You know what scares me.
Not Cujo
Not Dracula
Not Frankenstein
Not Damien
Not Chucky
Not Zombies
Not Freddy Krueger
What scares me is they let that prick Zimmerman carry a gun.
Yes. He seems to think he’s the baddest motherfucker in the valley, and sooner or later he’s going to find out he isn’t all that.
You found his lies to be credible. That alone makes you a fool. Sorry these updates make you wince uncomfortably. To everyone else, they merely confirm what we already know and thus, are a reminder that our frontal lobes served us well the day they led us to conclude Zimmerman was the murdering type.
Normal, non-dangerous people don’t have brushes with the law every other quarter. Peaceful, healthy types don’t stalk people and lie in wait with weapons, and they don’t threaten strangers with murder because of a traffic issue. And guys who deserve the benefit of the doubt don’t exit their trucks to chase after frightened pedestrians in the dark of the night and shoot them as they scream for help at the top of lungs.
I just don’t understand this situation. How can the American society in which you and I grew up allow this man to commit the acts he does, egregiouy and regularly, without intervening into this madness and decisively…
…getting this guy’s life onto a reality TV show
That is all.
You had lieu in your pants?
I don’t include Bricker in that group. In his usual fashion, he argued that under Florida law Zimmerman would be acquitted. Several times, though, he posted his doubts about Zimmerman’s character and his truthfulness about his actions on the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
Well, you’ve just ruined a fine Van Camp product for me. You happy with yourself?
Because he couldn’t be legally held responsible for his bad actions before, it’s cathartic to find out about other consequences. The same sort of threads were started about bad things happening to O.J. Simpson, and probably would be for that woman who almost certainly drowned her toddler child (whose name escapes me).
And he was, because I was right.
And Zimmerman is a dangerous idiot, because I was right about that too.
(Well, technically, that second thing is not “because.”)
The SDMB denizens seem to have a mental rule that if a public figure is reprehensible, it can’t be acceptable to defend that figure, even if the attacks against the figure are inaccurate and the “defense” is pointing out that the attacks are factually baseless.
And, you know, because fighting ignorance.
I don’t know who those assholes are. I just know there was a lot of confident speculation that Trayvon Martin was a natural born thug who attacked, without provocation, an innocent man doing nothing but exercising his legal rights, and that each new public dust-up Georgie finds himself in makes all the more unlikely the contention that Martin was the sole aggressor that night.
Clearly, I just don’t get it. Carry on, then.
I wouldn’t call Dylan a good person either, for that matter.
Always the high road with you, eh?
I don’t recall even writing that Zimmerman was “normal”, “non-dangerous”, “peaceful”, etc, nor did I defend his character. I wrote that, with the evidence available, and Florida law being what it is, he couldn’t be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing he does later can or will change that. Feel free to conclude that Zimmerman is “the murdering type”, but that’s not how our system of justice operates.
Did the O.J. threads follow the same trajectory, of the original case being rehashed ad nauseum?
No, they’ll claim that it was all a hoax done with crisis actors, like Sandy Hook and Aurora and Boston, and that nobody really died.
In other words, they’ll call it a false frag.
So who is he, that’s so special? Does he think the jury give him a License-to-Kill ?
You saw this confident speculation from me, didja?
Because what I remember talking about is the legal context of the facts: that from the point of view of a trial, Zimmerman’s innocence of the charges of second degree murder and manslaughter was a reasonably clear conclusion, given the state’s requirement to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I certainly never called Martin a “natural born,” or indeed any other kind of thug.
In the same vein – the legal, evidentiary vein – I sharply criticized the efforts of other commentators here to infer anything from reports about Martin possessing supposedly stolen items, since Martin’s guilt of anything was not established.
Isn’t that what you recall?
No.
Is that all you wrote, really? A quick search will show you opining over and again, matter of factly, that Zimmerman’s actions were those of a man who showed restraint. Here is but one example of you saying such a ludicrous thing (and this example was pretty short and mild; I’m using it because in only a few words, it shows how you tended to spin the evidence so it would reflect positively on his character and intent.)
The reason you don’t “get” these threads is because you want to go on believing he was justified in killing an innocent teenager. Whenever Zimmerman reveals himself to be an aggressive idiot with one too many guns still in possession, it threatens what you want to believe about him. We know this. You know this. I would feel uncomfortable if I were you too.
Are you asking this seriously?
I don’t care how Bricker behaved in threads that were made when Zimmerman was on trial. Take threads like this one where he and the rest of Zimmerman’s council come in to pointlessly remind us that he hasn’t been convicted of a crime. It’s interesting just how vested they are in making sure we know that.
I seem to remember some of the relevant denizens being berated by you for judging Zimmerman as wrong in any way for undertaking legal activities. You objected to this moral evaluation not by discrediting any facts those denizens had presented, but by presenting your opinion that although Zimmerman’s actions have been unwise and perhaps less than optimal in their intended effect, it is unacceptable to characterize them as “wrong” in any legal or moral sense.
So in the name of longstanding SDMB poster Bricker from August 2014 I rebuke you sir, for implying in the quoted post above from September 2014 that George Zimmerman is somehow “reprehensible” for his thoroughly legal activities. (Why, next you’ll probably assert he’s been putting bananas in his cereal.)
Seriously, you mealy-mouthed little weasel, if you jump into the mud pit in post after parsimonious post (within thread after acrimonious thread) to protect a repugnant thug from the slings and arrows of public disdain, you don’t get to emerge acting squeaky clean.
You want to be a crusader for the rights of villains to be villainous within the bounds of statutorily protected behavior? Fine, but you get the same respect and love as any mob affiliated consigliere.
it could be like a rattle snake giving you a notice about what could happen.