Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8137 Jul 1, 2013
DapperDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? So, your claim is that Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon after the 911 operator advised/directed him to do so?
It that is the case then how could Zimmerman have come into contact with Trayvon, since Trayvon was walking away...unless Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon?
Zimmerman has NEVER said Trayvon TURNED AROUND and came BACK towards him (Zimmerman). Therefore, Zimmerman had to have followed and physically confronted Trayvon. Which makes him (Zimmerman) the initiator, the aggressor and the perpetrator of the violence that night.
I suggest you go away, lest you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
so the tooth fairy was at your house last night?

since when does anybody have authority to tell you not to protect your life?

and because a phone operator said something, we all must jump to it?

How about the brilliant dispatcher in Cleveland that answered the call from the girl kidnapped 10 years ago?

with such sound advice like that, we can cut the population in half in just a few years.

Trayvon turned around and picked a fight with a guy armed to protect himself. Sadly it cost him his life.

actions have consequences.....you best learn that fast.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8138 Jul 1, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The "advice" was not utterred until AFTER Zimmerman had already exited the truck and began to follow Martin. After the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that", Zimmerman said "OK", and the running noises stopped.
Apparently you listen to other people instead of listening to the evidence yourself.
the media sells fantasy because it increases television ratings and network profits through advertising dollars.

the sheep believe in fantasy, because reality is scary.

you must blame someone for all your troubles, because this is the status quo in America.

PS: Tony this is not directed at you, but a continuation of your post.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8139 Jul 1, 2013
against the advice of my ex-wife, I divorced her anyway.

Do I have to go to court again for refuting advice?

“I Offer You Truth!”

Since: Jul 07

Tampa, FL

#8140 Jul 1, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
against the advice of my ex-wife, I divorced her anyway.
Do I have to go to court again for refuting advice?
"refuting advice"? Is English a second language for you?

..as if your relationship with your ex-wife has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

When one can come up with no logical, mature, factually based argument to support one's position one is forced to fall back on childish, vacuous, inane, irrelevent blather. The hope being they can slyly "beg the question" and, thereby, avoid having to deal with the facts.

You, little fellow, are obviously firmly committed to behaving stupidly and embracing all kinds of brainless paranoia, deranged conspiracy theories and irrational beliefs. I suggest you try reading something other than the blabbering, slobbering nonsense your fellow traffickers in idiocy generate. You just might learn a few new things.

Things like....

…the earth is not flat.
…babies are not delivered by storks
…the drunk occupying the barstool next to yours in not brilliant simply because he agrees with your lunacy
…the moon is not made of green cheese
…repeating a lie over and over again will not transform it into the truth
…your squirrel hunting pals are neither great philosophers nor renaissance men
…the earth is not the center of the universe.
…the scrawlings on the bathroom stall walls of your favorite beer bars were not put there by visitors from other planets
…your toothless, shoeless, shirtless, illiterate uncle Ned is not a reincarnated wise man.
…libraries were not built for the express purpose of brainwashing you - it's okay to visit them.
..."Google" was not created for the sole purpose of helping you expand your storehouse of brainless fables and myths.

And lastly, contrary to what you may have been led to believe, objective research and formal education ("book learnin" in your jargon) are NOT dangerous contaminants.

Enjoy the rest of your day.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8141 Jul 1, 2013
DapperDave wrote:
<quoted text>
"refuting advice"? Is English a second language for you?
..as if your relationship with your ex-wife has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.
When one can come up with no logical, mature, factually based argument to support one's position one is forced to fall back on childish, vacuous, inane, irrelevent blather. The hope being they can slyly "beg the question" and, thereby, avoid having to deal with the facts.
You, little fellow, are obviously firmly committed to behaving stupidly and embracing all kinds of brainless paranoia, deranged conspiracy theories and irrational beliefs. I suggest you try reading something other than the blabbering, slobbering nonsense your fellow traffickers in idiocy generate. You just might learn a few new things.
Things like....
…the earth is not flat.
…babies are not delivered by storks
…the drunk occupying the barstool next to yours in not brilliant simply because he agrees with your lunacy
…the moon is not made of green cheese
…repeating a lie over and over again will not transform it into the truth
…your squirrel hunting pals are neither great philosophers nor renaissance men
…the earth is not the center of the universe.
…the scrawlings on the bathroom stall walls of your favorite beer bars were not put there by visitors from other planets
…your toothless, shoeless, shirtless, illiterate uncle Ned is not a reincarnated wise man.
…libraries were not built for the express purpose of brainwashing you - it's okay to visit them.
..."Google" was not created for the sole purpose of helping you expand your storehouse of brainless fables and myths.
And lastly, contrary to what you may have been led to believe, objective research and formal education ("book learnin" in your jargon) are NOT dangerous contaminants.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
hey Dapper....I am not buying your advice, or sophomoric illiterate rant.

My formal education....1983 MBA, University of Colorado.

contrary to what you believe, if you punch an armed person in the face, expect a bullet in your head.

a life lesson free of charge adding years to your life.

I hope you learned something today, or tragedy repeats itself.

I learned today you are clueless regarding reality.

“I Offer You Truth!”

Since: Jul 07

Tampa, FL

#8142 Jul 1, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
hey Dapper....I am not buying your advice, or sophomoric illiterate rant.
My formal education....1983 MBA, University of Colorado.
contrary to what you believe, if you punch an armed person in the face, expect a bullet in your head.
a life lesson free of charge adding years to your life.
I hope you learned something today, or tragedy repeats itself.
I learned today you are clueless regarding reality.
So, you're saying a single punch in the face, with no further aggressive behavior warrants a bullet to the head.

Well, let's explore this a little further...

How about a punch in the gut, with no further aggressive behavior?

How about a slap in the face...followed by no further aggressive/violent behavior?

How about an extremtly hard shove, with no further aggressive behavior?

How about if the puncher, slapper, shover is a female, or a teenager, or middle schooler?

So, if you're at a sporting event, or in a bar, or in the mall, or at a concert, or at the movies...a guy/gal starts arguing with you...people/friends get between the two of you...the guy/gal reaches over or between the people trying to seperate the two of you and delivers a punch/slap/shove. I suppose you're going to open fire...aiming for the person's head of course, because a bullet to the head is required, or to be expected, in such situations.

I don't believe I ever heard such a mindless line of reasoning publicly espoused. Your sub-human, brutish thinking is steeped in ignorance and violent barbarism.

And you want us to believe you possess and advanced degree from a respected univesity?

You are a sick, socially maladjusted, uncivilized, psycopathically violent, unthinking, murderous savage.

Good lord! You're crazier than a rabid skunk.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#8143 Jul 1, 2013
DapperDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying a single punch in the face, with no further aggressive behavior warrants a bullet to the head.
Well, let's explore this a little further...
How about a punch in the gut, with no further aggressive behavior?
How about a slap in the face...followed by no further aggressive/violent behavior?
How about an extremtly hard shove, with no further aggressive behavior?
How about if the puncher, slapper, shover is a female, or a teenager, or middle schooler?
So, if you're at a sporting event, or in a bar, or in the mall, or at a concert, or at the movies...a guy/gal starts arguing with you...people/friends get between the two of you...the guy/gal reaches over or between the people trying to seperate the two of you and delivers a punch/slap/shove. I suppose you're going to open fire...aiming for the person's head of course, because a bullet to the head is required, or to be expected, in such situations.
I don't believe I ever heard such a mindless line of reasoning publicly espoused. Your sub-human, brutish thinking is steeped in ignorance and violent barbarism.
And you want us to believe you possess and advanced degree from a respected univesity?
You are a sick, socially maladjusted, uncivilized, psycopathically violent, unthinking, murderous savage.
Good lord! You're crazier than a rabid skunk.
Mr. Good's testimony tells a different story. It certainly makes Ashtray look like the aggressor.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#8144 Jul 1, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The "advice" was not utterred until AFTER Zimmerman had already exited the truck and began to follow Martin. After the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that", Zimmerman said "OK", and the running noises stopped.
Apparently you listen to other people instead of listening to the evidence yourself.
Did you listen today--including the interviews and the walk-thru?

Zim tried to deny having chased at all--claiming that the dispatcher wanted an address.

Many conflicts.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#8145 Jul 1, 2013
Despite believing GZ is guilty, dispatcher should have given stronger instructions.

"We don't need you to do that." Just, exactly, what does that "instruction" mean?

My wife doesn't "need me" to carry out the trash tonight. Tomorrow will be just fine.

Instructions from dispatcher were unclear.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#8146 Jul 1, 2013
Biggie BC wrote:
Despite believing GZ is guilty, dispatcher should have given stronger instructions.
"We don't need you to do that." Just, exactly, what does that "instruction" mean?
My wife doesn't "need me" to carry out the trash tonight. Tomorrow will be just fine.
Instructions from dispatcher were unclear.
According to the dispatcher's testimony, their protocol does not allow them to give such directions or orders. Hence the suggestive tone.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#8147 Jul 1, 2013
DapperDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? So, your claim is that Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon after the 911 operator advised/directed him to do so?
He said "OK" and the running noises (can be clearly heard on the tape) stopped. There is no evidence whatsoever that he continued to follow Martin after that point.
It that is the case then how could Zimmerman have come into contact with Trayvon, since Trayvon was walking away...unless Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon?
Lots of ways. There's NO evidence to indicate which. One thing is clear though, Zimmerman stopped running (you can actually hear this on the tape), and spent the next three minutes on the phone with the dispatcher... while Martin was doing what, walking home? That was less than two minutes away at a walk, and we know from the tape that he started out running. The fact that he didn't make it home in those three minutes proves that he wasn't intending on going home, so what WAS he intending?
Zimmerman has NEVER said Trayvon TURNED AROUND and came BACK towards him (Zimmerman).
He can't say it if he didn't KNOW it. Martin could have cut in between buildings at three different places without Zimmerman seeing (Remember on the tape Zimmerman said: "I don't know where this kid is").
Therefore, Zimmerman had to have followed and physically confronted Trayvon.
Wrong conclusion based on facts not in evidence. Two people can walk a circle in opposite directions and meet half-way around, neither is "following" the other.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#8148 Jul 1, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you listen today--including the interviews and the walk-thru?
Zim tried to deny having chased at all--claiming that the dispatcher wanted an address.
Many conflicts.
Nah, I don't get it (Dish basic). Was busy most of the day anyway. I'll catch a synopsis somewhere...
solid loaf

Chicago, IL

#8149 Jul 1, 2013
DapperDave wrote:
a) George Zimmerman, against the advice/instructions of the 911 operator followed Trayvon Martin.
b) George Zimmerman exited his vehicle and physically confronted Trayvon Martin....making Zimmerman the agressor. Zimmerman can provde no logical explanation for this confrontational behavior.
Had Zimmerman a) heeded the advice/instructions of the 911 operator and b) remained in his vehicle Trayvon Martin would be alive today and George Zimmerman would not be on trial for murder.
George Zimmerman put himself in this situation by making two critical, stupid decisions.
George Zimmerman belongs behind bars so he has no more opportunities to harrass, attack or kill another young black male who is doing nothing more than walking down the street minding his own business and bothering no one.
This is essentially what George ZImmerman's minset was that night...
"You haven't done anything, but I just don't like the way you look. I'm gonna jump out of my car and harrass and/or physically attack or manhandle you, and if you take exception to being harrassed, or resist being physically attacked or manhandled then I'm going to shoot/kill you."
...and yet many folks actually think George Zimmerman was in the right?
let's not forget that martin is a 17 year old child whom zimmerman out weighed. Maybe if the jjury would've been from ohio they would've sent zim to prison just so he could leaarn how to fight. I know I like my conceal permits but if we don't make an example of punks like zimmerman, kiss it goodbye on a federal level. Thanks florida.
A special message from d pantz to all african american children in florida: don't walk home from the store after buying a bag of skittles. Send your white friend. Just move away if you can. God the south is something else..
d pantz

Chicago, IL

#8150 Jul 1, 2013
Sorr forgot to change my screen name from solid loaf to d pantz. There is a poster on another thread named solid who I was mocking.
d pantz

Chicago, IL

#8151 Jul 1, 2013
Anyway, if we are going to keep conceal carry laws we need to have a little more, no, a lot discretion. I would hope in my home buckeye state we would anyway....
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#8152 Jul 1, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying to a judsge under oath is not generally a move likely to curry favor. It just isn't.
Ooops!

SANFORD — Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, the state's most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-03-0...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#8153 Jul 1, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you listen today--including the interviews and the walk-thru?
Zim tried to deny having chased at all--claiming that the dispatcher wanted an address.
Many conflicts.
Watched some coverage on Anderson Cooper.

Also testimony by the lady officer that such conflicts are not unusual. Both cops said he seemed straightforward, didn't see anything about his demeanor that alarmed them. One even said he believed Zimmerman. Also Pretty bad when the prosecutor badgers his own witnesses.

Also a mistake by prosecutors was showing the interviews. They just introduced his self defense defense without Zimmerman having to take the stand. Just as I said would happen if you'll remember.

Speaking as devil's advocate, If the prosecutors had been smart, they would have held off on those interviews, thus forcing Zimmerman to testify to self defense, then they could have used them on cross to rebut his testimony. it would also been closer to the end of the case, thus fresher in the jury's minds... It's almost like the prosecutor was trying to throw the case.

I really can't see where reasonable doubt has been overcome, and there aren't that many witnesses left.

“Hereeeeee'ssss UR Pizza”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#8154 Jul 2, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you listen today--including the interviews and the walk-thru?
Zim tried to deny having chased at all--claiming that the dispatcher wanted an address.
Many conflicts.
Serino, the Lead Investigator pretended to have some "evidence" ready to spring. They had discovered he said, video footage of the events that evening. The defense asked,“and what did Zimmerman say when you told him that?” He said, "THANK GOD” Serino answered.

The last O’Mara question of the day, the last words the jury heard to take with them into the evening recess, could only be characterized as catastrophic for the State’s theory of the case. Looking directly at the man who had been the chief investigator on the case, who had possessed access to every bit of evidence of any sort, who had interviewed, and re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewed–applying increasing pressure from each interview to the next–O’Mara asked him:

“Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”

Serino's succinct answer:“YES.”
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8155 Jul 2, 2013
DapperDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying a single punch in the face, with no further aggressive behavior warrants a bullet to the head.
Well, let's explore this a little further...
How about a punch in the gut, with no further aggressive behavior?
How about a slap in the face...followed by no further aggressive/violent behavior?
How about an extremtly hard shove, with no further aggressive behavior?
How about if the puncher, slapper, shover is a female, or a teenager, or middle schooler?
So, if you're at a sporting event, or in a bar, or in the mall, or at a concert, or at the movies...a guy/gal starts arguing with you...people/friends get between the two of you...the guy/gal reaches over or between the people trying to seperate the two of you and delivers a punch/slap/shove. I suppose you're going to open fire...aiming for the person's head of course, because a bullet to the head is required, or to be expected, in such situations.
I don't believe I ever heard such a mindless line of reasoning publicly espoused. Your sub-human, brutish thinking is steeped in ignorance and violent barbarism.
And you want us to believe you possess and advanced degree from a respected univesity?
You are a sick, socially maladjusted, uncivilized, psycopathically violent, unthinking, murderous savage.
Good lord! You're crazier than a rabid skunk.
if if's and butts were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas everyday.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#8156 Jul 2, 2013
d pantz wrote:
Anyway, if we are going to keep conceal carry laws we need to have a little more, no, a lot discretion. I would hope in my home buckeye state we would anyway....
ummmmm....the conceal carry laws are unconstitutional.

read the 2nd amendment.

right to keep and bear arms.

we are keeping the 2nd amendment intact to protect your 1st amendment right to post BS like you did above.

Don't like it.....too bad....bullets say so.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 41 min Canton 30,981
big lots distibution center 2 hr Duke for Mayor 3
Mother Shot Over Tennis Shoes 2 hr Duke for Mayor 3
A blast from the past...50's. Enjoy! 2 hr Duke for Mayor 7
Where are all the original legacy posters? 5 hr Panty Boy 238
where is George of Hilliard? 6 hr Black Rhino 24
Palin: Brawl In The Family 7 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 12
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 9 hr Wont happen again 2,430
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••