George Zimmerman shot

Thanks for the civics lesson, but I'm trying to find out why Skeptic Ginger thinks that Zimmerman is at fault (at least partly).
I can't speak for SG but here is my answer.

Option 1.) Zimmerman was minding his business and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him for no reason.

Option 2.) Zimmerman and Apperson are involved in a road rage incident, it escalates and Apperson shot Zimmerman.

Option 3.) Zimmerman was minding his business and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him out of anger from a previous encounter.

I think the victims of Michael Dunn were partially to blame for escalating the situation. Jordan Davis didn't deserve to die. Given GZ's never ending problems I think Option #2 or #3 are far more likely and in which case Zimmerman, like Jordan Davis, is partialy at fault.
 
Thanks for the civics lesson, but I'm trying to find out why Skeptic Ginger thinks that Zimmerman is at fault (at least partly).
So the concept was too gray for you then. If I think Apperson was probably a jerk I must not be able to also think GZ was probably a jerk.

:rolleyes:
 
Okay, let me be clear. There is a link to an alleged arrest report. That report has hidden white text which incriminates the shooter. Is the entirety of that report for real or not? Again, have you ever seen an online police report with hidden white text? Your answer should be yes or no.

I do not know if it's for real or not. I suspect that it is, but I don't have high confidence in that belief. The answer to your other question is "no."
 
Okay, let me be clear. There is a link to an alleged arrest report. That report has hidden white text which incriminates the shooter. Is the entirety of that report for real or not? Again, have you ever seen an online police report with hidden white text? Your answer should be yes or no.
I'm confused, are you saying that police reports are never redacted?

If not then are you familiar with the recent history of redacting PDF files?

The PDF redaction problem

PDF Redacting Failure

How to properly redact PDF files

How to Redact a PDF File (Hide Sensitive Information)

Forgive me but perhaps I just don't understand the problem you are getting at.
 
I can't speak for SG but here is my answer.

Option 1.) Zimmerman was minding his business and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him for no reason.

Option 2.) Zimmerman and Apperson are involved in a road rage incident, it escalates and Apperson shot Zimmerman.

Option 3.) Zimmerman was minding his business and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him out of anger from a previous encounter.

I think the victims of Michael Dunn were partially to blame for escalating the situation. Jordan Davis didn't deserve to die. Given GZ's never ending problems I think Option #2 or #3 are far more likely and in which case Zimmerman, like Jordan Davis, is partialy at fault.
I think option 2 is most likely.

We can already rule out option 1 because we know Apperson had a reason whether we think it was legit or not.

What I don't understand about sunmaster14's logic is why not giving a rip about GZ means I'm rooting for Apperson. It's possible to not give a rip about either of them. It's possible to be glad seeing GZ getting a taste of his own medicine without rooting for him to get it.

The world is complex like that, sunmaster14.
 
I can't speak for SG but here is my answer.

Option 1.) Zimmerman was minding his business and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him for no reason.

Option 2.) Zimmerman and Apperson are involved in a road rage incident, it escalates and Apperson shot Zimmerman.

Option 3.) Zimmerman was minding his business and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him out of anger from a previous encounter.

I think the victims of Michael Dunn were partially to blame for escalating the situation. Jordan Davis didn't deserve to die. Given GZ's never ending problems I think Option #2 or #3 are far more likely and in which case Zimmerman, like Jordan Davis, is partialy at fault.

I think it's between Options 1 and 2, but closer to Option 1. Zimmerman's story, as chronicled in the police report, sounds credible to me. I think the only thing provocative that Zimmerman did was laugh and call Apperson a clown with his driver's side window partially rolled down. Why do I believe Zimmerman and not Apperson? Because Zimmerman's narrative is much more detailed and lengthy, and Apperson's is kind of vague and hand-wavy. Admittedly, this is also something that impressed me about Zimmerman's testimony immediately after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Detail impresses me because it exposes one to risk that there will be inconsistencies in the narrative (which invariably there will be). It displays the kind of confidence which is rare except in people telling the truth.
 
I think option 2 is most likely.

We can already rule out option 1 because we know Apperson had a reason whether we think it was legit or not.

What I don't understand about sunmaster14's logic is why not giving a rip about GZ means I'm rooting for Apperson. It's possible to not give a rip about either of them.

I know that. I don't care much about either one of them myself.

It's possible to be glad seeing GZ getting a taste of his own medicine without rooting for him to get it.

Now that's something new to me. There's something that if it were to happen would make you glad, but you don't actually want it to happen. I'll have to think on that a bit.

The world is complex like that, sunmaster14.

Well, your world is at any rate.
 
I think it's between Options 1 and 2, but closer to Option 1. Zimmerman's story, as chronicled in the police report, sounds credible to me. I think the only thing provocative that Zimmerman did was laugh and call Apperson a clown with his driver's side window partially rolled down. Why do I believe Zimmerman and not Apperson? Because Zimmerman's narrative is much more detailed and lengthy, and Apperson's is kind of vague and hand-wavy. Admittedly, this is also something that impressed me about Zimmerman's testimony immediately after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Detail impresses me because it exposes one to risk that there will be inconsistencies in the narrative (which invariably there will be). It displays the kind of confidence which is rare except in people telling the truth.
That does it for me. Just in case anyone out there doesn't know. People get shot for disputes on the road. I'll be honest. I was young and much dumber than I am now. I used to give people the bird. Race. Cut people off when they cut me off.

I was 16 at the time. When is GZ going to grow up? You think his detail makes him credible. Perhaps. I think his detail paints him out to be a childish buffoon.

That said, I don't agree with you but fine.
 
Wow, the confirmation bias, mind boggling.

Especially since I'm the one who said:

I'll hoist a voka in the air the day George Zimmerman assumes room temperature, and I don't give a **** how it happens, by whom or what label anyone gives me as a result.


I can't speak for SG but here is my answer.

I'd add:

Option 4.) Zimmerman was out looking for overturned cars on fire to rescue victims from while patrolling gun store parking lots and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him out of anger from a previous encounter.

But, Georgie wanted notoriety. He got it.

What I don't understand about sunmaster14's logic is why not giving a rip about GZ means I'm rooting for Apperson. It's possible to not give a rip about either of them. It's possible to be glad seeing GZ getting a taste of his own medicine without rooting for him to get it.

This.
 
Option 4.) Zimmerman was out looking for overturned cars on fire to rescue victims from while patrolling gun store parking lots and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him out of anger from a previous encounter.
Dude, I had just taken a... let's say dose, of medicine when I read that. If we ever get together you owe me a beer for that. Then again, it made my day so perhaps we are even. :D
 
Please. 'I'm not saying I want him shot, I'm just sad he wasn't injured more when he was shot at.'

That's not better. That's still reprehensible and I'm sad so many are defending it. Just acknowledge that it was an ugly, but understandable and human, feeling, try to adjust for it, and move on.
 
Please. 'I'm not saying I want him shot, I'm just sad he wasn't injured more when he was shot at.'

That's not better. That's still reprehensible and I'm sad so many are defending it. Just acknowledge that it was an ugly, but understandable and human, feeling, try to adjust for it, and move on.

Or hell, just admit that they really do hope that somebody shoots Zimmerman, hopefully to death; that every time there's news of another Zimmerman confrontation they wonder if this is the guy that shoots him; that they're disappointed when it isn't; and that they worry that the guy who shoots Zimmerman won't support their head-canon by having a good excuse to shoot him.
 
Or hell, just admit that they really do hope that somebody shoots Zimmerman, hopefully to death; that every time there's news of another Zimmerman confrontation they wonder if this is the guy that shoots him; that they're disappointed when it isn't; and that they worry that the guy who shoots Zimmerman won't support their head-canon by having a good excuse to shoot him.
Exactly, and supporters of the police hope law enforcement kill as many thugs as possible because... oh, hey, I forgot just how fun straw men are.
 
Yes, it is reprehensible. Who made this argument?

Schadenfreude isn't really just a German emotion and the supporters of GZ are not somehow righteous while his detractors are evil who want GZ harmed.

Skeptic Ginger.

This same sentiment comes up in other threads. Usually it's called out.

EDIT: Regarding your edit, yes, that's also reprehensible. And? Surely you're not trying to make some sort of tu quoque? The people who make a hero out of Zimmerman should be called out, and the people who let their hate for him make bad arguments or reprehensible statements should be called out as well.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger.

This same sentiment comes up in other threads. Usually it's called out.

EDIT: Regarding your edit, yes, that's also reprehensible. And? Surely you're not trying to make some sort of tu quoque? The people who make a hero out of Zimmerman should be called out, and the people who let their hate for him make bad arguments or reprehensible statements should be called out as well.
Tu quoque? Fair cop. It was also OT. That's all I can say, except, sorry. I'll do better. Thanks tyr_13
 
Option 4.) Zimmerman was out looking for overturned cars on fire to rescue victims from while patrolling gun store parking lots and Apperson pulled alongside and shot him out of anger from a previous encounter.

or Option 5) Apperson is a nut who is paranoid and has already come to the police's attention for threatening to kill someone he thought was following him (and yet remarkably was still allowed to own guns.) He gets in an altercation with Zimmerman, and then seeing him in the same area fixates on him as a new "Stalker" then seeing him again decides his stalker is back, and confronts him. Zimmerman calls him a clown and drives off, fuelling Apperson's rage causing him to give chase lights flashing. Zimmerman decides to get away and U-Turns causing more anger in Apperson who decides to remove his stalker, follows the U-Turn, drives up beside him, and *bang*.

Nah couldn't be that, because then it would be Zimmerman's fault at all, like the police think (since they are charging with assault with no provocation.) Has to be his fault for doing something. Perhaps he should have gotten out of the car talk to Apperson calmly and ask him why he was following them, then proceeded to beat on the guy if he dared to go for his phone or touch his arm, then it wouldn't have been his fault at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused, are you saying that police reports are never redacted?

If not then are you familiar with the recent history of redacting PDF files?

The PDF redaction problem

PDF Redacting Failure

How to properly redact PDF files

How to Redact a PDF File (Hide Sensitive Information)

Forgive me but perhaps I just don't understand the problem you are getting at.


The first two links go to the same article which doesn't exactly show what I was discussing. The second two seem to better inform people how to retract things, so that's good. Most retractions done incorrectly show a black bar where the text is retracted. In this document there was white text inserted. Maybe it's a retraction, maybe it's addition by someone with an agenda. I don't know.

I suppose that they could have retracted the bipolar thing to to Hippa laws.
 
or Option 5) Apperson is a nut who is paranoid and has already come to the police's attention for threatening to kill someone he thought was following him (and yet remarkably was still allowed to own guns.) He gets in an altercation with Zimmerman, and then seeing him in the same area fixates on him as a new "Stalker" then seeing him again decides his stalker is back, and confronts him. Zimmerman calls him a clown and drives off, fuelling Apperson's rage causing him to give chase lights flashing. Zimmerman decides to get away and U-Turns causing more anger in Apperson who decides to remove his stalker, follows the U-Turn, drives up beside him, and *bang*.

Nah couldn't be that, because then it would be Zimmerman's fault at all, like the police think (since they are charging with assault with no provocation.) Has to be his fault for doing something. Perhaps he should have gotten out of the car talk to Apperson calmly and ask him why he was following them, then proceeded to beat on the guy if he dared to go for his phone or touch his arm, then it wouldn't have been his fault at all.

All joking aside, this is an excellent point.

RE the highlighted (by me): The "still has guns" thing would be a great topic for another thread.

And "Zimmerman driving off" strikes me as a bit odd. Zimmerman apparenty loves him some confrontation. *Him retreating just doesn't seem like his normal behavior.

And I'd like to clarify something. Me enjoying the day Zimmerman should be killed for his behavior has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin. That case is over and done, and I feel Zimmerman shoud have held at least some culpability in the event. But again, that's over. I respect or legal system and accept the trial's findings, even though I disagree with the outcome.

My seething contempt for George Zimmerman stems from two personal events. One, he is a bully, and I was bullied a lot as a kid. Today, at 6'1", 280 lbs and former US Army this is no longer an issue, but I despise bullies like him. Like most bullies, he folds like origami when confronted by someone who actually has the means and desire to visit his actions back on him (his boxing match idea is an example). *Heck, maybe even this event with him retreating is another example.

Two, he is a domestic abuser (we won't split the hairs of physical vs. emotional vs mental type), and I witnessed my mother (and myself) stuck in an abusive relationship with one of her boyfriends for many years when I was younger (they are very hard to get out of, especially in the late 70s/early 80s). And like most domestic abusers, nothing is ever his fault. It's always someone else "making" him react the way he does. His patterns of behavior are predictable and pathetic.

So, the day George Zimmerman stops wasting oxygen will be a great day. He opitimizes, to me at least, the type of individual that thrives on manipulating and harming others. The Travon Martin event is a result of Zimmerman's attitude. It's a matter of time before someone else, rightly or wrongly, is hurt or killed by his stupidity. I really hope it's not some innocent bystander who finds themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

All the above is JMHO.
 
My seething contempt for George Zimmerman stems from two personal events. One, he is a bully, and I was bullied a lot as a kid. Today, at 6'1", 280 lbs and former US Army this is no longer an issue, but I despise bullies like him. Like most bullies, he folds like origami when confronted by someone who actually has the means and desire to visit his actions back on him (his boxing match idea is an example). *Heck, maybe even this event with him retreating is another example.

Two, he is a domestic abuser (we won't split the hairs of physical vs. emotional vs mental type), and I witnessed my mother (and myself) stuck in an abusive relationship with one of her boyfriends for many years when I was younger (they are very hard to get out of, especially in the late 70s/early 80s). And like most domestic abusers, nothing is ever his fault. It's always someone else "making" him react the way he does. His patterns of behavior are predictable and pathetic.
No conviction no harm. Seriously. This is being argued. Multiple people close to GZ independently accuse him of harming them and it's hand waved away. Well, it's a free country and they are entitled to an opinion. I wonder how many of his sycophants would let him stay at their place? Watch their kids? Give him a loan? Trust him to bring back correct change from the store?
 
No conviction no harm. Seriously. This is being argued. Multiple people close to GZ independently accuse him of harming them and it's hand waved away. Well, it's a free country and they are entitled to an opinion. I wonder how many of his sycophants would let him stay at their place? Watch their kids? Give him a loan? Trust him to bring back correct change from the store?

Good point. He complained last year of being homeless and completey broke.
 

Back
Top Bottom