“A more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged”

The race baiters and race pimps, the gullible and the easily led, and the Obama administration in particular, aren’t going to be delighted by what Reuters has found out about George Zimmerman:

ZimmermanOn February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in what Zimmerman says was self-defense. The furor that ensued has consumed the country and prompted a re-examination of guns, race and self-defense laws enacted in nearly half the United States.

During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.

But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman’s past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.

Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.

You’ll need to read the whole thing, then pass it on.

Especially consider passing it on to the blithering idiots who had painted the man as something he clearly is not to further a self serving agenda.

I especially liked this portion of the piece:

He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

In a delicious irony, it is Zimmerman who might actually look more like the son Obama never had.

In 2008, John McCain Ignored Vote Fraud to Avoid Civil Unrest
Prostitution Scandal Where?
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Huh.  Well, imagine that. 

    You mean we didn’t get complete and accurate information from the media?

    Unprecedented, to be sure…

    • Hugh_G

      That’s why it’s referred to as  the Faux News Corporation.

      • EricSteel

        Is that what they call NBC these days?

  • Hank_M

    I cannot believe I’m saying this, but nice job by Reuters.

    My takeaway from the article:

    “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman
    said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to
    her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There
    were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s
    why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

    Damn shame she had to request not being identified due to safety concerns though.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      …. Damn shame she had to request not being identified due to safety concerns though ….. 

      So it seems before even looking at Mr Zimmerman’s busted head, that Good Lady knew already those boys were not only robbing houses in the ‘hood.But were kicking in heads, too.

  • They hammered and yammered about having diversity.  Well now they have it…
    they can’t profile it!

  • Guest

    Did you notice that Zimmerman lied in court in the bail hearing? And he did so while apologizing to the parents of Treyvon.

    In his apology Zimmerman (28 years old) said he thought Treyvon was a few years younger than him.

    “I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I thought he was a
    little bit younger than I was, and I did not know if he was armed or

    but in the 911 call when Zimmerman iprofiles Treyvon he identifies him as a teen.

    Here’s the 911 call, listen at 1:10 — when he profiles Martin he idenitfies him as a teen.

    “a black male… late teens”

    Lying in court? Not good. Can we expect more lies? You betcha.

    Will he be able to lie his way out of a prison sentence? I hope not. I hope the truth comes out and if he’s innocent I hope he goes free. But most of all, the truth needs to come out.

    Not more lies.

    • Sky__Captain

      Then stop lying, Senile_72.

      • Wow.  The Prosecution team must be even less competent than Dershowitz has said (no trivial accomplishment, that) if they allowed a witness to lie on the stand without proving the lie on cross examination…


        senile fool knows naught of which it speaks, at great length and with great vehemence.

        • Guest

          I’m sure the jury will hear about it. This lie will come back to haunt him.

          • LiberalNitemare

            Why? Is the relative age of the victim a factor?

          • Guest

            Lying under oath is a factor.

          • jim_m

             Nobody is buying that this is a lie. It barely qualifies as a misstatement.  Not even your lefty friends are agreeing with you on this.  It is another fantasy dreamed up by the far left fever swamps.

            You make yourself look like even more of a fool than you have previously. (who would have thought that was possible?)

          • I believed it was possible for the old fool to make himself appear even more foolish, ignorant, and close minded.  I futher wager he has only begun to plumb those depths.

            His best hope for avoiding further beclownment is a prompt rendezvous with Olaf.

          • Don’t think it’d be the first time, either.

    • EricSteel

      Isn’t it possible that Zimmerman changed his mind at different points during the encounter?

      You don’t take into account that Zimmerman may have felt differently at different points in time such as when he sees Trayvon at a distance and when he sees him up close and personal. 

      Remember, Trayvon was taller than Zimmerman.  At a distance that might not seem so apparant, but when he is up close and beating on you that difference may seem exaggerated.  If someone is taller than you and knocks you down with one punch, would you think he was a teenager?  

      • Meiji_man

        Members of the left tend to seize a position and then hold it to the death, no facts, or logic can persuade them from their original position. (see Global Warming). 

        So don’t expect them to understand other people changing their minds. 

    • wow … if you think that is a lie you are a senile idiot …

    • Prosecutor – Mr. Zimmerman you just testified you did not know Trayvon was so young and you thought he was perhaps your age. Is that correct.?
      Zimm – Yes sir.
      Prosecutor – Yet you told the 911 operator that you thought the person you were looking at was “late teens”, didn’t you?
      Zimm – Yes sir.
      Prosecutor – So on February 26th you stated Trayvon Martin was in his late teens, but now you change your story and say you thought he was your age?
      Zimm – Well, yeah, I guess so.
      Prosecutor – So you admit you changed your story?
      Zimm – Yes, I guess I did.
      Prosecutor – No further questions.

      O’Mara – Mr. Zimmerman how close were you to Trayvon when you first noticed him?
      Zimm – Um, I guess around 50 to 60 feet or so.
      O’Mara – And you were seated in your car when you were describing him?
      Zimm – Yes sir.
      O’Mara – So from your position, some 50 feet away, and inside your vehicle you thought his age around “late teens”
      Zimm – Yes sir
      O’Mara – So was there a difference when you got out of the car and eventually encountered Trayvon Martin?
      Zimmerman – Well, Yes sir…
      O’Mara – And what about that encounter led you to believe he was older than the initial guess you took when viewing him from approximately 50 feet away?
      Zimmerman – He was way taller than me when we confronted eachother, and I guess I don’t know too many teenagers that tall in comparison.
      O’Mara – No further questions your honor.

      • Guest

        When he got closer and got a closer and better look at Treyvon he thought he as 10 years older than he really was?

        Like I said, all this proves is that Zimmerman is willing to lie under oath. The prosecution is going to rip this liar apart.

        If he’s innocent he has no reason to lie.

        • emrengineer

          Again, you have ‘decided’ that ‘a lit bit younger’ is one year.  Remember that it is night time and is dark out.  And you don’t really get a good look at somebody when they are punching you in the face.  At that point, it would be easy to ‘assume’ that he was older than a teenager, since he was pummeling Zimmerman,

          • Jay

            You might want to think about that “punching in the face” part since Martin had no defensive wounds.

  • Hugh_G

    Zimmerman: “These assholes,” he muttered in an aside, “they always get away.” 
    What does that mean? Does it mean he profiled Martin? Does it mean he was just pissed off?  Interesting and important questions. There are references in the article to both the number of blacks in the community and the young blacks involved in the burglaries. What does that mean with regard to Zimmerman’s activities?

    My take is that this guy is not an inherently bad man. But he  has some history of anger issues and to me very clearly was a wanna-be cop. A recipe for disaster if ever there was one. No one knows if this was racially motivated except Zimmerman.

    But the only real issue is whether he’s entitled to the stand your ground defense. If he is he’s free, if he’s not the prosecutor has a case to prove. A case we know very little about at this point.

    • Jay

      The story gives much needed background.  It was a series of unfortunate events that lead to Martin’s profiling and death.

      From the report, Zimmerman did indeed profile him.  Recently, he had a black male who was vandalizing the place arrested and he’d remembered that Burgess (the black male) had gotten away.  So he’d elevated the situation.  Was it the Catholic upbringing?  Was it his own sense of justice?  Dunno.

      Still, the fact remains that we don’t know everything that happened.  But I’m glad to know the history of what caused Zimmerman to act the way he did.

      • Sky__Captain

        Yes, Zimmerman profiled Martin.

        But not on the basis of skin color, but Martin’s actions and the community situation.

        I.e., the content of character.

        •  or lack thereof.

        • Guest

          All he had to go on when he profiled Martin was his appearance and behavior.

          If you can know someone’s character from their appearance you’re probably working on biases, not facts.


          • jim_m

             You don’t read very well do you?

          • “he ran”  …  he based it on that fact …  moron

          • Guest

            and that proved what?

          • that he “profiled” him based on his actions not his race …

          • The guilty fleeth where no man pursues…

          • All he had to go on when he profiled Martin was his appearance and behavior.

            Are you really going to argue that behavior isn’t a pretty fair clue? What about your behavior here, re-registering time after time with new handles each time you come to Olaf’s attention?

          • Guest

            Obviously you cant’ point to any behavior that might have convinced Zimmerman that Martin was 10 years older than he really was either.

          • Equally obviously you can’t defend your position at all, which is why you’re trying to change the subject.

          • emrengineer

            So,… “a lit bit younger”  is only a one years difference.  You keep digging deeper and deeper. 

            Has anybody ever told you about holes?

            Gee, most people see my wife and thinks she 35-40 when she is really 48.  I guess because you can’t always tell by looking at somebody their exact age, those people are nothing but liars.

          • Jay

            What behavior indicates Martin wasn’t profiled?

            He was walking.  He was black.  He wasn’t sauntering to houses.  He wasn’t hurting anyone.  He was going home after walking to the store and a strange guy decided to follow him because of a past experience with robbers.  How well did that turn out for Zimmerman?  Two times the loser here.

          • Jwb10001

            You better call the prosecution they are looking for an eye witness that can testify to what happened.

          • Oh, so now Zimmerman is guilty of profiling until proven innocent!

            Tell me, is it “profiling” to shoot somebody just because he’s trying to bash your brains all over the pavement?

          • Guest

            And Martin was one of “them” – you know,  “those” people that “always get away”…

            no profiling there, so sirree.

    • self defense not stand your ground …

  • Commander_Chico

    So this is a sad story on many levels.  Zim should be treated with leniency.  The fact remains that, while armed, he followed Martin closely enough to create the conditions that led to the unarmed Martin’s death.   
    It will be up to a jury to decide based on the evidence at trial, as it should be.

    • Vagabond661

      “Create the conditions”? So, in othere words, a woman can be attacked if she shows cleavage? And worse, she can’t fight back? What if she had a gun and killed her attacker?

    • actually Martin doubled back to create the “confrontation” …  a thug wanna be ran into a bigger thug …

    • actually “The fact remains that, while armed, he followed Martin closely enough”  that is a not a fact …  Martin doubled back after Zim lost sight of him …   how do you closely follow someone you can’t see ?

    • I am always amazed how people can hold 2 opposite “facts” at the same time …
      everyone says that Zimmerman followed Martin …  but how do they know that ?  because they say Zimmerman said he did (credible witness)
      but when Zimmerman claims that Martin started the fight the same people claim Zimmerman is lying (non credible witness) …
      so we have the same person being considered a credible witness and a non credible witness at the same time about the same events …

      Zimmerman also said he lost sight of Martin after he took off running …  how do you follow someone closely whom you can’t see ?

      I am curious as to how the family knows Martin bought skittles and ice tea since there were no skittles or ice recovered at the scene ? 

  • Wild_Willie

    He will be found not guilty no matter how the left blathers. Facts are facts, and in the court of law, only relevent facts to the specific case can be entered into evidence. He was indicted to calm the mob. ww

    • Jay

      Facts are facts, right?

      He murdered a kid.  And in a court of law, the relevant fact that he carried a gun and created the environment to kill someone will be entered into evidence.

      • Commander_Chico

        This was not murder, at most manslaughter.  And that may be a close case.  I don’t know if we’ve seen the last word on “fucking coons/cold” and what the witnesses saw yet.   

        Remember that the prosecution has an ethical duty to not bring charges unless there is evidence to support it.

        • You might want to read Alan Dershowitz on that issue (ethical [and legal] duties of the prosecutor).

        • Guest

          Remember that the prosecution has an ethical duty to not bring charges unless there is evidence to support it.

          And the prosecution charged Zimmerman with murder, not manslaughter. There must be evidence ot support that vs. manslaughter.

          • jim_m

             The prosecution is not at all times ethical and is not at any time inerrant.  If you bothered to read the transcript of the bail hearing the prosecution basically admitted that they don’t have a case for murder.  They cannot prove who started the confrontation.  They cannot prove that Martin did not make Zimmerman feel threatened for his life.  They have nothing to counter Zimmerman’s account of what happened.

            Since you need more than suspicion to convict someone, they lack a case.

          • Guest

            So you want to believe that the prosecution is lying instead of Martin lying. That’s your right.

          • jim_m

             No I want to believe the prosecution when it admits that it has no evidence as to who started the confrontation, as they did in the bail hearing.

          • Guest

            So you want to believe that the prosecution is lying instead of Zimmerman lying (I said Martin above but we all know dead men tell no lies).

            The prosecutors have charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, claiming to have evidence ot prove that.

            You want to believe they’re lying.

            We know what Zimmerman has a motive to lie – to keep his ass out of prison.

            What’s the motive for the prosecutors to lie? Go ahead, put on your tin-foil hat and tell us what their motive is to lie.

          • jim_m

             The prosecution does not have to have irrefutable evidence to make a charge. In fact because they avoided the Grand Jury, they really don’t need any evidence at all to lodge the charge.

            They have admitted that they lack evidence regarding certain aspects of the case and that indicates that they may have grave difficulties in meeting the threshold for conviction. 

            I don’t believe that this amounts to prosecutorial misconduct, but I do think that they will lose.

            I also think that you are a complete idiot, because you have argued that they have to have irrefutable evidence in order to file the charges and you are saying that the fact that the charges were filed is itself evidence of guilt.  That is ignorant in the extreme.

          • jim_m wrote:

            I also think that you are a complete idiot, because you have argued that
            they have to have irrefutable evidence in order to file the charges and
            you are saying that the fact that the charges were filed is itself
            evidence of guilt.  That is ignorant in the extreme.

            Yes, our latest troll is quite a stand out in those areas.

          • jim_m

             Grumpy:  In our country there is a presumption of innocence for the accused, not the presumption of guilt, which is clearly where you are coming from. 

            I don’t think that many people want to live in your country where people are guilty until proven innocent and facts don’t matter as much as your ideas of agenda driven “truth”.

            Countries that live by your standards tend to accumulate large numbers of mass graves.  Just saying.

          • Indeed.

          • Guest

            Nice projection. even impressed the drooler.


          • there must be evidence …  they just didn’t tell us about it when they charged him …  oh wait, aren’t they supposed to give the evidence that justifies the charge ?

      • PBunyan

        Except it is not a fact that “he murdered a kid”.  He killed him.  To use the word “murder” is an wholely unsubstanciated opinion.  Those are not allowed to be entered into evidence.

        Also, there is no evidence that he “created the environment to kill someone”.  That is a wholey unsubstanciated opinion also.

        • Guest

          “To use the word “murder” is an wholely unsubstanciated opinion.  Those are not allowed to be entered into evidence.”

          Uhm, He’s charged with second-degree murder.

          it’s not Jay’s opinion, it’s a fact.

          • PBunyan

            It is a fact that Zimmerman was charged with murder.  That is not what Jay said.  Jay said it was a fact that “he murdered a kid”.  That is an opinion and a wholely unsubstanciated one at that. 

            The charge of second degree murder was entirely a political decision and not a legal one, in my, and most other well informed person’s opinions.

          • So one day if you’re arrested and charged with something, we should assume you’re guilty because you were charged? Is that how it works now?

          • jim_m

             In the leftist world if you are charged with the crime then you are guilty.  The facts don’t enter into the matter.  That’s why grumpy can be so confident that Zimmerman is guilty.  He doesn’t need to know the facts.  Guilt was determined by the necessity of the political agenda.

          • Jwb10001

            This whole thing is about race period, The dividing lines are between people that see everything through a racial lens and seized on this to push a point of view. The problem now is that the race element is sort of falling apart that leaves people like grumpy… well grumpy.

          • And those who “…see everything through a racial lens…” are, by definition, racists.

      • Guest

        No.  He killed a kid.  “Killed” is neutral and accurately describes what happened, by Zimmerman’s own admission.  “Murdered” is presumptive.  We do not know for certain that a crime was committed.  

        • I’d take issue with calling him a kid. Had he succeeded in bashing Zimmerman’s brains all over the pavement, at age 17 he would certainly have been eligible to stand trial as an adult.

          • Jay

            Wow, two small holes and a lot of blood equates to a bashing of the skull.

          • Only because Zimmerman was able to defend himself.

    • Guest

      And lies are lies. Lying in court in his very first appearance? And doing so during an apology to the parents of the child he killed?

      I’m not saying this proves he’s guilty, only that he’s willing to lie under oath.

      • iwogisdead

        Meh. The surest way for the prosecutor to lose credibility with the jury would be to bring up this irrelevancy. Juries usually have little tolerance for this sort of quibbling. It’s a murder charge–the jury will want to see real evidence, not a goofy debate over whether or not Zimmerman “lied” during his apology.

        • Guest

          Yeah, lying under oath — juries aren’t concerned about that sort of thing…

          • jim_m

             Not everyone parses their words like an amoral leftist trying to get out of saying anything of content.  It is unlikely that you could find a single prosecutor anywhere in the nation who would bother to try Zimmerman for perjury.  Being loose in your terminology is not a crime and there was no intent to deceive.

          • Guest

            They’ll try him for murder and point out that he lied on the stand to discredit him. They won’t bother trying him for perjury but they’ll use his perjury against him.

          • emrengineer

            First, he wasn’t “on the stand” when he made either of those statements.

            Second, there is no perjury or lie.  He only spoke of relative age, which is different for different people.  If the lawyers bring your golden nugget up, it will be hard to keep order in the court with all the snickering.

            “Your honor the defendant stated that the assailant was a woman when he called 911, but after he tackled her, he found out it was a guy.  I demand that you find him guilty of whatever charge we are pressing against him since he lied about my client in the first place.”  Pretty ridiculous!  But, it makes as much sense as your agrument.

          • jim_m

             It’s a lie because Grumpy says so.  He doesn’t need to prove that Zimmerman actually lied, he just declares it as a categorical truth and that there is nothing anyone can say to refute it.

            Grumpy isn’t interested in hearing about real truth.

          • emrengineer

            Sad to say, but you’re right.

          • iwogisdead

            The jury will see what you are unable to see (even if the judge allows it)–1) it’s a collateral to the charges, it proves nothing relevant, and it’s a big waste of time, 2) it’s not really a lie anyway. There will be quite a few face palms in the jury box while the prosecutor does a silly tap dance to try to show that this non-lie is a lie, I guarantee it.
            But, I doubt that the judge will even allow it. The only category for impeachment under the Florida Evidence Code that this would fit under is prior inconsistent statement (which it isn’t anyway), but since this is a collateral issue, any testimony about it would be irrelevant in the first place.

      • since its not a lie and he wasn’t under oath you’ve got it all right …

    • herddog505

      He MIGHT be found not guilty.  Based on the evidnce we’ve seen so far, he shouldn’t even have been charged.  However, cynical me suspects that the prosecution is after one of two things:

      1.  Appeasing the lynch mob: “Hey, we prosecuted him just like you wanted!  It’s not OUR fault he was found not guilty.”

      2.  The (ahem) right sort of jurors who will find Zimmerman guilty no matter what the evidence.

  • emrengineer

    So what is the definition of “a lit bit younger?”  Two years, five years, seven years, ten years?  What is the definition of “late teens?”  Seventeen and up?,  Eighteen and older?  Seeing that teenage is thirteen to nineteen (7 years), then is early teens thirteen and fourteen, mid teens fifteen, sixteen and seventeen, and late teens eighteen and nineteen?  Sounds about right to me.  Then when Zimmerman states “late teens”, he may have thought he was nineteen.  And his statement that he thought he was “a little bit younger” isn’t a lie at all, is it?  I’m fifty one, a lit bit younger to me could be 35 years old or older (16 years).  You have decided the definition of the terms used just so that you can call him a liar.

    • Guest

      Nice try. Apologizing for liars… sad.

      A few is a few and late teens is under 20. Zimmerman is 28.

      • emrengineer

        I am glad you have the legal definition of “a lit bit younger” and “late teens”.  Please do list them out here for us.  Otherwise, you’re just using whatever definition you want to paint Zimmerman as lying. 

        So according to what you just wrote, “late teens in under twenty”, a thirteen year old is late teens.  And “a few” is “a few?”  I know two’s a couple and three’s a crowd (so by inverse, a couple of years would be two years, and a crowd of years would be three years.)  Then a crowd of protester would only be three protesters, no that doesn’t work.  You see, “a few” can mean three, four, five, whatever.  And as mentioned by somebody else, at first he thought he was late teens, but when he was getting beat up (and had a closer look), he may have thought him older.  Your agrument falls completely apart. sorry.

        • Hank_M

           ” And as mentioned by somebody else, at first he thought he was late
          teens, but when he was getting beat up (and had a closer look), he may
          have thought him older.”

          Excellent point.

  • PBunyan

    If you got some time and really want to understand what’s going on here, this is the very best summary of all the facts of this case that I have seen so far:

    Update 9
    Update 10- part1

    Update 10- part2

    Update 11

    Everyone needs to read these.   Especially you leftists- Hugh, Chico, Grumpy, Jay– try to grasp the truth before you comment.  It will make you look a lot less foolish.

    • herddog505

      Too late.

    • Hugh_G

      2 things.

      a. When a story from a right-winger starts with a photo clearly intended to make Martin look like a thug, I don’t need to go any further.

      b. I have consistently argued that we all ought to wait for all the facts to be presented before making a judgment. Apparently you haven’t. Since you like the article I must assume you have decided he was a thug. Way to go.

      • PBunyan

        So you don’t want to know the truth.  Thanks for admitting that you’re proud of your ignorance.  Those were photos Travon himself posted on the internet.  If anyone “intended to make Martin look like a thug” it was Martin himself.  But as you’ve repeatedly opined in your willful, voluntary ignorance, he has no “history of violence”…

        So did you also ignore all the stories that had the old mugshot of Zimmerman next to the pre-teen picture of Martin?  No, of course you didn’t.  Why not?

        Also it’s pretty clear that most all the facts have been presented.  You leftists despirately hoping for more does not change that. 

        I am open minded enough to read all the leftist/MSM bullshit that has been published about this case, but you are so closed minded that you refuse to read an honest, detailed, fact filled, article simply because they have actually current pictures of Martin that Martin himself posted on the internet.  You are nothing if not a stereotypical leftist.

        • jim_m

           Of course he is not interested in facts.  Facts are not relevant to the “truth”.  Truth has to do with what supports and advances the agenda. 

          When Hugh sees that the picture is not going to advance his agenda he immediately knows that it is “false”.  Even if the photo accurately depicts the person it portrays, it does not match the narrative he wants to present so therefore the picture is “false”. 

          So Hugh and Grumpy and their leftist friends aren’t interested in the facts of the case.  Facts don’t address the “truth”.  For them the “truth” is that this was a racially motivated murder.  They are only interested in things that support their “truth” and nothing else.

          This is what they speak of when they refer to “justice”.  “Justice” is delivering the punishment on the appointed scapegoat as necessitated by the “truth” so they can advance their agenda.

          Notice that this has nothing to do with facts or real truth or real justice.  It has nothing to do with what happened or what is right or wrong. It is about their predetermined agenda and what will support it and advance it.  If an individual is sacrificed in order that the agenda can be advanced for the benefit of the many then that is acceptable.

          • May the type of Justice they have been advocating be visited upon them.

          • herddog505

            jim_mThis is what [lefties] speak of when they refer to “justice”.  “Justice” is delivering the punishment on the appointed scapegoat as necessitated by the “truth” so they can advance their agenda.

            Sad but true.  Look at the knots they’ve twisted themselves into to “prove” that Zimmerman is guilty, starting with trying desperately to turn him into a white man, then to his “history” of violence, then to him “disobeying” the police, then to him carrying a gun “against neighborhood watch rules”, then to him “profling” Martin.

            If anybody has ever wondered what a lynch mob looks like, how one gets started, or how its members justify to themselves and everybody else what they do, then he needs look no further than the left in this case.

            Justice?  Lefties wouldn’t know the meaning of the word.

          • jim_m

             The left founded the Klan, of course they are familiar with the formation of lynch mobs.

          • Commander_Chico

            “The left” this, “the left” that, yada, yada.

            Yes, all of those dispossessed plantation owners in the South led by Nathan Bedford Forrest were socialists.

          • jim_m

            You cannot deny the truth of what I said. I notice that you don’t bother trying to refute that.

            “In the spring of 1867, Forrest and his dragons launched a campaign of
            midnight parades; ‘ghost’ masquerades; and ‘whipping’ and even ‘killing
            Negro voters and white Republicans, to scare blacks off voting and
            running for office.’”  – Andrew Ward, (River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War )

            The Klan was always a dem organization.

          • Commander_Chico

            Right in 1867, but the racial politics of the Dem and Rep parties switched because of LBJ’s civil rights support and Nixon’s “southern strategy.”

          • The Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans over Democratic opposition.  The Democrats were the party that tried to block civil rights legislation, and who passed and enforced Jim Crow laws.

        • Hugh_G

          Well, apparently you in all your  alleged open  mindedness didn’t bother to read paragraph [ b.] in my response. Try again, I know you can. I also know it’s hard for you to get your head around the idea that lots of people, apparently you not included, think we just ought to know ALL the goddman facts before rushing to judgment
          As for your link I repeat what I said. I have no interest in reading something when the first thing you look at is a photo deliberately intended to affirm the bias’ of folks like you. [Note: bias doesn’t mean racist in this instance since I have no idea what your views on that issue are]

          • PBunyan

            Why does seeing current pictures of Martin, that Martin himself posted on the internet, bother you so much?  Why does the immage that Martin himself wanted to create for himself bother you so much?

            Why does learning all the facts about this case, and yes, pretty much all the facts are know by now– no matter how much you want there to be other facts like the dozen of false ones you leftists were clinging to at first before they were shredded– scare you so much? 

            Please read what’s at those links.  Just igore the pictures and read the text.  Maybe if you see what really happened, the whole story and only the true, proven facts of the matter, maybe then…  well, never mind– what was I thinking.

            As for you second paragraph, I not only read it, I responded to it, but you must’ve missed that.  I go a little deeper for you:

            Was he a thug?  Well all the evidence points to Martin attacking Zimmerman and there is not a single thing to refute that (even the prosecutor admitted that under oath last Friday), so yes, I never used that term, but I suppose it wouldn’t be inappropriate.  Martin clearly had a history of law breaking and violence (at the links above that you’re far too afraid to read), no matter how much you don’t want to believe that.

          • Hugh_G

            Zimmerman clearly had a history of law breaking and violence. Why wasn’t his mug shot placed next to the photo of Martin? Hmmmm……

            Again you say “all the evidence”. You don’t know shit about “all the evidence’ nor does anyone else except the prosecutor and the defense attorney. ALL the evidence will come out under oath and if it shows Zimmerman was justified then he should be acquitted and I would 100% support that.In a nutshell that’s why I don’t feel compelled to read the right-wingers post.

          • PBunyan

            “that’s why I don’t feel compelled to read the right-wingers post.”

            But you’ll gladly read all totally fabricated shit on the left winger’s posts– just lap it up like a gopher on a cow pie.

            All the evidence shows this is a bull shit political prosecution that should have never have happened and on top of ruining several people’s lives already it will likely ultimately result in massive violence, death, and distruction.  But that’s o.k. with you lefties;  all they “wanted was an arrest” after all.  They repeatedly said that.

            Anyone who comments so confidently on a story while only getting a small fraction of the truth mixed in with copious steaming piles of fabrications and outright lies, while totally refusing to even take a few moments to learn the rest of the story is… well… you– the stereotypical, useful idiot leftist.

          • Hugh_G

            “all the evidence”……..

            Please regale us with “all the evidence.” things like actual witness statements. Things like the forensic evidence. You know “all the evidence” that gets admitted into evidence under oath.

            Your knowledge of what is and isn’t evidence clearly comes from watching. Too much TV.

            I am not the one commenting so confidently. It’s you. I say over and over and over that the only evidence that counts is what comes out in court. If that’s what makes a useful idiot in your mind then you’re hopeless..

          • PBunyan

            See below.

      • Martin had tats and a grill to make you think he was a thug …  should we not think that was his intent ?

        • Hugh_G

          That’s about as ignorant a comment as I’ve read on the post.

          I have tats, guess I must be a thug.

          • jim_m

             That’s about as ignorant a comment as I’ve read on the post.

            So you admit that you don’t read Grumpy’s posts.

          • And in so not doing (not reading the old fool) he saved brain cells that he could ill afford to lose.

          • Ipse dixit:

            I have tats, guess I must be a thug.

            I was thinking more punk than thug, but thug works.

          • Hugh_G

            A thug like you perhaps? One who can’t debate so you respond by giving my email address to the public? That kind of thug?

          • On reconsideration, definitely a punk, and a whiny one at that.

          • Guest

            Rodney is such a drooler. What an embarrassment he must be to this site… where the biggest troll around is on the staff, pretending to be a tough guy.

            Hugh, if you’d like to sue Rodney feel free to drop me a line – I’ll contribute to the law suit.

            Here’s my email, since it’s just a matter of time before Wodney the Wad publishes it anyway.

            grumpy.oldman_72 at yahoo dot com.

          • Sky__Captain

             I believe someone needs yet another visit from Olaf…

          • So tell Kevin that.

          • do you have a gold grill too ? if so then you may be a thug wanna be …  or you just have a quirky fashion sense …
            I don’t think he was a thug …  he wanted you to think he was but he was just another wanna be thug …

          • And as I posted above – at what point do you change from wanna-be to actual?

          • Do you have a grill?  Do you go out of your way to act like a thug?

            At what point does the looking like and acting like a thug change to being a thug?

      • SCSIwuzzy

        So I should apply the same standards to all of the commentary that showed Trevon in his foot ball uniform?  Showing Martin as a clean cut, smiling skinny boy from years before is at least as misleading as what you are asserting.

        • jim_m

           Oh but it is not misleading because it supports the agenda that Hugh wants.  In fact it “leads” you to make the (politically) correct conclusion:  that Martin was an innocent waif viciously murdered by a white man (never mind that Zimmerman is of mixed race and is probably more black than white).

          Nothing is misleading if it directs people to make the socially correct conclusion about what is “true”.

        • Hugh_G

          You should do whatever you wish. I choose to dismiss something when the photo in question leads it off – thus pandering to the bias of folks like you.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            What is my bias Hugh?  And what kind of folk am I?

          • Hugh_G

            If you agree that my comment to Jim_m applies to you as well, your bias (as is his) is a predisposition to come to conclusions about Zimmerman/Martin without knowledge of ALL the facts.
            Don’t get your panties in a wad about the word bias. Look it up. We all have some bias.

          • jim_m

             Not to put too fine a point on it but you have not responded to any of my comments directly on this thread. (unless you are also the Grumpy old fool, in which case I feel sorry for you)

          • Hugh_G

            You are correct It was your comment to SCS….

            I can be grumpy and I am old but I am not a fool!!!!

          • Guest

            Responding to what? Your “thoughts” and your “beliefs”?

            You flights of fantasy aren’t reality-based. There’s little worth replying to… all you do is fabricate your little womb of BS and then crawl in and defend it.

          • jim_m

             Time to sober up grumpy.  Hugh acknowledged that he had misspoken and clarified his comment.  For someone who claims to be old you show less maturity than my 11 year old.

          • On the interwebs we cannot prove that it’s a 19 year old dropout living in it’s mother’s basement…

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Actually Hugh, I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that we havent been getting all the facts. That siding with either camp is foolish. You’re the one making assumptions here, Sonny Jim 🙂

          • Hugh_G

            Well then it doesn’t apply to you, just Jim in this case.

          • PBunyan

            “without knowledge of ALL the facts”

            You repeatedly make this stamement, yet you repeatedly also state the Zimmerman had a violent history while Martin did not.

            You base you opinion of Zimmerman on totally misleading, and in many instance totally incorrect, reporting when the fact is his single arrest and subsquent non-conviction was from an altercation where he was in a bar with a friend and some undercover, plain-clothed cops were running a sting operation and they started hassling his friend.  Zimmerman thought his friend was about to get into a fight so he shoved the cop away from him.  Yeah that’s really violent.

            The other thing is allegations of “domestic violence” by his former fiance (or girlfriend, I don’t remember) which resulted in them both getting restraining orders against each other.  Yup that proves he was a violent powderkeg just waiting to pop a cap on someone.

            Meanwhile, Martin has the tats, the gold teeth, multiple suspension just this year, posts the pictures of himself on the internet that you can’t even look at,  posts videos of himself with his f’ing FIGHT CLUB, and you repeatedly say that not only is his history totally irrelevant, but he in fact has no history of violence.

            Oh there’s a hell of a lot of facts out there– you just want to remain willfully ignorant.  Your pretending they don’t exist however, does not change the fact that the facts exist.

          • Hugh_G

            The only fact I’m sure of is your ignorance and your judgment tha another black teen got just what he deserved . That’s what you really think isn’t it?

          • PBunyan

            Yup, you got me.  I couldn’t possibly be bothered by the destrucion of the life of a man who was doing the right thing (in spite of the disaterous consequences that he did not intend nor is in any way at fault), and the violence, destruction, and death that this will lead to– and all because of what are undisputably lies told by Benjamin Crump and gleefuly parroted by the press.  Nope, I just simply hate black people.

            That’s why I hate Obama so much.  I would actually love to live in a communist country.  I cheered when Obama raised my taxes his second day in office (my wife and I combined make less than 100K).  I nearly creamed my jeans in delight when I heard that 80,000 new laws and regulations went into effect last January 1st– why, I could be breaking 10 laws a day and never even know it! Then there’s the money fabrication (err I mean quantative easing) and unemployment and don’t get me started on our wonderful new foreign policy where we support radical muslim uprisings– even supply air cover for Al Qaeda in Lybia, support and encourage communists in South and central America, and screw over our former allies!  No I totally love that all those things are happening, I just simply hate Obama because he’s black.

          • Hugh_G

            Wow, right from Zimmerman/Martin to the President. I have no idea what part the president’s color plays in you views..

            I haven’t a shred of doubt though about your belief that another young black/thug/criminal/gangster got just what he deserved.

          • PBunyan

            see my reply at the very bottom of this thread

  • Guest

    I’m glad Reuters got this story out.  After the amount of vilification we’ve seen of Zimmerman, I’m glad somebody took the time to paint a fuller portrait of him.  Beyond that ..

    I hope people remember in the coming months that Zimmerman is not a political prop.  Zimmerman is not a vessel for all of your feelings (one way or the other) about racism in America.  Zimmerman is a man who is now on trial because he killed another man.  People would do well to remember that.

    Anything beyond that simple fact dehumanizes Zimmerman.

    • herddog505

      Ditto Martin.

      O’ course, the only efforts at “politicizing” anybody in this case have been from the left.  Let me count the ways:

      1.  RAAAACISM!  Zimmerman’s a racist, the Sanford cops are racist, anybody who thought Zimmerman might be innocent are racist, etc.

      2,  Profiling is bad!

      4.  Guns are bad! 

      5.  Concealed carry is bad!

      6.  Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are bad!

      7.  It’s the NRA’s fault!  And the Koch brothers, and the GOP!

      8.  Did I mention RAAAAACISM?

      The left jumped on this story right out of the gate for pure political advantage.  Now, they (well, some of them; IMO, this is the true genesis of the Reuters story) are having to trip over themselves to walk it back because, contrary to what they ASSURED us was absolutely true:

      (A) Zimmerman ISN’T white.

      (B) The Sanford cops DID arrest Zimmerman.

      (C) Zimmerman WAS injured.

      (D) Zimmerman DIDN’T say “coons”.

      • Guest

        A couple side points:

        1) Debating the merits of SYG, including Florida’s SYG law, is entirely appropriate. But the merits of that law are entirely separate from the issue of Zimmerman’s trial.

        2) The conduct of police and prosecutors here may also be an issue. But, again, that is entirely separate from the question of Zimmerman’s culpability in Trayvon Martin’s death.

        • herddog505

          Tell that to the lefties.

          • Guest

            Left-wingers display precisely the same level of interest in nuanced debate that right-wingers do.

          • herddog505

            In some cases, that’s true; there’s no denying it.

            On the other hand, the right hasn’t behaved like a lynch mob in this case.  Lefties can hardly make the same claim.

            Zimmerman had better thank his lucky stars that lefties, including some of our residents, weren’t around with a rope the night he shot Martin, else he’d have been strung up out of hand.

          • Hugh_G

            Interesting comment. Do you know anything about the history of Florida and who, not that long ago, used to get regularly lynched?

          • herddog505

            Yep.  I also know the party affiliation of the people who were tying the nooses.

          • Hugh_G

            Yes you do, and it morphed into the Republican Party

      • Hugh_G

        1. A stupid, inaccurate statement.

        2. Racial profiling is bad. If you’re young enough it may happen to you someday when you are in the white minority.

        In your fevered writing you skipped 3.

        4.. In some cases guns are very bad.

        5. Yes.

        6. Not necessarily, although many law enforcement and prosecutor are very much against it  and my guess is most of them are not “leftists.”

        7.  Your fevered delusional take is  unsupported by anything reasonable or logical.

        8.Yes. Another of the riight-wing whines. There is a habit around your circles of whining about this issue which it appears many of you just like to deny in all and any circumstances, except when it is raised the person who raises it is of course accused of it.

        The rest of your rant is partially accurate but your premise is off the wall.

        • do you think you have to be a “minority” to be racial profiled ?  wow …  your ignorance is astounding …  try living in a community where you are a minority locally …  you won’t be so ignorant …

          • Hugh_G

            I didn’t say that nor do I think it…..

        • herddog505

          1.  Really?  Several of your compatriots, notable Brucehenry, have been very clear in their assertions that the Sanford PD is racist and hence (allegedly) showed no interest in investigating what happened.

          2.  Yes, racial profiling is bad.  O’ course, that apparently didn’t happen in this case, but that doesn’t stop lefties pulling the race card.

          By the way: what’s the difference between “racial profiling” and “describing a suspect”?

          3.  Oops.  I probably misspelled some words, too.

          4.  Especially if one is being pointed at you.  O’ course, guns have nothing to do with this case other than that one was the cause of death.  Naturally, that didn’t stop lefties blaming the NRA right out of the gate.

          Here’s an column from the Orlando Sentinal, published just days after Martin was killed:
          Prodded by their NRA masters, lawmakers waved off those predictions as exaggerations. Then they overwhelmingly passed a bill that took the “castle doctrine” to infinity and beyond. The “castle doctrine” used to mean you could use deadly force if someone attacked you in your home. “Stand your ground” not only absolved the homeowner of any obligation to retreat, it extended that concept outside the home.

          Gov. Jeb Bush couldn’t sign the bill fast enough.


          5.  I doubt Zimmerman thinks so, nor do the thousands of other Americans who lawfully carry and have even had cause to bless their gun for keeping them safe from a would-be robber, rapist or murderer.

          Typical lefty: people shouldn’t have the ability to defend themselves.

          6.  Sure: there are “righties” who are filthy statists, too.

          7.  Oh?  Here’s Van Jones:

          [Y]ou’ve got the perfect storm building. You’ve got all the passion around Trayvon, and what a horrible injustice that was. And it turns out you can draw a direct line back to the Koch Bros, you can draw a direct line back to to mainstream corporations…


          Lib radio host Thom Hartmann:

          Liberal radio host Thom Hartmann came unglued over Trayvon Martin on Wednesday, blaming his death on…the Koch brothers.
          “A young man died,” he declared. “A young man died a violent and unnecessary death because the Koch brothers and other right-wingers and large corporations in America decided that it would be a really cool idea if they got together and wrote laws that they would then give to mostly Republican legislators in state legislatures all across the country at meetings twice a year of the so-called American Legislative Exchange Council.” He also blamed the NRA and Wal-Mart…


          Karen Finney on MSNBC:

          [Jeb Bush] and his fellow republicans were ecstatic when the law passed. and as typical, they use fear and rhetoric about personal freedom without balancing second amendment rights with the safety of our communities. one florida state attorney who opposed the law even said that they decided to fix something that wasn’t broken. how do we go from one state to 30? who was the typhoid mary for this horrible outbreak? try not to be surprised. the usual suspects, the coke [sic] brothers, the nra, the american legislative campaign…


          Here’s HuffPo:

          There is little doubt that it was George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old self-appointed “neighborhood watch vigilante,” who shot and killed the 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last month as he “returned from a trip to 7-11 with an iced tea and a pack of Skittles.”

          Less known is the relationship between the Florida “stand your ground” law, which may allow the killer of Trayvon Martin to walk free, and a powerful but private, behind-the-scenes organization that has channeled such bills into the legislatures of Florida and other states.


          8.  Why, yes: I DID mention RAAAAACISM.

          The only delusional rantings in this case have been from the left, who wanted to lynch George Zimmerman from day one and saw an opportunity to try to smear their favorite political targets in the process.  It was never about truth, it was never about justice.  Instead, it was about scoring cheap political points by waving the (literally) bloody shirt of a young man who was killed.


          • Like I said – if his name had been Jose Zapota he’d never have been noticed.  But the media (and the left) saw ‘Zimmerman’ and thought they had a two-fer for stoking the ol’ hate machine.

            They don’t get that thing up to full riot speed by Nov, Obama’s toast.  (Oh, wait – is calling someone ‘toast’ racist?)

          • jim_m

             is calling someone ‘toast’ racist?

            It depends on what kind of bread is used.

          • I’m almost afraid to start detailing them…

          • herddog505

            MiniTru’s response to Zimmerman’s name is something that’s bugged me.  The WaPo came right out of the gate with “Jewish” name*.  While I suppose that there are Jews called Zimmerman, this is more a German name**.  I guess they were so desperate to do some racebaiting, they just worked with what they had.


            (*) http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-george-zimmerman/2012/03/22/gIQAkXdbUS_story.html

            (**) Perhaps the most notorious Zimmerman in US history is Arthur Zimmerman, German foreign secretary and nominal author of the Zimmerman telegram.  To my knowledge, he was not a Jew.

          • herddog505

            Probably.  Oh, who am I kidding: of COURSE it’s RAAAAACIST.  Anything other than lickspittle fawning over Barry is racist.  Hell, even saying that Barry is lazy is RAAAAACIST according to the left:

            Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney rolled out a new accessory at a speech in Ohio today, delivering his remarks in front of a black banner that said “Obama Isn’t Working,” which is also the name of a website his campaign set up several months ago (in case you didn’t get the message from the banner, it was also on the front of Romney’s podium).

            The slogan is a multiple entendre, but one of those entendres, intentionally or not, is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about black men.

            When I first saw the banner this afternoon, the multiple meanings were clear: President Obama‘s policies aren’t working, the Obama presidency isn’t working, President Obama…isn’t working, as in, doing any work. That’s not a nice thing to say about any president, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at our first black president.

            Just to be sure it wasn’t just me, though, I asked several friends about the banner, and four out of four pointed out, unprompted, the stereotype of the “lazy,” “shiftless” black man. One of the people I called was cable news fixture Goldie Taylor, who, upon hearing my description of the banner, said “Are you kidding me? You have got to be kidding me.”


            Yeah: you’ve got to be kidding me.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t believe I ever asserted the Sanford PD is racist. I said the outrage comes from the suspicion that it MIGHT be, because it is perceived as not giving a shit that another black kid wound up dead.

            And that such a suspicion, in the case of central Florida police departments, is not an unreasonable one. In the case of Sanford, there have been several incidents in the last 15 years or so that have rubbed folks the wrong way.

          • herddog505

            You’ll forgive me if I see that as a distinction without a difference. 

          • Brucehenry

            Okay….the difference is I personally called No One a racist. I pointed out that many in the community, and in the public at large, suspect racism in the Sanford PD. Not in the white-sheets-and-hoods kind of way, but in the ho-hum-another-black-kid-shot kind of way.

  • PBunyan

    That Reuters article wasn’t too bad.   Only a few distortions and a couple outright misstatements of fact.  For the MSM that’s a vast improvement.  Still too little too late, though.

  • Nuanced?  Did John Kerry act as an editor?

  • Hugh_G

    And now we know Zimmerman is a liar, was that it in the more “nuanced” portrait? 

    He just took a huge hit to his credibility if he takes the stand.Interesting to see how the judge feels about that today.

  • PBunyan

    Hugh G (above): “Wow, right from Zimmerman/Martin to the President. I have no idea what part the president’s color plays in you views.”

    The satire was valid and appropriate because now, after I’ve presented you with facts that shoot down the lies you’ve been ignorantly parroting, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you resort to: “The only fact I’m sure of is your ignorance and your judgment tha another black teen got just what he deserved . That’s what you really think isn’t it?   That is no less wrong or less ignorant than saying my opostiion to Obama’s policies is only because he’s black.

    No, I don’t think Martin got what he deserved.  It was a tragedy that the choice Martin made ultimately led to him being killed.  Still it was entirely his fault that he ended up dead.  He made the wrong decision when he doubled back and assaulted Zimmerman.  Zimmerman never did anything wrong, immoral, nor illegal.  Every fact in this case supports that conclusion and not one single piece of true evidence refutes it.

    However true villan in all this is not Martin, who simply made a dumb decision to commit the crime of assualting Zimmerman.  The true villan is the evil, immoral, lying lawyer Benjamin Crump (and his team of lawyers and publicists) whose fabrications and lies (many of which you continue to parrot word for word) led to this attrocity that has yet to play out.  If there was to be any true justice in all this, if anyone was to truly get what they deserved, Mr. Crump would be disbarred and every penny he has, every single assest, be confiscated and givin both to his primary victim, Zimmerman, and all the other victims (the few already as well as all those that may number in the hundreds or thousands before all is said and done) of his evil lies and fabrications; lies and fabrications told just so he could make a couple more millions.  That would be justice.

    Of couse the leftists in the media and blogisohere are willing accessories to this crime committed by Mr. Crump and his team of liars, and what they deserve is to loose any and all credability that they still may have.  No one should ever believe a single thing they say ever again as they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have no interest in reporting the truth.

    That’s what I really think.   I also think you’re an asshole for accusing me of racism simply because I believe in truth and justice.

    • Hugh_G

      You persist in claiming to know the facts. Are you that freaking ignorant? I don’t think you are so there has to be some other reason. 

      For the 100th time or more. I don’t know all  the facts, you don’t know all  the facts, media on the left and the right don’t know all the facts. We know some of the facts and both sides are guilty of seeing those facts in the light of their own bias (not racism).All the facts will come out in the trial. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around. Then he will be acquitted or found guilty. 

      I stand by my statement ( in which I didn’t accuse you of racism). If the shoe fits you ought to wear it though.

      • You see no facts because they are injurious to your position.

        • Jay

          Rodney G Graves – Expert in supporting injurious positions with spurious facts.

      • PBunyan

        “For the 100th time or more. I don’t know all  the facts” 

         That’s one of the only truthful things I’ve seen you post on this thread.  And for the 100th time or more, just because you refuse to look at all the facts that are out there, does not mean that they don’t exist and haven’t been published.   It’s true that there may be a few minor things that haven’t been made public yet, but there is more than enough that has been made publice to clearly see what is going on here.  You just refuse to look at any evidence that doesn’t not support the false conclusions that you’ve set your mind on which is based on lies told by Crump’s team (e.g., “wanna be cop”, “Zimmerman’s history of voilence”).

        AND “The only fact I’m sure of is your ignorance and your judgment tha another black teen got just what he deserved . That’s what you really think isn’t it?

        Is very clearly a false accusation of racism.  You’re a liar to deny that.  And I aleady stated very clearly THAT I DO NOT THINK MARTIN DESEREVED TO BE KILLED!!!.    I’ve clearly stated that his death was a tragedy.  You are an asshole for doulbing down on your false conclusion.

        • PBunyan


          If I said somewhere that I know “all the facts” that was a misstatement on my part.  I don’t know if we know all the facts or not.  We simply do know more than enough facts to see clearly what did happen that night and what is now happening.

          • Hugh_G

            God help the parties if you were to sit on a jury. I suppose you’d do one of those old west acts, jump up before the evidence begins and say we don’t need no stink’n  testimony cause I already know enough of the facts to make my decision.

          • PBunyan

            God help the parties if you were to sit on a jury.  I suppose you’d listen intently to the prosecution, but every time the defense started you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and scream “I refuse to hear your arguments” over and over.

          • Hugh_G

            Well since when I was younger I was a criminal defense lawyer I find that highly unlikely.

            What I would do, as opposed to you, is swear to listen to all the evidence before coming to a verdict and I would also have taken an oath to tell the truth. That would mean that when asked if I had any opinions about guilt or innocence I would say no. I would also say under oath that any pre-trial publicity would not affect my judgment and that I would wait until all the evidence was presented by both sides.

            That sound too difficult for you?  Never mind, we already have the answer.

            By the way you are not Mr. Zimmermans criminal defense lawyer as much as you’d like to pretend to be. to be.

          • PBunyan

            Yeah, and I bet I can guess why you no longer do that– you prolly sucked at it.  So you decided to start suing people since even an evil, lying, immoral sack of shit like Benjamin Crump can make a killing doing that.

            You do realize that this is not a trail, it’s an internet discussion?  I have read everything I could find from both the leftist/MSM sources and the honest, fair sources before I ever started to comment on this case and continue to do so, where as you are making comments based soley on the lies and fabrications of Mr. Crump– many times word for word what he said– and parroted by the leftist media & blogishpere without question or critical thought.  And you refuse to read the other side, but instead just make the claim that “you don’t know”.  Of course you don’t know.  You refuse to even look at the other side of this story.  That’s been my point all along in this thread.  And when I did start to tell you the rest of the story that you pig-headedly refused to read for youself, you accused me of racism.  Yup, thems good debatin’ skills there son.  Why, y’all autta be onea them thar lawyers.

          • Hugh_G

            1. Now you sound like an 8th grader. You going to say my mother wears combat boots next.

            2. Who the f*** is Mr. Crump?

            3. I have never disputed that you’ve read all the materials you claim to have read but frankly I don’t give a sh**. Do you know anything about the forensics evidence? Have you been given access to the forensics evidence? Have you read any or all the witnesses statements? If so, which ones and I’m referring to those in possession of the police and/or prosecution? Have you seen any of the physical evidence with regard to Mr. Martin? Do you know the results of any examination of Mr. Martin by the medical examiner? Have sou seen any reports from the medical examiner or any other experts? Have you seen the record of Mr. Zimmerman’s criminal charges or any testimony with regard to charges brought against him? Do you know if any of the residents of the community have complained to the police about mr. Zimmerman? if you say there are none how do you know that? Have you been given access to the complete tapes of the 911 calls or any of the cell phone records of Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin or Mr. Martin’s girlfriend? If so, which ones and what is the evidence?

            Those are just a very few of the salient “facts” which more likely than not will be put into evidence before the judge and jury so that they can do the work they are sworn to do.

            4. The answer to #3 is going to be a big fat no since you don’t work for the police, the prosecution or the defense attorney.

            5. I’m not debating with you because this isn’t a debate. A young man is dead, another man will soon be on trial for his freedom. Debate about what you perceive the facts to be or what I may believe the facts to be doesn’t mean shit. Real evidence does.

            My issue with you and others like and those who have pre-determined Mr. Zimmerman’s innocence or guilt is that I believe both sides are looking at this with their own bias, their own rose colored glasses.

          • PBunyan

            1. I sound like an 8th grader?  Hypocrite much?

            2.  Exactly my point all along.  You, right off the bat, refused to even read the links I posted.  You choose to remain ignorant, yet you still comment from a position of ignorance.

            3.  Yes to most of those.  I haven’t seen all the forensic evidence yet, but the coroner’s report has been released as were the witness statements and all the “911” calls (I use quotes because the first call from Zimmerman wasn’t a 911 call, but you don’t know that.)  The police reports were released and I’ve even read actually quotes by the officers involved (with actual quotation marks around them and the actual name of the officer saying it listed) The reason you don’t know realize that most of this infromation has been released is because the lying leftist sources you read haven’t reported any of it becuase it clearly refutes the false narritave they are trying to push.

            4.  You were wrong here.  I couldn’t answer yes to every single thing in #3, but yes to most of them.  It’s out there.  I seriously doubt there any big secrets left.  You want there to be, obviously, but you’re going to be disappointed.

            5.  This very clearly is a debate, albeit not a formal one.  Just because you’re loosing doen’t mean we haven’t been debating this topic.

            You are such a hypocrite in that you repeatedly made statements of fact about this case yourself and you clearly have chosen a side, but you pretend to not have because you haven’t heard all the evidence– while you flat out refuse to even look at all the evidence that’s currently out there.  You need to either read up or shut up.

          • Hugh_G

            Here’s a quote from Herbert Spencer:

            “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

            The difference between you and me is that you have made a conclusion based on what you believe the evidence is, I want to wail till it’s presented where it belongs – under oath in a courtroom. You have contempt of the case based on some of the facts and no actual evidence since the only valid evidence (to determine guilt or acquittal) is that admitted in court.

            You make claims that about certain materials being released. As I understand it the record is under seal and that was supposed to be argued in court today. Apparently it wasn’t. I also believe that partial statements and parts of the police report have been released  – not the entire report or all of the statements in their entirety. If I’m wrong about this show me.I also understood that the autopsy has not been released. Can you direct me to it?

          • PBunyan

            “Can you direct me to it?”

            I already did.  You refused to look.

            “I want to wail till it’s presented where it belongs”

            Then stop commenting.  Stop repeating Benjamin Crump’s lies.  Otherwise your statement is a lie.

          • Hugh_G

            Humor me and show me it. Please don’t refer to someone’s theory, just the report itself.

          • Reminds me of the two fundamental problems with lawyer jokes:

            1.  Lawyers don’t think they’re funny.

            2.  Everyone else doesn’t think they’re jokes.

      • PBunyan

        Actually after re-reading my comments above I can clarify that when I said “all the facts” I always meant all the facts that are currently publicly known.  It was pretty clear that that’s what I meant every time I used that phrase, but you might not have understood that that was what I meant. 

        • All lies in jest
          Still the man [?] reads what he wants to read
          And disregards the rest

  • Brian_R_Allen

    #auspol #teaparty @FoxNews:disqus 

    …. In a delicious irony, it is Zimmerman who might actually look more like the son Obama never had ….

    In another even tastier irony, my dog, Sam, looks like the dog he never ate!

    Mr Romney, it is alleged, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Zero, it is certain, with a Golden Retriever.

  • Pingback: As the truth begins to emerge about George Zimmerman one question needs to be asked « The Daley Gator()