• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
You do know, of course, is that all it takes is to simply not read posts in threads that either do not hold your interest, or which have content which you do not like [to read].

The thread holds my interest, rather obviously (for you in particular, I might add).

As for "content which I do not like to read", I've invested far too much time in this forum and the public advocacy of open carry to watch it devolve into mindless race-baiting unchallenged. Nor do I think Zimmerman, a man I believe to be innocent, is served well by such "discussion."

While I've since conceded that Grapeshot's most recent observation does impact Z's interests and future, I don't think allowing him to become the center of some ridiculous neo-racist flame war (notice I'm implicating both sides there) does at all. The line is fine, and while I may have previously misidentified its location, it exists nevertheless.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
He's addicted. The first step is to admit you have a problem. :p

Hmm. That might explain my recent "altercations" with posters regarding the definition of "pursue" and the appropriateness of Zimmerman's initial actions (not his seemingly rightful self-defense, mind you). However, with regard to this most recent disagreement, my concern is genuine and ardent.
 
Last edited:

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
When all else fails, call someone a "leftist".


Or a raciest, right marshaul? You continue to achieve notoriety in those areas you attack others with. Nice self character assassination, and thanks for revealing yourself, as observed from a White guy.


I'm quite confident that those posters with whom I share mutual respect will see this for what it is.


Well that's wonderful marshaul, and I hope they will assist you in finding a level of integrity to surpass your confidence.

Enought of you, and back to the topic.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Et tu, Grapeshot?

I mean, come on. Read the darn article.



Do you really think anybody takes these clowns seriously, except the few protesters' faces the media just loves to print? And it's not like the media doesn't have proven track record of artificially hyping the slightest hint of drama so as to sell more ads.

Come on.

Why are we talking about what a bunch of fraudsters are doing in this thread? How is it remotely relevant? And who really gives two craps? None of the blacks I know do.

Honestly, Grapeshot, I am a little surprised by your jumping on the bandwagon.

Does that really rise to the level of betraying a close and trusted friend?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Or a raciest, right marshaul?

This is the last post I will make on this tangent, as it's clear the forum as a whole is content to allow the race issue to take center stage where it does not belong. Who am I to argue?

For the record, I don't actually believe that you are a racist. Neither do I disbelieve it. Only you can know whether you are.

As you might have gathered had you attempted to understand my numerous posts on the subject, I was merely calling you a racist by the same standard that you and Al Sharpton wield the phrase. As it happens, I do not find this standard to be valid. Perhaps I should have been more clear on that point.

Frankly, I cannot know whether Al Sharpton is a racist either. I don't really pay much attention to what the man says anyway; it neither concerns nor effects me.

I was merely (clearly ham-handedly) trying to point out that, by the same standard you levy the claim against Sharpton, you are also guilty. That is to say, you are guilty of the same offense of which he is, that being allowing the discussion of an issue for which race is irrelevant to focus on race, race-baiting, and claims of racism.

I was hoping to encourage you to let it drop. Clearly, my methods were beyond flawed, as you are now only reinforced in your view. For this error I am quite regretful. Oh well. It is futile to attempt to convince those set in their ways, as you and Al Sharpton clearly are in the arena of race relations. I must be content with ignoring your ramblings on the subject of race, as I do his. I would prefer that race become an issue of the past. Clearly, we as a people are not ready for that. For this, I accept that Al Sharpton is as much to blame as anybody else, yourself included.

I'll let you have the last word, if you like.
 
Last edited:

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
All the same, sometimes hypocrisy needs to be pointed out, even if it is hard to do so without being hypocritical oneself.

An interesting proposition. Stunning, actually.

I think it may explain a lot of how extremists argue so much for so long for so little.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
Zimmerman had a history of violent behavior. Something about resisting arrest/battery on a police officer. Also, some kind of domestic violence beef.

And those incidents were apparently without a firearm. Imagine the instincts of a violent guy with a deadly weapon at hand.

No, those two items do not indicate a history of violent behavior.

The 'resist' charge was not a violent act, and unless you have information that the restraining order of his former wife did involve more than simple domestic differences, it isn't valid to use as you do.

The history which has been reported on so far does indeed indicate a pattern or propensity on the part of of George Zimmerman for violence and or disregard for the law.

1. The "resist" charge of 2005 was reported as: "resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer." That seems pretty self-evident that some violence was involved. Apparently drinking was involved, too, since GZ went through an alcohol education program as a result of the arrest. (The charge was subsequently reduced to "resisting arrest without violence.")

2. The restraining order obtained in 2005 by Veronica Zuazo, his ex-fiancee,after asking him to leave her home andcalling 911 on him, alleged that he "He grew upset, snatching her cellphone away from her, pushing her, she said. A pushing match ensued and her dog jumped up and bit him on the cheek."

3. It has been reported that Zimmerman was fired from a security job for "being too aggressive." An anonymous co-worker says "He had a temper and he became a liability," describing an incident where GZ, in a state of "pure rage," picked up a woman and threw her to the ground, injuring her.

Seems to me that there is at least some support for George Zimmerman being an explosive/angry violent guy who liked being in charge and liked pushing people around.

And that was without a firearm.

The full story of his incident on February 26 with Trayvon Martin hasn't been told yet. There are some crucial details missing. We don't know if he has actually committed a crime. And we don't know if he will be charged.

But it's clear that George Zimmerman was a goof with a gun that February 26th night, unnecessarily precipitating a sequence of events that resulted in a dead 17 year old who was "suspicious" to GZ but who was doing nothing wrong.
 

gunns

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
270
Location
Minnesota
3. It has been reported that Zimmerman was fired from a security job for "being too aggressive." An anonymous co-worker says "He had a temper and he became a liability," describing an incident where GZ, in a state of "pure rage," picked up a woman and threw her to the ground, injuring her.

I like that one "anonymous co-worker". LOL Sort of like "I heard from a guy, who heard from another".
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
The history which has been reported on so far does indeed indicate a pattern or propensity on the part of of George Zimmerman for violence and or disregard for the law.

1. The "resist" charge of 2005 was reported as: "resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer." That seems pretty self-evident that some violence was involved. Apparently drinking was involved, too, since GZ went through an alcohol education program as a result of the arrest. (The charge was subsequently reduced to "resisting arrest without violence.")

Although I long suspected it, you've leaped headfirst into the category of "police apologists".

It is equally self-evident that the other "contempt of cop charge", disturbing the peace, necessarily entails having actually done so. :rolleyes:

Especially when the charges are dropped afterwards, amirite?

2. The restraining order obtained in 2005 by Veronica Zuazo, his ex-fiancee,after asking him to leave her home andcalling 911 on him, alleged that he "He grew upset, snatching her cellphone away from her, pushing her, she said. A pushing match ensued and her dog jumped up and bit him on the cheek."

3. It has been reported that Zimmerman was fired from a security job for "being too aggressive." An anonymous co-worker says "He had a temper and he became a liability," describing an incident where GZ, in a state of "pure rage," picked up a woman and threw her to the ground, injuring her.

Seems to me that there is at least some support for George Zimmerman being an explosive/angry violent guy who liked being in charge and liked pushing people around.

And that was without a firearm.

These are more convincing. Assuming, of course, the police reports are accurate. But they do not obviate his right to self-defense, nor prove that he was not exercising it.

Facts, HankT, facts. Innuendo does not qualify.

The full story of his incident on February 26 with Trayvon Martin hasn't been told yet. There are some crucial details missing. We don't know if he has actually committed a crime. And we don't know if he will be charged.

Agreed.

But it's clear that George Zimmerman was a goof with a gun that February 26th night, unnecessarily precipitating a sequence of events that resulted in a dead 17 year old who was "suspicious" to GZ but who was doing nothing wrong.

"Doing nothing wrong", except, of course, providing Zimmerman with justification for a rightful self-defense charge by slamming his head into the ground after he had already stopped any possible threat be being on top of a helpless (until he drew the gun) Zimmerman.

Assuming, of course, the police reports are accurate.

Remember, HankT, the claim to self-defense was not predicated on Martin's prior status of being "suspicious" (which I agree was likely unfounded), but by his subsequent actions.

Two wrongs never make a right. Zimmerman's stupidity can never justify Martin's behavior in the moments before he was shot.
 
Last edited:

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
So, uhm, do you think the co-worker's account is untrue?

Oh... He had a temper so he is guilty.

This is the kind of evidence that judges throw out because it has "No Probative Value."

It means nothing. Does the coworker dislike Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman piss him off or sleep with his girlfriend?

Does having a temper make you automatically guilty of any crime you are charged with???

If getting angry makes you guilty of a crime then we are all borked methinks...
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
Oh... He had a temper so he is guilty.

This is the kind of evidence that judges throw out because it has "No Probative Value."

It means nothing. Does the coworker dislike Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman piss him off or sleep with his girlfriend?

Does having a temper make you automatically guilty of any crime you are charged with???

If getting angry makes you guilty of a crime then we are all borked methinks...

Straw man.

Called.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
That's right, HankT, by operating on innuendo, you can implicate Z as being guilty, without saying so, and then call Strawman if anybody dares to point out your tactics.

How aboveboard of you. :rolleyes:

chickenparanoia2.jpg
 
Top