George Zimmerman Trial

[In Lou I Trust]

Exactly. The power marks and bullet holes showed close proximity, but not contact! You have it exactly! Picture it, Zimmerman on the bottom, Martin over him leaning down with his back bent over and his face closer than his chest, trying to hold the gun away.



'Twas! That makes the point! That makes the picture complete!

I've never read such confusing rhetoric. You first state that there were no marks on the hoodie but then claim that the marks found on the hoodie prove your point. What the f*ck are you trying to say?

 

[kmoose]

Exactly. The power marks and bullet holes showed close proximity, but not contact! You have it exactly! Picture it, Zimmerman on the bottom, Martin over him leaning down with his back bent over and his face closer than his chest, trying to hold the gun away.



'Twas! That makes the point! That makes the picture complete!

Now you are refuting your own supposition of what happened?

YOU were the one that guessed that Zimmerman fired the gun from underneath Martin's hoodie. I pointed out that there was a bullet hole in the hoodie, and you say, "Exactly..."?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Now you are refuting your own supposition of what happened?

YOU were the one that guessed that Zimmerman fired the gun from underneath Martin's hoodie. I pointed out that there was a bullet hole in the hoodie, and you say, "Exactly..."?

I am sorry, I meant underneath in general. Zimmerman down, Martin on top resisting and struggling for the gun, the hoodie hanging loosely, a bit away from Martin's body.

That is the only scenario that explains the stippling on the hoodie, but the fact that the wound on Martin's chest didn't have the typical bruising of a contact wound, in other words, of having the gun pressed to his chest.

So they are rolling around on the ground and Martin shoots him up from under his hoodie. No marks are on the hoodie, but it still is a close contact wound. Martin is dead instantly, and as Zimmerman forcefully stands up Martin's body rolls off, arms under.

So I said this wrong! By under, I didn't mean underneath. I meant the gun was closest to Zimmerman on the ground. There was a few inches. Then the hoodie hung. Then there was the under sweatshirt, a T, and his skin. There was no stippling on the skin, or the marks sometimes caused from a gun stuck right in the skin, and then fired. I don't believe the clothing against the skin was burned. But it was a close contact wound. From less that a foot. This is the only way I can see it happening.

And I am sorry. I said it exactly wrong. I should have said in the second sentence, "No marks are on the body, but stippling is on the hoodie, but it still is a close contact wound." I was in a hurry, didn't mean to obfuscate my point.

 

[MJ12666]

You and I are very close on what we think happened -- especially the part about the gun being out from the beginning, which destroys Zimmerman's claim of self defense and makes him the guy who started the fight.



From the perspective of anyone who was not there, Zimmerman's story is also speculation unsupported by facts. At several points in his account we must make a giant leap of logic in order to believe him. The prosecution did a horrible job of presenting their case. If given a narrative like the one Bogs presented above and tying in key known facts from the timeline (calls to 911 and eyewitness testimony) they could have led jurors to a logical conclusion supported by facts in the case. They failed miserably in doing that and instead behaved as if they were the defense, introducing questions into the timeline and Zimmerman's account and then not providing an answer to those questions which could have connected the dots for the jury.

Actually that is not accurate. Zimmerman's story is not speculation. It is his account of what he perceived as to the actual events of the evening in question. You can choose to believe that he is lying but the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial does not support this conclusion.

 

[GoIrish41]

Actually that is not accurate. Zimmerman's story is not speculation. It is his account of what he perceived as to the actual events of the evening in question. You can choose to believe that he is lying but the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial does not support this conclusion.

That is why I said that the prosecution did a horrible job of presenting their case, and suggested that Bogs did a much better job of it in his post than they did. It is not as if known facts make Zimmerman's story the only plausible way that night could have unfolded. For the hearer of this tail, then, it is speculation as to whether to believe that account or not. It is easy to conclude, as many have in this thread, that Zimmerman was lying. Zimmerman would like us all to believe that his account is what happened, but when we look at the facts that were presented, but not packaged into a coherent narrative for the jury, we are unconvinced. Zimmerman also had the advantage of not having to prove anything during the trial and simply having to demonstrate that there was reasonable doubt.

 

[kmoose]

That is why I said that the prosecution did a horrible job of presenting their case, and suggested that Bogs did a much better job of it in his post than they did.

Excellent!

Now I believe Martin surprised him from behind, and Martin probably clocked him in the nose. .

So Martin started the physical altercation.

I am sorry, I meant underneath in general. Zimmerman down, Martin on top resisting and struggling for the gun, the hoodie hanging loosely, a bit away from Martin's body.

And Martin was on top, when the shot was fired. All of that points to Zimmerman's story being close enough to true, to create a reasonable doubt. In other words........... if Bog (or you, apparently) are the Prosecutor? The result is the same. So spare us all the "Incompetent Prosecutor" excuse.

 

[GoIrish41]

Excellent!



So Martin started the physical altercation.



And Martin was on top, when the shot was fired. All of that points to Zimmerman's story being close enough to true, to create a reasonable doubt. In other words........... if Bog (or you, apparently) are the Prosecutor? The result is the same. So spare us all the "Incompetent Prosecutor" excuse.

Yes because reasonable doubt means "close enough to true." The suggestion being made is that Zimmerman fabricated parts of the story. How are you not understanding that? Everytime someone says something that you don't agree with, your response is "so you are saying X" X being you attempting to twist what was said to try to make the poster look foolish. We get it, you don't agree with us. Why is it so important to you to try to change our minds? Here's a hint: It ain't going to happen.

 

[kmoose]

Yes because reasonable doubt means "close enough to true." The suggestion being made is that Zimmerman fabricated parts of the story. How are you not understanding that?

I understand it just fine. I also understand that you seem to think that if one part of Zimmerman's story is embellished, then the entirety of his story must be completely false. Zimmerman got the wounds on the back of his head, somehow. And every witness to the pre-shooting scuffle put TM on top. So why is it so hard for you to believe that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, and Zimmerman thought that TM might not stop until he (Zimmerman) was dead?

 

[GoIrish41]

I understand it just fine. I also understand that you seem to think that if one part of Zimmerman's story is embellished, then the entirety of his story must be completely false. Zimmerman got the wounds on the back of his head, somehow. And every witness to the pre-shooting scuffle put TM on top. So why is it so hard for you to believe that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, and Zimmerman thought that TM might not stop until he (Zimmerman) was dead?

I think it is obvious that Martin was beating Zimmerman's @ss and never have suggested that he wasn't. What Bogs and I agree on is that the gun was out before he said it was, and if that is true, Zimmerman has no self defense claim. It is really that simple. The pieces of his story that lead up to his decision to go into the darkness are inconsistent with simple logic. All of these things that make no sense are items that bolster his self defense claim.

- I wasn't chasing him into the darkness ... I was looking for an address a block away.
- I have a gun and am terrified of this guy ... but I didn't pull it when I went into the dark.
- I'm getting the sh*t kicked out of me, totally dominated, with the guy sitting on top of me pounding me, smothering me, pounding my head into the ground, and just then Martin discovered the gun that was tucked into my pants in back of me between my body and the ground ... that is the moment that I pulled the gun even though it was next to impossible to do so at that time.
- I thought I missed when I shot, and jumped on his back to hold his hands down, holstering my gun to do so even though I thought I missed and he was still alive -- but when the police arrive Martin's arms are tucked under his body.
- It was me screaming on that tape even though the screams stopped immediately when the gun was fired and I thought the guy who was going to kill me was still alive and a danger.

So, what do those inconsistencies do for Zimmerman? He wasn't ignoring the 911 operator, he was simply trying to be helpful and coincidently had to go in the exact same direction as Martin to get the address. He didn't have the gun pulled, which allowed him to claim Martin was the agressor. If he pulled the gun out after getting curb stomped, he could claim he was afraid for his life. (It was malpractice on behalf of the prosecution not to delve into the logistics of how he pulled that gun out when he said he did.) If I jumped on his back, anyone who might have witnessed me on top of him can be explained away as me doing this. If it was Martin screaming on that tape, it was pretty clear that Zimmerman wasn't the one fearing for his life. Each of these things is very difficult to believe on its own. ALL of these things are simply so improbable that they they are impossible for me to believe. But, you feel free to believe his account if you would like. Heck, you even have a not guilty verdict that you can point to to support your position. What the heck to you care what I believe?

 

[BGIF]

I understand it just fine. I also understand that you seem to think that if one part of Zimmerman's story is embellished, then the entirety of his story must be completely false. Zimmerman got the wounds on the back of his head, somehow. And every witness to the pre-shooting scuffle put TM on top. So why is it so hard for you to believe that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, and Zimmerman thought that TM might not stop until he (Zimmerman) was dead?

Really Moose, you haven't been paying attention. It's as plains as the antlers on your head:

Some people formulated THEIR verdict pre-trail when the Martin family attorney's PR guy sent out a picture of a cute 12 year old.

Mommy said her baby was good little boy.

Jeantel said he was an angel and "crazy *** cracker" was not a racial slur but a universal term for any man (white, black, or "chinaman"), a mall cop, a wanna be, a pervert, etc.

Zimmerman got out of the car after the operator failed to tell him, "Stay where you are!"

Martin was followed, chased, pursued, and out run by the non-athletic Zimmerman

Martin was racially profiled.

The FBI got it wrong.

Zimmerman broke his own nose with the back of his own head.

The Prosecution threw a slam dunk murder case quicker than Hamilton Burger.

The medical examiner was wrong.

Jonathon Good is really red green color blind.

The woman that heard 3 shots was right.

The judge who the President commended mischarged the jury.

The jury was wrong.

SYG sucks.

Guns should be outlawed.

400 years of suffering.

Somebody has to pay.

41 confused himself with the 41 variations of events he presented as conclusive evidence of guilt.

and ...

Bogs and Al said so.

 

[GoIrish41]

Really Moose, you haven't been paying attention. It's as plains as the antlers on your head:

Some people formulated THEIR verdict pre-trail when the Martin family attorney's PR guy sent out a picture of a cute 12 year old.

Mommy said her baby was good little boy.

Jeantel said he was an angel and "crazy *** cracker" was not a racial slur but a universal term for any man (white, black, or "chinaman"), a mall cop, a wanna be, a pervert, etc.

Zimmerman got out of the car after the operator failed to tell him, "Stay where you are!"

Martin was followed, chased, pursued, and out run by the non-athletic Zimmerman

Martin was racially profiled.

The FBI got it wrong.

Zimmerman broke his own nose with the back of his own head.

The Prosecution threw a slam dunk murder case quicker than Hamilton Burger.

The medical examiner was wrong.

Jonathon Good is really red green color blind.

The woman that heard 3 shots was right.

The judge who the President commended mischarged the jury.

The jury was wrong.

SYG sucks.

Guns should be outlawed.

400 years of suffering.

Somebody has to pay.

41 confused himself with the 41 variations of events he presented as conclusive evidence of guilt.

and ...

Bogs and Al said so.

Yeah, that's what we are saying. Good grief. Thanks for your excellent contribution to the discussion.

 

[BGIF]

In variation #42, splain to me how Zimmerman with his gun out at the ready position got punched in the face without firing?

How Zimmerman got wrestled to the ground by the little 12 year child and the gun didn't go off or wasn't dropped as Zimmerman got his nose broken and his skull bashed into the sidewalk?

Did Zimmernam reholster the gun after getting struck and before falling?

How Zimmerman who was on top of Martin in your variations performed a reversal so he could deviously get himself underneath Martin while he got Martin on top of him so he could justify shoting as self defense?

 

[BGIF]

Yeah, that's what we are saying. Good grief. Thanks for your excellent contribution to the discussion.

Hey it's just the salient points of your congent revisions of testimony and evidence over the past few weeks.

 

[GoIrish41]

In variation #42, splain to me how Zimmerman with his gun out at the ready position got punched in the face without firing?

How Zimmerman got wrestled to the ground by the little 12 year child and the gun didn't go off or wasn't dropped as Zimmerman got his nose broken and his skull bashed into the sidewalk?

Did Zimmernam reholster the gun after getting struck and before falling?

How Zimmerman who was on top of Martin in your variations performed a reversal so he could deviously get himself underneath Martin while he got Martin on top of him so he could justify shoting as self defense?

If you don't believe that a person holding a gun can get hit without automatically firing a round off just say so. Personally, I don't find that difficult to believe. Feel free to read back through all my posts and find one instance where I said Martin was a helpless pre-teen. I'm not certain that Zimmerman did get his head bashed into the sidewalk. The only person who said that happened was Zimmerman. No witnesses saw that happen and his injuries don't appear consistent with someone getting their skull bashed into the sidewalk. Witnesses did say that Zimmerman was on top AND Martin was on top. Is it really that difficult to believe that both of those are true. Judging from the items scattered across the grass, that fight covered a lot of ground, which would suggest a lot of rolling around and changes of positions. He says he shot the gun, thought he missed and reholstered the gun and jumped on top of Martin to hold his hands down. That scenario is almost as silly as the one you suggested. You don't have to believe anything that I believe. And if you want to join the conversation, feel free. But your mocking tone is not only uncalled for but unappreciated.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hey it's just the salient points of your congent revisions of testimony and evidence over the past few weeks.

Yeah, well find me examples of when you think I said those things and re-read the posts.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Excellent!



So Martin started the physical altercation.



And Martin was on top, when the shot was fired. All of that points to Zimmerman's story being close enough to true, to create a reasonable doubt. In other words........... if Bog (or you, apparently) are the Prosecutor? The result is the same. So spare us all the "Incompetent Prosecutor" excuse.

I think Martin fought back. If someone walks up to you with a gun, (especially if you are unarmed), who is the aggressor? They are. Except in Florida, and if you look at the way their SYG, that took all reason out of it and lets you used lethal force anywhere if you think your are in immediate harm (not of death) or think you are witnessing a felony (as little as burglary or robbery).

See? The problem is twofold. In Florida, almost no one is guilty. And in my opinion, from what I heard, I could sell a case where a 29 year old man brought a gun to a fight with a 17 year old.

 

[kmoose]

And in my opinion, from what I heard, I could sell a case where a 29 year old man brought a gun to a fight with a 17 year old.

Judging from the posts here, I would say that your opinion of your ability to "sell a case" is rather overinflated.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

In variation #42, splain to me how Zimmerman with his gun out at the ready position got punched in the face without firing?

How Zimmerman got wrestled to the ground by the little 12 year child and the gun didn't go off or wasn't dropped as Zimmerman got his nose broken and his skull bashed into the sidewalk?

Did Zimmernam reholster the gun after getting struck and before falling?

How Zimmerman who was on top of Martin in your variations performed a reversal so he could deviously get himself underneath Martin while he got Martin on top of him so he could justify shoting as self defense?

I did that, it was dark, and Zimmerman was incompetent, (as was Martin, too). Lot of people are night blind. Did you hear anything about Zimmerman's vision at the trial? Why? That is imperative to the case; Zimmerman already admitted he was moving from higher light to lower light without a flashlight. It takes eyes to adjust. Ad to that restricted vision or no night vision, if that is the case and it is easy to see Martin walking up behind Zimmerman not seeing the gun, Zimmerman turning and Martin popping him in the nose, not seeing the gun. And then having the fight degenerate into a wrestling match after Zimmerman is thrown back or steps back into the bushes, scratching his head.

The head wounds were much more consistent with being scratched than abraded on concrete. And remember nobody saw Martin banging Zimmerman's head up and down. I tried this with my eleven year old daughter, my nine year old daughter and my seven year old son. I am a pretty strong guy, and they could resist me banging their head repeatedly pretty easily.

 

[GoIrish41]

I did that, it was dark, and Zimmerman was incompetent, (as was Martin, too). Lot of people are night blind. Did you hear anything about Zimmerman's vision at the trial? Why? That is imperative to the case; Zimmerman already admitted he was moving from higher light to lower light without a flashlight. It takes eyes to adjust. Ad to that restricted vision or no night vision, if that is the case and it is easy to see Martin walking up behind Zimmerman not seeing the gun, Zimmerman turning and Martin popping him in the nose, not seeing the gun. And then having the fight degenerate into a wrestling match after Zimmerman is thrown back or steps back into the bushes, scratching his head.

The head wounds were much more consistent with being scratched than abraded on concrete. And remember nobody saw Martin banging Zimmerman's head up and down. I tried this with my eleven year old daughter, my nine year old daughter and my seven year old son. I am a pretty strong guy, and they could resist me banging their head repeatedly pretty easily.

Thank God for that. Good thing they weren't packing.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Really Moose, you haven't been paying attention. It's as plains as the antlers on your head:

Some people formulated THEIR verdict pre-trail when the Martin family attorney's PR guy sent out a picture of a cute 12 year old.

Mommy said her baby was good little boy.

Jeantel said he was an angel and "crazy *** cracker" was not a racial slur but a universal term for any man (white, black, or "chinaman"), a mall cop, a wanna be, a pervert, etc.

Zimmerman got out of the car after the operator failed to tell him, "Stay where you are!"

Martin was followed, chased, pursued, and out run by the non-athletic Zimmerman

Martin was racially profiled.

The FBI got it wrong.

Zimmerman broke his own nose with the back of his own head.

The Prosecution threw a slam dunk murder case quicker than Hamilton Burger.

The medical examiner was wrong.

Jonathon Good is really red green color blind.

The woman that heard 3 shots was right.

The judge who the President commended mischarged the jury.

The jury was wrong.

SYG sucks.

Guns should be outlawed.

400 years of suffering.

Somebody has to pay.

41 confused himself with the 41 variations of events he presented as conclusive evidence of guilt.

and ...

Bogs and Al said so.

You forgot about the 2nd gunman in the grassy knoll.

 

[LoveThee]

This might be the last place on the internet this case is still being discussed. How much can you talk about one topic before the conversation begins to become circular and repetitive? I enjoy the fact that this community can have intellectual conversation, but I am sick of the George Zimmerman trial... I thought everyone else would be too a few weeks after the verdict

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Hey it's just the salient points of your congent revisions of testimony and evidence over the past few weeks.

The prosecutor had a year and a half to do this thing. As did the defense. We had a few weeks. A story "comes together." Are you being disingenuous, or interested in developing this thing? I mean your long post was kind of (to me) like sitting with someone blowing their nose with a hanky, and watching them miss that last drop of snot that hands there. All this in public, and they get the hanky tucked away before you get over the shock of them blowing in public. Do you tell them in front of others that they dribbled, and have a hanger? Or do you hope it just falls off or they discover it before too many notice?

You want to know how that post looked?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Thank God for that. Good thing they weren't packing.

What? My kids carry, too!

 

[NDinL.A.]

To say that about Martin's parents is judgmental and disturbed beyond words;

LOL...so everything you've written about Zimmerman isn't??? Typical bogs; the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen on this site.

Bogs wrote:

but you said I have been inside Zimmerman's head the whole time. There you show your ignorance. I have speculated based upon my experience making my best guess. I use words like seems and appears the whole time.

Bogs also wrote:

GZ wanted to be a cop-hero. Even being held like Barney Fife wasn't enough.

Can you kindly show me where the words "seems" or "appears" are? 'Preciate it.

it just points out the void between your view on the world and reality;

So in reality, TM's parents were wonderful parents doing a fantastic job raising him. Suspended 3 times in a year? Go out and continue to party son! Doing drugs and capturing them with pics on your cell phone? Keep your phone son...you'll grow out of this phase! Get suspended for 10 days? Come live with me son...I'll let you keep your nice phone and I'll let you go to the store after 10 at night and I won't bother you when you're getting your 'lean' on! It's all good buddy!

My reality is just fine thanks. You're bleeding heart just can't take it.

The little birdie thing was an entirely different post, there were three, the contracts, the coaching staff, and the defensive strategy, as well as the offensive strategy (as usual, you don't remember it quite right).

You post 30 times a day, so yeah, I might get things mixed up. Forgive me father. Without even looking, on one you said a "little birdie" told you, and on the other you said you've "heard from different places". Same damn difference, and either way, your fake sources were dead wrong.

So when I jump on this site I say some things just for effect, because it is so damned fun, because there are few consequences. If they don't care for it, almost everybody (else) ignores it.

And I ignore it too, most of the time. But since I have time, I haven't let it go. Forgive me for not knowing when you are 'having fun' and when you are just being a complete ignoramus (which happens often).

How about this: Stop staying stupid sh!t. Stop baiting people. Stop being a dumbass. Stop being so damn fake and say what you believe, and don't hide behind the convenient "I was saying that just for effect." You're stupid lines, and I quote, "Brian Kelly loves to redshirt freshman with elite talent" and "ND has 8 elite defensive linemen" were ridiculous, and yeah, I'm gonna respond to such stupid, non-true things. Because you lie and say you only said them 'for effect' means nothing to me. Again, don't say stupid ****.

So, when you were going off on how bad and wrong I am and how nobody likes me, you were talking about the day Jimmy was crowing about having everyone at his birthday? And I said something to the effect, even me? Ha, ha, ha!

Nah, you said something more like, "I'll be there bros!!!" And then the thread completely died. Well done.

That was more effective than I dreamed! I forgot about that, just though I was pulling his leg a little!

You dreamed about it being effective, and it was more than you could have dreamed of? For real? You've got some issues. And the only effect it had was it made me laugh at the (lack of) response your 'ploy' got.

Family is home...I'll revisit this thread Tuesday.

 

[BGIF]

You forgot about the 2nd gunman in the grassy knoll.

I thought the earwitness that claimed she heard three shots covered that.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Wow, here is some of that inconsistent stuff I have been saying since the beginning. Somewhere there is enlightened conversation that may make a difference in saving someone's life.

Neighborhood patrols ponder gun use after Zimmerman case

Reuters

By Jonathan Kaminsky

FOX ISLAND, Washington (Reuters) - On a recent afternoon Kent Holder drove his Ford pickup truck, emblazoned with "Citizens' Patrol" magnetic decals, through this leafy enclave west of Tacoma, Washington, recalling when he learned that George Zimmerman had shot and killed an unarmed teenager - and was a neighborhood watch volunteer.

"I thought, ‘Boy, did he ever screw up,'" said Holder, 74, a retired fireman and five-year neighborhood patrol veteran.

In Holder's view, Zimmerman violated two basic tenets of the watch program: Never confront a person you perceive to be suspicious, and never carry a weapon while on duty.

Last weekend, a Florida jury acquitted Zimmerman, 29, of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, in Sanford, Florida. The case has focused fresh attention on the civilian patrols by law enforcement and trainers.

Zimmerman, 29, who is white and Hispanic, spotted Martin, who was black, as the teenager walked to the home of his father's fiancée from a convenience store. Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious and called the police. The two had a confrontation and Martin ended up dead.

The National Sheriffs' Association's neighborhood watch program was established in 1972 to combat a spike in suburban and rural burglaries.

It was designed to empower civilians to act as "the eyes and ears of law enforcement" without taking matters into their own hands, said John Thompson, who directs the initiative. The association's 37-page manual states that patrol members should be told that "they shall not carry weapons."

While the group is seen as an authority, fewer than a third of the estimated 90,000 neighborhood watch groups in existence nationwide have registered with it, said Thompson. Zimmerman's watch group was not among those registered, he said.

"I could show you 50 groups with 50 different sets of rules," Thompson said.

During the trial, Wendy Dorival, a civilian with the Sanford, Florida, police department, testified that she trained Zimmerman on neighborhood watch protocol, advising him to avoid initiating confrontations. It was not clear whether she counseled him on whether to carry a gun.

Barring guns from civilian patrols is a legal gray area since most U.S. citizens have the legal right to bear arms, said Kenneth Novak, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who has studied watch programs.

Local watch groups, as private entities, are on relatively firm legal ground in setting no-weapons policies for their members, Novak said, but law enforcement agencies mandating such rules could run the risk of exceeding their authority.

"People participating in neighborhood watch enjoy all the legal protections under the Constitution, as well as state and federal law," said Novak. "That can include carrying a weapon."

Jeffrey Dehan, a sergeant who advises neighborhood watch groups as part of his duties with the Thurston County Sheriff's Office in Washington state, says it is not their role to offer guidance on whether members should carry a weapon.

"We don't advocate 'should or shouldn't,'" he said.

Carmen Caldwell, the executive director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, in Florida, said that in the wake of the Zimmerman case, some trainers and others were considering new safeguards, which could include background checks on prospective members and teaching about racial profiling.

Holder, the ex-fireman from Washington, said fallout from the Trayvon Martin shooting has been minimal.

"There was concern that we would've had something negative from it," he said. "But nobody has ever said, 'You guys shouldn't be out here.' They love us. They love having us."

 

[Bogtrotter07]

LOL...so everything you've written about Zimmerman isn't??? Typical bogs; the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen on this site.

. . . Family is home...I'll revisit this thread Tuesday.

Earlier, in post number 2603 I brought up two issues in your previous post. One was about "JimmyMac's birthday party and one was the nastiest thing I think I have heard posted on this thread.

There was a reason why.

I worked for a guy years ago that taught me that people can't wait to tell you everything they know. That it just spills out of them all over. And that it tells you everything you need to know.

Your whole story about JM's birthday party tells me one thing, that you think, and speak on a literal basis. You process the world on a what you see is what you get basis. Some people could say "I'm gonna kill you!" and it would mean "I am going to beat you bad at this game," or "I am going to set a new worlds record with my Scrabble score." Not you. That would only mean one thing. But that is just an example, what is important is you words are measured, and mean exactly what you say.

Quote:
I had a 'diatribe' against a set of parents who are set to be millionaires who did a HORRIBLE job parenting their children. . . .

This in my mind shows the true you. This is one of the worst things I have seen written on IE. I have may have seen two things posted on this site that I could see as less humanizing in the context in which they were posted, and neither one of those were in the posters own words. They were quotes of others intended to humiliate.

About this simple sentence of yours. It is devoid of human empathy, as is much of the posting where you attack others. (My eyes rolled back in my head but I kind of think you posted a long list earlier.)

Secondly, it shows your shocking naiveté. If you think anyone is going to get rich off of this case, other than attorneys, you are grossly mistaken. And once again they did a horrible job of parenting their children? How many children did they have? Do you even have a guess On what basis do you claim this? Or did they incite Trayvon to this, planning on capitalizing on it from the get go. Let's see grade cards, arrest records, paternity information, etc. I don't think anyone even has Trayvon's. Most of what was reported about him is conjecture. And you certainly have no medical or psychological background on him.

Judge not least ye be judged. Granted, extrapolating based upon tendencies may look like judging to some, especially those who view things in a black and white manner, but one of the differences is admitting that you have made a mistake, when you do. I do that every day. The other is not making absolute statements based upon no data whatsoever; talking in intimate detail about someone you never met. You have had this whole milieu about how you are right all the time and everyone else, that doesn't agree with you is wrong (especially me), and you are quite insulting about it. And you put yourself out on a limb about parenting. Something you have never done, (parent a teenager.)

And all this after you claim to have taught in inner city schools? My, my, aren't you a piece of work. You have not exhibited any human empathy in these posts. None. Not in the Zimmerman thread, not in your attacks, and I am going as far back as Kissme. Nowhere. I have volunteered in affluent schools and poor schools, the school I am working in now has some of the most affluent children in NWO, and some kids that live in Section 8 housing.

That is why I like it so well. I don't see how a normal person can work with the disadvantaged and impoverished and not have empathy for their situation. (Here is a lesson for you, people that have empathy don't make up excuses for others, that would be people that have sympathy, which requires no investiture, and is where bleeding hearts and most social ills come from.)

I have danced around this long enough. I don't have a problem with what you are, I have a problem with what you are not. What you are is a back-slapping, glad-handing, sleaze bucket, the world is full of the same. What you are not on this site is capable of showing human empathy. Prove me wrong. Stop attacking. Stop attacking HCTI, Kissme, NDWorld, the Martins. Just stop attacking everybody. And don't have to be anyone's friend to 'prove' anything, let alone what a 'great guy' you are. That is it.

 

[FLDomer]

Zimmerman was not armed with a Tec-9; it was a Kel Tec PF-9. Please get your facts straight before posting your garbage.

Glad I kept reading and saw you correcting Bogs, there is a big difference!

Tec 9
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RagJ3TMape0/TKUvTm3nzVI/AAAAAAAAAjc/4m5a6sEgzKk/s400/TEC9.jpg

Kel-tec
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/3417149493_1a6ae887f4_b.jpg

Slight difference

 

[Cackalacky]

I just have to say this thread is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Can we about wrap this up? The trial is over the verdict was delivered and we have reached 66 pages of "discussion."