Hey Everybody! ZIMMY'S BACK!

[Jackmannii]

** Hey Everybody! ZIMMY’S BACK!**

Holy crap - when I saw this, I thought it meant that Don Zimmer had returned from the dead, lurching out of the dugout as a crazed zombie during a benches-clearing brawl.

Very scary image. I’m glad it’s just George Zimmermann.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Bricker

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.

How’s that fighting ignorance thing going? Anything like spitting in the ocean?

[Morgenstern]

@VinylTurnip

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.

Exactly. I’m betting there’s a whole lot more to the story than we know.

What we’ve seen post-acquittal is indicative of a bully with a gun. There’s no reason to believe that behavior is recent on his part.

[Bricker]

@xenophon41

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.

Assface can’t read. Ignorance gains.

[kaylasdad99]

@xenophon41

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.

The word “sanctimonious” may have been more auspicious here.

It’s true that he does tend to be parsimonious in the conclusions he’s prepared to reach wrt the subjects of some of the righteous outrage Dopers are wont to distribute in threads such as this. OTOH, the general tone of your sentence appears to object to the fact that he can be sanctimonious towards Dopers whom he considers to be insufficiently parsimonious in their own conclusions.

[Bricker]

@kaylasdad99

The word “sanctimonious” may have been more auspicious here.

It’s true that he does tend to be parsimonious in the conclusions he’s prepared to reach wrt the subjects of some of the righteous outrage Dopers are wont to distribute in threads such as this. OTOH, the general tone of your sentence appears to object to the fact that he can be sanctimonious towards Dopers whom he considers to be insufficiently parsimonious in their own conclusions.

In fairness, my prior post in this very thread might fairly be described as parsimonious, at least with respect to strict word count.

[kaylasdad99]

Indeed.

[Human_Action]

@you_with_the_face

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.)

In the specific case of when, during the encounter, the shot was fired, it is evidence of restraint, given that it followed about 40 seconds of fighting. It’s not the only possibility, of course.

I don’t characterize all Zimmerman’s actions that night in that way, as I made clear throughout the thread. Any spin I applied is the same I apply in any criminal case I argue about: in a light favorable to the accused, so as to determine whether the burden of reasonable doubt has been met.

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.

I don’t know if he was justified in shooting Martin; I wasn’t there. I repeatedly allowed that he could well be guilty (of manslaughter, at least). All I know is that evidence proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt either didn’t exist or wasn’t presented. Sorry if you’re unable to wrap your head around this concept.

Are you asking this seriously?

Um, yes. I wasn’t posting here during OJ’s second round of criminal prosecution in 2007, nor when his book hit the news in 2006. I could have searched past threads, I opted to ask instead.

[xenophon41]

Re: “parsimonious”-

I grant you it wasn’t the most perfect word choice, but I intended to convey parsimony in terms of observation and analysis. Friend Bricker (the aforementioned mealy-mouthed weasel) is enviably able in his focus on the singular element he finds to be of importance (or to be most useful to his rhetor) in a given subject.

Given that the word seems to have distracted kaylasdad99 at least, I will offer the following substitutions; you may each take your pick or substitute your own (“sanctimony” was good, but a bit overused in contemporary Brickerology):

literal, narrow, restricted, overly fine, pious, fatuous, pharisaical

Or, consider the word picture: Bricker, furiously joining the fray while paradoxically remaining above it, raining deadly legalistic airstrikes targeted precisely nowhere near the central point but reeking of profundity. He is God’s awesome avenging angel of amphiboly.

[BlankSlate]

@Bricker

And he was, because I was right.

You were, and I acknowledged that fairly early on in the Mega-Zimmy thread.

@Bricker

And Zimmerman is a dangerous idiot, because I was right about that too.

You were right, but that came much later. Do you understand that some people find your style frustrating because you don’t express an opinion, but tend to only mention the legalities involved? That thread was in IMHO but you refused, by and large, to express what you thought actually happened the night Trayvon Martin died. Sometimes I think of you as the Brickerbot: aaaaaack statutes aaaaack precedent aaaaack jurisdiction ack ack. Beep Beep, does not compute.

The only gun-control I can get behind would be finding a way to keep guns out of the hands of those with poor self-control and anger issues. Like Zimmerman. If someone could figure out how to accomplish that, they should win the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Bricker]

@BlankSlate

You were, and I acknowledged that fairly early on in the Mega-Zimmy thread.

Yes, you did, but you were not in a unanimous group. To this day, I suspect you with the face would set herself on fire before saying I was right, even when she completely misconstrued and misunderstood key legal concepts.

You were right, but that came much later. Do you understand that some people find your style frustrating because you don’t express an opinion, but tend to only mention the legalities involved? That thread was in IMHO but you refused, by and large, to express what you thought actually happened the night Trayvon Martin died. Sometimes I think of you as the Brickerbot: aaaaaack statutes aaaaack precedent aaaaack jurisdiction ack ack. Beep Beep, does not compute.

This is a board dominated by liberals. Opinion sharing here turns on many people weighing in with a liberal slant, and a cascade of posts that say things like, “A lot of us don’t think that…” as though to draw comfort and solidarity from being part of the group.

I expressed my opinion about the legal issues, because as much as people desperately tried to wish them away, they remained the codified method society has of assessing legal guilt. Zimmerman was and is a dangerous idiot. But the amount of damage one dangerous idiot can do pales beside the damage that would follow an generalized acceptance of the idea that when the accused is unsympathetic the rule of law is weakened or vanished.

[Slithy_Tove]

I’d tend to think that the presumption of innocence and the right to a spirited defense by an attorney of unprejudiced opinion came more out of the liberal currents of history than the conservative.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Slithy_Tove

I’d tend to think that the presumption of innocence and the right to a spirited defense by an attorney of unprejudiced opinion came more out of the liberal currents of history than the conservative.

Yet there is a good argument that both those things were established by nobility in the Magna Carta to protect themselves by accusations from the Crown and has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives in its origin, but is now supported by liberals and looked askance at by conservatives except Scalia.

[Bricker]

@The_Second_Stone

Yet there is a good argument that both those things were established by nobility in the Magna Carta to protect themselves by accusations from the Crown and has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives in its origin, but is now supported by liberals and looked askance at by conservatives except Scalia.

And me. We’re the only two.

[Slithy_Tove]

So that was the liberals who blocked the Obama appointee because he insisted on those things for Mumia Abu-Jamal?

Look, I’m not going to wing-angle this one like you guys. Currently my boss is in jury-empanellment Hell for the trial of 13 Atlanta school administrators accused of fiddling test scores. Bottom line: “Stand Your Ground,” “No Child Left Behind,” etc, make a shitty law, see the shitty results.

[BigT]

@Morgenstern

What we’ve seen post-acquittal is indicative of a bully with a gun. There’s no reason to believe that behavior is recent on his part.

Which is yet another reason this sort of thing is brought up.

I also don’t get why Bricker is so upset. If he didn’t do what people are accusing other Zimmerman defenders of doing, then he’s not the one being insulted. Heck, I wouldn’t have even called him a Zimmerman defender.

At least, not until the Melon thread, where he decided to defend Zimmerman from people thinking he was morally wrong for being a vigilante watchmen. Because whether he was morally wrong was more important than whether he should have done it. We were making fun of him for the wrong thing.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Bricker

And me. We’re the only two.

Well, that’s the Seventh Seal broken. I’m outta here!

[elucidator]

And going where, sinner man?

[The_Second_Stone]

So I run to the Lord, please hide me Lord
Don’t you see me prayin’?
Don’t you see me down here prayin’?

But the Lord said, “Go to the devil”
The Lord said, “Go to the devil”
He said, “Go to the devil”
All along dem day

So I ran to the devil, he was waitin’
I ran to the devil, he was waitin’
Ran to the devil, he was waitin’
All on that day

Read more: Nina Simone - Sinnerman Lyrics | MetroLyrics

[Bricker]

@BigT

I also don’t get why Bricker is so upset. If he didn’t do what people are accusing other Zimmerman defenders of doing, then he’s not the one being insulted.

Well:

@AClockworkMelon

I can’t wait for Bricker and the rest of Zimmerman’s defense team to show up.