Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
he has mental / violence issues. even his lawyer said so (in different words). I think he needs to be removed from society, be it prison or some sort of institution. he is dangerous, only a matter of time.
To the overwhelming majority of us he's about as relevant as the 'Duck Dynasty' clan, or the Kardashians, part of the cult whom I refer to as the DSR, or the Desperately Seeking Relevance crowd.
1) What does George to to support himself ? Does he work ? He must be eating regularly because he seems to stay pretty fat.
2) Why does his GF (or any woman) stay with this guy ? I mean, he isn't Brad Pitt, and he doesn't seem to be very cool.
And, yes, we have not heard the end of George. It has only been less than two years since the first incident, and he has been in numerous scrapes. Give him some time and something BIG will happen, I am willing to bet good money on that happening. He has had more run ins in two years than most of us accumulate in a lifetime !
The quotes above are a few examples of a way of thinking I’m seeing here. This view seems to go something like: He’s guilty because he seems like the kind of guy who would have done something violent.
That’s a seriously bad reason for convicting someone.
Suppose some guy has five convictions for robbing banks. Suppose somehow he’s out of prison. (Not sure how likely that is after five such convictions, but suppose.) Now suppose that tomorrow a bank is robbed just down the street from this guy’s house. At first this guy might seem a likely suspect, but not on closer inspection. Maybe he’s not charged with that robbery, and he’s certainly not convicted, because it turns out that there is zero evidence that he committed that robbery. In fact there’s evidence that he did not.
Then suppose that a year from now this guy commits a sixth bank robbery. In spite of the evidence that he did not commit the robbery in Jan. ’15, do you now assume that he must have done so after all? You know, just because his history shows that he always has been and apparently always will be prone to robbing banks. So you look back a year from now and assume that he must have committed the robbery in Jan. ’15 even though the evidence says he did not, just because he’s a bank-robbin’ kinda guy. Is that what you assume?
That’s what you’re doing in the Martin case if you say you’re changing your mind about thinking GZ was innocent because now he seems like the kind of guy who would have been guilty. Even though the evidence says that GZ broke no law in the TM case.
Food for thought.
Ok I've thought about it. This post reminds me of all the posts claiming Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were thugs who deserved what they got because of acts they were "accused" of doing in the past.
And, yes, we have not heard the end of George. It has only been less than two years since the first incident, and he has been in numerous scrapes. Give him some time and something BIG will happen,
If he is attacked and kills another useless Thug, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, I don't care what his personal problems might be.
Zimmerman is looking very Hispanic in that mug shot, as opposed to the pics his supporters used, which tended to make him look "white". I'm sure his supporters will soon abandon him as "just another criminal Hispanic".
Ok I've thought about it. This post reminds me of all the posts claiming Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were thugs who deserved what they got because of acts they were "accused" of doing in the past.
Hope you defended them also.
You've really misread things.
Actually, it looks as if you're saying the same thing I said in the post you quoted: that guilt or innocence in a given case should not be judged on the basis of what the person has done at other times. Looks like exactly the same point you're implying here, yet you criticize me for it. Please read more carefully.
While it's true that I've made several posts on this thread, and fairly long posts at that, if you have not read them all carefully, then you don't know the proper context for the post you quoted.
I've tried to make it clear that the only thing I'm "defending" is the idea that people need to be charged with and tried for crimes according to the law, not public sentiment. If we start to accept the idea that public sentiment against someone makes it acceptable to charge the person with a crime, even in the absence of evidence that he broke any law, we're all in trouble.
Last edited by ogre; 01-11-2015 at 09:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
