I'm so goddamn happy George has no life to live. Very few people will be comfortable employing him. He surely can't go out to a restaurant with his lying wife, hell he can't even walk down a street. Communities won't want him living in their 'hood. HaHaFuckingHa.

(07-18-2013, 10:41 AM)Duchess Wrote:

I'm so goddamn happy George has no life to live.

I've heard he's been offered $2M for a book deal.

I've been told Peru is nice this time of year.

(07-18-2013, 10:21 AM)ramseycat Wrote: You have a point Six. T should have just asked G what he wanted instead of running. I don't believe G ever intended to kill T and I really don't believe he went through any "check list." We will never know the whole truth. Only G's truth as he sees it. The bottom line is he had a fair trial and was acquitted. We have to accept that and move on.

Exactly.
No one gets to a particular point in a vacuum. Both T and Z IMHO made a Long string of bad decisions. I don't think T was scared, he had no reason to be, Z hadn't made any threatening moves, at least not that I have heard, he profiled Z same way Z did him, made a decision on that and ran.
OK, good enough, he should have run all the way. H didn't, he went to ground. OK, good enough, its a good evasion tactic. Then it goes off the rails and he apparently confronts Z, or Z finds him and Z confronts T.
Bad decisions often hurt, pain is a good teacher.
T paid a high price, Z paid a pretty good one too. The state of Fl MIGHT learn something and fix the law, I don't think its way broken, but it definitely needs a tweak or two. Then again, its Florida, they are not famous for learning and making good decisions.

(07-18-2013, 10:45 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(07-18-2013, 10:41 AM)Duchess Wrote:

I'm so goddamn happy George has no life to live.

I've heard he's been offered $2M for a book deal.

I've been told Peru is nice this time of year.

It'll be interesting to see if Zimmerman seeks immunity under SYG soon.

If he does and it's granted, my understanding is that he would be immune from being charged for wrongful death in a civil suit.

Without that immunity, if he loses such a civil suit, initial profits from book sales would likely be earmarked for the Martin family until the judgment amount was paid off.

I suspect Zimmerman and O'Mara are contemplating next moves; curious as to where they're headed.

(07-18-2013, 10:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I disagree that only "thugs" run when being followed by strangers in the dark. It makes no sense. People run to avoid "thugs" and strangers who could be thugs, pervs...following them in the dark too.

True enough

I don't think people should be able to sue other people for wrongful death after a person has been acquitted. It's a second bite at the apple and the motive is rarely justice.

(07-18-2013, 10:58 AM)ramseycat Wrote: I don't think people should be able to sue other people for wrongful death after a person has been acquitted. It's a second bite at the apple and the motive is rarely justice.

Civil court has nothing to with justice.

It's all about money.

(07-18-2013, 10:58 AM)ramseycat Wrote: I don't think people should be able to sue other people for wrongful death after a person has been acquitted. It's a second bite at the apple and the motive is rarely justice.

You've lost me altogether this morning.

First, you think teens should confront adult strangers who are stealthily following them in the dark rather than trying to get away.

Now, you think that families should be forbidden from exercising their litigation rights as private citizens if the prosecution loses its criminal case? Why?

You think the Goldmans and the Browns should have been prevented from suing OJ Simpson for wrongful death, thereby strangle-holding him from profiting off the deaths of their loved ones?

(07-18-2013, 11:01 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(07-18-2013, 10:58 AM)ramseycat Wrote: I don't think people should be able to sue other people for wrongful death after a person has been acquitted. It's a second bite at the apple and the motive is rarely justice.

Civil court has nothing to with justice.

It's all about money.

Exactly my point.

If someone killed a loved one of mine you can bet your ass I'd want to see them pay in whatever manner I could. I wouldn't hesitate to sue someone.

(07-18-2013, 11:13 AM)Duchess Wrote:
I wouldn't hesitate to sue someone.

I'd retain a Jew in a heartbeat.

(07-18-2013, 11:05 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(07-18-2013, 10:58 AM)ramseycat Wrote: I don't think people should be able to sue other people for wrongful death after a person has been acquitted. It's a second bite at the apple and the motive is rarely justice.

You've lost me altogether this morning.

First, you think teens should confront adult strangers who are stealthily following them in the dark rather than trying to get away.

Now, you think that families should be forbidden from exercising their litigation rights as private citizens if the prosecution loses its criminal case? Why?

You think the Goldmans and the Browns should have been prevented from suing OJ Simpson for wrongful death, thereby strangle-holding him from profiting off the deaths of their loved ones?

I don't necessarily think teens should confront adults. My point was maybe if T said hey what do you want things might have ended differently. I do place the blame for T's death on G.

I do not think any person should be able to profit from someone death or a crime. I am just so disgusted by our sue happy society.

(07-17-2013, 06:33 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I never questioned George's fear in those few moments. I knew for a long time he was a pussy who was probably scared of his own shadow. That's why I always said his gun gave him balls & confidence.
After listening to the juror I was so surprised to discover that all the things that meant something to me weren't even a consideration for her. Not one damn thing.

Yes, a gun in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing. Years ago, I knew a guy who was 5'-8" tall, weighed in around "98" pounds, and he carried a gun in an ankle holster.

That gun made him feel 10 feet tall in his mind. After a few drinks at the clubs, many times he got a chip on his shoulder. So sometimes he just was looking for trouble, and picked on guys twice his size because of that gun.

Eventually, as fate would have it, some guy at the club was as drunk as he was, and they started going at it. Well the gun toting guy pulled his gun and fired it at the ceiling. Needless to say the police came, and he got arrested. After that incident, I decided it would be in my best interest to not associate with him anymore. He was only an acquaintance anyway, not really a friend.

(07-18-2013, 11:28 AM)ramseycat Wrote: I do not think any person should be able to profit from someone death or a crime.

Dear Met Life:

Please keep the life insurance proceeds to which I have been named as beneficiary.

Profiting off someone's death is abhorrent, to me.

Thank you,

Snoopy

The esteemed Jose Baez told USA Today that Zimmerman's best bet for income is a book deal, and appearances at gun shows and events advocating second amendment rights. He believes that organizers would pay Zimmerman top dollar to speak.

I know that Six, F.U., Mags, Cars, FAHQTOO and a couple of others here own guns and support second amendment rights and concealed-carry, also some aspects of SYG laws. I completely understand.

But, I can't imagine that just because someone exercised their second amendment rights and concealed carry privileges that gun owners would embrace George Zimmerman and be clamoring to hear him speak. Most gun owners here, IMO, aren't self-proclaimed pussies who wouldn't have identified themselves as NW or fought back before shooting a teen, no matter what led to the altercation.

Then again, I didn't believe much of anything Jose Baez espoused in the past and at least 12 others did. So...

Just curious. Would any gun owners here feel proud to have George Zimmerman as a spokesperson or make an effort to attend an event because George Zimmerman would be speaking?

(07-18-2013, 11:57 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(07-18-2013, 11:28 AM)ramseycat Wrote: I do not think any person should be able to profit from someone death or a crime.

Dear Met Life:

Please keep the life insurance proceeds to which I have been named as beneficiary.

Profiting off someone's death is abhorrent, to me.

Thank you,

Snoopy

Totally different than profiting from a book or law suit.

(07-18-2013, 12:06 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The esteemed Jose Baez told USA Today that Zimmerman's best bet for income is a book deal, and appearances at gun shows and events advocating second amendment rights. He believes that organizers would pay Zimmerman top dollar to speak.

I know that Six, F.U., Mags, Cars, FAHQTOO and a couple of others here own guns and support second amendment rights and concealed-carry, also some aspects of SYG laws. I completely understand.

But, I can't imagine that just because someone exercised their second amendment rights and concealed carry privileges that gun owners would embrace George Zimmerman and be clamoring to hear him speak. Most gun owners here, IMO, aren't self-proclaimed pussies who wouldn't have identified themselves as NW or fought back before shooting a teen, no matter what led to the altercation.

Then again, I didn't believe much of anything Jose Baez espoused in the past and at least 12 others did. So...

Just curious. Would any gun owners here feel proud to have George Zimmerman as a spokesperson or make an effort to attend an event because George Zimmerman would be speaking?

You may be correct in what Z has to look forward to for income, I have no idea. I can say that IF he is at any of the gun shows I attend you will Not see me in line to get his autograph or hear anything he has to say. I won't be shaking his hand, reading his book or even watching his story on Lifetime.
I think he is a fucking Moron and has come too close to costing me some of my hard earned rights. He does not now nor will he ever speak for me.

(07-18-2013, 12:06 PM)ramseycat Wrote: Totally different than profiting from a book or law suit.

Nonetheless . . . it's still profiting.

There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. — the Reverend Jesse Jackson, as quoted in US News, 3/10/96

(07-18-2013, 12:15 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: You may be correct in what Z has to look forward to for income, I have no idea. I can say that IF he is at any of the gun shows I attend you will Not see me in line to get his autograph or hear anything he has to say. I won't be shaking his hand, reading his book or even watching his story on Lifetime.
I think he is a fucking Moron and has come too close to costing me some of my hard earned rights. He does not now nor will he ever speak for me.

Thanks, Six.

Even though I'm not a gun owner, I support second amendment rights, concealed carry, and the portion of SYG laws that apply to defense against strangers in one's own home (basically, the Castle Doctrine).

I don't by any means consider George Zimmerman's actions an example of why I support those rights, privileges, and laws either. Nor do George Zimmerman's actions reflect upon the gun owners that I know personally or virtually.