George Zimmerman poll

For domestic American politics only. For political issues with direct international implications, please post in the International Politics forum.

I think George Zimmerman is

a nutjob with anger management issues
10
63%
a misunderstood guy
1
6%
someone I don't know enough about to form an opinion
5
31%
 
Total votes : 16

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby ChinaCat » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:14

Blake Carrington wrote:strawman? hahaha, that is hilarious from a guy who packed his post with right wing buzz words.


The principles of the Constitution are right-wing buzz words? The Left does not believe in agree with the concepts of presumption of innocence, probable cause, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the idea that political prosecutions are wrong? These are right-wing buzz words?

And is the ultra-liberal Jeralyn Merritt, at Talk Left, also using right-wing buzz words?

:ponder:

Blake Carrington wrote:Do you mean he has been treated unjust by the 'state' that found him innocent and let him walk or the 'MSM' that simply reports on his every appearance on the police blotter?


The Mainstream Media fabricated an entirely fictitious narrative that was proved to be incorrect and in some respects intentionally false. You don't believe that unfair?

The State, acting under pressure from special interests, prosecuted GZ where no probable cause for arrest existed and held the threat of federal civil rights charges over GZ's head for two years when the FBI and DOJ knew from the start that no such violation existed. You don't find that unfair or wrong?

Blake Carrington wrote:IF, GZ could stay out of trouble he would be out of the news and the media would leave him alone.


If the MSM could report truthfully, it wouldn't have its panties in a bunch over GZ, and if the State could adhere to the general and specific principles of the Constitution, it wouldn't make an ass of itself wrt GZ.

Blake Carrington wrote:Please point to me where he is mistreated because since the case has ended he has only made the news when he has been arrested.


See my other posts above in this thread re this.

Blake Carrington wrote:So, to quote Aretha, 'who's zoomin who?' in this scenario, sounds to me like feline trickery on your part.


:lol: Just throw mud at the wall and see if anything sticks, eh?

Blake Carrington wrote:And as for this 'ignorant half' of the US that wants to hurt him, why has he been going back to the police with domestic violence issues involving females?


He has trouble with relationships, especially after his ordeal at the hands of the politically-motivated FL prosecutor's office and 0bama's DOJ.

Why hasn't GZ been charged in any of these instances? :grin:

Blake Carrington wrote:I know you right wing guys hate women...


You know crap! :cool:

Blake Carrington wrote:(lol) but c'mon calling them the 'ignorant half'? You can do better.


Who says women are the ignorant half? Projecting much? Or, are you a woman? :ponder:

Blake Carrington wrote:Sounds to me like you are the one creating the strawman argument here my friend.


I'm not surprised that you are confused. :smile:

Blake Carrington wrote:No one has harmed GZ he simply likes to act out on women (what a guy!).


Does he? Any proof of that? Anything at all? :cool:
You have been permanently banned from this board. Reason given for ban: CONTEMPT - Rude, dismissive, or disrespectful responses to official moderator communications. A ban has been issued on your username. - Forumosa.com
User avatar
ChinaCat
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:15
Location: Earth
Has given kudos: 936 times
Has gotten kudos: 686 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby Bunks » Tue Mar 10, 2015 13:10

What was learnt at the trial about the character of Trayvon Martin? And what would make this person, who was walking to his aunts house, then go back and find Zimmerman? And was anything said about the character of Martin that would be consistent with his use of such force against Martin?
What was Zimmerman expected to do in his job description? How was he guided to determine what a suspicious person looked like and what, according to his job description, was he supposed to do once he had identified a suspicious person?
Bunks
Taiwanease Aristocracy
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:55
Has given kudos: 202 times
Has gotten kudos: 338 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby Blake Carrington » Tue Mar 10, 2015 13:35

ChinaCat wrote:
Blake Carrington wrote:strawman? hahaha, that is hilarious from a guy who packed his post with right wing buzz words.


The principles of the Constitution are right-wing buzz words? The Left does not believe in agree with the concepts of presumption of innocence, probable cause, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the idea that political prosecutions are wrong? These are right-wing buzz words?

And is the ultra-liberal Jeralyn Merritt, at Talk Left, also using right-wing buzz words?

:ponder:

Blake Carrington wrote:Do you mean he has been treated unjust by the 'state' that found him innocent and let him walk or the 'MSM' that simply reports on his every appearance on the police blotter?


The Mainstream Media fabricated an entirely fictitious narrative that was proved to be incorrect and in some respects intentionally false. You don't believe that unfair?

The State, acting under pressure from special interests, prosecuted GZ where no probable cause for arrest existed and held the threat of federal civil rights charges over GZ's head for two years when the FBI and DOJ knew from the start that no such violation existed. You don't find that unfair or wrong?

Blake Carrington wrote:IF, GZ could stay out of trouble he would be out of the news and the media would leave him alone.


If the MSM could report truthfully, it wouldn't have its panties in a bunch over GZ, and if the State could adhere to the general and specific principles of the Constitution, it wouldn't make an ass of itself wrt GZ.

Blake Carrington wrote:Please point to me where he is mistreated because since the case has ended he has only made the news when he has been arrested.


See my other posts above in this thread re this.

Blake Carrington wrote:So, to quote Aretha, 'who's zoomin who?' in this scenario, sounds to me like feline trickery on your part.


:lol: Just throw mud at the wall and see if anything sticks, eh?

Blake Carrington wrote:And as for this 'ignorant half' of the US that wants to hurt him, why has he been going back to the police with domestic violence issues involving females?


He has trouble with relationships, especially after his ordeal at the hands of the politically-motivated FL prosecutor's office and 0bama's DOJ.

Why hasn't GZ been charged in any of these instances? :grin:

Blake Carrington wrote:I know you right wing guys hate women...


You know crap! :cool:

Blake Carrington wrote:(lol) but c'mon calling them the 'ignorant half'? You can do better.


Who says women are the ignorant half? Projecting much? Or, are you a woman? :ponder:

Blake Carrington wrote:Sounds to me like you are the one creating the strawman argument here my friend.


I'm not surprised that you are confused. :smile:

Blake Carrington wrote:No one has harmed GZ he simply likes to act out on women (what a guy!).


Does he? Any proof of that? Anything at all? :cool:


I think his three arrests SINCE his trial, involving females is all the proof we need here.

Oh, right, the obvious, including my sarcasm about you hating women (with LOL in brackets even) is beyond you.
Blake Carrington
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 23:31
Has given kudos: 4 times
Has gotten kudos: 55 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby ChinaCat » Tue Mar 10, 2015 14:07

Bunks wrote:What was learnt at the trial about the character of Trayvon Martin? And what would make this person, who was walking to his aunts house, then go back and find Zimmerman? And was anything said about the character of Martin that would be consistent with his use of such force against Martin?


Evidence of character is generally not permissible at trial. What was learned about TM, including evidence of 1) TM's desire and efforts to procure a handgun, 2) his text messages showing his enthusiasm for and participation in street fighting (including his brag that he knew how to first sucker-punch an opponent in the nose in order to incapacitate him, which coincidentally is what GZ stated TM did to GZ), and 3) TM's school disciplinary records, including suspicion of burglary, was not allowed to be submitted at trial.

Bunks wrote:What was Zimmerman expected to do in his job description?


Wasn't a "job".

Bunks wrote:How was he guided to determine what a suspicious person looked like and what, according to his job description, was he supposed to do once he had identified a suspicious person?


At trial, Wendy Dorival, of the Sanford Police Department, Neighborhood Watch Program, who worked closely with GZ, testified that the NW participants were merely supposed to be the “eyes and ears” of the community and that actual enforcement should be left to the police, and that if they saw a crime they should call 911, and if they saw merely suspicious behavior they should call the provided non-emergency number. Dorival confirmed that she had checked with the Sanford Police Department’s crime statistics and confirmed that there had been a spike in robberies in GZ's neighborhood and that the neighborhood’s concerns about crime were genuine. She was also aware of a recent home invasion. Dorival testified that GZ was polite, courteous, and respectful on every instance. Dorival testified that she took the lead at the Sanford PD even though it wasn’t really her “day job” there. Further, she thought it was great that Zimmerman was pursuing a degree in criminal justice. In fact, she had been so impressed with him that she had tried to recruit him for the Sanford PD’s “Citizen on Patrol” program, a program in which the Sanford Police Department would provide Zimmerman with a civilianized patrol car and a uniform of sorts, and provide additional training that would allow him to effectively conduct patrols of his neighborhood. GZ declined this opportunity (so much for the contention that GZ was a "wannabe cop"). Tesifying as to whether there anything about GZ’s demeanor that “raised any red flags” for her, Dorival answered in the negative and stated that GZ struck her as "very professional, perhaps a little meek, but a man who was really committed to making his community better". Dorival testified that the NWP did not give lessons in the law to participants, and that instead, they mostly told people not to confront anyone or follow anyone. When asked, “when you say the shouldn’t follow someone, you’re not saying that if you see someone suspicious that you can’t follow at a distance to gather information, are you? You don’t tell people that they can’t follow someone from a distance, do you?” “That’s right,” Dorival agreed that she was not saying that, but rather saying that it was not a good idea to engage someone. Dorival further testified that it was not her place to tell participants not to carry a gun, as that is their right. When asked at trial if TM's behavior as described by GZ was "suspicious", Dorival stated, "definitely, that’s exactly the kind of behavior we encourage NWP participants to report to the police".

Wendy Dorival:

Image

See also the following:

USA Today report wrote:In testimony, Wendy Dorival, who worked as the volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford Police Department, said she made a presentation to facilitate a neighborhood watch program in 2011 for residents of Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmeran lived and Trayvon was visiting a friend of his father's on the night he was killed.

Assistant State Attorney John Guy showed the jury a slide show that Dorival used at neighborhood meetings. The presentation warned citizens against being vigiliantes and urged them to work with police — be the eyes and ears of the community and report suspicious activity. "They're not supposed to take matters into their own hands," Dorival said.

Dorival said she doesn't discuss whether residents should carry firearms while participating in neighborhood watch program.

She added that she believe Zimmerman was a professional person who wanted to make a change in his community, which had been targeted by burglars. Dorival said she tried to recruit Zimmerman to a citizens patrol program, but that he didn't want to participate.

Zimmerman lawyer Don West asked Dorival whether a person walking in rain between houses without a particular purpose — a description of Trayvon the night of the shooting — was suspicious. Dorival said yes and added that she encourages neighbors to know who doesn't belong and to call police.
You have been permanently banned from this board. Reason given for ban: CONTEMPT - Rude, dismissive, or disrespectful responses to official moderator communications. A ban has been issued on your username. - Forumosa.com
User avatar
ChinaCat
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:15
Location: Earth
Has given kudos: 936 times
Has gotten kudos: 686 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby Bunks » Tue Mar 10, 2015 16:50

ChinaCat wrote:
Bunks wrote:What was learnt at the trial about the character of Trayvon Martin? And what would make this person, who was walking to his aunts house, then go back and find Zimmerman? And was anything said about the character of Martin that would be consistent with his use of such force against Martin?


Evidence of character is generally not permissible at trial.



So, and I am not trying to be tricky here, but if Martin's character evidence is not permissible, then Zimmerman's is neither. Right? So wouldn't that mean lots of things you say about Zimmerman's character ie having no previous this that or the other and how he previously helped do this that or the other be fairly meaningless too? It doesn't matter who either of these guys were before the incident. What is relevant is how one human did some things and another human did some other things. Is that right? It doesn't matter what you tell us about Zimmerman as a person prior to the moment he shot Trayvon Martin. Is that right?

Also, people here, I believe, are saying that based on the things that the person who survived did and then subsequently has been involved in (no matter if the charges were dropped or whatever) that they wouldn't wan't to live near that person. The survivor (and I mean survived as in, 'didn't die') of the original incident appears, by some, to have shown misjudgement in his decision not to stay in his car, a decision he made of his own volition. The surviving human has then subsequently been accused in domestic disturbances (or whatever they were). So it's fair to say that some people don't want to live near someone who is both someone who has killed another human and who has, on occasion, been in situations where another person has telephoned the police.

A lot of us really don't understand all this left/right stuff or about how the laws in America work so I suspect many of us form our opinions on if we would want a person who has been involved in certain incidents to live near to us.
Bunks
Taiwanease Aristocracy
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:55
Has given kudos: 202 times
Has gotten kudos: 338 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby ChinaCat » Tue Mar 10, 2015 17:45

Bunks wrote:So, and I am not trying to be tricky here, but if Martin's character evidence is not permissible, then Zimmerman's is neither. Right?


I said "generally not admissible". That does not stop attorneys from attempting to introduce evidence of character. The State prosecutors tried to introduce evidence of GZ's character and it had the opposite effect they were hoping for.

Bunks wrote:So wouldn't that mean lots of things you say about Zimmerman's character ie having no previous this that or the other and how he previously helped do this that or the other be fairly meaningless too?


Generally, yes.

Bunks wrote:It doesn't matter who either of these guys were before the incident.


Generally, yes. One exception would be if either GZ or TM was aware of the character of the other and such awareness could be used in an argument supporting that party's subjective perception of the danger he might have been in and an analysis as to whether such perception was objectively reasonable. But, as indicated, the evidence of GZ's character did not support the prosecution's case, at all.

Bunks wrote:What is relevant is how one human did some things and another human did some other things. Is that right? It doesn't matter what you tell us about Zimmerman as a person prior to the moment he shot Trayvon Martin. Is that right?


Generally, yes. Except that the State prosecutor's introduction of evidence of GZ's character was an issue for the determination of ill-will, hatred, spite, or evil intent, as these are required elements of 2nd degree murder in the FL statute. The prosecutor failed monumentally in this regard.

Bunks wrote:Also, people here, I believe, are saying that based on the things that the person who survived did and then subsequently has been involved in (no matter if the charges were dropped or whatever) that they wouldn't wan't to live near that person.


They're entitled to that opinion. And GZ was in fact acquitted of all charges of murder, as his defense of self defense was found to be valid, and subsequent complaints made by his ex-wife and now ex-gf have been dropped and or recanted.

Bunks wrote:The survivor (and I mean survived as in, 'didn't die') of the original incident appears, by some, to have shown misjudgement in his decision not to stay in his car, a decision he made of his own volition.


Most of the criticism in this regard is based on ignorance of the actual events. Most people in this regard critical believe, erroneously, that GZ was "ordered" to remain in his car but that GZ exited his car despite that order and began to chase TM. This is false because 1) GZ exited his car only after he saw TM run away from the area and in response to the police dispatcher asking where TM was running to, and 2) because the police dispatcher did not "order" GZ not to follow TM.

I've already explained in a post above that the police NW program coordinator, Wendy Dorival testified that the NW program did not give lessons in the law to participants, and that instead, they mostly told people not to confront anyone or follow anyone. When asked, “when you say the shouldn’t follow someone, you’re not saying that if you see someone suspicious that you can’t follow at a distance to gather information, are you? You don’t tell people that they can’t follow someone from a distance, do you?” “That’s right,” Dorival agreed that she was not saying that, but rather saying that it was not a good idea to engage someone.

And in any event, GZ's actions prior to TM's attack was an issue only for the determination of ill-will, hatred, spite or evil intent, as contained in the Murder 2 statute. Once the jury rejected the prosecutor's argument on murder 2, the series of acts leading up the non-physical encounter were irrelevant.

Bunks wrote:The surviving human has then subsequently been accused in domestic disturbances (or whatever they were). So it's fair to say that some people don't want to live near someone who is both someone who has killed another human and who has, on occasion, been in situations where another person has telephoned the police.


Of course. But, the poll above asks if GZ is a "nut-job with anger issues" or something. I don't know if he is. But, I have follwed very closely his cases and it is clear to me that most people critical of GZ are ignorant of the facts and of the law. In the cases where his ex-wife and now ex-gf complained, both the ex-wife and now ex-gf withdrew and or recanted their statements. You do know that it is extremely common for wives and gfs to make complaints against their husbands/bfs in connection with disputes? Such complaints are an effective means of gaining an advantage in such disputes. Absent any evidence of real wrong-doing on GZ's part, I'm inclined to give him his due presumption of innocence, especially where so many have it out for him.

Bunks wrote:A lot of us really don't understand all this left/right stuff or about how the laws in America work so I suspect many of us form our opinions on if we would want a person who has been involved in certain incidents to live near to us.


I don't see anything left-right about this matter. The US Constitution is very clear on 1) the individual's rights and 2) the limits to the the Government's power. This shouldn't be too difficult for Englishmen to understand, and there is no excuse for my compatriots to be ignorant of these basic concepts.
You have been permanently banned from this board. Reason given for ban: CONTEMPT - Rude, dismissive, or disrespectful responses to official moderator communications. A ban has been issued on your username. - Forumosa.com
User avatar
ChinaCat
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:15
Location: Earth
Has given kudos: 936 times
Has gotten kudos: 686 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby Bunks » Tue Mar 10, 2015 18:14

ChinaCat wrote:
And in any event, GZ's actions prior to TM's attack was an issue only for the determination of ill-will, hatred, spite or evil intent, as contained in the Murder 2 statute. Once the jury rejected the prosecutor's argument on murder 2, the series of acts leading up the non-physical encounter were irrelevant.


Bunks wrote:A lot of us really don't understand all this left/right stuff or about how the laws in America work so I suspect many of us form our opinions on if we would want a person who has been involved in certain incidents to live near to us.


I don't see anything left-right about this matter. The US Constitution is very clear on 1) the individual's rights and 2) the limits to the the Government's power. This shouldn't be too difficult for Englishmen to understand, and there is no excuse for my compatriots to be ignorant of these basic concepts.


So they had to prove for murder 2 that GZ had ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent towards TM? And from there the series of acts became irrelevant? Is murder 2 really the right law to try him under then?

You may not see anything left-right about this issue, my point is more that when you guys start to discuss this issue the labels 'left' and 'right' get chucked about and it is confusing, at least it is for me, to understand what is going on and it makes it sound like there is no real truth, just some ideologies that you guys seem to fundamentally disagree on.
Bunks
Taiwanease Aristocracy
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:55
Has given kudos: 202 times
Has gotten kudos: 338 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby ChinaCat » Tue Mar 10, 2015 21:30

Bunks wrote:So they had to prove for murder 2 that GZ had ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent towards TM?


Yes. The Florida prosecutors charged GZ with 2nd degree murder, which requires the prosecutor to show that when GZ killed TM, GZ did so "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life". Florida's jury instructions re 2nd degree murder state:

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

- a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
- is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
- is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

Usually, the state proves “ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent” with evidence of a long-standing grievance or some unusually wrongful or aggressive conduct on the part of the attacker. The prosecutor was completely unable to show any hatred, spite, or evil intent on GZ's part. They tried to show that GZ was a racist in order to illustrate hatred, but, all of the evidence proved the opposite. GZ and TM did not know each other, thus, the prosecution could not demonstrate any long-standing grievance between GZ and TM. A charge of murder 2 automatically includes the lesser charge of manslaughter, and the instructions therefor are read to the jury and a jury that believes the state failed to prove murder 2 can still agree on a manslaughter verdict. However, like most nations, the US recognizes that there are situations in which the use even of lethal force against another person may be necessary and justified. In such situations, the use of lethal force is deemed not a crime, and even where a prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of murder, the fact that the murderous act was done in lawful self-defense requires the jury to acquit the defendant.

In order for the Florida prosecutor to have succeeded against GZ's claim to have acted in lawful and justified self-defense, it had to prove, using the facts in evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that any one or more of the following fundamental principles were false with respect to GZ's acts:

1. Innocence - GZ did not initiate the confrontation with TM, because if he did, GZ should not be able to justify his use of lethal force as an act of self defense (unless GZ could show that after initiating the confrontation he then retreated but TM then advanced and GZ had to act in self defense).

2. Imminence - GZ was facing a threat that was imminent.

3. Proportionality - GZ, in defending himself, used a force that was proportional to that which he faced.

4. Avoidance - GZ could have avoided the necessity of using lethal force by retreating.

5. Reasonableness - This requirement applies to each of the above four principles. GZ must have reasonably perceived himself as innocent, he must have reasonably perceived the threat posed by TM's attack as imminently and extremely dangerous or life-threatening, GZ must not have had a way to retreat from the confrontation, and GZ must have acted in self-defense in a way that a reasonable and prudent person facing the same or similar circumstances would have perceived the attack and acted.

Had the prosecutor been able to show that GZ failed to meet any of the above conditions/requirements, GZ's claim of self defense would have failed and he would likely have been found guilty of manslaughter. But, as anyone who followed the trial knows, the state failed miserably in trying to prove that GZ 1) was the aggressor, 2) had no reason to fear imminent danger, 3) used force out of proportion, 4) did not try to retreat, and 5) was not reasonable in his perceptions and acts associated with the situation.

Bunks wrote:And from there the series of acts became irrelevant?


As indicated above, from there the series of acts became irrelevant to the murder 2 charge.

Bunks wrote:Is murder 2 really the right law to try him under then?


Given the facts and evidence at trial, murder 2 was obviously the wrong charge. Given the strength of GZ's claim that he acted in legitimate self defense and that all of the facts and evidence supported GZ's version of the events and the confrontation, the state should never have charged GZ with any crime. It did so, however, after being pressured by political interest groups. That was wrong.

Bunks wrote:You may not see anything left-right about this issue, my point is more that when you guys start to discuss this issue the labels 'left' and 'right' get chucked about and it is confusing, at least it is for me, to understand what is going on and it makes it sound like there is no real truth, just some ideologies that you guys seem to fundamentally disagree on.


I don't really have a comment re that. But, I will comment that one of my primary points... I have been beating the drum on this for quite some time... is that a criminal trial in the US is not conducted with the aim of finding the truth. In many, if not most cases, the truth cannot be determined unless one party is guilty and confesses that guilt absent coercion by the state.

But, because we fear an over-powerful state that becomes corrupt and abusive of its power, our system requires the state to prove its charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the facts and evidence available and known and without resorting to coercion. We do not require defendants to incriminate themselves and we presume their innocence.

Yes, it is difficult for the state to prove its version of the truth. Thank heavens for that! Imagine how difficult it could be for an innocent defendant to prove the truth of his/her innocence in some situations. Now, be thankful that we have a presumption of innocence and instead require the state to prove a defendant's guilt.

The alternative is China and kangaroo courts where the state is always right and Joe Citizen can be presumed guilty of any old trumped up crime if the state doesn't like Joe's ideas.

I don't see anything left or right about these ideas. :idunno:
You have been permanently banned from this board. Reason given for ban: CONTEMPT - Rude, dismissive, or disrespectful responses to official moderator communications. A ban has been issued on your username. - Forumosa.com

These users gave kudos to the author ChinaCat for the post:
jimipresley (Tue Mar 10, 2015 21:45)
User avatar
ChinaCat
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:15
Location: Earth
Has given kudos: 936 times
Has gotten kudos: 686 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby ChinaCat » Tue Mar 24, 2015 21:04

GZ gives an interview:



George Zimmerman, responding to a question as to which government agency or person was most unfair to him wrote:By far, the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. He had the most authority and in that sense I would hold him in the highest regard believing that he would hold that position and do his absolute hardest to not inflame racial tensions in America. Unfortunately, after even after Jay Carney, his press secretary, stated in the White House briefing that the White House will not interject in a local law enforcement matter and at most a state criminal matter, President Obama held his Rose Garden speech stating, ‘if I had a son he would look like Trayvon.' To me that was clearly a dereliction of duty, pitting Americans against each other solely based on race... He took what should have been a clear-cut self-defense matter, and still to this day on the anniversary of incident, he held a ceremony at the White House inviting the Martin-Fulton family and stating that they should take the day to reflect upon the fact that all children’s lives matter. Unfortunately for the president, I’m also my parent’s child and my life matters as well. And for him to make incendiary comments as he did, and direct the Department of Justice to pursue a baseless prosecution, he by far overstretched, overreached, even broke the law in certain aspects to where you have an innocent American being prosecuted by the federal government, which should never happen.
You have been permanently banned from this board. Reason given for ban: CONTEMPT - Rude, dismissive, or disrespectful responses to official moderator communications. A ban has been issued on your username. - Forumosa.com
User avatar
ChinaCat
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:15
Location: Earth
Has given kudos: 936 times
Has gotten kudos: 686 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby Blake Carrington » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:42

“I believe God has his plans, and for me to second-guess them would be hypocritical, almost blasphemous,”

what a POS.

maybe it was God's plan for this to hang over your head for the rest of your life as well.

I like how he drops the old Barack 'Hussein' Obama in there too, plays well with the base.

Who's playing politics now Mr. Zimmerman?
Blake Carrington
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 23:31
Has given kudos: 4 times
Has gotten kudos: 55 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby Elegua » Wed Mar 25, 2015 13:04

Some people don't know when best to keep quiet and get on with one's life; but then Mr. Zimmerman has never seemed to demonstrate good judgement.

Poor judgement doesn't make him guilty of the crime charged; but then again, the key witness is dead.
Vida de Otário

....and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away, that might have been the end of a dock.
User avatar
Elegua
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:16
Has given kudos: 82 times
Has gotten kudos: 266 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby sandman » Wed Mar 25, 2015 13:23

Poor judgement doesn't make him guilty of the crime charged

Money quote. I personally don't like what he says. I think he's a scumbag. But I couldn't find enough good law-abiding folks to round up a lynching party.
sandman
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 13:44
Has given kudos: 317 times
Has gotten kudos: 845 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby Blake Carrington » Wed Mar 25, 2015 15:09

Elegua wrote:Some people don't know when best to keep quiet and get on with one's life; but then Mr. Zimmerman has never seemed to demonstrate good judgement.

Poor judgement doesn't make him guilty of the crime charged; but then again, the key witness is dead.


It just shows further bad judgement, like his three/four run ins with the law since then and his future ones as well.

Much like OJ, Durst and all the other clowns who got off light but just couldn't help themselves, this POS is going down a similar path.

beside, it is just God's plan,and to second guess would be blasphemous...
Blake Carrington
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 23:31
Has given kudos: 4 times
Has gotten kudos: 55 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby ChinaCat » Wed Mar 25, 2015 16:20

Blake Carrington wrote:“I believe God has his plans, and for me to second-guess them would be hypocritical, almost blasphemous,”

what a POS.


Aren't you the judgmental one? :lol:

Blake Carrington wrote:maybe it was God's plan for this to hang over your head for the rest of your life as well.


If there is a God, I don't believe that he/she intervenes in our personal lives. More likely the plan to persecute GZ and to harrass him comes from the race-baitors, media liars, all the gullible fools who fell for the media's lies, 0bama's hyper-politicized DOJ, and the gutless Florida DA who hadn't the stomach to tell all of the aforementioned to stuff it.

Blake Carrington wrote:I like how he drops the old Barack 'Hussein' Obama in there too, plays well with the base.


Well, 0bama had no business interjecting himself in the case. But, 0bama being 0bama, just can't seem to help himself in this regard.

Blake Carrington wrote:Who's playing politics now Mr. Zimmerman?


Why do you think GZ is playing politics? WTF? The media, race-baitors, gullible fools, 0bama's hyper-politicized DOJ, and Florida's gutless DA just spent the a couple of years conducting a nasty political witch hunt against GZ, and now you're going to criticize GZ for talking back?

:ponder:

Elegua wrote:Some people don't know when best to keep quiet and get on with one's life; but then Mr. Zimmerman has never seemed to demonstrate good judgement.


Maybe, maybe not. But, what specifically did GZ say in the video interview that illustrates bad judgment?

Elegua wrote:Poor judgement doesn't make him guilty of the crime charged; but then again, the key witness is dead.


There was another eye witness, and his testimony supported GZ's version of the facts. Moreover, virtually all of the evidence and forensics supported GZ's version of the facts.

According to the evidence and forensics, it appears almost certain that TM is to blame for his own death.
You have been permanently banned from this board. Reason given for ban: CONTEMPT - Rude, dismissive, or disrespectful responses to official moderator communications. A ban has been issued on your username. - Forumosa.com
User avatar
ChinaCat
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:15
Location: Earth
Has given kudos: 936 times
Has gotten kudos: 686 times

Re: George Zimmerman poll

Postby maoman » Wed Mar 25, 2015 16:44

That doesn't mean he isn't a nutjob with anger management issues.
Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle.
maoman  Anthony van Dyck
Admin
 
Posts: 5647
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:41
Location: Taipei
Has given kudos: 1845 times
Has gotten kudos: 1336 times
Display Name: Anthony van Dyck

PreviousNext

Return to American (Domestic) Politics