Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's an unwritten rule here (and everywhere, I believe) that if YOU say something, YOU support it. I don't see you supporting anything that says that Judge Lester said GZ's domestic violence arrests were minor compared to others he has seen. You prove that he said that. If not, he didn't. I shouldn't have to spend G*d knows how much time on Google finding that.
It doesn't support what backspace said. NO ONE SAW THE BEGINNING OF THE FIGHT! (At lease not anyone who has come forward.)
It most certainly does back up what he said.
(Originally Posted by Katiana I do not believe it is true that there are any witnesses who say they saw Trayvon slam Zimmerman's head to the ground. If you have such a witness report, please post it).
He gave you the link to exactly what he said, what's wrong with you? Are you just wasting people's time?
In an earlier post you said that tm's gf said that tm dropped his 'phone' and someone pushed him against a 'fence.' Should I have asked you for a link, following your rule of 'You said it, you support it' ? I don't think eithet 'phone' or 'fence' is accurate.
The judge said--- "The injunction was somewhat mild compared to the injunctions that I'm familiar with and so really what this revolves about is the facts of this particular situation as presented to the court."
What I find annoying is your constant editing of your posts, sometimes to the point that it does not even match your original post...
Please....Ignore my comments if they cause you such distress....
TY
I said I would stop responding to your posts before I read this one. Please show me where I edited the post you quoted. Although it's not against the rules to edit a post, and I probably do it more than many, since I correct my typos and add links, I never change the meaning of the posts. Plus, I do not edit after someone has responded to my posts, although it doesn't change the quotes. I also write Edit: and then what I'm adding.
What's a riot is you are accusing me of editing a post that was only edited by you. I just went back to post #766 and it wasn't even edited! LOL You said I wrote 75 lbs and then accused me of editing. I never changed my post. I never even mentioned how much weight he lost, only a simple comment that he could have weight 200 lbs or more. Then in your response, you changed what I wrote. It doesn't work that way.
Edit: Just FYI: I went back to check the time on our posts. My post, the one you supposedly quoted as saying Zimmerman lost 75 lbs in 6 weeks, was written at 3:32. No editing. At 4:00, nearly 1/2 hr later, you quoted me. When I requested that you stop changing my posts, you write that you cannot follow what I wrote because of all the editing.
Goodbye!
Last edited by justNancy; 04-22-2012 at 03:22 PM..
It's an unwritten rule here (and everywhere, I believe) that if YOU say something, YOU support it. I don't see you supporting anything that says that Judge Lester said GZ's domestic violence arrests were minor compared to others he has seen. You prove that he said that. If not, he didn't. I shouldn't have to spend G*d knows how much time on Google finding that.
When people find it FOR you, you don't believe it anyway, you just start asking people for different links again and again, what's your point
When people find it FOR you, you don't believe it anyway, you just start asking people for different links again and again, what's your point
In the case of the two links I've asked for this aftenoon, neither of the links provided proved what the poster said they did. Unlike a lot of people here on CD, I will acknowledge if a link shows that I am wrong. With these two links, that was not the case.
No one has come forward to say they witnessed the beginning of the fight between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
Judge Lester did not address Zimmerman's domestic violence.
It's an unwritten rule here (and everywhere, I believe) that if YOU say something, YOU support it. I don't see you supporting anything that says that Judge Lester said GZ's domestic violence arrests were minor compared to others he has seen. You prove that he said that. If not, he didn't. I shouldn't have to spend G*d knows how much time on Google finding that.
If YOU say something, YOU support it...hmmm... seems like you're breaking your own rule...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
In an earlier post you said that tm's gf said that tm dropped his 'phone' and someone pushed him against a 'fence.' Should I have asked you for a link, following your rule of 'You said it, you support it' ? I don't think eithet 'phone' or 'fence' is accurate.
The judge said--- "The injunction was somewhat mild compared to the injunctions that I'm familiar with and so really what this revolves about is the facts of this particular situation as presented to the court."
Thank you jazzarama...I also heard it with my own ears because I watched the live hearing unlike others it would seem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
Not a personal attack. AFAIK, it's also in violation of the TOS to type words inside another member's comment. That's why we have the quote feature..
Your comment was insulting to me...that is a violation of the TOS
Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.
I was unable to find the violation you speak of...
So I listened to Tom Gresham today. He's a gun guy who is fairly knowledgable on self-defense and the law. He predicts that based on the info we have now, Zimmerman will not be convicted. If (a big if)it is true that Zimmerman was on his back and having his head smashed against the pavement, it would have been self-defense to shoot. After all having your head smashed against pavement certainly qualifies as deadly force.
In fact there was an incident in my town of Bellevue WA a few years ago, where a cop shot a guy who had him down and smashed the cops head against the sidewalk. The cop said he felt himself going unconcious so he shot in self-defense. It was ruled a good shooting.
Gresham also said that he thinks there may be some riots if Zimmerman is not convicted. Since the MSM has already demonstrated their willingness to distort and lie in connection with the case, that is probably a reasonable prediction.
1. Sure it would have been appropriate to ask for a link.
2. The judge appears to be talking about the alcohol violation, not the domestic violence. He does not mention the words "domestic violence" once.
Are you kidding?!? He was most certainly referencing the DV, a court issues injunctions for DV cases NOT alcohol violations and what alcohol violation are you talking about...You just cannot admit when you're wrong...
If YOU say something, YOU support it...hmmm... seems like you're breaking your own rule...
Thank you jazzarama...I also heard it with my own ears because I watched the live hearing unlike others it would seem...
Your comment was insulting to me...that is a violation of the TOS
Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.
I was unable to find the violation you speak of...
Big Whoop to you! Some of us have to work, take care of kids, other stuff that really shouldn't take precedence over watching TV, but. . . .
Here's a more inclusive quote, all I'm allowed on CD:
(from the CNN link):
I won't say it's standard, but it's a run-of-the-mill type run-in with the alcohol and beverage agents at the library, I believe it was. They're fairly common, so I'm familiar with those, even though it's in another jurisdiction.
The injunction was somewhat mild compared to the injunctions that I'm familiar with and so really what this revolves about is the facts of this particular situation as presented to the court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
