Good Old Neon

Is the General Political Thread the appropriate place to post this, or do we need to create a separate George Zimmerman thread?

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-arrested-20131118,0,1837318.story

 

If he needs a new lawyer, I think there are at least one or two people who posted in this thread before who have done an excellent job defending Georgie-boy in the past. Thank God this freaking clown is off the streets for the time being. Serial wife/girlfriend beater, murderer, all around thug. Floridians will sleep a little better tonight, I think.

Come on man, cut the dude a break - he's only been arrested and/or investigated like, 17 times now. I mean, who hasn't?

I think Hixter would take his case.

Poor George just can't catch a break.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/31/george_zimmerman_allegedly_threatened_his_estranged_wife_with_a_shot_up_bullseye/

I'm unable to see the future, but you can rest assured that our allies are nervous and our adversaries are emboldened. It wouldn't surprise me to see Iran and/or North Korea test the waters in the near future. I would mention China, too, but they've already been doing plenty of water-testing off of Japan in recent months.

 

I think you'll find the the U.S. intervenes militarily in only the tiniest fraction of skirmishes around the world. Like it or not, we're in a unique position of being able to project military might across the planet and much of the world expects us to do so. Some parts of the world -- such as the middle east -- are too important to ignore. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there are nations out there who would immediately fill the vacuum left by a U.S. contraction and the result wouldn't be pretty. We have allies in those regions and we need to live up to our promises to defend them.

 

That's not how international relations work (thank God.); think of it as a chess match. That reminds me of something I read the other day: Obama and Kerry are fumbling through a game of checkers while Putin is playing three-dimensional chess. Heh.

 

And it's gotten even worse over the last few months and years. Our favorable rating in Germany is now the same as in Russia. We should not be scaring our allies away.

 

They are not scrambling to negotiate, they are thumbing their noses at us. Syria proudly boasts that they aren't buckling under pressure, but rather following the Russians' lead. We look foolish on the world stage. Any diplomat whose name isn't 'Kerry' would agree.

I'm not a fan of political comedy ... if that's what it was.

It's almost funny the way you portray the US as some sort of victim here. We've pretty much bullied our way through the previous and current century, yet at the same time, we're weak and afraid to act unilaterally - our reputation and the resulting fallout be damned. The decision to bomb or not to bomb Syria has already been made, the rest is political theater.

In a nutshell, loss of respect by most of the world, loss of confidence by our allies and an increased sense of confidence by our adversaries. It will have actual, real-world consequences in the long term.

 

 

The world's opinion of the US (which, has always been low) took a nosedive following our adventure in Iraq, Guantanamo, the use of torture - etc. Our reputation was in the shitter long before Syria became an issue. 

The time to do something was 2 years ago. An "incredibly small" military response at this point would be a waste of time and money.

 

For what it's worth, we haven't killed hundreds of thousands of people in our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. You'll find that deaths at the hands of coalition forces are dwarfed by those killed in sectarian fighting.

That depends on who you ask. Some organizations put it in the hundreds of thousands - our own government figures are much lower, but then, we don't really try too hard to keep an accurate count. There's also a fairly large gray area where sectarian violence is concerned, as, once you invade and occupy a country, you assume responsibility for security.

"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted in "Plan of Attack" as cautioning President George Bush before the war that he would "own" Iraq and all its problems, after military victory. "Privately," wrote Bob Woodward, "Powell and Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it."

Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/arts/17iht-saf18.html?_r=0

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/12/2611711/george-zimmermans-local-police-chief-fears-sandy-hook-waiting-happen/

Excerpt:
 

Police Chief Steve Bracknell, who is responsible for the Florida town where George Zimmerman resides, agreed in a series of emails that Zimmerman is a “ticking time bomb” and another “Sandy Hook” waiting to happen.

Bracknell expressed his views in response to two emails from Santiago Rodriguez, who reached Bracknell through a contact form on the police department’s website. Bracknell confirmed the emails’ authenticity to ThinkProgress and subsequently tried to distance himself from the remarks.

Rodriguez’s first email was an extended, and sometimes angry, critique of how the Lake Mary Police Department handled their response to the recent altercation between George Zimmerman, his wife and his father in law. Rodriguez told Bracknell that he had a responsibility to charge Zimmerman because he was another “Sandy Hook… waiting to happen.” Bracknell responded with a detailed defense of the police department’s conduct, but explicitly endorsed Rodriguez’s comments on Sandy Hook.

It is also common for people to make false claims in order to 'punish' their partner by having them arrested under zero-tolerance domestic violence laws. My mother volunteered at a women's shelter for many years and she heard plenty of stories from the residents. She once overheard a woman telling a new resident, "Just slap yourself on the arm with the handle of a wooden spoon four times and it'll look like he grabbed/slapped you and the cops will have to take him to jail."

 

 

It's also common for a victim of domestic abuse to recant their story out of fear, and a habitual need to try to make things better to avoid further violence.

Ok - but you also seem to have a clairvoyants' ability to read his intentions. 

"Assuming he was carrying a concealed weapon properly and legally, his firearm would not have been brandished or displayed if he wasn't in a life-threatening situation."

Considering his increasingly violent past and present behavior, I'm a lot less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. For a "law abiding citizen", he certainly finds himself in handcuffs quite often.

Assuming he was carrying a concealed weapon properly and legally, his firearm would not have been brandished or displayed if he wasn't in a life-threatening situation. That would make both the attorney's statement and the police department's statement accurate and truthful.

Are you George Zimmerman?

Gun or no gun, hopefully, the next time Zimmerman feels the urge to point a gun at someone, he points it at his own map.

I'm just worried about how this might be affecting the Kardashians.

What the world, or more specifically, Detroit, needs, is a half dozen or so more George Zimmermans to wash away the scum and stuff. 

http://www.upworthy.com/its-rare-that-the-daily-show-slips-out-of-satire-and-into-anger-this-is-one-of-those-times

Why are some people calling Zimmerman a racist?

http://politicalblindspot.org/george-zimmermans-old-myspace-surfaces-full-of-racist-statements-and-admissions-of-criminal-activity/

But Hixter is. And at least one other person: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ted-nugent-george-zimmerm-sue-trayvon-martins-parents_n_3613163.html

Racist attention whore.

I might react the same way if I knew my adversary was armed - a fact Martin knew at some point prior to or during the altercation. Zimmerman didn't shoot to maim - he shot to kill. The very act of Zimmerman reaching for his gun could have fueled Martin's actions.

Zimmerman's history includes an assault on a police officer, domestic violence and possible child molestation. For some reason, I'm not as willing to continually give him the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't followed any of the trial, so I don't know what other evidence is out there. But after just reading the transcript of the 911 call, I don't see how you can come to your conclusion. After the dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman says "OK" and then starts making arrangements with the dispatcher where the police can meet him.

 

Was there testimony that he was still following him at that point? Because on the transcript he even says, "I don't know where this kid is."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-timeline

And what happened after that? He made arrangements to walk back to his truck and meet the police. That's when Martin surprised him and began beating him.

 

Nope. Not at all.

According to Zimmerman - who, has a criminal past - both counts of which are related to violence against another person.

As far as "Nope. Not at all." Once again, you're ignoring what is being laid clearly at your feet, and willfully ignoring it. Tell me, how often do police dispatchers tell bystanders to get involved and pursue a suspected suspect? I'll answer the question for you -  never.

 

Simply untrue. The transcript does not say any such thing.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.

In another version of events.

Wife: Are you stopping to pick up a pizza?

Me: Yeah.

Wife: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.

Me: Ok, I’ll head home – love you.

We can play symantics and word games all day, and yet, and the end of the day, it's clear Zimmerman was basically told to back off - but didn't.

Martin's not allowed to "Stand His Ground" in the face of a threatening stranger?

No, apparently.

I guess I'll just have to assume you're not familiar with all the cases in which teenagers, returning from convenience stores have lured grown men out of their cars with the promise of scrumptious Skittles, and then attempted to abduct and/or murder them. So, as you can clearly see, it was obviously Zimmerman, and not Martin who should have been terrified.

And George Zimmerman was also walking down the street. Legally. No crime was committed that night until Trayvon Martin began beating Zimmerman and threatening to kill him.

And yet, in the 911 transcript, he's actively pursing Martin for walking down the street - after being instructed otherwise.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Tonight on Street Justice, another negro dares to be a negro in public.

According to Zimmerman. Putting aside the fact the Martin was simply walking down the street, which, is, I think, still legal - even in Florida.

I'm not sure, at 17 (or 42) how I would react if a stranger were to get out of his car and approach me, asking questions I was under no obligation to answer. Martin spontaneously screaming - "you're going to die tonight", and then jumping on Zimmerman sounds a bit far fetched - without some form of provocation.

While growing up, I, along with many of my friends, found myself on both sides of an asskicking - strangely enough - I/we never felt the need to shoot our adversary in the chest. Or, as we used to say, don't let your mouth/behavior write a check your ass can't cash.

Consider it profiling - only in this instance, I have tangible evidence to support my suspicions, unlike Zimmerman.

Zimmerman stays in car - this never happens. Period. What could Martin have done differently?