George Zimmerman Questioned by Police for Threatening Wife With Gun (1 Viewer)

[BustedKnuckles]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

 

[jon_mx]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of bolded parts were shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

 

[timschochet]

dont give up jon, dont ever give up

Why should I? It is amazing the revisionist history that is being put forth here. My biggest problem was being right so damn often. It is all in black and white.

That's your problem. You live in Pleasantville.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

 

[jon_mx]

dont give up jon, dont ever give up

Why should I? It is amazing the revisionist history that is being put forth here. My biggest problem was being right so damn often. It is all in black and white.

That's your problem. You live in Pleasantville.

I am just happy I live in a place where chess games don't turn into armed confrontations.

 

[jon_mx]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

 

[timschochet]

dont give up jon, dont ever give up

Why should I? It is amazing the revisionist history that is being put forth here. My biggest problem was being right so damn often. It is all in black and white.

That's your problem. You live in Pleasantville.

I am just happy I live in a place where chess games don't turn into armed confrontations.

You know what stunned me most about that incident? I have lots of friends and family, none of which I would call racist. Yet every single one of them, without exception, upon learning of my carjacking, asked me, "Was he black?" (He wasn't.) Every one of them.

I bring this up because of all of the terrible things written in that Zimmerman thread, the worst surrounded the racial stereotyping of Trayvon Martin. To your credit, you were not guilty of this. But several of the pro-Zimmerman people in that thread were: especially JoJo the Circus Clown and Carolina Hustler. Their endless posts on Trayvon deserving to die, not out of GZ's self defense but because Martin was a thug looking for trouble, were nauseating.

 

[pantherclub]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

Christ I hope you are trolling

 

[timschochet]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

Christ I hope you are trolling

You're hoping that Christ is trolling?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

I bet Zimmerman could sell you swamp land

 

[jon_mx]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

Christ I hope you are trolling

What trial were you watching? You don't have to believe Zimmerman at all, but just the facts which were presented at trial. To conclude Zimmerman was in a hot pursuit of Martin is to ignore the evidence and create a reality based on an extreme bias.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

Christ I hope you are trolling

What trial were you watching? You don't have to believe Zimmerman at all, but just the facts which were presented at trial. To conclude Zimmerman was in a hot pursuit of Martin is to ignore the evidence and create a reality based on an extreme bias.

Or not

 

[T Bell]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

I bet Zimmerman could sell you swamp land

"Either your brains or your signature are going to end up on this purchase agreement."

/GZ

 

[fatness]

Less than a week after he requested to be declared indigent, citing millions in debts, George Zimmerman swapped his public defender in his domestic violence case for a private attorney, his former lawyer confirmed. Zimmerman was represented by the 18th Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office during a court appearance on Tuesday, the day after his domestic violence arrest. He was granted $9,000 bail and bonded out that day. However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

It's unclear how Zimmerman will afford private representation. In indigence paperwork last week, Zimmerman claimed to have $144, and owe $2.5 million in debt. Weintraub didn't return a call seeking comment.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Less than a week after he requested to be declared indigent, citing millions in debts, George Zimmerman swapped his public defender in his domestic violence case for a private attorney, his former lawyer confirmed. Zimmerman was represented by the 18th Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office during a court appearance on Tuesday, the day after his domestic violence arrest. He was granted $9,000 bail and bonded out that day. However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

It's unclear how Zimmerman will afford private representation. In indigence paperwork last week, Zimmerman claimed to have $144, and owe $2.5 million in debt. Weintraub didn't return a call seeking comment.

i can see him blowing his own brains out in the near future

 

[T Bell]

Less than a week after he requested to be declared indigent, citing millions in debts, George Zimmerman swapped his public defender in his domestic violence case for a private attorney, his former lawyer confirmed. Zimmerman was represented by the 18th Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office during a court appearance on Tuesday, the day after his domestic violence arrest. He was granted $9,000 bail and bonded out that day. However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

It's unclear how Zimmerman will afford private representation. In indigence paperwork last week, Zimmerman claimed to have $144, and owe $2.5 million in debt. Weintraub didn't return a call seeking comment.

i can see him blowing his own brains out in the near future

What I see him doing is a book deal and interviews, NRA speaking tour, etc.

 

[fatness]

Less than a week after he requested to be declared indigent, citing millions in debts, George Zimmerman swapped his public defender in his domestic violence case for a private attorney, his former lawyer confirmed. Zimmerman was represented by the 18th Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office during a court appearance on Tuesday, the day after his domestic violence arrest. He was granted $9,000 bail and bonded out that day. However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

It's unclear how Zimmerman will afford private representation. In indigence paperwork last week, Zimmerman claimed to have $144, and owe $2.5 million in debt. Weintraub didn't return a call seeking comment.

i can see him blowing his own brains out in the near future

What I see him doing is a book deal and interviews, NRA speaking tour, etc.

I see jon digging deep and giving again. Giving til it hurts.

Interesting: George Zimmerman's New Attorney Thinks Her Client Is A Racist And Stand Your Ground Is An "Awful Law"

She's kinda cute. No Shellie, mind you, but kinda cute.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Less than a week after he requested to be declared indigent, citing millions in debts, George Zimmerman swapped his public defender in his domestic violence case for a private attorney, his former lawyer confirmed. Zimmerman was represented by the 18th Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office during a court appearance on Tuesday, the day after his domestic violence arrest. He was granted $9,000 bail and bonded out that day. However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

It's unclear how Zimmerman will afford private representation. In indigence paperwork last week, Zimmerman claimed to have $144, and owe $2.5 million in debt. Weintraub didn't return a call seeking comment.

i can see him blowing his own brains out in the near future

What I see him doing is a book deal and interviews, NRA speaking tour, etc.

on the surface id agree,but this is a guy who cant get out of his own way. Life is just getting crazier and more F`d up all the time.Probably get crazy drunk one night and just end it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I get all the left-wing kooks hate me, but where are all my loony right-wing nutjob positions. I can easily name a dozen things I was right about in the Zimmerman thread which that other people on that thread were wrong about. Here are a half-dozen i recall without digging through the mess.

1. Zimmerman did not need to testify for self-defense (he did not and still won).

2. The all-woman jury was not a huge win for the prosecution (I pointed out couple were gun-owners, which was a huge win for the Defense).

3. That Zimmerman would not accept a plea bargain. (he obviously did not, and someone owes me $100).

4. That there jury would not convict.

5. That the first judge said things which crossed the line. Many people here cheered his comments. (the judge was removed).

6. It was Zimmerman screaming (only a whackjob still believes it could have possible been Martin screaming for help as he was going off MMA style on Zimmerman, and the only real eye-witness said it was Zimmerman).

You left out the part where Zimmy profiled an innocent kid ,chased him into the dark that ultimately led to a confrontation,which led to him shooting an unarmed kid out buying skittles.

I watched most of the trial, but I did miss the part where any of that was shown or even suggested in the trial. You want to call me my stuff nutty, but yet you post t time after time all this speculative crap that has no basis in fact. Who is being nutty???

which part was speculation? He saw a kid walking and called 911 saying they had a bunch of break ins and the kid looked suspicious. He got out of his truck in the rain at night and was running at one point admitting he was following the kid. He ,at some point,got into a confrontation with the kid and shot him and the kid only had skittles and a can of ice tea on him hence being unarmed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of all strangers, he was not profiling anyone. There was no chase, Zimmerman had thought Martin was long gone when he went looking for addresses. The confrontation was not a result of the non-existent chase, all evidence points to Zimmerman accidentally stumbling across where Martin was hiding. And it was Martin beating up Zimmerman which lead to the shooting, again not some non-existent chase.

Christ I hope you are trolling

You sure have a knack of posting a lot and saying nothing. Stop being bitter over losing a case that never should have went to trial.

 

[pantherclub]

How exactly did I "lose"?

 

[The Commish]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

 

[The Commish]

Less than a week after he requested to be declared indigent, citing millions in debts, George Zimmerman swapped his public defender in his domestic violence case for a private attorney, his former lawyer confirmed. Zimmerman was represented by the 18th Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office during a court appearance on Tuesday, the day after his domestic violence arrest. He was granted $9,000 bail and bonded out that day. However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

It's unclear how Zimmerman will afford private representation. In indigence paperwork last week, Zimmerman claimed to have $144, and owe $2.5 million in debt. Weintraub didn't return a call seeking comment.

i can see him blowing his own brains out in the near future

What I see him doing is a book deal and interviews, NRA speaking tour, etc.

I thought the same thing initially, but then realized, I doubt he has the capacity to do any of these things. Then I realized who his audiences would be and figured he'd be alright. All he has to do is figure out how to get a picture of himself on a tackling dummy, put it on stage and play recordings of the 911 calls. That will be enough to get the dough rolling in from his supporters.

 

[jon_mx]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

It largely was. You have the gun-types who are normally on the right who cherrish the right of a person to defend one-self. And you have those who view situation through racial-goggles, which is more typical of leftist. As with most issues, there is some cross-over and of course Martin was a much more sympathetic figure. And if the prosecution was smart and viewed it this way, they would have fought tooth and nail against the gun-owners from being on the jury and they would of had a chance to get a conviction loading up the jury with people who think emotionally.

 

[pantherclub]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

It largely was. You have the gun-types who are normally on the right who cherrish the right of a person to defend one-self. And you have those who view situation through racial-goggles, which is more typical of leftist. As with most issues, there is some cross-over and of course Martin was a much more sympathetic figure. And if the prosecution was smart and viewed it this way, they would have fought tooth and nail against the gun-owners from being on the jury.

You live in a really weird world

 

[The Commish]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

It largely was. You have the gun-types who are normally on the right who cherrish the right of a person to defend one-self. And you have those who view situation through racial-goggles, which is more typical of leftist. As with most issues, there is some cross-over and of course Martin was a much more sympathetic figure. And if the prosecution was smart and viewed it this way, they would have fought tooth and nail against the gun-owners from being on the jury and they would of had a chance to get a conviction loading up the jury with people who think emotionally.

.....and we wonder why our country is so screwed up.

 

[jon_mx]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

It largely was. You have the gun-types who are normally on the right who cherrish the right of a person to defend one-self. And you have those who view situation through racial-goggles, which is more typical of leftist. As with most issues, there is some cross-over and of course Martin was a much more sympathetic figure. And if the prosecution was smart and viewed it this way, they would have fought tooth and nail against the gun-owners from being on the jury.

You live in a really weird world

You want to break out the names of people posting the most far-out stuff supporting Martin. It would read like a who's-who's of leftwing posters of FFA.

 

[jon_mx]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

It largely was. You have the gun-types who are normally on the right who cherrish the right of a person to defend one-self. And you have those who view situation through racial-goggles, which is more typical of leftist. As with most issues, there is some cross-over and of course Martin was a much more sympathetic figure. And if the prosecution was smart and viewed it this way, they would have fought tooth and nail against the gun-owners from being on the jury and they would of had a chance to get a conviction loading up the jury with people who think emotionally.

.....and we wonder why our country is so screwed up.

Why, because I was right. The case was lost with the first gun-owner who was sat on the jury.

 

[pantherclub]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

It largely was. You have the gun-types who are normally on the right who cherrish the right of a person to defend one-self. And you have those who view situation through racial-goggles, which is more typical of leftist. As with most issues, there is some cross-over and of course Martin was a much more sympathetic figure. And if the prosecution was smart and viewed it this way, they would have fought tooth and nail against the gun-owners from being on the jury.

You live in a really weird world

You want to break out the names of people posting the most far-out stuff supporting Martin. It would read like a who's-who's of leftwing posters of FFA.

Yes thats such an accurate sample of the world we live in

You are going to look silly each and every time you apply your ridiculous generalizations

 

[jon_mx]

No....I am laughing at all the lefties who were constantly wrong throughout the whole thread and now want to pretend they had it right.

That you think this was a left vs right thing is just the cherry on top

It largely was. You have the gun-types who are normally on the right who cherrish the right of a person to defend one-self. And you have those who view situation through racial-goggles, which is more typical of leftist. As with most issues, there is some cross-over and of course Martin was a much more sympathetic figure. And if the prosecution was smart and viewed it this way, they would have fought tooth and nail against the gun-owners from being on the jury and they would of had a chance to get a conviction loading up the jury with people who think emotionally.

.....and we wonder why our country is so screwed up.

There is nothing wrong with that. People are on the left or right because they share common values. They might prioritize those values differently, but they still share certain values. Having those values influences the conclusions a person comes to on a certain situations or issues. It is how humans think. People on the left will tend to reach one conclusion, and people on the right will reach another. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[SacramentoBob]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

 

[The Commish]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

He doesn't strike me as a "put my money where my mouth is" kind of person....going under.

 

[fatness]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

 

[jon_mx]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

 

[jon_mx]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

He doesn't strike me as a "put my money where my mouth is" kind of person....going under.

Maybe I would donate the $100 if the bet-welching Martin supporter would pay up.

BTW, I offered bets on numerous issues in that thread. It was not me who would not put my money with my mouth was.

 

[The Commish]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

He doesn't strike me as a "put my money where my mouth is" kind of person....going under.

Maybe I would donate the $100 if the bet-welching Martin supporter would pay up.

doubt it

 

[jon_mx]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

He doesn't strike me as a "put my money where my mouth is" kind of person....going under.

Maybe I would donate the $100 if the bet-welching Martin supporter would pay up.

doubt it

I know I won't get paid anyways. I really don't care for Zimmerman the person, just our system of justice.

 

[The Commish]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk.

Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

 

[jon_mx]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk.

Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

As annoying as it may be, watching someone or even following is not justification to start a fight. We will never know who actually started the fight. My guess is that is was Martin who seemed to have the bigger chip on his shoulder with all the 'cracker' talk, but we don't know. Even in SC, I think Zimmerman walks.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk.

Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

As annoying as it may be, watching someone or even following is not justification to start a fight. We will never know who actually started the fight. My guess is that is was Martin who seemed to have the bigger chip on his shoulder with all the 'cracker' talk, but we don't know. Even in SC, I think Zimmerman walks.

Started? Probably not.

Caused? Zimmerman, without a doubt. If it hadnt been that kid/person who got killed, it would have just been someone else looking at Georges gun pointed at them.

 

[The Commish]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk.

Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

As annoying as it may be, watching someone or even following is not justification to start a fight. We will never know who actually started the fight. My guess is that is was Martin who seemed to have the bigger chip on his shoulder with all the 'cracker' talk, but we don't know. Even in SC, I think Zimmerman walks.

In SC, he more than likely doesn't get to claim self defense I don't see how he wins anyting without claiming self defense.

Why in your view is the "cracker" comment more telling than "these ###### always get away" or did you forget about that comment? That alone tells us, at best they were both walking around with chips on their shoulders.

 

[Mister Martie]

Didn't you guys get enough of this in the other thread? Jesus.

 

[jon_mx]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk.

Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

As annoying as it may be, watching someone or even following is not justification to start a fight. We will never know who actually started the fight. My guess is that is was Martin who seemed to have the bigger chip on his shoulder with all the 'cracker' talk, but we don't know. Even in SC, I think Zimmerman walks.

In SC, he more than likely doesn't get to claim self defense I don't see how he wins anyting without claiming self defense.

Why in your view is the "cracker" comment more telling than "these ###### always get away" or did you forget about that comment? That alone tells us, at best they were both walking around with chips on their shoulders.

The reality is, George would have pulled the gun before starting a fight. He is a chicken-####. Trevon was more of a fighter who took pride in himself. Plus, George may be really dumb, but he is not completely stupid. You don't start a physical fight while carrying a loaded weapon.

 

[fatness]

jon re-fighting a fight he says he won.

 

[Zow]

Didn't you guys get enough of this in the other thread? Jesus.

This #### is insufferable.

 

[fatness]

Search results.

A search of the home turned up three handguns, a 12-gauge shotgun, a rifle and 106 rounds of ammunition, including two AR-15 magazines, according to a search warrant.

Three handgun holsters, a pack of gum, a religious pendant, a flashlight, a pocket knife, sanitizing wipe, a soft-sided gun case and a combination lock were also recovered during the search.

 

[fatness]

Zimmerman's new lawyer.

Why he hired her.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk. Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

I think your bias stems more from your irrational fear of guns.

 

[SacramentoBob]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk. Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

I think your bias stems more from your irrational fear of guns.

What percentage of your 1,800 posts would you say contain no reference to someone being afraid of guns? 2%? 3%?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk. Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

I think your bias stems more from your irrational fear of guns.

What percentage of your 1,800 posts would you say contain no reference to someone being afraid of guns? 2%? 3%?

Why are you afraid of guns?

 

[The Commish]

o/u on how much money jon has donated to Zimmerman? 10 racks?

none

Exactly. Personally I thought Zimmerman was a horrible character. But I do defend his rights to defend himself and be treated fairly by the judicial system. Many of posters here had Zimmerman convicted on day 1.

I wasn't part of that thread much at all prior to trial so I have no idea what kind of slap fights you guys got in during that time. I'll say, going into the trial I had no clue how screwed up FL law was and was not aware that prior actions didn't factor in to "fear for your life", so very early on, I thought he was guilty simply because of his decisions to follow the kid around and he'd be held responsible for "starting it". Here in SC we have a very similar case getting ready to go to trial and it appears that the guy claiming self defense / SYG isn't going to be allowed to since he started the whole thing. In Florida, you can start a fight, fear for your life, shoot someone and walk.

Early in the trial after learning all this I knew there wasn't a chance to convict. The law makes it virtually impossible when only one side of the story can be heard.

As annoying as it may be, watching someone or even following is not justification to start a fight. We will never know who actually started the fight. My guess is that is was Martin who seemed to have the bigger chip on his shoulder with all the 'cracker' talk, but we don't know. Even in SC, I think Zimmerman walks.

In SC, he more than likely doesn't get to claim self defense I don't see how he wins anyting without claiming self defense.

Why in your view is the "cracker" comment more telling than "these ###### always get away" or did you forget about that comment? That alone tells us, at best they were both walking around with chips on their shoulders.

The reality is, George would have pulled the gun before starting a fight. He is a chicken-####. Trevon was more of a fighter who took pride in himself. Plus, George may be really dumb, but he is not completely stupid. You don't start a physical fight while carrying a loaded weapon.

What does that have to do with my question? I'd give you an even bigger shovel, but you seem content using the one you have. Keep moving those goal posts jon