• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Will Zimmerman's Past Come Back to Haunt Him?

She said when in doubt call the police call the police and let them do their job.. She did not defend George's following TM.

Never used the word defend. But she clearly turned on the state. Following to be eyes/ears is fine. Calling on someone walking in the rain, fine. He didn't want to be part of COPS program. He was a meek and great guy.
 
Never used the word defend. But she clearly turned on the state. Following to be eyes/ears is fine. Calling on someone walking in the rain, fine. He didn't want to be part of COPS program. He was a meek and great guy.

Meek? with his put on lispy voice and a history of sudden rages?

George is a failed, angry guy with poor impulse control.. and poorer judgment.
 
Meek? with his put on lispy voice and a history of sudden rages?

George is a failed, angry guy with poor impulse control.. and poorer judgment.

Let's see... I have the option of taking the word of someone that worked with him, knows him in some way and has little reason to lie... Or I can take the word of someone that doesn't know him, hates him , his entire family and his legal representation despite not knowing them. Which do you think I should go with? Which do you think teh jury will go with?
 
Let's see... I have the option of taking the word of someone that worked with him, knows him in some way and has little reason to lie... Or I can take the word of someone that doesn't know him, hates him , his entire family and his legal representation despite not knowing them. Which do you think I should go with? Which do you think teh jury will go with?

His co-workers didn't think much of George.

He was fired for calling HR repeatedly on his fellow workers and telling HR how to do their job.. Sound familiar?
 
His co-workers didn't think much of George.

He was fired for calling HR repeatedly on his fellow workers and telling HR how to do their job.. Sound familiar?

Please provide a link to George's "co-workers".
 
Last edited:
I think it was during his brief employment at Car Max..

You can find it..

Its been linked many times before.

There is only one co-worker that I am aware of. As I recall, he said the rest of the co-workers liked George. But, you said co-workers. You don't have a cite showing more then just that one co-worker, do you?
 
Unlikely.
First of all, he will deal with his actions, it will pass, and if he believes he was justified, it will pass sooner.

Secondly; If he wins this trial, it is highly unlikely he will suffer a civil trial. It would be foolish of them to go after him in court as he has no funds.
And if a SYG hearing isn't requested in this trial and he wins, he has a better chance at wining a SYG hearing after the fact.

And finally. A normal life is far from gone. There are places where he will be safe and even places where he will be celebrated.
He may even find a place where he finds both.
He may even be swept up by some group as a poster child.

His life is far from over.


the feds could go after him for violating Martin's civil rights, hate crime ... and if convicted could do time ... but I doubt that they will, both because the evidence is probably not there and most folks would like this to go away asap ...
 
if the judge and jury are good, his past will (and should) have little bearing on this case ... let's say we found out he was once a member of the KKK ... the evidence still has to show that he is guilty of second-degree murder (or a lesser crime) regardless IN THIS CASE ...
 
the feds could go after him for violating Martin's civil rights, hate crime ... and if convicted could do time ... but I doubt that they will, both because the evidence is probably not there and most folks would like this to go away asap ...

Why? ...
 
if the judge and jury are good, his past will (and should) have little bearing on this case ... let's say we found out he was once a member of the KKK ... the evidence still has to show that he is guilty of second-degree murder (or a lesser crime) regardless IN THIS CASE ...

Judge Nelson won't allow George's prior bad acts.
 
There is only one co-worker that I am aware of. As I recall, he said the rest of the co-workers liked George. But, you said co-workers. You don't have a cite showing more then just that one co-worker, do you?

George has had MANY short lived jobs.

Some said he was a Dr Jeckel and Mister Hyde.
 
I think it was during his brief employment at Car Max..

You can find it..

Its been linked many times before.

There's more, but here is a brief reference to George's behavior.

George Zimmerman Bullied Former Colleague, Complaint Says - ABC News

Your link didn't work, but I read that before. This is one co-worker. You said co-workers, meanign more than one. This co-worker didn't liek George, but indicate that he got along with the rest of the co-workers. So, you found one guy out of how ever many that didn't liek George.
 

Sorry, I was referring to people in law enforcement (e.g. the police did a lousy job at the crime scene) and gov't folks as well because it raises issues they don't want to deal with.
 
Judge Nelson won't allow George's prior bad acts.

and probably shouldn't unless the prosecution can make a connection OR if the defense opens the door for the prosecution inadvertently by bringing up his past in questions they ask or witnesses they bring forward ... if they bring up folks to testify what a great guy he is and how he has helped elderly black women to cross the street, then the prosecution can do the same on the other side (and should be able to do so under those circumstances - the defense lawyers have to be careful ...
 
George has had MANY short lived jobs.

Some said he was a Dr Jeckel and Mister Hyde.

The co-worker we were already talking about that did not like George is the one that said that. Everything you are saying is related to only one of George's co-workers. I will admit, you are slick, though.

Do you have any cite to any other co-workers of George saying what you originally claimed? Of course not. Just admit it already.
 
and probably shouldn't unless the prosecution can make a connection OR if the defense opens the door for the prosecution inadvertently by bringing up his past in questions they ask or witnesses they bring forward ... if they bring up folks to testify what a great guy he is and how he has helped elderly black women to cross the street, then the prosecution can do the same on the other side (and should be able to do so under those circumstances - the defense lawyers have to be careful ...

There is some analysis that the defense team opened that door when crossing Laurer. Guess we'll see.
 
The co-worker we were already talking about that did not like George is the one that said that. Everything you are saying is related to only one of George's co-workers. I will admit, you are slick, though.

Do you have any cite to any other co-workers of George saying what you originally claimed? Of course not. Just admit it already.

Buck, I am not going to post a year's worth of reading for you here.

Do you even know why this Japanese guy is testifying or what his point is?

Most people don't.
 
Buck, I am not going to post a year's worth of reading for you here.


Because it doesn't exist. There was one of George's co-workers that did not like him and called him jekyl/hyde.

Do you even know why this Japanese guy is testifying or what his point is?

Most people don't.

I've already indicated.
 
Most people don't.

And the analysits just confirmed what I indicated before.

THey also pointed out that West, and this one I missed, is trying to show a group bias. When the tape was played for Trayvon's family at the same time, everyone just shook their head yes. That is a form of bias. It should have been played for each individually. It seems like a good argument to me.
 
Last edited:
the feds could go after him for violating Martin's civil rights, hate crime ... and if convicted could do time ... but I doubt that they will, both because the evidence is probably not there and most folks would like this to go away asap ...
:doh
The FBI has already determined otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom