Zimmerman’s chief defender: a racist and criminal!

reply to post by IvanAstikov


You told me in another thread that you initiated a confrontation and did a signifocant amount of time for it. It didbt make sense because you claimed to have a house full of supporters and still went away a looong time for a simple fight. Has anyone ever given you the Hare checklist?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

If this investigation was carried out properly, where was Shellie Zimmerman's statement to detectives confirming that George did indeed leave the house when he said he did, and explaining why she wasn't going to Target with him that Sunday, like they usually did, according to Zim's best bud, Osterman? If you are trying to determine if a story is true, aren't you supposed to start right at the beginning of the circumstances leading up to it when you are making your enquiries?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


The reason my sentence was significant is because my previous record for violence was taken into account, as was the fact I'd pleaded not guilty and been found guilty. Judges don't like that. That a jury believed my kicking a downed opponent was excessive, rather than believing it was necessary to prevent a further attack, is just one of those things.

And, no, I haven't taken the Hare test. Do you want to elaborate on your reason for asking?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


So you know for certain that thwy didnt speak to her later? Also it's irrelevant because where he was going honestly. He didn't put Martin out there. If he had been patrolling the neighborhood that night woukd it change anything? That tells me there was no reason to lie. He wouldn't be in anymorw trouble if he said he was on patrol so there is really no reason for him to lie.

As for you.. kicking a man while he's down is excessive. That's why the expression "don't kick 'em while they're down" exists with negative connotation. I won't ask what your past violent acts were. It all does give insight into your perspective.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
So you know for certain that thwy didnt speak to her later? Also it's irrelevant because where he was going honestly. He didn't put Martin out there. If he had been patrolling the neighborhood that night woukd it change anything? That tells me there was no reason to lie. He wouldn't be in anymorw trouble if he said he was on patrol so there is really no reason for him to lie.

If they'd spoken to her in an official capacity, as they should have done, it would be there in the documentation of this case. As for it being irrelevant, it appears it doesn't matter to you what he'd lie about, because you'd still believe he was being truthful about the circumstances that led to him wrestling with Trayvon Martin and then killing him. There was a good reason that he denied being out on patrol that night, and it's because if he'd admitted that, he'd have had to accept he shouldn't have been carrying his firearm.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
As for you.. kicking a man while he's down is excessive. That's why the expression "don't kick 'em while they're down" exists with negative connotation. I won't ask what your past violent acts were. It all does give insight into your perspective.

If they are not down and out, and they are getting back up with an empty beer bottle in their hand, I think it's fair to say that the guy needs a reminder to stay down. I'm sure there's plenty of posters in this thread who'd have already had their gun out at that point, had they been in my situation, and if they didn't shoot their own foot, and actually hit their attacker, they'd be claiming they fired in self defence.

ps. It's cute how you find a kick to the side of the face of a bottle-wielding attacker "excessive," but think a bullet to the chest of an unarmed, pillow fisted, alleged thug-wannabe is fine.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Wrong there is now law that says you can't carry one. It just suggests againsts it . He wouldn't lie about it because there would be no reason for it. He hasbhasbhis gun previously on patrol when he busted a guy that was legit committing a crime and didn't use it. He wasn't afraid to admit carrying then. This is mre nonsense frombyou. You want him to be a liar so bad its a little obssessive.

No one would shoot a man on the ground but I bet if they drew he wouldn't bother getting up. Given the time you and I both know there was more to it. A bottle weilding guy on the ground isn't much of a threat. The guy beating your head against the ground after your on the ground screaming foe help is different. Funny you call him pillow fisted like your own victim was ko'd.

I don't want him to be a liar, he's already proven it when he was interviewed by Hannity. One could equally say your desperation for him to appear truthful and honest about this one thing in particular(his encounter with Trayvon Martin) is just as obsessive, so let's not go there, eh?

No one would shoot a man on the ground but I bet if they drew he wouldn't bother getting up.

But, you're not allowed to draw unless you are going to fire at a target, so don't tell me you'd wait until your weapon-carrying attacker was on his feet and coming at you before you'd start blasting away, and as for not shooting someone on the ground, try telling that to the dead teen in Toronto, shot 6 times while on the ground. And that was by a cop, in front of witnesses. Don't try and make out gun owners have some chivalrous code of honour that I couldn't possibly aspire to.

Funny you call him pillow fisted like your own victim was ko'd.

He was more out of it than Zimmerman was after his savage beating and I only landed 2 blows. If I'd spent 30 seconds sat mounted on his chest while punching him, the guy would have been a bloody red mush on the carpet.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Your still pitching this crap????

Cops investigating this found no evidence of laws broken.
As for why they didn't ask certain people questions is deemed not relevant in many investigations. I did such investigations for several years.

The Jury found no law was broken.

The FBI found no law broken.


He is not guilty. He is free and that is that.

You guys are still arguing over this

The fact of the matter is that the police didn’t seriously investigate this because they were caught in GZ assumption that TM was a criminal.

If TM was a white boy GZ would of, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, BEEN INDICTED AND CONVICTED.

As for the Jury, the clear reason why they were incorrect in their verdict is the simple fact that GZ exaggerated his wounds to justify murdering TM.
That was Cleary in evidence!

THEY COULD HAVE CONVICTED HIM ON THAT ALONE!


CASE CLOSED!

Now go back to sleep

reply to post by Willtell


You are right the case is CLOSED.

It was WON in Zimmermans Favor. That is just a decision that you are Going to Have to Life with the Rest of your life. I hope it causes you to stew and rott.

To the Trayvon Cheerleaders that don't like the Verdict. .. Tough S[SNIP]T ! ! !

It is time to let the F[SNIP]KING Horse Die.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Nevermin I deleted the post because there is no sense. You were wrong and n othing will ever change that. Try to get on with your life .

Sorry for upping this thread. I tried to search for a new thread for this but couldn't find one. Now this man has gone through a personal tragedy and he's taking it all back. If he really thought Zim was such a foul man all along why didn't he say that then? It's sad that it takes a personal tragedy for people to act like human beings...it's always easier to look away when it's happening to someone else.

Here is a direct quote from the link below

""What I know of George and his tendencies and also my opinion is that he racially profiled Trayvon Martin that night because if that had been a white kid on a cell phone, walking through our neighborhood, he wouldn’t have stayed on him the way he did and that’s a fact and I believe that in my heart," said Taaffe."

www.mynews13.com...

More info in the link above.

a reply to: Verse

It makes one wonder if there are not ulterior motives behind this change.

Zimmerman has been having family issues with the wife / ex-wife (not sure how that turned out yet). Its also possible this guy was unable to profit from his proximity to Zimmerman. His position in the neighborhood watch may gave been affected or the guy might simply have had opportunity after opportunity lost by defending Zimmerman.

Is he writing a book or looking for a tv / book deal to dish what he knows / saw?


To clear up one other issue I continue to see argued with this mess. Zimmerman never invoked stand your ground. his defense was base on the standard self defense laws of Florida. I still see people trying to link the stand your ground law to this and one other case.

For this guys sake I hope he did not mislead / omit information about Zimmerman.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for the reply.

Actually all I know is what is in the link and there he says he's not looking for any kind of deal and he's not trying to sell us anything. However he says he's lost 2 sons and a brother since 2012 and that has changed him. (which it would to everybody)
So I don't really think he's that worried about his status in the neighborhood watch or any lost opportunities to make money of his zim-affiliation. He's kind of doing his 12 steps now in my opinion. Writing wrongs.
I do find it interesting that one of Zimmerman's biggest and most vocal supporters comes out and says all this.

From the link...

"But today, Taaffe claims he just wants to clear his conscience, "I can only ask for the country to forgive me and today I believe that he racially profiled him based on the color of his skin. Reporter: Some people may wonder what does Frank Taaffe have to gain by doing this? Are you working on a book? No book. A TV show? No. I’m just working on me right now and getting right with God.”

Taaffe says his brother’s death last month and the death of his two sons over the past two years has changed him.

Taaffe says he has a message for Trayvon Martin’s parents, "I’m sorry that you lost your son, I know what that’s like and I wish things had been different.""

Being the op of this thread I want to say if this man is sincerely repentant of his sins then I want to be the first to invite him back into the human race of truth and righteousness.

I TOLD YOU SO, that this was an unnecessary killing and a crime by Zimmerman, as I returned to ATS with this op, ready and willing to take on all detractors as I did.

Now the chief defender of Zimmerman has come clean.
I hope this is a lesson to many!

a reply to: Willtell

INDEED!

The silence in here has been kind of weird. I upped this thread 2 days ago and again tonight. I mean, if the main defender of zimz is coming clean then what does that really say about the case and his intentions? (zimz that is) If his main buddy is saying he believes in his heart that Z is a racist prick....y'know!!
I guess the most vocal people earlier in the thread don't wanna take this one on! If they do, I expect a lot of "ITS OVER GET OVER IT WHY R U BRINGING THIS UP!!!" type of comments...but they can't do that because it was Zimz main man who brought it up first. We're just the messengers.

EDIT: PS Willtell, thank you for standing your ground in this battle!!

Who cares? Bottom line, physical evidence is king, and it showed that zimmerman was attacked. He had the right to kill his attacker. That was the reason for the not guilty verdict. Self defense.

a reply to: TKDRL

Exactly.
First words are "who cares??" Kind of what I said what would happen. People acting like this doesn't matter anymore.
Exactly now when zimz biggest defender is backtracking...how convenient?
Plus, to say that any person has a right to kill somebody is just so foul. I will never ever understand that. You don't have the right to kill a person ever. If people really believe so then I must say they're sense of reality is warped.
Whatever happened to you guys humanity??

a reply to: Verse
You go ahead and allow others to beat you then, no skin off my back. Won't be me though, that is for sure. You absolutely have the right to kill in defense of yourself, and in defense of your family. My humanity is more interested in my own life, and my family's lives.

a reply to: TKDRL

I'm in Iceland though. I DON'T have that right over here. Hence I will never understand it. Truth be told, not saying it's you but i've seen some foul comments on this board regarding this case...and just regarding having a right to kill ppl overall. Like the case the other day with the burglars who got murdered assassin style by some old bored dude who had nothing better to do. It was kind of sickening how people on here were cheering him on like they were living vicariously through him. I just think we shouldn't be cheering for something as disgusting as killing other ppl..it's almost like some of the commenters in here wanted to get robbed just to have an excuse for murder.
I mean, don't get me wrong...I will fight back and all. But when I'm a well trained 30 yrs old boxer with a gun in my hand vs. a 18 yrs old guy that's laying cold on the ground I will never shoot him..zimz took the cowards way out. Even his best buddy is saying he was wrong now. I guess people have just invested so much time in this argument they will never ever believe what's what, even if zimz himself came out and said it...they'd just say "ohh he's just selling a book"

a reply to: Verse
Regular people are just really sick and tired of it all I think. I am sure the MSM has a little something to do with it, 99% of the news is the bad news. Always people being mugged, raped, murdered, home invasions etc.

Bottom line though, someone breaks into my house they are in all probability gonna be shot and killed. I am not a gambling man, and I won't gamble with my family's life. I am not willing to bet the criminal trespasser is going to be a really swell guy with great intentions for us. Since I cannot carry a gun here, I carry a nice knife. If someone attacks me I will probably use it. I will probably feel bad about it, but hey, had they not attacked me it wouldn't have happened. They set the ball in motion with their harmful intent. If I could carry a gun, it would be the same deal.