[Having been found innocent, I have to assume he feels …"
Indeed, George may not understand the very large distinction between being found not guilty and being found innocent (he was found the former, not the latter). Kinda like OJ Simpson (and yes, I realize that was a different charge and crime).
I suspect the owner didn’t talk with police or whomever initially to relay that he didn’t ask George to play stakeout or any such thing, and the owner wasn’t obligated to discuss it. (Owner might’ve told the manager to keep his mouth shut, of course, but …) Evidently, press and interest caused him to change his mind.
No, I think it’s clear the OP thinks he is trying to act like a weird superhero. Either way, that doesn’t matter because, once again, if your point is that making moral judgements is problematic, that you asserting the negative is equally problematic.
Not really since Zimmerman says the owner ASKED him to do that. Having Zimmerman’s number means nothing. The owner doesn’t say he doesn’t know Zimmerman, just that he didn’t ever ask him to act as security.
Which is still a lie because he said the owner asked him, not the manager.
You should accept the “scheme” that takes all of the evidence into context and makes the most sense. Why would anyone agree to work in that capacity, in the middle of the night, for free? Given this owner already took flak for giving him a gun and being associated with him in the past, why would has ask him to work for him, then completely throw him under the bus? What sense does that make?
Which again does not comport with him being asked to do that. If you want to twist yourself into knots envisioning scenarios where Zimmerman isn’t lying, go for it. But the evidence speaks for itself for anyone who isn’t a pathetic apologist for this guy. Maybe the owner has Alzheimer’s… maybe someone cloned his phone and texted Zimmerman…
I’ll be the first to retract my claim.
I would say he didn’t lie to the police in this case, and that he wasn’t doing anything legally wrong. I still think even agreeing to such a thing, given his past, is the wrong thing to do.
Seriously? He’s lying in wait for burglars to break into a gun store… again.
The man is sick. He had to draw his gun and kill a teenager because he followed the kid around at night trying to prevent crime, and it all went shitty. Now he’s choosing to try and catch an armed* burglar by waiting around at night for him.
It’s not even his job, he’s just doing it for fun.
*Ok, I don’t KNOW that the burglar would be armed, but he did rob a gun store recently, so it’s a reasonable conclusion.
You don’t really expect anyone outside of a court of law to base their personal judgements only on evidence offered during a trial, disregarding all other sources of knowledge regarding the events. Do ya? It just suits your purposes here to pretend they’re the only relevant facts.
Martin fought Zimmerman, Zimmerman shot Martin. It strains credulity* that Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation whatsoever. And those of us who aren’t insufferably picayune understand which acts on Zimmerman’s part would have been more likely** to have excited Martin to belligerence. As ‘walking while carrying concealed’ is clearly not one of those acts, it requires no charity to interpret Robot Arm’s assertion less literally than it was expressed.
*“strains credulity” meaning only an extraterrestrial unfamiliar with human behavior (or a totally human idiot) would believe the unarmed teenager coming home at night, in the rain, from the store, with a drink and candies in his hand and a girlfriend on the other end of his cell phone would choose to attack a larger adult he didn’t know just for walking close to him.
** “likely” meaning we cannot have absolute certainty but can look at the context and employ Occam’s razor. Brandishment by Zimmerman of his piece is high on the short list of reasonable hypothetical entities.
It doesn’t amaze me that he’s still acting out his dangerous hero fantasies.
It also doesn’t amaze me that there are people out there calling him good, when they really should be calling him a pathologically lying ticking time bomb of violence.
Not sure why this amazes you. Do you read the news? Florida seems to attract (or produce) a disproportionate number of complete fucking lunatics and nutbars. If there’s some wacky news story about some in-bred idiot doing some completely retarded thing, you should always bet on Florida being the location.
Zimmerman is just happy to remain among his own people.
I suspect the provocation was that Zimmerman insulting accused Martin of being a thief – there was some provocation, but not sufficient provocation to justify a physical attack.
That’s speculation, of course, which I offer because you asked what i really think. But just because we’re outside a court of law doesn’t give you license to start making things up for which there is no evidence.
No, it’s not. There is not one incident in his past of brandishing a firearm. There’s not even anything close to reasonable hypothetical assumption here.
No – you get an e-mail from your boss saying that the VP has asked you to take care of a project, you don’t lie if you repeat that statement. Even if it turns out that your boss, and not the VP, was the instigator.
A question that arises for you, because in your mind, all decent folk should shun Zimmerman.
But think it through for a moment: it’s beyond cavil that Zimmerman WAS there, in the middle of the night, for free. Se when you ask in tones of incredulity why anyone would do that, it’s clear your disbelief isn’t reflective of reality. It happened.
OK. Then let’s see what a couple of weeks do to this story.
A normal person would avoid placing themselves intentionally into a situation that so closely resembled a previous circumstance that ended badly. If I had killed an unarmed person (regardless of whether I may have thought them armed at the time of the event) because I insisted on playing amateur Barney Fife, then I tend to think I would be reluctant to put myself in those circumstances again.
To actively seek out that scenario, IMHO, deviates from rational thought. Thus why some of us here seem to think he is a dangerous nutjob with vigilante tendencies, in addition to poor judgement.
Perhaps the disconnect here is vocabulary. I agreed with this statement:
I’m comfortable saying Zimmerman’s judgment is horrible, and the world would be better off if he stayed in his apartment and sat on his hands rather than attempt to protect anybody or anything else.
And now you suggest that the following is impliedly true:
I still think even agreeing to such a thing, given his past, is the wrong thing to do.
“Wrong” implies a moral or legal fault.
For example, I’d agree with this statement: I still think even agreeing to such a thing, given his past, is not the best thing to do.
See the difference? I agree his judgement is poor, and I agree his best course of action is to avoid future entanglements. But it’s not thereby WRONG for him to not follow that course. It’s jusst not the best course.
He’s a dangerous nutjob precisely because he has poor judgment. Fantasy becomes reality to him when he’s on the prowl. He misplaces the truth like people misplace their keys. You add an aggressive disposition to this plus a hero obsession, and you have a menace.
Perhaps it’s wrong for me to be surprised he’s still in Florida. But with him free and walking the streets, it’s crazy for anyone else to be there. You really gotta wonder what kind of stupid someone has to be to give Zimmerman a gun.
If nothing else, if I keep burning my pancakes, everyone’s right to tell me I’m doing it wrong. Whether or not they’re making a moral judgement, I don’t know, I doubt I’ve ever made a moral pancake in my life.
George Zimmerman has had so many run-ins with the police at this point that I’m 100% comfortable saying that he’s doing it wrong, where “it” is whatever dumbass manner that dude chooses to live his life. It doesn’t have to be a moral judgement, that guy just keeps making the wrong call, over and over again.
Oh, is there evidence for the accusation of thievery? I don’t think that’s what Zimmerman testified (ISTR he claims he merely asked what Martin was doing), so on which adduced piece of evidence do you base your supposedly more solid speculation? Or are you making things up for which there is no evidence, but which seem likely to you based on other assumptions? -Which is OK with me if you provide the supporting arguments.
For the record, a verbal confrontation by Zimmerman is also on the short list of what seem to me to be reasonable assumptions. But I also assume the confrontation went beyond accusation into some form of intimidation by Zimmerman in order to have elicited the physical response from Martin.
“[Not] one incident” is an assumption based on, I assume, lack of any adduced evidence in the murder trial of such an incident? Because there are certainly subsequent police reports of allegations that he’s made threats toward, has destroyed the property of and has otherwise attempted to intimidate his ex wife and father in law. So the hypothesis that he showed his weapon in order to intimidate Trayvon Martin is in fact supported by that evidence*.* Even if we assume Zimmerman’s behavior is more extreme post-killing, and even noting that the allegations by Mrs. Zimmerman and her father remain unproven (although corroborated by at least one witness), I dispute your assessment of whether it’s reasonable to believe Zimmerman probably flashed his weapon.
“Followed by a man with a gun.”
“Stalked by a man with a gun.”
Is there any indication that Martin knew at all that Zimmerman was armed? We cannot take Zimmerman’s gun into account as influencing Martin’s actions if Martin did not know it was present.