If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click Orlando)   You knew it was only a matter of time before Zimmerman was arrested in another gun incident. Drink   (clickorlando.com) divider line 1050
    More: News, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, Bracknell  
•       •       •

19367 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2013 at 4:11 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1050 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-10 09:20:11 AM

Millennium: lordjupiter: Millennium: lordjupiter: Millennium: lordjupiter: Only if you classify the truth as a riduculous misrepresentation. Which fits the profile of bias and distorted perceptions perfectly. Thank you for proving my point.

Hold on; do you mean to tell me that you actually think that there is no way a thinking, rational adult can support Zimmerman's acquittal unless they're racist? Because that is most definitely what you're saying; I'm just trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or if you are actually that blind.

Nice try.

Do you think it is possible for a thinking, rational adult to support Zimmerman's acquittal without being racist, or don't you? It's a very simple question.

And one that's irrelevant to my point.  Bias is not necessarily racial.

Grandstand all you want.  I don't care.

Hold on; so you're claiming some sort of bias other than racial?

Fascinating. I don't think I've heard someone claim that in connection with this case. What sorts of bias do you think might be playing a role here? Do you admit the possibility of an unbiased viewpoint coming to a conclusion opposite yours?


Fascinating?  How bored are you?  I have a few minutes now so I'll play...

I know you're butthurt because you weren't able to pull out the strawman card and now you're trying to set a hypocrisy trap.  I hope you wasted a lot of time and energy worrying about it.  But I'm pretty sure you're just concern trolling.

But for those playing at home, I was not talking about GZ's possible "bias", I was talking about the bias held by one side in the face of all this mounting evidence and all these situations surrounding one person who is presumed to be the victim every time.  Pretty sure I was typing in english and clear text in this thread when I said there's a double standard.  Not sure why that's fascinating, or new to anyone.

Whatever that bias is, that depends on the person that's displaying the double standard.  It could be a gun bias, it could be a "fark crime at any cost" bias, it could be racial, it could be age, it could be toward the cops, it could be authoritarianism, it could be anecdotal....it could be anything.

So given identical information, how does a rational, unbiased person come to two completely opposite conclusions about the similar behaviors and "rights" of two people?  One way is to change what the "truth" is.  Behavior X is ok for one guy, but not the other.  Simple.  And that's what's happening.

Or, to answer your pointless question, maybe we're talking about some idiot who THINKS he has no bias at all but somehow manages to convince himself he's logically and factually arrived at a blatantly ridiculous double standard.  That makes very little sense and is either due to lack of information or lack of comprehension.

Why would I want to "admit" that possibility, as if it proves anything, and why would anyone want to "admit" to being in that camp?  Better to just admit the bias and stand up for yourself like a man instead of trying to weasel a path toward dubious credibility through tolerance of outlandish theoretical exceptions.
 
2013-09-10 09:20:57 AM

LasersHurt: I'm not siding with anyone, and one example of bad behavior does not justify or excuse more. Grow up.


Right, so calling Shellie out for another lie isn't shiatting on her. You first.
 
2013-09-10 09:22:21 AM

lordjupiter: I was talking about the bias held by one side in the face of all this mounting evidence and all these situations surrounding one person who is presumed to be the victim every time.


Accusations that always fail aren't "mounting evidence".
 
2013-09-10 09:26:04 AM

s2s2s2: lordjupiter: I was talking about the bias held by one side in the face of all this mounting evidence and all these situations surrounding one person who is presumed to be the victim every time.

Accusations that always fail aren't "mounting evidence".


This.  A soon to be ex wife stoking flames and telling cops "he has his hand on his gun! i don't know what he is capable of!" is a wife that is trying hard to paint her husband as an unrepentant killer with death on the brain.  it smells like bullshiat.
 
2013-09-10 09:27:44 AM

s2s2s2: lordjupiter: I was talking about the bias held by one side in the face of all this mounting evidence and all these situations surrounding one person who is presumed to be the victim every time.

Accusations that always fail aren't "mounting evidence".



Maybe not in a legal sense, which is what you and others selectively rely on depending on whether or not you want to build your case around strict legal outcomes or your preferred assumptions.

But it doesn't matter, because immediately after your netpick is "and all these situations surrounding one person", which is still enough for my point.  Which you will never admit even as you constantly prove it.

/I know you're trolling.  It's OK.
 
2013-09-10 09:34:25 AM

Millennium: Coco LaFemme: George Zimmerman is as worthless as a broken dildo and just as useful.

I prefer to call him a big fat poopyhead myself, but we seem to agree on the basic concept here.

Whatever your personal opinion of the Trayvon Martin case, one of them was armed with the gun, the other had iced tea and Skittles, and the one with the gun isn't in jail.

This is true. It's also as it should be.


Well strictly speaking it wasn't iced tea.
 
2013-09-10 09:34:39 AM

frepnog: s2s2s2: lordjupiter: I was talking about the bias held by one side in the face of all this mounting evidence and all these situations surrounding one person who is presumed to be the victim every time.

Accusations that always fail aren't "mounting evidence".

This.  A soon to be ex wife stoking flames and telling cops "he has his hand on his gun! i don't know what he is capable of!" is a wife that is trying hard to paint her husband as an unrepentant killer with death on the brain.  it smells like bullshiat.


It smells to me like she is trying to throw off the death threats by painting him the way people want so badly to see him.

"Look, I can ignore reality, too! STOP THREATENING ME!"

lordjupiter: /I know you're trolling


Trolling is saying something for no other reason than to make someone mad(or to trick them into a certain response). I'm just stating the truth.
If it's making you mad(I don't think it is. It doesn't seem to be), that is incidental.
 
2013-09-10 09:35:37 AM

s2s2s2: steamingpile: Oh and he had marks on his face that looked like most fights in nightclubs so while I think he used excessive force I also think he's a pussy who shouldn't be doing a job like that if he couldn't handle himself. But then any man who loses a fight to an average looking 17 year old isn't much of a man.

According to Zimmerman, he wasn't really fighting (you know, because it was just a kid). It wasn't until Martin went for the gun that it came into play. For forty seconds, all George did was try to block blows, and call for help. You'd call him a pussy if he had beat up the little angel.


Yeah I don't believe him at all, he's a soft doughy mess and its also why cops should all be in shape less likely to pull their gun if they can physically defend themselves. I believe that kid whipped his ass and he's trying to not look as bad to the cops.
 
2013-09-10 09:40:49 AM

steamingpile: Yeah I don't believe him at all


You are allowed. There is no evidence, of any kind, to suggest he isn't telling the truth, though.
 
2013-09-10 09:40:55 AM

freak7: fredklein: s2s2s2: If you had followed the trial, you would know that the alley was pitch dark. He'd have been invisible about half way down. He could have easily escaped, and gotten home, without George knowing where he had gone.

What "pitch dark" is to a Zimmerman defender:

Did you seriously just use a photo obviously taken with a flash or backlighting to prove it wasn't dark? Hahahaha, awesome!


Um, notice the lights in the background, past the flash-lit area.
 
2013-09-10 09:41:15 AM

s2s2s2: LasersHurt: I'm not siding with anyone, and one example of bad behavior does not justify or excuse more. Grow up.

Right, so calling Shellie out for another lie isn't shiatting on her. You first.


You're awfully hindsighty, coming into the thread a day late only AFTER it's come out that her claims were less than solid. So, you know, I stand by my statements.
 
2013-09-10 09:43:16 AM

s2s2s2: Even in this photo, it is hard to see the house Martin was staying at.


Yeah. It's not like people's eyes adjust to the dark or anything. And a picture taken by a camera is always exactly how a person would see the same scene.
 
2013-09-10 09:52:52 AM

fredklein: Um, notice the lights in the background, past the flash-lit area.


As I stated earlier, those lights came on after the incident, and police said that visibility without the flash was nil.

LasersHurt: You're awfully hindsighty, coming into the thread a day late only AFTER it's come out that her claims were less than solid. So, you know, I stand by my statements.


So your willingness to put your bias out there before all the facts were in somehow makes you more of a grown up? You're doing it wrong. Also, I was here from around 5, yesterday.

fredklein: Yeah. It's not like people's eyes adjust to the dark or anything.


Weak. Martin could have made it home without leading Zimmerman to his door.
 
2013-09-10 09:58:08 AM

s2s2s2: LasersHurt: You're awfully hindsighty, coming into the thread a day late only AFTER it's come out that her claims were less than solid. So, you know, I stand by my statements.

So your willingness to put your bias out there before all the facts were in somehow makes you more of a grown up? You're doing it wrong. Also, I was here from around 5, yesterday.


My Bias? Dude, fine, whatever. I was secretly only commenting because I super hate Zimmerman, you're right. You're not at all picking the fight you want to have, you're totally being principled. Everything you assume is correct.

/make you happy? Can you just never, ever talk to me about Zimmerman again? Thanks.
 
2013-09-10 09:59:50 AM

fredklein: And a picture taken by a camera is always exactly how a person would see the same scene.


He said,  unironically.
 
2013-09-10 10:00:22 AM

lordjupiter: Fascinating? How bored are you? I have a few minutes now so I'll play...

I know you're butthurt because you weren't able to pull out the strawman card and now you're trying to set a hypocrisy trap. I hope you wasted a lot of time and energy worrying about it. But I'm pretty sure you're just concern trolling.


I'm surprised, to be honest, because I was not in fact trying to set up a strawman: that's an accurate representation of the viewpoint of many J4T folks. As it turned out, it was not an accurate representation of yours, and I apologize for that. But far from being butthurt over this, I'm delighted: this looks like an argument I haven't seen before. If I'm bored, it's only with the same old cycle of arguments, but here we have an opportunity for a new line of inquiry.

But for those playing at home, I was not talking about GZ's possible "bias", I was talking about the bias held by one side in the face of all this mounting evidence...

I got that you weren't talking about GZ's possible bias, but that of his supporters.

But what is this "mounting evidence" of which you speak? The only evidence for Zimmerman's guilt that I ever saw came in the weeks following the original incident, and at that time I was very much against Zimmerman. Most of that "evidence" was later proven to be mere rumor, and I switched sides based on that. By the time of the trial, the remaining evidence didn't point to his guilt at all. Even the best arguments the prosecution had for his guilt still didn't actually point to his guilt.

...and all these situations surrounding one person who is presumed to be the victim every time.

That happens sometimes. Zimmerman is nothing if not a big fat poopyhead, and big fat poopyheads tend to attract trouble. He is no different. Folks who believe in karma might see something here. But that does not, in and of itself, constitute a reasonable cause to presume him guilty: every case must still be examined upon its individual merits.

As it happens, when this 911 call first came around and people thought he threatened them with a gun and punched his father-in-law in the face, I was adamantly of the opinion that his wife should have pressed charges. Now that it's coming out that he didn't have a gun, and did not in fact punch anybody, I find myself switching sides yet again.

Let me make that perfectly clear: I am the hypocrite. I presumed him guilty in the Martin case, only to have it soundly proven that I should not have done this thing. I then spoke loudly about the fact that he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But then this incident happened, and what did I do? I presumed him guilty again, despite everything I said before. And now it is being proven again that I should not have done that. That's what I get for my hypocrisy, but even if my first instinct is to do wrong, I will still advocate for doing what is right. Perhaps, in doing so, I'll learn that lesson for myself.

Pretty sure I was typing in english and clear text in this thread when I said there's a double standard. Not sure why that's fascinating, or new to anyone.

It's fascinating because it's not hard to prove that there is no double standard, yet people continue to insist, despite all evidence, that there is one anyway.

Whatever that bias is, that depends on the person that's displaying the double standard. It could be a gun bias, it could be a "fark crime at any cost" bias, it could be racial, it could be age, it could be toward the cops, it could be authoritarianism, it could be anecdotal....it could be anything.

So given identical information, how does a rational, unbiased person come to two completely opposite conclusions about the similar behaviors and "rights" of two people? One way is to change what the "truth" is. Behavior X is ok for one guy, but not the other. Simple. And that's what's happening.


So you're saying that there's a double standard, even though you don't know anything about that standard? You insist that a double standard exists because disagreement exists: that a truly logical and rational examination of the facts as we know them can only lead to one conclusion.

I question your epistemology, but let's run with this. You say that because there is disagreement, at least one side must be using a double standard. What makes you certain that your side is not doing it?
 
2013-09-10 10:02:44 AM

LasersHurt: Can you just never, ever talk to me about Zimmerman again?


If you post nonsense in threads I may reply. I think there are tools to help you avoid having to see my comments.
 
2013-09-10 10:10:22 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: FACT: men are blamed more than 90% of the time because the woman lies and says the man initiated and the coos automatically believe her bc of some antiquated belief that a woman cant possibly be the person who starts the problem by being the person to throw the first punch (or grab a knife/bat/gun/whatever)



That's not because of "some antiquated belief."  It's because of the federal Violence Against Women Act, passed during the Clinton Administration (pre-Lewinsky, I guess), which caused police departments to adopt mandatory arrest policies -- if a woman alleged violence, the man is getting arrested.

No evidence.  No due process.  No probable cause.  Just a woman pointing her accusatory finger at a man.  That's all it takes now.

The VAWA did not provide for any corresponding penalties for women who make false accusations, by the by.
 
2013-09-10 10:12:57 AM

ThatDarkFellow: Why? It's easier to just make stuff up.


s2s2s2: You didn't read that article, did you?


PunGent:Did you even bother to read that link?  It's ALL "accused of, charges reduced, charges dropped".

Your link sucks, and you should feel bad about it.


Actually, I did read the article.

"In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence. In retaliation, Zimmerman filed for a retraining order against Zuazo and both these claims were resolved with both restraining orders granted."

You ladies might do well to note that "charges dropped" does not mean "innocent." That he's had the trouble in the past in the first place is red flag. Had it been a one time thing, I could see maybe not considering it. Unfortunately, you're trying to argue that he keeps having a "one time things" over and over again. I'm sure the fact that Zimmerman's father was a judge has nothing to do with any of those charges ever being dropped.

And bear in mind... Zimmerman's own lawyer even admitted that he had a gun on him at the time. The wife says she never saw it, but seeing a gun isn't the same thing as being threatened with one.
 
2013-09-10 10:13:50 AM

s2s2s2: LasersHurt: Can you just never, ever talk to me about Zimmerman again?

If you post nonsense in threads I may reply. I think there are tools to help you avoid having to see my comments.


I only ignore trolls. You're not a troll, you're just a giant pain in the dick about anything related to Zimmerman. You can't let the tiniest thing go if you think it might be unfair - even if you're working a DAY LATER on NEW INFORMATION not available to the initial posters.

I'm not going to ignore you, but you're just awful on this one subject for whatever reason.
 
2013-09-10 10:16:12 AM

Phinn: The more you eat the more you fart: FACT: men are blamed more than 90% of the time because the woman lies and says the man initiated and the coos automatically believe her bc of some antiquated belief that a woman cant possibly be the person who starts the problem by being the person to throw the first punch (or grab a knife/bat/gun/whatever)

That's not because of "some antiquated belief."  It's because of the federal Violence Against Women Act, passed during the Clinton Administration (pre-Lewinsky, I guess), which caused police departments to adopt mandatory arrest policies -- if a woman alleged violence, the man is getting arrested.

No evidence.  No due process.  No probable cause.  Just a woman pointing her accusatory finger at a man.  That's all it takes now.

The VAWA did not provide for any corresponding penalties for women who make false accusations, by the by.


wow.  I actually approve and support a phinn post.  hell must be mighty cold today.
 
2013-09-10 10:25:24 AM

LasersHurt: I only ignore trolls. You're not a troll, you're just a giant pain in the dick about anything related to Zimmerman. You can't let the tiniest thing go if you think it might be unfair - even if you're working a DAY LATER on NEW INFORMATION not available to the initial posters.


I'm a convert. I took MHP's original story on this on its face. I was like "Oooh, this dude(Zimmerman) done farked up, what a dickbag, just gunning down a kid for being black. He's gonna fry!" Within two days it was pretty clear to me that this was shiatty journalism based on race, not facts.

I also DO enjoy arguing an unpopular opinion, and being correct, but I can admit when I'm wrong.
Fark has helped me change my mind on several issues: Climate change, evolution, republicans, and now zimmerman, among others.

I appreciate your policy on ignore. I don't even ignore the trolls. They are worth a laugh, and some are even pretty good at it.

supayoda: You ladies


Are you trying to insult people by associating them with women? Nice misogyny you have there.

supayoda: I'm sure the fact that Zimmerman's father was a judge has nothing to do with any of those charges ever being dropped.


He was not a judge. Not ever. He was a magistrate in Virginia from 2000-2006. He had no judicial power, ever.
 
2013-09-10 10:31:31 AM

supayoda: That he's had the trouble in the past in the first place is red flag.


No, actually, it isn't. Cases must still be examined on their own merits.

I'm sure the fact that Zimmerman's father was a judge has nothing to do with any of those charges ever being dropped.

Wrong jurisdiction. Zimmerman's father had no power to affect his son's cases. It is unreasonable to suggest that he could have done something that he could not, in fact, have done.

And bear in mind... Zimmerman's own lawyer even admitted that he had a gun on him at the time. The wife says she never saw it, but seeing a gun isn't the same thing as being threatened with one.

Being threatened with a gun requires seeing it, or at least seeing some prop that the threatener tries to make you believe is a gun. We know now that she didn't see a gun -there wasn't even a gun there- and there is no indication of anything Zimmerman could have used as a prop.
 
2013-09-10 10:33:39 AM
Remember when they acquitted that other dude who killed people? His name was OJ or something. Whatever happened to him?
 
2013-09-10 10:33:47 AM
s2s2s2: He is also not being charged by police. You got nothing.

"Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything."That's basically your defense right there-- that if it can't be proven it didn't happen. Interestingly enough by your same reasoning, Trayvon Martin is completely innocent-- unless you're applying a double standard. You're also basically saying that Al Capone was only ever guilty of tax fraud.

I don't know how many times it has to be stated... Just because someone isn't charged or something isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that the person in question didn't do it. Here we have a man who has had multiple issues with the law before anyone even knew he existed, and they were all eventually smoothed over. His father being a magistrate couldn't have hurt him there. (I should know. I'm the child of a former cop, and that's gotten me out of a LOT of trouble while growing up. It still gets me out of traffic tickets.)

It's the equivalent of having several bank robberies go down just after the same man was seen entering each bank, but the security footage cuts out before any guns are drawn, and nobody noticed anything until after the robbery was in progress and the perp was wearing a mask. Reason would tell us that the guy who walked into each bank just prior to the robbery might have something to do with it. When we take a look at his past, we notice that he's been arrested in the past for being involved with a few liquor store robberies, but the charges were dropped after a settlement of some sort was reached with the store owners. His lawyer even says, "Yeah, he did have a ski mask and a gun on him at the time, but nobody saw him take either one of them out."

But hey... You got nothing. He's obviously innocent of everything and guilty of only being in the wrong places at the wrong times-- many, many times.
 
2013-09-10 10:41:09 AM

freak7: 2wolves: freak7:

Do you sleep?

Do you?

By the way, the police have come out and said that not only did they not take Zim's gun, they never even saw a gun. Don't you feel silly now?


Me?  I never commented upon the notion that Mr. Zimmerman was or was not armed.  You need more sleep.
 
2013-09-10 10:41:40 AM

supayoda: "Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything."


His home surveillance system saw everything, and he offered to turn them over to police.

You do have a lot of pointless words, though. Seriously. Start doing a little more research.
 
2013-09-10 10:47:30 AM
Theyre getting a divorce and he has a nice paycheck coming his way....yeah im sure that has nothing to do with it
 
2013-09-10 10:55:20 AM

Funkyourdaughter: Theyre getting a divorce and he has a nice paycheck coming his way....yeah im sure that has nothing to do with it


Excluding everything else from the scenario, I thought it was rather telling she wants to divorce him but have him take out a life insurance policy with her as the sole beneficiary.
 
2013-09-10 11:06:32 AM

redmid17: Funkyourdaughter: Theyre getting a divorce and he has a nice paycheck coming his way....yeah im sure that has nothing to do with it

Excluding everything else from the scenario, I thought it was rather telling she wants to divorce him but have him take out a life insurance policy with her as the sole beneficiary.


It makes sense from a standpoint of income protection: I presume he's going to have to pay some alimony, and if he dies, that vanishes. It's not so different from taking out a term life insurance policy while still married. But in this case, he shouldn't list her as the sole beneficiary. He should set up a trust which, upon his death, will start to disburse the funds to her at a rate equal to the alimony payments he had been making at the time of his death, and list the trust as a beneficiary. If some situation comes up where he would have been able to stop making alimony payments if he were still alive, then the trust stops disbursing to her and donates its remaining funds to some agreeable cause.

Surely that would be sufficient, would it not?
 
2013-09-10 11:21:50 AM

Millennium: He should set up a trust which, upon his death, will start to disburse the funds to her at a rate equal to the alimony payments he had been making at the time of his death, and list the trust as a beneficiary


After this shiat, she shouldn't get anything after he dies. She's leaving him, she should make her own way in the world. At this point, I think she shouldn't get shiat while he's alive. Get a farking Job, Shellie.
 
2013-09-10 11:52:34 AM

s2s2s2: supayoda: "Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything."

His home surveillance system saw everything, and he offered to turn them over to police.

You do have a lot of pointless words, though. Seriously. Start doing a little more research.


Ooh! Lookie! A video of Zimmerman's lawyer outright stating that he had a gun on him! I even set it to start right before the question is asked. It's all in the Google Fu, my willfully ignorant friend. (Again... Not seeing a gun isn't the same thing as not being threatened by one. She knew he had it with him in the car, and he was verbally insinuating that he'd use it.)

That research literally took me less than a minute on Google. I think the problem here isn't so much my lack of research but you sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "La la la la la la la la la la la! I can't hear you!"
 
2013-09-10 11:58:37 AM

s2s2s2: Are you trying to insult people by associating them with women? Nice misogyny you have there.


I don't know if you realize this, but I am in fact a woman and have stated such on several occasions here on Fark. I was simply using the word "ladies" as a catch-all as I tend to with my girlfriends on many occasions. If you think being called a lady is an insult, then you have issues to work out.
 
2013-09-10 12:11:04 PM

Millennium: Wrong jurisdiction. Zimmerman's father had no power to affect his son's cases. It is unreasonable to suggest that he could have done something that he could not, in fact, have done.


My father was a cop in Mtn. Brook, Alabama. When I was 17, I was caught with my cousin while we were shoplifting. My cousin's father had a judge friend (different jurisdiction) who managed to get the charges dropped for her. My father took me back to the store while wearing his uniform (though the store was in Birmingham and certainly not within his jurisdiction) and had a chat with the security guard. My charges were also dropped.

Now, that's pretty much the worst thing I ever did while growing up, but as an adult I've been pulled over for speeding a few times. I also happen to have a FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) tag. The only times I've ever been ticketed was if I did not have that tag on my car or if I was driving someone else's car. In fact, the biggest trouble I've ever been in was while driving some friends home from a bar one night. It was my friend's car, and of course there were bottles in the car, though I hadn't been drinking. I was pulled over because one of the tail lights was out. The cops threatened to haul me in, though they never stated what I'd be charged with. (I had no idea that being a designated driver was a crime.) Compare this to the times I've been pulled over for speeding-- and I mean that I had a lead foot right up until my daughter was born. I've been pulled over for doing 85 in a 60, admitted guilt to the officer who pulled me over, and let off with a warning when the officer asked about the FOP tag. When I replaced my tag last year, I forgot to replace the FOP tag. There's a speed trap near my house, and I just happened to fall for it right after this. I was doing about 45 (going downhill) in a 40. I was ticketed without so much as a blink.

Don't tell me that jurisdictions mean something and that having a family member who is a member of the judicial system isn't going to benefit you in any way. I know from personal experience that it does make a huge difference.
 
2013-09-10 12:16:12 PM

supayoda: he was verbally insinuating that he'd use it


Do you have video for that, or are you still counting on the word of an admitted liar?

supayoda: I don't know if you realize this, but I am in fact a woman


Good for you. Nice to have an out. Never seen you before.

supayoda: My father was a cop in Mtn. Brook, Alabama. When I was 17, I was caught with my cousin while we were shoplifting. My cousin's father had a judge friend (different jurisdiction) who managed to get the charges dropped for her.


George's dad wasn't a judge.
 
2013-09-10 12:17:10 PM
Turns out his wife was lying. You racist "White Mexican" haters must be pretty embarrassed.
 
2013-09-10 12:19:09 PM

supayoda: Millennium: Wrong jurisdiction. Zimmerman's father had no power to affect his son's cases. It is unreasonable to suggest that he could have done something that he could not, in fact, have done.

My father was a cop in Mtn. Brook, Alabama. When I was 17, I was caught with my cousin while we were shoplifting. My cousin's father had a judge friend (different jurisdiction) who managed to get the charges dropped for her. My father took me back to the store while wearing his uniform (though the store was in Birmingham and certainly not within his jurisdiction) and had a chat with the security guard. My charges were also dropped.

Now, that's pretty much the worst thing I ever did while growing up, but as an adult I've been pulled over for speeding a few times. I also happen to have a FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) tag. The only times I've ever been ticketed was if I did not have that tag on my car or if I was driving someone else's car. In fact, the biggest trouble I've ever been in was while driving some friends home from a bar one night. It was my friend's car, and of course there were bottles in the car, though I hadn't been drinking. I was pulled over because one of the tail lights was out. The cops threatened to haul me in, though they never stated what I'd be charged with. (I had no idea that being a designated driver was a crime.) Compare this to the times I've been pulled over for speeding-- and I mean that I had a lead foot right up until my daughter was born. I've been pulled over for doing 85 in a 60, admitted guilt to the officer who pulled me over, and let off with a warning when the officer asked about the FOP tag. When I replaced my tag last year, I forgot to replace the FOP tag. There's a speed trap near my house, and I just happened to fall for it right after this. I was doing about 45 (going downhill) in a 40. I was ticketed without so much as a blink.

Don't tell me that jurisdictions mean something and that having a family member who is a member of th ...


His dad was a magistrate judge in VA, and all these incidents took place in Florida, a state his parents didn't live in until well after these events occurred. Unless you think his father is part of the Illuminati, there's no reasonable way to think his parents could have influenced local law enforcement to even a negligible extent.
 
2013-09-10 12:39:06 PM

supayoda: And bear in mind... Zimmerman's own lawyer even admitted that he had a gun on him at the time. The wife says she never saw it, but seeing a gun isn't the same thing as being threatened with one.


She is a liar.

She says she saw him waving the gun around.   How is this even possible if she says she never saw it.

She should have kept her lie simple and said that zimmerman had his hand over his pocket (as if he had a gun there)
 
2013-09-10 12:51:49 PM
 supayoda: Ooh! Lookie! A video of Zimmerman's lawyer outright stating that he had a gun on him! I even set it to start right before the question is asked. It's all in the Google Fu, my willfully ignorant friend. (Again... Not seeing a gun isn't the same thing as not being threatened by one. She knew he had it with him in the car, and he was verbally insinuating that he'd use it.)

OH lookie... she said he was waving the gun around.   Make up your mind.  He had it on him, or you believe the lawyer say the gun was in the car.
It cant be both.

And the gun in the car, is not "on him".  You can carry a gun in your trunk in many places where carrying on your person is prohibited.

Just admit it, she made it up to try to look good for her upcoming divorce cash out.   Making up charges against your husband is in Chapter 2 of
Get Paid Monthly for 10 years while doing nothing:  Make a ton of money in your Divorce, a bride's guide.
 
2013-09-10 12:56:25 PM

supayoda: The wife says she never saw it, but seeing a gun isn't the same thing as being threatened with one.


She says she saw him waving the gun around.  How is this possible if she did not see the gun.

Oh wait... she declined to press charges after it was clear she was lying and Zimmerman offered his recording devices as evidence.

If he was indeed was threatening and waving with the gun, pressing charges is
the surest way to collect maximum money in her divorce.   She did not, because she lied.  This is nothing new to women filing divorce.
 
2013-09-10 01:17:51 PM

Nutsac_Jim: supayoda: The wife says she never saw it, but seeing a gun isn't the same thing as being threatened with one.

She says she saw him waving the gun around.  How is this possible if she did not see the gun.

Oh wait... she declined to press charges after it was clear she was lying and Zimmerman offered his recording devices as evidence.

If he was indeed was threatening and waving with the gun, pressing charges is
the surest way to collect maximum money in her divorce.   She did not, because she lied.  This is nothing new to women filing divorce.


Yep.  right up there with the cops lying to Zim, telling him that they had the trayvon incident on video and he says "thank god".  the man may be many things, but he doesn't seem to lie.  hell, it doesn't seem that he would have to.
 
2013-09-10 01:24:19 PM

Nutsac_Jim: She says she saw him waving the gun around.   How is this even possible if she says she never saw it.


No, the media said that. Again... Even Zimmerman's own lawyer even said that she never said that. She said in the 911 call that he was "sitting in the car with his gun." Zimmerman's attorney confirmed that. There is a huge difference there.

Mark O'Mara (from his video interview, linked above): "She never said it was shown."

Or are you saying that Zimmerman's attorney was lying?

s2s2s2: George's dad wasn't a judge.

Neither was mine. He was a cop. Didn't seem to make much of a difference for me. I still got away with far more than I should have.

redmid17: His dad was a magistrate judge in VA, and all these incidents took place in Florida, a state his parents didn't live in until well after these events occurred. Unless you think his father is part of the Illuminati, there's no reasonable way to think his parents could have influenced local law enforcement to even a negligible extent.

Mine was a cop in Alabama. I've been pulled over in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. While I was shoplifting in Alabama as a teen, it was well outside of his jurisdiction-- as I noted previously. There's no Illuminati involved there. It's just good old fashioned cops looking out for their own. My record consists of two speeding tickets within the past two years and a parking ticket from the campus police from when I was in college. Both speeding tickets were issued while my FOP tag was not displayed on my car and were for far lower speeds than the times I was pulled over and let off with a warning as soon as they officer noted my FOP tag. Being a magistrate in VA makes no difference. You can still make a few phone calls to people you may or may not know in Florida. Hopefully, you guys are fully aware as to what a magistrate is and does. (Yes, they do have some judicial authority and work with law enforcement. It's how my dad met the crazy biatch he cheated on my mom with and later married. Same dad, by the way, is now a youth pastor and one of the many reasons I don't attend church. Daddy issues. I have them.)

Simply mentioning that you have a history with law enforcement does in fact help-- whether you're the one in trouble or it's someone close to you. And more often than I'm comfortable with, it happens in extreme cases where a cop has done something utterly indefensible.
 
2013-09-10 01:31:52 PM

frepnog: Nutsac_Jim: supayoda: The wife says she never saw it, but seeing a gun isn't the same thing as being threatened with one.

She says she saw him waving the gun around.  How is this possible if she did not see the gun.

Oh wait... she declined to press charges after it was clear she was lying and Zimmerman offered his recording devices as evidence.

If he was indeed was threatening and waving with the gun, pressing charges is
the surest way to collect maximum money in her divorce.   She did not, because she lied.  This is nothing new to women filing divorce.

Yep.  right up there with the cops lying to Zim, telling him that they had the trayvon incident on video and he says "thank god".  the man may be many things, but he doesn't seem to lie.  hell, it doesn't seem that he would have to.


Again, here is a video of Zimmerman's attorney being interviewed.

Cooper: Did Zimmerman have a gun in the car?

O'Mara: He had a gun with him, yes, and he was allowed to and absolutely. I know that there were some reports that he did not have a gun with him, but he did. Um... He never showed it, and...

Cooper: So when she says in the 911 call that he's "sitting in the car with his gun," she was right?

O'Mara: Well, only because she knows he always carries this gun. She never said it was shown. Nobody ever it was shown.


So again I ask... Are you guys saying that Zimmerman's attorney is lying?
 
2013-09-10 01:33:09 PM

supayoda: redmid17: His dad was a magistrate judge in VA, and all these incidents took place in Florida, a state his parents didn't live in until well after these events occurred. Unless you think his father is part of the Illuminati, there's no reasonable way to think his parents could have influenced local law enforcement to even a negligible extent.

Mine was a cop in Alabama. I've been pulled over in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. While I was shoplifting in Alabama as a teen, it was well outside of his jurisdiction-- as I noted previously. There's no Illuminati involved there. It's just good old fashioned cops looking out for their own. My record consists of two speeding tickets within the past two years and a parking ticket from the campus police from when I was in college. Both speeding tickets were issued while my FOP tag was not displayed on my car and were for far lower speeds than the times I was pulled over and let off with a warning as soon as they officer noted my FOP tag. Being a magistrate in VA makes no difference. You can still make a few phone calls to people you may or may not know in Florida. Hopefully, you guys are fully aware as to what a magistrate is and does. (Yes, they do have some judicial authority and work with law enforcement. It's how my dad met the crazy biatch he cheated on my mom with and later married. Same dad, by the way, is now a youth pastor and one of the many reasons I don't attend church. Daddy issues. I have them.)

Simply mentioning that you have a history with law enforcement does in fact help-- whether you're the one in trouble or it's someone close to you. And more often than I'm comfortable with, it happens in extreme cases where a cop has done something utterly indefensible.


I'll go back and highlight my bold part. You're just rambling at this point. If you think his parents could influence local DAs from hundreds of miles away, even if they did have friends in FL, you are delusional. Magistrates have the power to issue warrants, do bail hearings, and some other minor things. They are glorified administrators.
 
2013-09-10 01:46:40 PM

supayoda: So again I ask... Are you guys saying that Zimmerman's attorney is lying?


My personal guess: O'Mara didn't know anything, and simply assumed that Zimmerman had a gun. Everyone knows that George Zimmerman carries a gun. Except, apparently, when he doesn't. I know I was surprised to hear that the police didn't find any guns. I suspect O'Mara was just as surprised.

That doesn't mean you can assume he's threatening you with a gun until he actually starts, you know, threatening you with a gun. There is a world of difference between a reasonable assumption and a legal accusation.
 
2013-09-10 01:47:11 PM
I keep seeing where a lot of Zimmerman supporters claim that Shellie Zimmerman supposedly stated that Zimmerman was waving his gun around or that she previously claimed she saw the gun. I've yet to actually see this claim, so I Googled and found this.

FTA:  A Lake Mary police official later said Zimmerman did not have a gun, officers never found a gun and that Zimmerman himself said he never had a gun on him.

"We did not take a gun at all, because there was no reason to take a gun, because his gun was in his truck," Bracknell said.

Shellie Zimmerman, police said, told them she never saw a gun but saw George Zimmerman's hands near where she believed he would have had a weapon.



First off, let me point out that the article says that the officers never found a gun but then later quotes a police officer saying that his gun was in his truck-- which is where Zimmerman was.

This article also has a recording of the 911 call in question, where Shellie states that he "has his hand on his gun"-- not that he was waving it around or that she sees his gun. She later states that he has his hands in the air but isn't touching his weapon.

Further, Zimmerman's own attorney has said in a video interview that Shellie never said she saw a gun. He also confirmed that Zimmerman did in fact have a gun on him.

Now, would someone care to provide a citation where the wife EVER actually stated that she saw the gun or that he was waving it around?
 
2013-09-10 01:55:57 PM

fredklein: Um, notice the lights in the background, past the flash-lit area.


Um, notice that those porch lights clearly aren't responsible for the light in the picture you posted.
 
2013-09-10 01:58:32 PM

supayoda: Further, Zimmerman's own attorney has said in a video interview that Shellie never said she saw a gun. He also confirmed that Zimmerman did in fact have a gun on him.


Bullshiat, she says right on the 911 call that he's got his hand on his gun.
 
2013-09-10 02:06:12 PM
She also told 911 that George had punched her father in the face and that his nose looked like it had been broken. When the police showed up, they found no injuries to dad.

Pretty smart to lie to 911 when you're on probation for lying to a judge.
 
2013-09-10 02:06:19 PM

Millennium: supayoda: So again I ask... Are you guys saying that Zimmerman's attorney is lying?

My personal guess: O'Mara didn't know anything, and simply assumed that Zimmerman had a gun. Everyone knows that George Zimmerman carries a gun. Except, apparently, when he doesn't. I know I was surprised to hear that the police didn't find any guns. I suspect O'Mara was just as surprised.

That doesn't mean you can assume he's threatening you with a gun until he actually starts, you know, threatening you with a gun. There is a world of difference between a reasonable assumption and a legal accusation.


First off... O'Mara's statement is backed by both the recording of the 911 call (regarding Shellie's statement) and the police on the scene (regarding Zimmerman having a gun but that it was in his truck).

If I was just standing around with my hands in view, and you had no idea whether or not I had a gun, you might have a point.

The actual situation: Zimmerman was sitting in a vehicle that Shellie knows contains a gun with his hands out of view, and in fact it's later confirmed via his attorney AND the cops that he had a gun in his truck. (Even the reports that say they didn't find a gun quote the officers as saying that the gun was in his truck-- where he was sitting.) Shellie also stated that he was daring them to come closer and pointing out that he had his gun with him. I'd say that's a reasonable gun threat, whether or not he intended to shoot. Her only way of determining whether or not he's serious about shooting her would be to look at his past behavior, but I guess we could sit here and argue that she should have waited until he was pointing the gun at her head to call 911 rather than calling the police to the scene as a precaution.
 
Displayed 50 of 1050 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report