Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Police in Deland, Florida, found George Zimmerman sitting in his truck shortly after midnight Sunday behind a store that sells guns. Zimmerman told police he was outside Pompano Pat's with the owner's permission and "he was going to be around the business at night for an indeterminate amount of time" because it had suffered a recent burglary. But Sam Porter, an employee of the store, told ABC News Zimmerman is not an employee and was not asked to patrol the business.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I saw Zimmerman drinking a Pina Colada at Trader Vic's.

#1 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-07-29 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Great now idiots are going to be attracted to his work place.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-29 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 His hair was perfect. Except for that little scar on the back of his head where Trayvon Martin was bashing it into the sidewalk.

I thought he was broke and homeless? Maybe he was just taking a nap?

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-29 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

George Zimmerman armed and sitting outside a business looking for suspicious people. What could go wrong?

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-29 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

His place of work?

Really?

FTA: Zimmerman is not an employee and was not asked to patrol the business.

#5 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-07-29 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

@ OLDWHISKEYSOUR

I stand corrected.

The article now officially doesn't make sense to me.

Who returns a dog after midnight?

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-29 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

This guy is gonna hurt somebody one day.

#7 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-29 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeeze. I thought this was going to be about one of his more fortunate fans giving him a job (assuming he wants one).

What a loser.

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-29 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Says he has PTSD.... I guess murdering an unarmed kid can do that to you.

Perhaps he should find a local Army recruiter.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-29 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps he should find a local Army recruiter.

Posted by Corky at 2014-07-29 04:26 PM | Reply

Because he is yellow. He may get sent somewhere where they have bigger weapons than fists that actually go bang bang

#11 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Georgie Zee we know too much of thee...

#12 | Posted by tiger150 at 2014-07-29 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pitiful. The guys makes a HUGE mistake, gets away with it, thinks he will live the life of Riley from that point on, but then gets a family-sized bag of Instant Karma dumped on him. I, for one, hope this guy gets himself together before he shoots someone else or offs himself...

#13 | Posted by catdog at 2014-07-29 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

+1 catdog.

#14 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-07-29 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...thinks he will live the life of Riley from that point on..."

He probably could have if he wasn't such an unstable nitwit.

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-29 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

He probably could have if he wasn't such an unstable nitwit.

If he wasn't, we would never have heard of him.

#16 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-29 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well there's that.

#17 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-29 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

George Zimmerman's job in America has no relevance to US policy, unless it pertains to the obsession of banker oligarchs and their media / political puppets to push for gun control, mostly so that these oligarchs will not only own us but control us, just as they do to the people in Gaza.

The first step in ownership is disarming the sheep.

#18 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-29 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Surprised the nutters at the NRA haven't hired this troglodyte, he is after all the NRA poster boy.

#19 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2014-07-29 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...he is after all the NRA poster boy."

Only to the point that he proved three legal points:

a) The law allows you to kill people if they make you afraid,
b) You are the sole arbiter of your own fear, and
c) Leave no witnesses.

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-29 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

George Zimmerman's job in America has no relevance to US policy, unless it pertains to the obsession of banker oligarchs and their media / political puppets to push for gun control, mostly so that these oligarchs will not only own us but control us, just as they do to the people in Gaza.
The first step in ownership is disarming the sheep.
#18 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-29 08:15 PM

Stand Your Ground is extremely relevant to gun control legislation. Namely, that it is entirely probable that gun nuts will support any POS just to avoid gun control whatsoever - even denying that responsible clip size, caliber and weapon type are topics below the idea of psychological testing.

That said, I absolutely agree that the Neoconservative brand of martial law includes disarming us entirely. How Republicans march to that drum is quite obvious - the same reason they consistently vote against their best interests their entire lives.

Tor - I can't understand how you missed that he was not an employee and was requested to leave.

Someone recently linked a political cartoon that shows two "types" of film goers watching Wolf of Wall Street - one was enraptured, the other disgusted. Imo, this really exemplifies the mindset at hand. It's quite obvious which of those two are Zimmerman supporters. Yes, idiots are attracted to his brand of murder - mainly because he got away with it.

#21 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-07-29 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The first step in ownership is disarming the sheep."

#18 | POSTED BY ROBSON

You're a one-note pill. Idiots like G. Zimmerman prove that the right backs morons.

#22 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-07-30 12:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Watza matta' with youse people. Zimmerman was obviously hanging out in the dumpster area waiting for his date. He lied to the police to protect her reputation. Geesh! Can't a guy have a little privacy! ~ LOL

#23 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-07-30 01:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

#20 | Posted by REDIAL

a) No, you are patently wrong.
b) No, you are patently wrong.
c) Following deadly force refresher course and just before being issued live ammo for in US guard duty; Top said, or pretty close, "Pull the trigger? Make damn sure you're right. Make damn sure there is only one story."

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-30 01:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Ha ha ha. This guy has so many foaming at the mouth because their fantasy held no weight in court just as it held no weight with reason. The sad bit is that rather then accept that the ludicrous story they were told to belive was false and learn from the mistake of judging without fact and against logic they choose to hate the guy. It truly is funny, it is the sort of behavior I expect from my six year old but some never grew out of it.

#25 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 02:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by salamandagator

Right on. Libs are so laden with white guilt that they frantically overcompensate..e.g.B.H.O. immaculation...any negative racial discussion evokes irrational emotional accusations...as this will.

#26 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-07-30 02:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

SALAMANDER

It's pretty much impossible to "hate" a guy as stupid as Zimmerman when we're so busy laughing at him.

Also Zimmerman was only exonerated by the Court of Law but NOT by the Court of Public Opinion ~ which is why he's being ostracized and reviled everywhere he goes.

I fully expect him to cross the line and end up in prison eventually. I think it's only a matter of time. We're just waiting it out.

#27 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-07-30 02:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I fully expect him to cross the line and end up in prison eventually."

I bet he either eats a bullet or moves to Guadeloupe.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-30 02:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

REDIAL

I really thought that by now he would have gone to Hollywood to sell his story to a movie producer ala Joey Buttafuco.

These egomaniacs seem to think their 15 minutes of fame are going to last forever and make them rich beyond their wildest dreams. Maybe Zimmerman just wasn't up to hitch hiking that far.

#29 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-07-30 03:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

#27 Your statement obviously recognizes that Zimmerman was found not guilty in a court of law. It also summarized the gullibility of the public. The sad part is you must believe that the MSM court of public opinion, where they bend and ply us with their concocted version of reality and is intended solely to suit their owners perpetual agenda of giving the USA a wedgie, is what should reign supreme.

The MS news media has a basic role of informing us, but in case you haven't noticed they've taken on a role of determining guilt or innocence of individuals and swaying public opinion solely to reinforce their rules of political correctness.

#30 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-30 07:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

#27 TWINPAC if you trust the MSM news agenda and their ability to sway public opinion implicitly, then you obviously do not accept that their owners were toadies to the Bush administration elevating Bush 2 to a hero with a megaphone, after his incompetence (at best), and who failed to protect us on 9-11. The media failed to even question why we were attacked? The same media helped the administration to rally public opinion and use that event as an excuse to invade Iraq, when those who allegedly attacked us were Saudis. Remember the Dixie Chicks?

The media stirs up the public about George Zimmerman but says little (except for Taibbi) about Goldman and Wall Street and Americas plundering. In case you haven't noticed the media agenda on items of supreme importance is not usually in the public's interest.

Trust the court of public opinion at your own risk.

#31 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-30 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't know Salamandagator was still acting as George Zimmerman's PR agent. I would've thought that some of his defenders might bail after all the domestic abuse incidents and other nutty behavior since the trial. Now Zimmerman's doing the pretend cop thing again, just like he did when he followed and killed Trayvon Martin. But I guess Stand Your Ground buddies are buddies for life.

Zimmerman's a dangerous armed nut today and he was a dangerous armed nut when he killed Martin. It is a pity that our laws encourage dangerous armed nuts.

#32 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"George is a really nice guy and really tries to help folks out," Porter said. "I felt he was trying to do something nice."

Unless you're wearing a hoodie. Do NOT wear a hoodie when shopping there.

#33 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-30 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Also Zimmerman was only exonerated by the Court of Law but NOT by the Court of Public Opinion "

That was my point. Public opinion is not subject to reason or reality as proven by Zimmerman. It was so well taken to heart before anyone knew better that so many cannot let their unfounded beliefs go and they will still see him as a villain. Honestly there are many so small that there could have been dozens of camera's and witnesses and they would still hate the guy for defending himself from a thug.

#34 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

... and they would still hate the guy for defending himself from a thug.

There is no proof that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. None. The only earwitness to the start of the fight, Rachel Jeantel, said that after Martin and Zimmerman exchanged words she heard Martin say "get off me" to Zimmerman.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

There is no proof that Martin assaulted Zimmerman."

Yes yes we all know that geese do not fly but run on invisible roads up in the sky because i cannot absolutely prove it. Seriously the amount of denial it take to abandon all reason to keep up with a hatred is insane.

Face it, not one plausible and provable explanation was brought by the prosecutors and nothing the said disproved anything Zimmerman said. Sorry you were wrong, it happens when you form an opinion long before you know any of the facts.
Own up to it, besides you said that you would accept the verdict, why the change?

#36 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sal continues to tell the same lies about Zimmerman even after he's been shot down dozens of times on this.

I give him credit. He's eventually going to outlast sane people because nobody wants to correct the same lie coming from the same source 1,000 times.

Reality is that Zimmerman was found not guilty because there was no way to establish what happened. And there has never been any indication whatsoever that Martin attacked Zimmerman other than Zimmerman's self serving, somewhat illogical story.

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

... i cannot absolutely prove it.

You offer no proof, just fact-free BS in solidarity with Zimmerman because he carried a gun around all the time and shot somebody. I fail to see why you find common ground with that. But I don't understand the quasi-religious fetishization of guns by some Americans.

If you're not worshipping a frustrated wanna-be cop who followed an unarmed teen around in the dark and killed him, you're defending people who love their guns so much they strap them on, form clubs and take them out in public on play dates.

#38 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

- nothing the(y) said disproved anything Zimmerman said

The killer could have said he was attacked by aliens, and nothing the prosecutor said could have disproved it.

And Sally would have believed every word.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Sal continues to tell the same lies about Zimmerman even after he's been shot down dozens of times on this."

What lie?

"Reality is that Zimmerman was found not guilty because there was no way to establish what happened."

The reality is that there was no way to disprove his account, the prosecution tried and failed miserably. To assume that it could not have happened despite the physical evidence is asinine. It take a conclusion reached before facts and that is what so many, like you apparently, hold on to. the rest of us paid attention to the case and and the evidence did not just let our dislike for someone fuel a bloodlust.

" And there has never been any indication whatsoever that Martin attacked Zimmerman other than Zimmerman's self serving, somewhat illogical story."

With nothing to disprove it and physical evidence to back it up it is completely illogical to assume an unknown instead of something that is supported.

Admit it you are still on the "well we might know for 99.9% sure but there is still that 0.1 percent chance it happened the way i was conned into believing so i will hold on to that as truth" bit aren't you?

#40 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

You offer no proof, just fact-free BS in solidarity with Zimmerman because he carried a gun around all the time and shot somebody."

Do you not see the irony in that?

I offer no proof but the evidence did back up Zimmerman and all you have is "well i don't like him so he is guilty despite what could be proven or supported by facts or evidence"

We get it you do not like the guy and wish him hell because of it. It does not make your conjecture based on personal opinion any more valid then if i were to tell you the trees are pink and the water is made of bees. But lets not pretend like you have even anything resembling a leg to stand on here.
At least admit that nothing that could ever have been said or shown would ever relive the hate you had for the guy.

#41 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reality is that there was no way to disprove his account ...

That doesn't mean it happened, and yet you're still claiming he was "defending himself from a thug" as a fact. You've been stating that as a fact from the minute this story became news, but now you're claiming you paid attention to the evidence and only then made a judgment.

If you paid attention to the evidence, you'd know there is no evidence Martin started the fight.

You're the one who had his mind made up from day one. You always have your mind made up on gun incidents involving the conceal carry crowd. They're always right. Your game never changes.

#42 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"and nothing the prosecutor said could have disproved it.
And Sally would have believed every word."

If he could have shown viable evidence as he did with his story. But i will give that aliens are a lot more believable then any of the fantasy the hang Zimmerman crowd came up with to try to deny the actual evidence.

#43 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

... to try to deny the actual evidence.

There's no evidence to deny. No evidence exists to support Zimmerman's claim that Martin assaulted him.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What lie?"

Whenever you refer to the incident as if it is an established fact that Zimmerman was merely defending himself, you are lying.

"The reality is that there was no way to disprove his account"

Which doesn't make it an esablished fact and when you pretend that it is you are lying.

"With nothing to disprove it and physical evidence to back it up it is completely illogical to assume an unknown instead of something that is supported. "

There is no physical evidence that indicates Martin attacked Zimmerman first. None. You are lying.

"Admit it you are still on the "well we might know for 99.9% sure but there is still that 0.1 percent chance it happened the way i was conned into believing so i will hold on to that as truth" bit aren't you?"

Put their percentanges back up your rear where you got them, liar. There is no way to know for sure what happened and a percent can't be put on the likelihood of either version being true.

#45 | Posted by sully at 2014-07-30 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I refuse to post on anymore Zimmerman threads.

#46 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-30 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

" You've been stating that as a fact from the minute this story became news, but now you're claiming you paid attention to the evidence and only then made a judgment."

That's BS. I thought it was a big over reaction and thought the guy should be punished at first. But as more information came out it became clear that to believe that Zimmerman attacked first necessitates the exclusion of reason. I changed my mind.

"If you paid attention to the evidence, you'd know there is no evidence Martin started the fight."
Except a complete lack of offensive wounds on Zimmerman with only defense and the exact opposite on Martin. And to believe Zimmerman surprised Martin but could not land one single blow is next to impossible.
Except for the fact that Martin had more then enough opportunity to move away and was out of Zimmerman's sight for quite some time before he came back as attested to by Martin's GF.
Except that Zimmerman is exactly where he would have been expected to be while Martin was obviously not.
Except that...

Come on Rcade lets not be intentionally obtuse.

#47 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

I refuse to post on anymore Zimmerman threads.

#46 | POSTED BY DALTON

I made that decision a long time ago.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Whenever you refer to the incident as if it is an established fact that Zimmerman was merely defending himself, you are lying."

Yup still on that 0.1% chance bit aren't you?

"Which doesn't make it an esablished fact and when you pretend that it is you are lying. "
With a lack of any other plausible and supportable alternative then it makes it close enough for a reasonable person.

There is no way to know for sure what happened and a percent can't be put on the likelihood of either version being true."

No not for 100% Even if you were there it would not be 100% but to hang your hat on the very small off chance that what was shown and supported and not disproved in any way is wrong is ridiculous.

#49 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Come on Rcade lets not be intentionally obtuse.

That got a well-deserved funny flag... as there was no irony flag.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"what was shown and supported"

The events in question were never "shown" and there is zero evidence to "support" Zimmerman's story. You're lying again.

Why can't you make your point without lying?

#51 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Except a complete lack of offensive wounds on Zimmerman with only defense and the exact opposite on Martin.

Martin had no offensive wounds -- the only hand injury was a small nick on one finger one quarter-inch by one eighth-inch in size. But none of what you're talking about is evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. It's evidence a fight occurred, but if Zimmerman put his hands on Martin first -- the situation Rachel Jeantel described overhearing -- Martin would have been engaging in justifiable self defense, not assault. Zimmerman wouldn't have offensive wounds if he grabbed Martin to detain him, which is the kind of thing that Martin would say "get off me" in response to.

Except that Zimmerman is exactly where he would have been expected to be while Martin was obviously not.

Zimmerman was not where he was expected to be. He was at least 20-25 feet from the sidewalk T where he would have been walking back to his car. Remember that silly little dance Zimmerman did in his re-enactment with police the next day in which he was walking multiple steps after being punched? That was because he couldn't explain being so far from the T.

Even better, Zimmerman was lying about walking around so he could find a street name in his neighborhood, which had just three streets. He knew the name when police were driving him to do his re-enactment.

#52 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

That got a well-deserved funny flag... as there was no irony flag.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

What makes it funnier is that Rcade has banned him twice after simliar discussions because he assumes that, given the context, a statement like "Come on Rcade lets not be intentionally obtuse." is trolling. And then Rcade realizes that Sal is not trolling and is really just a special combination of stupid and delusional. So he unbans him. And then Salaliar lies and denies its happened when I mention it....

#53 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4 | Newsworthy 1

"The events in question were never "shown" and there is zero evidence to "support" Zimmerman's story. You're lying again.
Why can't you make your point without lying?"

You call me a liar and yet have nothing to back it up with but denial. Why are you so fixated on suspending reality?
It's one thing to hate the guy because you don't like him but to make an absurd claim like that only betrays your own uncertainty of your unfounded opinion.

His story was supported by the physical evidence. Nothing in his story did not fit. Now on the other side you had prosecutors who continually and intentionally lied to the court to try for the only chance they had, to play off emotion in lack of evidence. But they must have been right.

#54 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What makes it funnier is that Rcade has banned him twice after simliar discussions"

Three times. And none of them stood. What is your point?

You cannot offer one iota of proof that disproves anything said and yet i am the dumb one for following what the evidence pointed to?

Yup sure.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

" He was at least 20-25 feet from the sidewalk T where he would have been walking back to his car. Remember that silly little dance Zimmerman "

Because you often just stand still and do not meander around a few steps in either direction. But at least you are being honest about how there is nothing but conjecture to back your story up.

"Zimmerman was lying about walking around so he could find a street name in his neighborhood, which had just three streets. He knew the name when police were driving him to do his re-enactment."

So, let me get this straight. He did not know so he went to take a look but it proves that he did know because he remembered it the next day?
So you are assuming he is a goldfish with a memory of half an hour?

Does that make any sense to you?
That it is not reasonable to remember something you saw just the night before?
If you must stretch so far maybe it is time to think that there is a reason you cannot hold your position with reason.

(and yes i know the goldfish thing is an old wives tale)

#56 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

You call me a liar and yet have nothing to back it up with but denial.

You're called a liar because you misrepresent the facts of the case. Instead of stating that something is unproven conjecture, such as the claim that Zimmerman was "defending himself from a thug," you act as if the trial proved it.

Since this place obsessively covered the trial, your falsehoods are obvious.

Stick to the facts or call your conjecture what it is -- an opinion. You believe Martin attacked Zimmerman. Fine. Just stop claiming it was proven.

The reason Zimmerman walks free is because jurors had too many doubts about what happened to convict him. When you follow somebody around in the dark and shoot them dead in front of no eyewitnesses, you get to claim whatever you like and it's extremely difficult to dispute.

#57 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Three times. And none of them stood. What is your point?"

My point is that its hilarious when you get banned because Rcade keeps forgetting that you're an idiot and not a troll. And its even funnier that you don't quite understand why it happens.

"You cannot offer one iota of proof that disproves anything said"

You're making claims about imaginary evidence. I can't disprove the existence of imaginary anything. I can only point out that you are lying.

#58 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, let me get this straight. He did not know so he went to take a look but it proves that he did know because he remembered it the next day?

No. You're confused again on the facts. That night, Zimmerman got out of his car on Twin Trees Lane. He claimed to police later he got out because he didn't know the name of the street he was on. He walked behind the apartments to Retreat View Circle and told police it was to find an address on that street, which was the one he lived on, so he could tell them where to go.

But the next day, Zimmerman's in the car with police and says the street name he claimed not to know -- Twin Trees Lane. He didn't need to get out of his car to walk anywhere to tell police where to go.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Instead of stating that something is unproven conjecture, such as the claim that Zimmerman was "defending himself from a thug," you act as if the trial proved it."

Again, i state what is evidenced. What was not disproved or had even a doubt cast on it by the evidence. That does not make me a liar. However claiming the opposite which flies directly in the face of the evidence does make someone a liar. Do you have anything but contrived dislike to support your contention? Because if you do then you should have let the prosecutors knw because even they could not come up with something.

". Fine. Just stop claiming it was proven."
Look, i never said it is 100%. There is nothing that could have shown it to be but the vast preponderance that easily approaches certainty was reached and claiming different is to deny reality. For lack of any probable or evidence alternative i will stick with what is reasonable, logical and supported by the evidence. It's not an emotional reaction, as is the hate.

But if i am to be called a liar for posting what was found to be by far the most plausible explanation then so be it. If only reasonable certainty precludes you from being able to make a statement without being a liar then so be it. I guess i am a liar for saying that i can go to mcdonalds and get a crappy burger on my way home from work.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're making claims about imaginary evidence. I can't disprove the existence of imaginary anything. I can only point out that you are lying."

If it is imaginary then the defense did an amazing job of fabricating the evidence before there were even charges.

What is the point of discussion if now you deny everything that was shown during trial and replace it with a flat denial. Sorry but that a whole lot more transparent then you think.

#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Again, i state what is evidenced."

Again, you refer to evidence that doesn't exist. This is what people with an IQ over 80 call a lie.

#62 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What is the point of discussion if now you deny everything that was shown during trial and replace it with a flat denial."

You refer to things that never occurred. ZERO evidence to support Zimmmerman's clalim that he was attacked out of the blue was presented. Absolutely nothing. Nothing you have said proves or even strongly supports that conclusion.

So yes, I am flat out denying your delusions. There is nothing else for the reality based community to do with them.

#63 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

If I had a time machine, there are many questionable events that I would like to verify for myself.

For example, I would set up a camera to record what actually happened at Roswell.

I think I would also go back to this night with a drone camera and see what truly transpired between Zimmerman and Martin.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Again, you refer to evidence that doesn't exist."

Look, i am not going to go through and post dozens of pages that are public and rehash the whole trial to counter you obvious denial in lieu of fact. If you want to know go look, this has all been gone through many times before. Pretending like it does not exist is asinine. There was a trial for goodness sake where much of it was brought out, deny that to if you will it does not make you any closer to correct.
But just understand that you are not fooling anyone with the whole hands over ears shouting la la la while closing your eyes as tightly as you can.

#65 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No. You're confused again on the facts."

You of course understand i was replying to what you said here, right?

""Zimmerman was lying about walking around so he could find a street name in his neighborhood, which had just three streets. He knew the name when police were driving him to do his re-enactment.""

Kinda tough to tell me to get my facts straight when you make two different statements and tell me i am wrong for responding to the only one you had made at the time don't you think?

#66 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think I would also go back to this night with a drone camera and see what truly transpired between Zimmerman and Martin."

It would not matter. Some are so set on hating him that reason and fact do not play into their opinion whatsoever.
They would do the same as they do now, "well, it could have been doctored, there is no way to know for 100% so obviously i am right even though i have nothing to evidence my claim"

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#67 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

It would be for my own personal edification. That's all.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

- I would set up a camera to record what actually happened at Roswell.

www.youtube.com

#69 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Look, i am not going to go through and post dozens of pages that are public and rehash the whole trial to counter you obvious denial in lieu of fact."

You're not going to make even valid one claim as to what this evidence you keep referring to is either because you're full of crap. We will get nothing from you because you have nothing. You are a liar and you know it.

So far you've made one claim which was A) Poked full of holes by Rcade and B) Would not prove what you claim it does even if it were true.

I'm referring to the claim that the positioning of the body somehow indicates who attacked who, which is absurd. It in know what tells us anything about how the fight started, only how it ended.

So stop pretending you have all this evidence but you just can't be bothered. You've posted 1,000 times about this and will keep posting on this thread. So you could be bothered. You just have NOTHING and we all know it. You're a liar.

#70 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

The nature of a trial had it so that Zimmerman had to prove nothing. Innocent until proven guilty. Had he gone the Stand Your Ground route, he would have had to prove Martin attacked him as I understand it.

#71 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-30 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

The nature of a trial had it so that Zimmerman had to prove nothing. Innocent until proven guilty. Had he gone the Stand Your Ground route, he would have had to prove Martin attacked him as I understand it.

#72 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-30 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're not going to make even valid one claim as to what this evidence you keep referring to is either because you're full of crap. We will get nothing from you because you have nothing. You are a liar and you know it."

In other words i make a statement that reflects what has been gone through in court, countless public records, and what most if not all resonable people take as by far the most probable and your counter is "uh unh"

Nice.

Good luck with that. But i am done with your trolling today.

#73 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In other words i make a statement that reflects what has been gone through in court, countless public records, and what most if not all resonable people take as by far the most probable and your counter is "uh unh""

No - I countered with "Put up or shut up" because your claim that you can't be bothered as you continue to post on this thread is obviously another lie.

You will not supply one valid scrap of evidence to support your claims about what has been proven because you can't. It doesn't exist. You know it. I know it.

You'll post another deflection because its all you can do at this point but in reality when you were asked to support your claim you made a lame excuse.

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Had he gone the Stand Your Ground route, he would have had to prove Martin attacked him as I understand it."

Not entirely. The stand your ground defense does not differ much from self defense. There was no reason to invoke that as all it would have meant was that Zimmerman would have no duty to retreat. But because of the physical evidence of violence against him any duty to retreat would be negated anyways. But the biggest thing is that there is also not a 100% requirement for SYG and the facts laid out present more then enough for a reasonable fear. Under Florida law had Zimmerman provoked the attack the only additional step needed was to exhaust every possible means of escape first, which would have been met as well.

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kinda tough to tell me to get my facts straight when you make two different statements and tell me i am wrong for responding to the only one you had made at the time don't you think?

I was just explaining how you were misunderstanding the street name issue. This was, of course, pointless. You're not in this discussion to understand anything better.

#76 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're not in this discussion to understand anything better."

That's not true, i really wish i could understand why some refuse to think about it and just use emotional knee-jerk as their entire input.

"I was just explaining how you were misunderstanding the street name issue."

I was responding to a specific contention you stated.

Correct me if i am wrong. You are claiming that because he knew the street name the next day he must have known it that night right?

Or did you misstate and are taking issue with if he got out to look for a sign or follow?

The former is easily explained as before. The latter becomes a clarity thing but is not contradictory in context. He was asked questions by the dispatch, specifically which way is he going now. He was asked to find which way and what address he was at.

It could be that we was looking to see if Martin had made it to long oaks way. Or most likely it is a matter of Zimmerman paying more attention to martin than if he had turned onto twin trees or continued on retreat view. Remember just prior to getting out he corrected himself as to how police would get there. Not hard to believe that he was unsure of exactly how far he was away from long oaks or if just had a brain fart.

At the worst all you can claim is that he mixed up if it was before or after he lost sight of Martin. He was flooded with questions while trying to maintain a visual. It is an attempt to use a tiny detail to discredit his whole story as if that is actually important.

Remember this was something that even the prosecutors did not even really bother with because they knew it was not a legitimate contention.

#77 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are claiming that because he knew the street name the next day he must have known it that night right?

He proved he knew the name the day after the shooting when he said it to police. Beyond that, it is extremely unlikely for him not to know it. The neighborhood has only three streets. He was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police many times. The neighborhood has only two entrances. The main one has drivers turn onto Twin Trees Lane. Any time he gave a friend directions on how to visit his house, he'd be telling them "turn onto Twin Trees Lane."

It could be that we was looking to see if Martin had made it to long oaks way.

If that's what he did, he lied to police about it. He said he walked behind the apartments to Retreat View Circle to get a street address so he could tell it to police. He never admitted to following Martin behind the apartments.

Remember this was something that even the prosecutors did not even really bother with because they knew it was not a legitimate contention.

Incorrect. The prosecution used it in their closing argument as one of several examples of Zimmerman lying.

#78 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

He proved he knew the name the day after the shooting when he said it to police."

Yes he knew the day after. You know after he found out. How is that strange to you? That is the way things work, you don't know or forget, you learn or remember then you know. Like magic!

"He never admitted to following Martin behind the apartments."
He got out of his truck and ran when asked before he was behind in the little green belt he was told he did not need to follow him so he stopped following him. Then he was asked for a specific address. It's all in the phone recording.

"The prosecution used it in their closing argument as one of several examples of Zimmerman lying."

It was never enumerated as an argument because it fails. Which is i said they did not really bother with it. Had they brought it up in a meaningful way they would have just been made to look even more foolish. Instead they chose to use it for character assassination. It was a red herring used as an appeal to ignorance. It did not find home with the jury but apparently it did with some of the less informed or less reasonable public.

#79 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know after he found out.

Your presumption is that he learned the name of Twin Trees Lane after he shot Martin. I think that's much less likely than him lying to police about not knowing it to cover up the fact he followed Martin behind the apartments and confronted him, which is what Rachel Jeantel described in her testimony.

... he was told he did not need to follow him so he stopped following him.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yes.

There is no evidence that he stopped following Martin. The place Martin's body dropped and Jeantel's testimony both indicate that it was likely he followed Martin. Zimmerman's own words indicate he began following Martin.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Your presumption is that he learned the name of Twin Trees Lane after he shot Martin."

Yes, it's my presumption based off the dispatch record. He used basic directions rather then street names. In fact he never used a street name. Which is not odd at all especially when combined with his statement that he would have to look for the exact address.
that is unless you think he was just setting himself up a deference so that when he made a statement the following day it would not be at odds but i think we can both agree that would be some exceptional sort of crazy if you were to believe that.


"There is no evidence that he stopped following Martin."

He was on the phone. There is audio record that leaves no doubt. unless you think that the stopping of running sounds and breathing was just a ruse and that he secretly continued like a ninja and lied to the dispatcher. But again that would make the tinfoil hat guys laugh.

"The place Martin's body dropped and Jeantel's testimony both indicate that it was likely he followed Martin."

The body states exactly the opposite. If he were to have followed martin the body would have been way further down. Remember there was time between when he lost sight of him and when he was attacked. 20ft or so does not mean that he followed him any further and strongly suggests that it was exactly the opposite.
As far as the GF testimony, come on it was a joke. She said so much laughable crap and so many blatant contradictions that it made small errors in Zimmerman's testimony disappear.

#82 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

... and that he secretly continued like a ninja and lied to the dispatcher.

He didn't stay on the phone with the dispatcher all the way up to the confrontation with Martin. Rachel Jeantel's testimony is that Martin was confronted by Zimmerman and Martin said something like "get off me, get off me."

So the obvious scenario is that Zimmerman got off the phone, resumed following Martin and lied to police about following him.

The body states exactly the opposite.

The body was 20-25 feet from the T. Zimmerman only gets there if he follows Martin. You don't get sucker punched (his claim), fall down (his claim), lay there helplessly taking blows (his claim), pull a pistol and shoot him dead (his claim) and travel 25 feet.

Zimmerman even admitted to police he was following Martin, in a verbal slip up:

Zimmerman: "I wasn't following him; I was just going in the same direction he was."

Detective Serino: "That's following." (laughs)

www.miamiherald.com

#83 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#83 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not that you're wrong. But you shouldn't even participate in any discussion based on the premise that the location of the body proves who attacked who first anyway.

The location of the body tells us where Martin died. Nothing else.

If Martin had died on his father's porch that also wouldn't be evidence of who attacked who first either. And you can bet that Sal would understand as much if that were the case.

#84 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-30 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the obvious scenario is that Zimmerman got off the phone, resumed following Martin and lied to police about following him."

Wait, so let me get this straight, you think Zimmerman said he stopped and did but then after he finished the phone call went back and caught up to Martin who had a big head start to begin with. Caught up to him when Martin was withing spitting of his house for what two minuets without moving and that is obvious?

Seriously?


"The body was 20-25 feet from the T. Zimmerman only gets there if he follows Martin. You don't get sucker punched (his claim), fall down (his claim), lay there helplessly taking blows (his claim), pull a pistol and shoot him dead (his claim) and travel 25 feet."

20 ft or so and that's what you base it off of? This has been gone over many times already but here it is again. 20 ft is far too small a distance to even consider it was reached due to following. It is however easily in a meandering path or in a quick glance at a door. It is also what would be expected if you were just standing waiting and took a few steps one way or the other.

As for the rest of your little scenario you might want to proof read it.

#85 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

20 ft is far too small a distance to even consider it was reached due to following.

Zimmerman said he was punched by Martin at the T, fell down, got pummelled helplessly and then reached his gun and shot him.

The body was 20-25 feet from the T. His story doesn't add up, unless he fell down, somersaulted a few times like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then fell down helplessly again.

As for the rest of your little scenario you might want to proof read it.

Proofread is one word.

#86 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

The proximity to the tee is irrelevant. You are making the argument that Zimmerman should have hired a surveyor before making a statement. It's as ridiculous as assuming proof by finding that the shoes were orange not red. The story adds up fine assuming that inhuman perfection is not required on every detail. But at the defense went through there is no contradiction in the body location and Zimmerman account.

But hey you got one right proofread is one word. It just looked odd. The comment was about the scenario and it incomprehensible content.

#87 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

The proximity to the tee is irrelevant.

If Zimmerman left the T and walked south towards Martin's dad's house, then Zimmerman lied to police, which raises the question of what else he lied about doing that night. This is not rocket science.

#88 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are talking a few steps off the path even if you discount any staggering. That is an absurd hang up. It is irrelevant because it could be explained in a dozen probable ways of which none change the narrative. A very minor detail is not tantamount to anything important. Insisting that anything short of perfection is reason to believe that which has no support is not reasonable.

#89 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's also interesting that you take his gf at her word after she even admitted to perjury. Even after she was shown to be a charlatan her word was gold despite that it was contradicted by physical evidence. But what confounds me the most is how no remotely plausible theory has ever been put up that resembles the evidence in any way and yet because you were not there you seem to belive in an incomplete and unsupported fantasy which had not even been explained over a few paces. I struggle to see how that is even a possibility to a person.

#90 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-30 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

-shown to be a charlatan

roflmao! Is this call Long Distance to the 18th century?

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

But what confounds me the most is how no remotely plausible theory has ever been put up that resembles the evidence in any way ...

What's not plausible about Zimmerman putting his hands on Martin 25 feet south of the T to detain him for police and starting a fight? He's a gun-obsessed wanna-be cop who is still finding excuses to be on patrol for bad guys, when no one in their right mind would want him doing that on their property and he's a hothead who often shows poor judgment.

That's exactly the kind of person who would manage to follow and shoot to death his neighbor's unarmed 17-year-old son for committing the crime of walking home.

Your theory that Martin was a thug is supported by no evidence, but you parrot it endlessly. Martin wasn't up to any trouble. He was walking home talking to a girl on his cell phone for an hour, and that girl testified she heard him being confronted and then say "get off me, get off me." A girl who had nothing to gain by making up a story and would have happily chosen not to testify if given the chance.

#92 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-30 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reade as explained, 20 some odd feet would make no sense for him to have caught up. And again you pretend like a punch must put a guy instantly on the ground and he could not stagger. Or you pretend like a few steps to the left makes Zimmerman a liar. Of course there is plenty of actual evidence that Martin attacked first. Unless you would like to belive the attacker could not land a blow and was only on the defensive but that would just be dumb. Pretending like there is one shred that suggests Zimmerman was the attacker is disingenuous at best. And pretending like the evidence does not give credence to Zimmerman account is dishonest. And you bring up his girlfriend again and say she had no reason to lie, well then why did she constantly? That is not opinion she had to admit it many times. How in the world do you villianize one person for possibly being a few feet from where you thought but the one who's only truth was her name is perfect? It makes no sense whatsoever. But then again no alternative that puts Zimmerman as a criminal does either. That is the problem. No matter what came out your mind was made up so you chose to ignore all the evidence because none of it supports your dislike. Look there are a bunch of people that just don't like him because he was trying to be a good neighbor and think he should have just called and that was it, that's fine. But that is no reason to live outside reality.

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 01:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Reade ask yourself this honestly. What are the chances that Zimmerman could u Ave caught up after the phone call where 25 ft would matter? What are the chances that Martin would have come back for any reason but to confront Zimmerman? What are the chances that Zimmerman planed it all out so the dispatch call would grant justification? What are the chances that he would just so happen to have the injuries to prove and Martin would have none? What are the chances that Zimmerman could have attacked but not been able to inflict any wounds?
You see when you take even just a small portion of the exonerating evidence into consideration you find that other scenarios that change what the verdict should have been are just as tinfoil as corkys idea that he bashed his head against the tree to make it look like he was attacked.

#94 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 01:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Of course there is plenty of actual evidence that Martin attacked first. Unless you would like to belive the attacker could not land a blow and was only on the defensive but that would just be dumb.

You don't understand the word "evidence." There is no evidence Martin attacked first. The only evidence related to the start of the fight, aside from Zimmerman's self-serving account, is Jeantel's testimony.

I already explained a scenario in which Zimmerman lands no offensive blows -- he put his hands on Martin to hold him until police arrived.

No matter what came out your mind was made up so you chose to ignore all the evidence because none of it supports your dislike.

I dislike Zimmerman because he followed and shot his neighbor's unarmed teen son to death, using a gun that he thought he needed at his hip to shop at Target, because he was suspicious of black teens. I think his acquittal is largely because arrogant Florida prosecutors pursued a charge they never came close to proving -- second-degree murder -- and this made their manslaughter case weaker than it should have been.

Zimmerman's actions since the trial demonstrate his lack of character, anger issues and poor judgment. The only reason this discussion is taking place is because he's once again engaging in vigilante fantasies by lurking after midnight behind a recently burglarized business -- without being asked by the owner, no less.

Do you acknowledge how stupid and reckless that is? You don't take a gun to someone's business and skulk around looking for trouble without being requested to be there. The employees need to know you're there, so there isn't an accident where one side mistakes the other for a burglar.

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-31 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"You don't understand the word "evidence.""

Oh, so wounds do not count as evidence? So witness verified detail do not count as evidence? The only thing that counts as evidence to you is the testimony of the admitted perjurer? Seriously?

"I already explained a scenario in which Zimmerman lands no offensive blows -- he put his hands on Martin to hold him until police arrived."

Ok so lets say Zimmerman does that. Lets just say that the person who admittedly lied and made up her story magically told the truth in this one instance. Martin still has no right to attack under the law and Zimmerman still has the right to end the attacks so nothing changes see?
Under Florida law, as well as most other states, unless during commission of a crime provoking the attack does not force you to just let yourself be brutalized to the hearts content of the other guy. It does however make it so you do have to exhaust every means of escape that you can before defending your life by taking theirs, again there is no doubt as to the position at the time of the shot and escape was not possible.
So even were we to assume that Janteel was uncharacteristically telling the truth about this one thing, nothing changes.

"I dislike Zimmerman because he followed and shot his neighbor's unarmed teen son to death, using a gun that he thought he needed at his hip to shop at Target, because he was suspicious of black teens"

And the trifecta, state as if there was intent or it was different then blaming the motorist who t-boned the guy running the red light and killed him. Then move on to the gun , par for the course, but yes apparently he did need it or he may very well be dead now, you never know when some ----- will go batsh#t crazy and assault you. Then move on to the thoroughly debunked racist character assassination. That is what started this whole thing and yet despite it being disprove completely there are still some that need him to be a bad guy and racist to justify their hatred. Even though should you believe that Martin's GF told at least some truth the only racist was Martin.

"Zimmerman's actions since the trial demonstrate his lack of character, "
Funny under the spotlight he has had two instances that were dropped but it does not matter an accusation against him is just as good as a conviction. Yet no mention of helping at the accident but a speeding ticket is proof he is a bad guy. Now he is watching a friends shop and you see it as reason to be angry again at him. Deal with your anger issues, sometimes bad stuff happens but misplacing that anger does not solve anything. It's just getting angry at the coffee table you stubbed your toe on.

"The employees need to know you're there, so there isn't an accident where one side mistakes the other for a burglar."
He is in the parking lot, sitting in his car and apparently the owner was aware. There is no story here other then the people unwilling to accept the verdict as they said they would and continuing to spread their nirvana fallacy as a legitimate opinion.

#96 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

" I think his acquittal is largely because arrogant Florida prosecutors pursued a charge they never came close to proving"
That you are right on, and you may be right the emotional argument may have been enough to get some charges to stick but i would hope not. But as you said the prosecution could not come close to proving or even legitimately suggesting their hair brained theories so why are you still thinking that there is any chance they are legitimate?
When all incredibly implausible and unsupportable alternatives are removed all we are left with is an account that is backed up by its fitting with the physical evidence as well as the circumstantial. the only reasonable conclusion sits squarely in the realm of justified.
Just because you did not like the outcome does not change that or lend any viability to your scenario.

You still have not explained how Martin was caught up to after Zimmerman stopped the chase and how he was that close to the Tee with out coming back to confront. That is a major hole in your theory. His distance and time would have put him much further away then the couple of steps you cite as reason Zimmerman could not be telling the truth. You still have not explained how it is justified to beat a man brutally as he called for help but he was not allowed to do anything but sit there and hope the crazed teen would stop before he was dead or seriously injured.

#97 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, so wounds do not count as evidence?

As you've been told many times before, the wounds are evidence that a fight took place. They are not evidence that Martin started the fight.

With that, I'm done. You are too obtuse to bother with.

#98 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-31 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

- You are too obtuse to bother with.

A fine use of understatement.

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

And a car that flew off the road because it was going too fast does not mean the driver was speeding, after all it could have been a loose parrot that jammed the throttle.

When you have to take such a step to deny the obvious you must ask yourself why.
The physical evidence shows there was a very one sided fight, common sense says that to assume the guy getting his butt kicked was the initiator is asinine. But it does not take it out of the realm of possibility. When you add in the other factors the possibility dwindles down to pretty much zero but it seem you and your ilk hang on to that fraction of the percent chance as reason to hate. You think it is obtuse to call out something that is incredibly improbable but reasonable to assume the impossible?
Look at least own it. Be a man stand up and say what it is you obviously think "Truth be damned i hate that guy so he should be punished". there is no reason to continue to spout absurdities that do not fit the whole of the evidence and barely,even with the mental gymnastics needed to stretch that far, fit the out of context bits and pieces you have stated.

#100 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"the emotional argument" - like the one witness hearing Martin telling Zimmerman to get off him and then screaming, a gun discharges and the screaming instantly stops.

#101 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-07-31 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

" like the one witness hearing Martin telling Zimmerman to get off him and then screaming, a gun discharges and the screaming instantly stops."

Sorry, pay attention next time and you would not be so confused.

#102 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

" like the one witness hearing Martin telling Zimmerman to get off him and then screaming, a gun discharges and the screaming instantly stops."
Sorry, pay attention next time and you would not be so confused.
#102 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 02:22 PM

Must be those emotions of pragmatism and logic getting in the way again.

#103 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-07-31 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Must be those emotions of pragmatism and logic getting in the way again."

No in your case it is just lack of information. No one could definitively id who was screaming. Both would have stopped after the shot. The wounds and clothing put Zimmerman on the bottom, it takes a pretty willing disregard for that to think that martin would have been screaming. So lets not pretend that logic dictates the one that is kicking the butt of the other guy was screaming for help, that would just be insane.

#104 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

" the wounds are evidence that a fight took place."

Yes. The scope and location of the wounds show that martin had the upper hand the whole time. This much is not disputed. But the difference is that i am not wiling to make the illogical leap to say that the guy who did no damage is more likely to have started it, that is not rational thinking. The wounds fortify the reasonable conclusion but you do have to do a bit of reasoning for yourself and apply all the context.

#105 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-31 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort