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message

Zimmermann did not drag Martin behind his truck. He shot him while he
was getting his ass kicked.

Had Zimmerman not initiated the chain of events by stalking Martin, this
death would not have occurred.

When Z left his vehicle and followed M, M had the right to stand his
ground!

Stand his ground from what? Being looked watched?

A black teenager from Miami is probably threatened daily, for
gosh sakes....Just the fact that TM came from a seemingly decent family
and was still in highschool speaks volumes.

Who ever told you they were a good family? If my kid was gone for 4
hours at night when he said he was just going up to the store for a
soda, I would be out looking for him. I would have seen the EMS and a
half dozen cop cars right outside my door and it would not have taken
a day and a half to find his body in the morgue.

Facebook posts and
discipline at school? Stolen property allegedly found? Stolen from
whom?

Good question, if the Miami police were not gagged along with everyone
else, maybe we would know.

So he bragged about fights and had pix of MJ
on his facebook page.....from what I have seen on the pages of white,
middle class, small-town kids, TM's stuff is no biggie and not grounds
for homocide.

He bragged of fights and he was alleged to have started this fight. It
seems logical to make the connection to me.



Then we should consider GZ as being at least as violent, especially
being an adult, who fought with police and had a restraining order
against him. I haven't seen a chronology of GZ's negatives -
restraining order, arrest, being turned down as hire on PD - in
conjunction with his gun purchase and license to carry concealed weapon.
Carry permit, especially, after a restraining order. RO must have
expired, or he would have not been permitted to have a weapon. Also
odd, in view of his actions, was that he was turned down by PD because
of his credit history!? Sounds like a born loser.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
stuff snipped

One of my all time fave cartoons was following the "New" Coke fiasco. It
was in the board room of Coke, in the background was a TV screen with
"Coke Returns To Original Formula" written on it. The assembled board is
looking perplexed. Under the cartoon it said "Where are we going to get
all that cocaine?"
(Okay, maybe you had to be there)

I laughed out loud when I read it so it still packs a punch. My favorite
joke concerning the Classic Coke fiasco was rewriting their slogan to say:
''Coke are it!"

--
Bobby G.

clipped
https://tinyurl.com/q45dd92

Are all state attorneys that horrible? o_O

TDD

Well, I doubt it, but, then, a lot of crooks probably think so. It
would be more accurate to term Florida politicians and public employees
as horrible, but every once in a while a good one shows up. Present
governor is a creep, as are a few Florida cops I had the misery to
encounter....one who yelled at me for "wanting to waste the prosecutors
time over a worthless piece of junk", and who then refused to
acknowledge that a valuable antique damaged by punk former step-son
(drunk, druggie). Same cop called off the search for a missing
Alzheimer's patient because he didn't like slogging around in the woods
next to a lake. Told the newspaper "we treated this the same as any
other missing adult".....Elderly gent found two weeks later floating in
the lake!! Florida later came up with the "Silver Alert" system, similar
to Amber Alert, for locating at-risk (retarded, dementia, etc.) adults
who are lost. A lot of losers have always chosen Florida to get lost in
or to sponge off retirees, and it shows.

On 7/27/2013 8:16 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, July 27, 2013 10:38:57 AM UTC-4, NorMinn wrote:
On 7/27/2013 7:26 AM, Robert Green wrote:

wrote in message



Zimmermann did not drag Martin behind his truck. He shot him while he

was getting his ass kicked.



Had Zimmerman not initiated the chain of events by stalking Martin, this

death would not have occurred.



When Z left his vehicle and followed M, M had the right to stand his

ground!

That's right. He had the right to use reasonable means to defend himself.
That doesn't give him the right to attack Z. Even T's friend girl, who was
on the phone with him at the time it started, says she believe T threw the
first punch. We also know that T had just moments before referred to Z
as a "freaky ass cracker".

If someone of another race was following me across my yard at night, I
might have negative things to say about them. What crap!


We know from both Z and eyewitness John Good
that T was on top, beating Z MMA style, with Z yelling for help. We know
that Good yelled that he was calling 911, yet the attack continued. How
is any of that compatible with SYG?

And as for SYG, Z shooting T under the circumstances that night would
have been self-defense in any state, with or without SYG.



Where and how close was John Good on a dark, rainy night that he could
be so sure?


A black teenager from Miami is probably threatened daily, for

gosh sakes....Just the fact that TM came from a seemingly decent family

and was still in highschool speaks volumes. Facebook posts and

discipline at school? Stolen property allegedly found? Stolen from

whom?

We won't know from whom because apparently the school did not have
the police pursue it.


Trace of MJ in his blood? He is elevated to the same level as

Presidents and Senators!

And even they can get into trouble because of using drugs. Are
you denying that drugs can make a person more aggressive, violent,
less able to use reasoned judgement?


Trace of marijuana? Are you kidding? About as much as a sip of beer,
maybe?


So he bragged about fights and had pix of MJ

on his facebook page.....from what I have seen on the pages of white,

middle class, small-town kids, TM's stuff is no biggie and not grounds

for homocide.




It's also not the picture painted of a sweet innocent looking, much younger
T that the media used at every opportunity.




Futhermore, you can't assure me that GZ didn't shoot him at close range

causing Martin to fall on him, his skull hitting his GZ's nose and the

cement causing GZ's rather minor head wounds as he fell backwards. You

can't assure me of anything, in fact, because you weren't there so you don't

know. Martin couldn't tell his side of the story.



Re-read Norminn's doubts about the wound trajectory. Re-read her doubts as

to why an allegedly ruthless MMA head bashing did very little damage to GZ.

He didn't even get a head X-ray. Read about her doubts about the lack of

GZ's DNA on TM's hands. I share every one of her doubts. And more.



Did I say that? I mentioned the ONE abrasion found on Trayvon's finger!

Some fist fight!

So, you can't give someone a bloody face and nose with only minor injury
to yourself? Good grief! Ever hear of a one punch homicide?



No TM DNA on the gun is all I know about DNA in the

event.

Why would you expect T's dna to be on the gun?

Z claimed he had grabbed the gun.


As inept as GZ is described (and how many life events reflect),

he might have been in such a panic to "catch the ****er" that he chased

TM and fell on his face.

Yeah, and martians and the CIA might have been involved too. Yet
the evidence doesn't support it. It's mighty strange that Z could be
a big liar about the whole thing and there isn't one eyewitness, one
shred of physical evidence that is in conflict with his account.

And only martians believe the accounts of accused murderers.



There is a detective's written statement, made

about three weeks after the killing, that TM was running. Teen males

are not likely to call 911 about someone following them, especially when

close to home.



If someone was following a typical law abiding teen and they felt
threatened, around here they sure would call 911. It happens all the
time.




Unless you were there, or God gave you the ability to determine who was

lying and who was telling the truth on the witness stand, you really don't

know what happened. Nor do I. I am merely putting forth what lawyers call

an alternate theory of the event that better explains GZ's rather slight

wounds better than an allegedly vicious, just one blow away from murder,

MMA-style attack.



One astonishing feature of the whole matter is how slavishly so many

people are willing to believe the accounts of the shooter and the

reports of witnesses who could not have seen it all clearly at night.



So, instead of the physical evidence, the account of Z, the eyewitness,
the facts of who called the police, who did not, who referred to the
other party as a freaky ass cracker, etc, we're supposed to instead
rely on what? Conjecture? Good grief.

You really, really think that TM referring to Z as a "freaky ass
cracker" matters AT ALL? What utter bull****.

On 7/27/2013 7:10 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/24/13 7:16 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

A lot snipped.

Actually it was pretty much the same. They edited a crucial part of
the phone call to make it look like he was racist. So in your view,
Sharpton, Jackson, et al, who are making the racist assertion aren't
normal (something we actually agree on..grin).

More snipped.

I just learned Jackson and Sharpton aren't exactly new. I
thought of their type as the aftermath of the 60s civil rights movement.

In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their
troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their
wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances,
because they do not want to lose their jobs.

From Carpe Diem: http://tinyurl.com/m8klka3

So, Andrew Young, Rosa Parks, MLK are in the same boat of "trouble
makers"? I would imagine that Booker T. made some other statements that
came out wrong, as well.

On 7/27/2013 8:14 PM, Norminn wrote:
On 7/27/2013 7:10 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/24/13 7:16 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

A lot snipped.

Actually it was pretty much the same. They edited a crucial
part of
the phone call to make it look like he was racist. So in your view,
Sharpton, Jackson, et al, who are making the racist assertion aren't
normal (something we actually agree on..grin).

More snipped.

I just learned Jackson and Sharpton aren't exactly new. I
thought of their type as the aftermath of the 60s civil rights movement.

In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their
troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their
wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances,
because they do not want to lose their jobs.

From Carpe Diem: http://tinyurl.com/m8klka3

So, Andrew Young, Rosa Parks, MLK are in the same boat of "trouble
makers"? I would imagine that Booker T. made some other statements that
came out wrong, as well.

Rosa Parks wasn't the first, she was just the one they chose to use.
Booker T. Washington observed the same kind of people like Jessie
Jackson and Al Sharpton all those years ago. Next you'll try to put
Martin Luther King in the same boat and that won't float. Jackson and
Sharpton aren't in the same league as that great American. ^_^

TDD

On 7/27/2013 8:01 PM, Norminn wrote:
clipped
https://tinyurl.com/q45dd92

Are all state attorneys that horrible? o_O

TDD

Well, I doubt it, but, then, a lot of crooks probably think so. It
would be more accurate to term Florida politicians and public employees
as horrible, but every once in a while a good one shows up. Present
governor is a creep, as are a few Florida cops I had the misery to
encounter....one who yelled at me for "wanting to waste the prosecutors
time over a worthless piece of junk", and who then refused to
acknowledge that a valuable antique damaged by punk former step-son
(drunk, druggie). Same cop called off the search for a missing
Alzheimer's patient because he didn't like slogging around in the woods
next to a lake. Told the newspaper "we treated this the same as any
other missing adult".....Elderly gent found two weeks later floating in
the lake!! Florida later came up with the "Silver Alert" system, similar
to Amber Alert, for locating at-risk (retarded, dementia, etc.) adults
who are lost. A lot of losers have always chosen Florida to get lost in
or to sponge off retirees, and it shows.

I have my own stories about dishonest folks inside the criminal justice
system. I lucked out getting a sheriffs deputy fired and an assistant DA
sent to federal prison. All you have to do is bring the information to
the attention of the right people. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:14:45 -0400, Norminn
wrote:


A lot snipped.

Actually it was pretty much the same. They edited a crucial part of
the phone call to make it look like he was racist. So in your view,
Sharpton, Jackson, et al, who are making the racist assertion aren't
normal (something we actually agree on..grin).

More snipped.

I just learned Jackson and Sharpton aren't exactly new. I
thought of their type as the aftermath of the 60s civil rights movement.

In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their
troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their
wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances,
because they do not want to lose their jobs.

From Carpe Diem: http://tinyurl.com/m8klka3

So, Andrew Young, Rosa Parks, MLK are in the same boat of "trouble
makers"? I would imagine that Booker T. made some other statements that
came out wrong, as well.

Where did your twisted mind, and I hope I'm not giving you more credit
than you deserve, come up with that analogy? There was absolutely no
mention of those individuals until you blurted them out.

Perhaps you too fit right in with Rev Al and Rev Jesse and the like.

On 07-27-2013 10:44, Kurt Ullman wrote:
times under this scenario. The forensics also indicated that the bullet
was shot "from an intermediate" distance and was not a contact wound.

That would be inconsistent with Zimmermans claim that he pulled the gun
and fired when Trayvon was on top of him and trying to get the gun himself.

--
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.

On 7/27/2013 10:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:11:21 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

If someone of another race was following me across my yard at night, I
might have negative things to say about them. What crap!

The only problem is it was Zimmerman's "yard" (private road inside a
fenced, gated community) and Martin was the stranger.


Martin lived there....if Z was to police the area, he should have done
so according to the standards of his position as neighborhood watch
volunteer.

On 7/27/13 8:14 PM, Norminn wrote:
On 7/27/2013 7:10 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

I just learned Jackson and Sharpton aren't exactly new. I
thought of their type as the aftermath of the 60s civil rights movement.

In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their
troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their
wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances,
because they do not want to lose their jobs.

From Carpe Diem: http://tinyurl.com/m8klka3

So, Andrew Young, Rosa Parks, MLK are in the same boat of "trouble
makers"? I would imagine that Booker T. made some other statements that
came out wrong, as well.

I don't see the equivalence between the three persons' actions you
mentioned and what Sharpton and Jackson are doing. Those three were
trying to right a wrong. Jackson and Sharpton seem to be after the
money and fame. Their motivations don't seem the same.

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:16:18 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 10:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:11:21 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

If someone of another race was following me across my yard at night, I
might have negative things to say about them. What crap!

The only problem is it was Zimmerman's "yard" (private road inside a
fenced, gated community) and Martin was the stranger.


Martin lived there....if Z was to police the area, he should have done
so according to the standards of his position as neighborhood watch
volunteer.

giggle

Standards are just guidelines. One cannot expect "standards" to cover
every possible situation that could come up. If, so one would be
writing forever.

Aside, Zimmerman broke no laws. But keep trying to make him an evil
villain.

On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:05:37 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 3:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:19:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 1:38 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Whenever there is a criminal prosecution brought for political
reasons you can be certain that the prosecutor will withhold
any exculpatory evidence in their possession or revert to an
old legal move where they bury the other side in paper, hiding
the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

When the DA found out they had drawn a short straw, they wanted
to add 3rd Degree murder and call it "child abuse". Citing more
than a dozen cases which was dumped on the Defense early one
morning.

Fortunately, the Judge denied the DA's attempt to change the
game.


So the P.L.L.C.F. prosecutor wanted to change the rules in the
middle of the game. How typical of those of their ilk. "Legal
procedures, we don't need no stinking legal procedures!" ^_^

TDD

Angela Corey is a Republican.

Alan Dershowitz: DOJ should investigate Zimmerman prosecutor

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/huckabee/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2546520123001/alan-dershowitz-doj-should-investigate-zimmerman-prosecutor/?playlist_id=86920


Oops sorry, if it quacks like a duck.... I remember now, she was picked
for her ambitious desire to make a bigger name for herself. I wonder now
if she wasn't seen as a problem because she really is a RINO and the
real Republicans knew it and saw the Zimmerman trial as a way to take
the wind out of her sails exposing her for what she really is. I read
about an IT guy who was fired because he was told to help conceal
evidence and knew it was wrong to do so. The IT guy has more morals than
the lawyers who prosecuted the case. Ya know, over the years, I've seen
politicians switch parties depending on which way the political wind was
blowing just so they could stay in office. What Angela Corey did is
grounds for disbarment but she's safe as long as she's in office. From
what I've read, that gal is vicious, mean and just plain wacky. O_o

http://nationalreview.com/article/35...uttle/page/0/1

https://tinyurl.com/q45dd92

Are all state attorneys that horrible? o_O

TDD

She fired the IT Director (Ben Kruidbos), saying he could not be
"trusted". This is after she withheld exculpatory evidence that
violated Brady disclosure to the defense ( Brady v. Maryland) and he
blew the whistle. That violated her sworn Oath. She was willing to
put a man in jail for life for personal political reason. - bitch!

The IT guy is suing her for wrongful termination.

On 7/28/2013 1:55 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:05:37 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 3:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:19:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 1:38 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Whenever there is a criminal prosecution brought for political
reasons you can be certain that the prosecutor will withhold
any exculpatory evidence in their possession or revert to an
old legal move where they bury the other side in paper, hiding
the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

When the DA found out they had drawn a short straw, they wanted
to add 3rd Degree murder and call it "child abuse". Citing more
than a dozen cases which was dumped on the Defense early one
morning.

Fortunately, the Judge denied the DA's attempt to change the
game.


So the P.L.L.C.F. prosecutor wanted to change the rules in the
middle of the game. How typical of those of their ilk. "Legal
procedures, we don't need no stinking legal procedures!" ^_^

TDD

Angela Corey is a Republican.

Alan Dershowitz: DOJ should investigate Zimmerman prosecutor

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/huckabee/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2546520123001/alan-dershowitz-doj-should-investigate-zimmerman-prosecutor/?playlist_id=86920


Oops sorry, if it quacks like a duck.... I remember now, she was picked
for her ambitious desire to make a bigger name for herself. I wonder now
if she wasn't seen as a problem because she really is a RINO and the
real Republicans knew it and saw the Zimmerman trial as a way to take
the wind out of her sails exposing her for what she really is. I read
about an IT guy who was fired because he was told to help conceal
evidence and knew it was wrong to do so. The IT guy has more morals than
the lawyers who prosecuted the case. Ya know, over the years, I've seen
politicians switch parties depending on which way the political wind was
blowing just so they could stay in office. What Angela Corey did is
grounds for disbarment but she's safe as long as she's in office. From
what I've read, that gal is vicious, mean and just plain wacky. O_o

http://nationalreview.com/article/35...uttle/page/0/1

https://tinyurl.com/q45dd92

Are all state attorneys that horrible? o_O

TDD

She fired the IT Director (Ben Kruidbos), saying he could not be
"trusted". This is after she withheld exculpatory evidence that
violated Brady disclosure to the defense ( Brady v. Maryland) and he
blew the whistle. That violated her sworn Oath. She was willing to
put a man in jail for life for personal political reason. - bitch!

The IT guy is suing her for wrongful termination.


If the IT manager had concealed evidence for her, the statement that he
could not be trusted (to obey the law) would be true. The nut-job fired
everyone who "could not be trusted" when she took over things. That's
the kind of behavior I've usually only seen on the smarter, better,
elite, superior human Liberal Democrat side of the political spectrum.
I do remember Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys but when G.W. Bush fired
only 8, a howl went up from the Democrats because they didn't want any
investigation or prosecution of voter fraud. So if I made the mistake of
thinking Angela Corey was one of the P.L.L.C.F., it's because it didn't
just quack like a duck, it quacked like a whole fracking flock! ^_^

TDD

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:51:12 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/28/2013 1:55 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:05:37 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 3:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:19:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 1:38 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Whenever there is a criminal prosecution brought for political
reasons you can be certain that the prosecutor will withhold
any exculpatory evidence in their possession or revert to an
old legal move where they bury the other side in paper, hiding
the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

When the DA found out they had drawn a short straw, they wanted
to add 3rd Degree murder and call it "child abuse". Citing more
than a dozen cases which was dumped on the Defense early one
morning.

Fortunately, the Judge denied the DA's attempt to change the
game.


So the P.L.L.C.F. prosecutor wanted to change the rules in the
middle of the game. How typical of those of their ilk. "Legal
procedures, we don't need no stinking legal procedures!" ^_^

TDD

Angela Corey is a Republican.

Alan Dershowitz: DOJ should investigate Zimmerman prosecutor

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/huckabee/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2546520123001/alan-dershowitz-doj-should-investigate-zimmerman-prosecutor/?playlist_id=86920


Oops sorry, if it quacks like a duck.... I remember now, she was picked
for her ambitious desire to make a bigger name for herself. I wonder now
if she wasn't seen as a problem because she really is a RINO and the
real Republicans knew it and saw the Zimmerman trial as a way to take
the wind out of her sails exposing her for what she really is. I read
about an IT guy who was fired because he was told to help conceal
evidence and knew it was wrong to do so. The IT guy has more morals than
the lawyers who prosecuted the case. Ya know, over the years, I've seen
politicians switch parties depending on which way the political wind was
blowing just so they could stay in office. What Angela Corey did is
grounds for disbarment but she's safe as long as she's in office. From
what I've read, that gal is vicious, mean and just plain wacky. O_o

http://nationalreview.com/article/35...uttle/page/0/1

https://tinyurl.com/q45dd92

Are all state attorneys that horrible? o_O

TDD

She fired the IT Director (Ben Kruidbos), saying he could not be
"trusted". This is after she withheld exculpatory evidence that
violated Brady disclosure to the defense ( Brady v. Maryland) and he
blew the whistle. That violated her sworn Oath. She was willing to
put a man in jail for life for personal political reason. - bitch!

The IT guy is suing her for wrongful termination.


If the IT manager had concealed evidence for her, the statement that he
could not be trusted (to obey the law) would be true. The nut-job fired
everyone who "could not be trusted" when she took over things. That's
the kind of behavior I've usually only seen on the smarter, better,
elite, superior human Liberal Democrat side of the political spectrum.
I do remember Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys but when G.W. Bush fired
only 8, a howl went up from the Democrats because they didn't want any
investigation or prosecution of voter fraud. So if I made the mistake of
thinking Angela Corey was one of the P.L.L.C.F., it's because it didn't
just quack like a duck, it quacked like a whole fracking flock! ^_^

TDD

I've said here before and in other places, that if you walk into a
court room, observe Kangaroos hoping around at a rapid pace, chances
are you are in a Kangaroo Court.

On 7/28/2013 7:51 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:51:12 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/28/2013 1:55 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:05:37 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 3:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:19:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 1:38 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:58:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Whenever there is a criminal prosecution brought for political
reasons you can be certain that the prosecutor will withhold
any exculpatory evidence in their possession or revert to an
old legal move where they bury the other side in paper, hiding
the evidence in the paper pile. O_o

When the DA found out they had drawn a short straw, they wanted
to add 3rd Degree murder and call it "child abuse". Citing more
than a dozen cases which was dumped on the Defense early one
morning.

Fortunately, the Judge denied the DA's attempt to change the
game.


So the P.L.L.C.F. prosecutor wanted to change the rules in the
middle of the game. How typical of those of their ilk. "Legal
procedures, we don't need no stinking legal procedures!" ^_^

TDD

Angela Corey is a Republican.

Alan Dershowitz: DOJ should investigate Zimmerman prosecutor

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/huckabee/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2546520123001/alan-dershowitz-doj-should-investigate-zimmerman-prosecutor/?playlist_id=86920


Oops sorry, if it quacks like a duck.... I remember now, she was picked
for her ambitious desire to make a bigger name for herself. I wonder now
if she wasn't seen as a problem because she really is a RINO and the
real Republicans knew it and saw the Zimmerman trial as a way to take
the wind out of her sails exposing her for what she really is. I read
about an IT guy who was fired because he was told to help conceal
evidence and knew it was wrong to do so. The IT guy has more morals than
the lawyers who prosecuted the case. Ya know, over the years, I've seen
politicians switch parties depending on which way the political wind was
blowing just so they could stay in office. What Angela Corey did is
grounds for disbarment but she's safe as long as she's in office. From
what I've read, that gal is vicious, mean and just plain wacky. O_o

http://nationalreview.com/article/35...uttle/page/0/1

https://tinyurl.com/q45dd92

Are all state attorneys that horrible? o_O

TDD

She fired the IT Director (Ben Kruidbos), saying he could not be
"trusted". This is after she withheld exculpatory evidence that
violated Brady disclosure to the defense ( Brady v. Maryland) and he
blew the whistle. That violated her sworn Oath. She was willing to
put a man in jail for life for personal political reason. - bitch!

The IT guy is suing her for wrongful termination.


If the IT manager had concealed evidence for her, the statement that he
could not be trusted (to obey the law) would be true. The nut-job fired
everyone who "could not be trusted" when she took over things. That's
the kind of behavior I've usually only seen on the smarter, better,
elite, superior human Liberal Democrat side of the political spectrum.
I do remember Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys but when G.W. Bush fired
only 8, a howl went up from the Democrats because they didn't want any
investigation or prosecution of voter fraud. So if I made the mistake of
thinking Angela Corey was one of the P.L.L.C.F., it's because it didn't
just quack like a duck, it quacked like a whole fracking flock! ^_^

TDD

I've said here before and in other places, that if you walk into a
court room, observe Kangaroos hoping around at a rapid pace, chances
are you are in a Kangaroo Court.


Tie me kangaroo down Mate. ^_^

TDD

On 7/28/2013 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:16:18 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 10:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:11:21 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

If someone of another race was following me across my yard at night, I
might have negative things to say about them. What crap!

The only problem is it was Zimmerman's "yard" (private road inside a
fenced, gated community) and Martin was the stranger.


Martin lived there....if Z was to police the area, he should have done
so according to the standards of his position as neighborhood watch
volunteer.

People still keep ignoring the fact that this is all private property
and Martin was not a resident. He was a visitor

Would you feel; the same way if Zimmerman was working for Wackenhut?




Weird question....one, a uniformed security guard probably wouldn't exit
his vehicle and follow someone who is just talking on the phone. Two, a
teenager staying with his parents has every right to be there and would
not be likely to take issue with someone in uniform. Guess that is why
cops, military, security guards wear UNIFORMS, huh? S'pose?

On 7/28/2013 11:48 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:16:18 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 10:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:11:21 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

If someone of another race was following me across my yard at night, I
might have negative things to say about them. What crap!

The only problem is it was Zimmerman's "yard" (private road inside a
fenced, gated community) and Martin was the stranger.


Martin lived there....if Z was to police the area, he should have done
so according to the standards of his position as neighborhood watch
volunteer.

giggle

Standards are just guidelines. One cannot expect "standards" to cover
every possible situation that could come up. If, so one would be
writing forever.

Z violated basic "guidelines" for neighborhood watch
volunteers....leaving vehicle, not waiting for police, "patrolling"
alone, carrying weapon.

I'm not arguing his RIGHT to carry, just his aggressive, self-assumed
authority.

Here is a link to the manual for NW volunteers, sponsored by National
Sheriff's Assn.:



Here is an excerpt, page 17:
"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be
emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they
shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be
cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange
activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be
armed and dangerous. Patrol members can be equipped for their duties.
For example, flashlights or searchlights are necessary for night
patrols. Many mobile patrols use cell phones or two-way radios to
contact a citizen-manned base station, which in turn contacts law
enforcement officials when necessary."

Aside, Zimmerman broke no laws. But keep trying to make him an evil
villain.


No, I haven't made him an evil villain. Just a dumb ass wannabe.

On 7/29/2013 12:26 PM, Norminn wrote:
On 7/28/2013 11:48 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:16:18 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/27/2013 10:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:11:21 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

If someone of another race was following me across my yard at night, I
might have negative things to say about them. What crap!

The only problem is it was Zimmerman's "yard" (private road inside a
fenced, gated community) and Martin was the stranger.


Martin lived there....if Z was to police the area, he should have done
so according to the standards of his position as neighborhood watch
volunteer.

giggle

Standards are just guidelines. One cannot expect "standards" to cover
every possible situation that could come up. If, so one would be
writing forever.

Z violated basic "guidelines" for neighborhood watch
volunteers....leaving vehicle, not waiting for police, "patrolling"
alone, carrying weapon.

I'm not arguing his RIGHT to carry, just his aggressive, self-assumed
authority.

Here is a link to the manual for NW volunteers, sponsored by National
Sheriff's Assn.:



Oops...here is the link:
http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/pub...anual_1210.pdf

Here is an excerpt, page 17:
"Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be
emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they
shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be
cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange
activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be
armed and dangerous. Patrol members can be equipped for their duties.
For example, flashlights or searchlights are necessary for night
patrols. Many mobile patrols use cell phones or two-way radios to
contact a citizen-manned base station, which in turn contacts law
enforcement officials when necessary."

Aside, Zimmerman broke no laws. But keep trying to make him an evil
villain.


No, I haven't made him an evil villain. Just a dumb ass wannabe.

On 7/29/2013 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:49:38 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/28/2013 11:58 AM, wrote:

Would you feel; the same way if Zimmerman was working for Wackenhut?




Weird question....one, a uniformed security guard probably wouldn't exit
his vehicle and follow someone who is just talking on the phone. Two, a
teenager staying with his parents has every right to be there and would
not be likely to take issue with someone in uniform. Guess that is why
cops, military, security guards wear UNIFORMS, huh? S'pose?

If you have a roving guard who won't actually question a stranger in
his area you would fire the guard.
The "uniform" in the rain is a rain coat.
We have no indication that martin would have had any more regard for a

He is not required or expected to have regard for a stranger following
him. If TM knew there was a "neighborhood watch" ORGANIZATION, rather
than a vigilante, he likely would not have been as concerned or threatened.

small logo on a raincoat than he had for Zimmerman.
He would just be a "creepy assed cracker rentacop" in his mind.

Oh, so you want a teenage guy, on the phone with a friend, to say: "By
jove, there is a gentleman following me. I believe I should end our
call and contact authorities."? LMAO!

The Elder Martin was a GUEST too. The girl friend was the resident..
She was probably a renter with limited rights in the community.

I guess you have never lived in a condo or a gated community. This was
both.


Yep! I have; no age limit, such as "over 55" (lots of condo wars over
that). No limit on invited guests, and renters had same exact rights as
the owner. If a unit is rented, in Florida, the owner does not share
rights to use the property the same as if he resided in the condo. He
has the rights to enter, reasonably, for inspection and maintenance, of
course. And, I also had experience, including assault, by a "condo
commando" who tried to exert inappropriate authority over people,
bullied and demeaned people who objected to neglected maintenance, and
who protected her cronies on the board who were never current on their
maintenance fees (since outlawed in Florida).

If a condo has a real, organized NW program with designated duties and
personnel, it would normally be well publicized and likely have some ID
for persons and vehicles involved.

On Monday, July 29, 2013 12:38:24 PM UTC-4, NorMinn wrote:
On 7/29/2013 12:25 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:49:38 -0400, Norminn

wrote:



On 7/28/2013 11:58 AM, wrote:



Would you feel; the same way if Zimmerman was working for Wackenhut?









Weird question....one, a uniformed security guard probably wouldn't exit

his vehicle and follow someone who is just talking on the phone. Two, a

teenager staying with his parents has every right to be there and would

not be likely to take issue with someone in uniform. Guess that is why

cops, military, security guards wear UNIFORMS, huh? S'pose?



If you have a roving guard who won't actually question a stranger in

his area you would fire the guard.

The "uniform" in the rain is a rain coat.

We have no indication that martin would have had any more regard for a



He is not required or expected to have regard for a stranger following

him. If TM knew there was a "neighborhood watch" ORGANIZATION, rather

than a vigilante, he likely would not have been as concerned or threatened.



You're implying that T knew there was a "vigilante"? How could
you know what T knew or didn't know? Not that it really matters.





small logo on a raincoat than he had for Zimmerman.

He would just be a "creepy assed cracker rentacop" in his mind.



Oh, so you want a teenage guy, on the phone with a friend, to say: "By

jove, there is a gentleman following me. I believe I should end our

call and contact authorities."? LMAO!


Yes, I would expect a teenager to end a call and call 911 if said teenager was really concerned about who was
following them and why. Or, the teenager could just have quickly
walked straight home. Now, if the teen doesn't, has
an attitude that some "creepy ass cracker" is following him, and
escalates it into a fight, continues that fight even with witnesses
yelling that they are calling police, beats the other party MMA
style, etc and winds up getting shot in self-defense, then the
teenage has no one to blame but himself.

Again, you like to focus on the 1 in a million incidents like
this where it ends in a shooting. How about all the other cases
where a neighborhood watch person or just a concerned citizen
did exactly what Z did and it prevented a serious crime, prevented
a murder, resulted in the apprehension of a wanted criminal?
From all indications, Z did nothing wrong. It was T that had the
"creepy ass cracker" attitude. T's friend girl who was on the
phone with him has even said that she believes T threw the first
punch. Good grief. This is like having a fatal car accident
that the victim caused, and then blaming it on the dentist because
if the dentist had seen the victim at the appointment time instead
of 30 mins late, then the accident never would have happened.








The Elder Martin was a GUEST too. The girl friend was the resident..

She was probably a renter with limited rights in the community.



I guess you have never lived in a condo or a gated community. This was

both.





Yep! I have; no age limit, such as "over 55" (lots of condo wars over

that). No limit on invited guests, and renters had same exact rights as

the owner. If a unit is rented, in Florida, the owner does not share

rights to use the property the same as if he resided in the condo. He

has the rights to enter, reasonably, for inspection and maintenance, of

course. And, I also had experience, including assault, by a "condo

commando" who tried to exert inappropriate authority over people,

bullied and demeaned people who objected to neglected maintenance, and

who protected her cronies on the board who were never current on their

maintenance fees (since outlawed in Florida).



If a condo has a real, organized NW program with designated duties and

personnel, it would normally be well publicized and likely have some ID

for persons and vehicles involved.

Again, while you have lots of opinions, you're lacking the most
basic information. The condo association knew of the neighborhood
watch organization, knew what Z was doing. They even let residents
know about it in their newsletter. Sorry if that doesn't concur with
your rouge vigilante image.

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Again, while you have lots of opinions, you're lacking the most
basic information. The condo association knew of the neighborhood
watch organization, knew what Z was doing. They even let residents
know about it in their newsletter. Sorry if that doesn't concur with
your rouge vigilante image.

....sounds like a phony scandal to me

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:44:38 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

Again, while you have lots of opinions, you're lacking
the most
basic information. The condo association knew of the
neighborhood
watch organization, knew what Z was doing. They even let
residents
know about it in their newsletter. Sorry if that doesn't
concur with
your rouge vigilante image.

...sounds like a phony scandal to me

Better let Sharpton and Jesse know right awayg