Family rescued by George Zimmerman from car accident cancels press conference in fear of “blowback”

posted at 8:01 pm on July 24, 2013 by Allahpundit

A terrible moral dilemma. Hold a presser to vouch for the man who rescued you at a moment when he could really use the public support? Or stay out of the line of fire from vigilante lunatics bent on exacting “justice for Trayvon”?

What’s a couple with two small children to do?

The Gerstles were expected to hold a press conference today at the office of Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara, but cancelled a few hours before it was supposed to take place…

“The family called because they wanted to address the media. I knew that if we did it in an organized way, it would help them get back to a normal life.. But they called today and said they were more worried about blow back from saying anything that would be favorable to George, and decided they did not want to do any media,” O’Mara said.

The lawyer said that when he spoke to the Gerstles “their voices were trembling” and that they feared saying anything positive about Zimmerman “would be toxic.”…

Zimmerman “should be [armed] given the threats against him,” O’Mara said. He added, “If I were him I would leave” the country.

The most amazing thing to me about the rescue is that he was still in Sanford days after the verdict. I figured he and his defense team had devised a plan long ago to move him to Canada or Mexico or parts unknown in the event of an acquittal. He wouldn’t be “safe” there either necessarily, but the effort to track him down and get to him would be prohibitive for all but the most insistent nuts. As it is, I wonder if he’s thinking he can ride out the storm by lying low for a year or two, until most people have forgotten, and then quietly re-emerge somewhere in the U.S. I think he’s making a mistake.

Incidentally, is there an agency (or a charity) at either the state or federal level that provides security for high-profile criminal defendants upon release or acquittal? I’m not thinking about that for Zimmerman specifically, just in general. O.J. could have used it, I’m sure; so could Casey Anthony. I think they’re both guilty as sin, and maybe O.J.’s a special case because he could afford to pay for his own protection, but it seems weird to discharge a defendant from court on grounds that they’re “free” to go when they’re facing hundreds or thousands of death threats with little professional help in thwarting them. National media holds these people out, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly, as monsters and then they’re left to fend for themselves against a public that despises them. Is that their idea of “rough justice”? I’m not sure prison wouldn’t have been safer for Zimmerman.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Few things from the comments above. Racists didn’t paint Tryvon as a thug, Tryvon did in the hundreds of tweets the prosecution tried to hide. Zimmerman didn’t profile Tryvon by race but by his actions. He had more calls on Hispanics and Whites than Blacks, 4 or 5 of the 44 before that night were suspicious Black men. Like farsighted said above, it was Martin’s behavior that Zimmerman first described in his NEN call. The dispatcher brought up race.

Rancher on July 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Few things from the comments above. Racists didn’t paint Tryvon as a thug, Tryvon did in the hundreds of tweets the prosecution tried to hide. Zimmerman didn’t profile Tryvon by race but by his actions. He had more calls on Hispanics and Whites than Blacks, 4 or 5 of the 44 before that night were suspicious Black men. Like farsighted said above, it was Martin’s behavior that Zimmerman first described in his NEN call. The dispatcher brought up race.

Rancher on July 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Yep, a young man had the delusion that he was justified in living a thug live, and wound up getting a thug death.

ebrown2 on July 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM

GZ was advised to not pursue TM
The Bringer on July 25, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Of course that was not what was said ……and you know it….and even if so…no duty…no legal obligation to do so.

The facts shows TM came back after GZ.Your shit don’t fly…but hey you too can look like your in the middle.

Yes most people would feel bad having to kill someone…..so no surprise there.

FO Ahole.

CW on July 25, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Few things from the comments above. Racists didn’t paint Tryvon as a thug, Tryvon did in the hundreds of tweets the prosecution tried to hide. Zimmerman didn’t profile Tryvon by race but by his actions…
 
Rancher on July 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM

 
Yep, a young man had the delusion that he was justified in living a thug live, and wound up getting a thug death.
 
ebrown2 on July 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM

 
There’s a “biker” bar near us where the orthodontists and pediatricians dress up and carry their Harleys to on weekends. Everyone has a great time slumming with their Bud Lights and T-shirts they bought on business trips, and then they’ll ride their bikes back to the Wal-Mart parking lot, load them on their trailers, and tow them home behind their Land Rovers.
 
The sad/funny part was when an actual capital-B Biker showed up and one of the locals mouthed off because he didn’t realize he wasn’t also playing dress up. I think two guys got stabbed before anyone realized what was happening.
 
The most comical part was that everyone was fine because there were no fewer than three doctors on site to stabilize the stab victims and treat until the ambulances arrived.

rogerb on July 25, 2013 at 7:37 PM

GZ had no duty to retreat to his vehicle, but his actions suggest he had no intention of doing so, and more, that he intended to keep pursuing TM until he found him.

Pure speculation. There is no evidence or testimony to support this.

There was no requirement that Zimmerman run quickly back to his vehicle and lock himself in it after he said he stopped “following”, or trying to sight, a Martin he had already lost sight of. He continued talking to the dispatcher while staying in that immediate area. All evidence and testimony indicates he did not move very far from the immediate area he was in when confronted by Martin. So what if he stood there wondering what to do next for a minute after hanging up the phone, or of he paced around for a little while. I can think of many reasons why he was uncertain where to tell the cop who was on the way to meet him. He was obviously having trouble giving directions over the phone. and so on and so forth.

He was in his own frakin’ neighborhood. And he obviously had not profiled Martin as someone who might viciously and violently attack and assault him.

Zimmerman had no idea who might having been watching him from the many homes that backed up to that area, and yet he did not waver a bit when giving his account, not knowing if there were witnesses who could contradict him. He did not waver or equivocate about his locations and where he said he was throughout when he voluntarily gave a walk through the next day. He still did not know what witnesses there might be who could contradict him. He did not know all of the witnesses there were and what they were saying until well after he was charged and the defense received that information.

GZ was advised to not pursue TM not just because it could be dangerous for either or both parties, but b/c the potential confrontation could be chock full of misunderstandings between the two parties (and it was) and murky for our legal system to decifer afterwards (that too).

There was no testimony to support your speculation.

AFAIK dispatcher did not say that on the stand. And the dispatcher practically prompted what *you* are calling “pursuit” by the questions he was asking Zimmerman. The dispatcher admitted on the stand his questions could be “misinterpreted” that way and that Zimmerman could have exited his vehicle because of it.

Almost of the evidence and testimony support Zimmerman’s statement that he stopped trying to find a Martin he had lost sight of about 20 seconds before the dispatcher gave his “advice”.

Almost all of the evidence and testimony supports Zimmerman’s testimony that Martin confronted him not far from his truck and about where he said he was when the dispatcher told him “we don’t need you to do that”.

GZ can’t ever admit it now, but I believe deep down, he regrets following TM that night.

The Bringer on July 25, 2013 at 5:47 PM

.

Because that’s what you want to believe. Because that’s what you “feel”.

However, in the interview with Hannity he basically said it was all fate and he accepted that.

Speculating about what Zimmerman might or might not do differently after the fact is a meaningless waste of time.

farsighted on July 25, 2013 at 8:12 PM

… the walkway on which he died is directly behind her unit.

The walkway he died “along” is about 500 feet or more long.

…I think that would have been his perspective. It makes sense, as he had nearly reached his destination.

You think…. “Well, if he really meant this, then that.”

IOW, you are speculating about what Jeantel/Martin actually meant, instead of taking what she/he said at face value. Because you want to come to your favored conclusion.

I do not believe TM had made it all the way down the walkway to her unit, however.

Based on what? Speculation? Because that is not what Jeantel said Martin said.

He did not have time to do that unobserved by GZ, unless the walkway was so dark that GZ could not see anything.

Great van Susteren took a trip to that location one night, when it was dark and there was no moon light.

She stood at the T and said she could not see more that 5-10 feet in front of her.

O’Mara wanted to bring the jury to the location on a night like that. The judge denied that request.

Considering that GZ was running after TM, the most obvious explanation is that TM ran to the “T” and hid somewhere in the dark, hoping GZ would stop his pursuit.

Obvious to who? You? GZ was a technically obese out of shape short guy. Martin was 6′ tall, young, and athletic.

“Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?” GZ said this shortly before the call ended, a point at which he was still not back in his vehicle.

“He was still not back in his vehicle”. The horror! Did the dispatcher tell him to immediately run back there, lock the doors, and hide until the cop showed up? I guess Zimmerman had not watched enough slasher movies. He should have known what to do.

This statement suggests that for some reason, GZ speculated that he might not be in place to meet the police at the clubhouse, the location suggested by the police dispatch officer.

Suggests to who? You? He was having trouble giving the dispatcher directions. I have had the same problem. And WTF does “in place” mean?

Ah, yes! The diabolical Zimmerman’s brain was working at warp speed out there alone in the dark in that minute or two. He knew he might have just enough time to hunt down Martin and murder him. If he could only delay the cop on his way another minute or two. But he might not have time to make it back “in place” to his truck, or something

Either GZ searched for TM until he found him, which I believe,

Of course you do. You have no evidence of that. But that’s what you want to believe.

Apparently after Zimmerman “found” him he told Martin to wait right there a moment, while he went back to the T and tossed he car keys down there. Then he came back to where he “found” Martin, who had not moved and was waiting patiently for him to return. Or did Zimmerman, before going on his one minute hunt, toss the keys down at the T? And he did this knowing the cop would not show up any moment. Brilliant. Zimmerman is a criminal genius.

We don’t know who threw the first punch,

But we know Martin had no marks on him that would be evidence of that, that Zimmerman had no marks on his knuckles, that Martin had a longer reach than Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman’s “MMA instructor” testified that a “soft”, out of shape, 1 on a 1 to 10 MMA capability scale Zimmerman did not know how to throw a punch and that he would never, ever put him in a ring. We also know from evidence not allowed in the trial for highly questionable reasons that could have resulted in reversal on appeal, that Martin loved to fight and knew how to fight.

Hey, maybe Martin put his hand on Zimmerman’s head, holding him away, while watching him flail away at air for ten seconds before popping him hard in the nose, breaking it. How about that “theory”?

GZ had already concluded TM was a criminal or otherwise up to no good, and he was determined not to let this particular “a*****e” “get away.”

BS. He “suspected” TM might be up to no good. So did the dispatcher who sent a cop to investigate. You are speculating. The prosecution got nowhere with this tactic and speculation.

And with that I conclude you are a disingenuous a$$hole I mistakenly gave the benefit of the doubt.

You have nothing but speculation unsupported by facts and testimony. You try to fill gaps with your favored narrative and “theory of the crime”. But what you insert in the gaps cannot account very will with the known facts and testimony.

The prosecution did not even try to explicitly present the “theory of the crime” you just did. They presented no coherent “theory of the crime”. Because they knew it would be destroyed by the defense if they did. Instead they offered up innuendo and doubt, and a lot of appeal to emotions, hoping the jury would as a whole speculate as you did.

farsighted on July 25, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Boy? He’s 17. Old enough to pass for a man in many countries. I don’t worry about Trayvon’s safety now, because he’s dead. But on the night in question, I would’ve advised him to go home, to CALL POLICE, and to avoid a confrontation.

hawksruleva on July 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Sorry, but this needs to be quoted again, because it is representative of the egregious double standard HA posters are applying here.

Hawksruleva, why shouldn’t Zimmerman be held to the same standard? Why shouldn’t he have gone home, called the police, and avoided a confrontation? I’d really appreciate an answer. Thanks. Happy to wait if you’re tied up and can’t respond for awhile.

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 1:57 AM

why shouldn’t Zimmerman be held to the same standard? Why shouldn’t he have gone home, called the police, and avoided a confrontation?

He did call the police and he did try to avoid a confrontation. Martin attacked him. Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch so he had a duty to try to prevent Martin from breaking into houses. If you recall Martin was found with stolen jewelry, so it wouldn’t be the first time.

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 1:57 AM

You claim that Martin was frightened and that was a lie. Martin returned from his home to attack Zimmerman.

If Martin was interested in avoiding a confrontation he easily could have done so. Martin wasn’t interested in avoiding it. He wanted one. It just didn’t turn out the way he expected.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Probably because there seem to be many people out there with bizarre emotional responses that prevent them from typing “not guilty” and instead prompt phrasing like “the jury later found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful”,

The jury found Zimmerman not guilty. I agree with that verdict and would have voted the same way. That is because, in my view, the prosecution “failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful.”

That’s unsurprising. There was one surviving witness to the killing. Zimmerman. He said he did everything by the book and Martin was the aggressor. Frankly, he’s probably lying, but that’s not enough to convict a man of murder, or even manslaughter. In individual cases, it may appear unjust that our criminal justice system’s burden of proof lets scum like Zimmerman walk freely. It certainly looks that way here. But I believe that, in the long run, it’s for the greater good. As Blackstone said “”[i]t is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

all while not bothering to inform themselves on even the most basic details of the trial.

I think I know the basic details of the trial, at the very least.

Sorry, where were we? Something about stalking, right?

rogerb on July 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM

Were we? I believe I said Zimmerman stalked Martin. That’s pretty tough to argue with. As a result, you seem to have resorted to an argument that Zimmerman did not stalk Martin because he did not commit the cime of “stalking” under Florida state law. That strikes me as a (characteristically) stupid argument. One can use a term colloquially (and correctly) even though the actions one is describing do not satisfy the requisite elements of a state law crime that word happens to describe. For example, if I say you are harassing me, I don’t think I’m incorrect simply because you have not committed each element of “harassment” under Wyoming (or another state’s) law. Get it?

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Sorry, but this doesn’t answer my question. If Martin should have gone home, called the police, and avoided a confrontation, why shouldn’t Zimmerman have done the same? He easily could have done so. It’s a pretty simple question.

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:17 AM

If Martin should have gone home, called the police, and avoided a confrontation, why shouldn’t Zimmerman have done the same? He easily could have done so. It’s a pretty simple question.

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:17 AM

A drug dealing homicidal thief and a neighborhood watch captain are not equivalents.

Martin should have gone home and stopped breaking into houses, stopped dealing drugs, and stop attacking people.

Zimmerman shouldn’t have gone home because there was a dangerous thief walking around by the name of Martin and as part of the neighborhood watch he had an obligation to call the police and see that the thug didn’t kill someone else…like a resident in one of the houses he was casing.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 2:25 AM

Even his parents are in hiding because of threats and they said so in an interview. The interviewer did not dispute the validity of the threats against his parents.

Why the hell do you think the jurors do not want their identifies disclosed?

Because Zimmerman is a scumbag and should be behind bars, but our system (rightfully) does not let us put him there unless his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the jurors (rightfully) would rather not explain that nuance to the American public.

Nonetheless, a juror came forward today, showed her face, and said Zimmerman got away with murder. Care to discuss that?

The only juror who gave an interview on TV did it in shadows. An alternate juror who gave an interview did the same thing.

Again, another juror came forward and said Zimmerman got away with murder. Would you like to update and correct your post? I can wait.

And you seem to think all of these people are hysterical and unreasonably paranoid.

To the extent people involved in the trial are concerned with their safety, yes I think they are unreasonably paranoid. There have been no serious threats against any of them, and no one has so much as tried to lay a finger on Zimmerman. You do not dispute that.

And all the while, sites like this one are reinforcing the unreasonable paranoia with hysterical posts unsupported with any hard evidence of threats like the one we’re commenting on now.

You are either too stupid to have an adult conversation with, or you are trolling, or both.

FO.

farsighted on July 25, 2013 at 12:06 AM

Sorry you feel that way. Have a good night.

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:30 AM

A drug dealing homicidal thief and a neighborhood watch captain are not equivalents.

Who is homicidal? That “thug” Zimmerman? He’s the one who was previously charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. His ex-fiancee also obtained a restraining order against him because of domestic violence.

So again, if Martin should have gone home, called the police, and avoided a confrontation, why shouldn’t Zimmerman have done the same? Why the double standard? I can’t see any apparent reason. Does it involve race? If not, why not?

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:35 AM

Who is homicidal?

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:35 AM

The guy who tried to murder someone and ended up with a bullet hole instead. Hence the definition of the word homicidal.

Sorry, but your little gang-banger doesn’t get to strut around breaking into houses, deal drugs, and attack people with impunity.

If Martin had wanted to avoid violence that day he could have gone home, or he could have controlled himself and not attacked Zimmerman. If he had done any of those things he would have been alive today.

He is the architect of his own misfortune.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 2:44 AM

Who is homicidal?

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:35 AM

The guy who tried to murder someone and ended up with a bullet hole instead. Hence the definition of the word homicidal.

Huh? Look up the definition of homicidal. This is mind-boggling. In your view, the victim of a homicide is homicidal, but the person who committed homicide is not. Absolutely nuts.

Again, please just answer the question. You can do so honestly. It’s just the internet, after all.

If Martin should have gone home, called the police, and avoided a confrontation, why shouldn’t Zimmerman have done the same?
righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:17 AM

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:55 AM

And of course, he’s much safer than the unarmed boy he stalked and killed.
 
righty45 on July 24, 2013 at 9:12 PM

 
Was Zimmerman was charged with stalking/unlawful pursuit? It’s a yes or no question. Thanks.
 
rogerb on July 25, 2013 at 7:13 AM

 
Were we? I believe I said Zimmerman stalked Martin. That’s pretty tough to argue with. As a result, you seem to have resorted to an argument that Zimmerman did not stalk Martin because he did not commit the cime of “stalking” under Florida state law. That strikes me as a (characteristically) stupid argument. One can use a term colloquially (and correctly) even though the actions one is describing do not satisfy the requisite elements of a state law crime that word happens to describe. For example, if I say you are harassing me, I don’t think I’m incorrect simply because you have not committed each element of “harassment” under Wyoming (or another state’s) law. Get it?
 
righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM

 

characteristically? Ha. Back to the ad hominems. Well done. Sorry you’re out of your depth and can’t adequately defend a position (again) without resorting to them. Do you really think they help your credibility?
 
Did you know about NBC editing that “scum” Zimmerman’s words before I gave you the link, btw?
 
Regardless, a position isn’t “pretty tough to argue with” when it’s countered with a simple yes or no question that you won’t answer. Hey, remember this?
 

It’s a yes or no question. Thanks.
 
righty45 on July 24, 2013 at 11:52 PM

 
Appreciate the non-response. Just as good as a yes. Thanks.
 
righty45 on July 25, 2013 at 12:09 AM

 
Thanks for establishing that. Neat how it works in reverse, isn’t it?
 
Speaking of credibility, do you care to try the yes/no part again, or would you rather reinforce your logical and well-reasoned position by calling me names after you realize what happened?

rogerb on July 26, 2013 at 6:51 AM

Because Zimmerman is a scumbag…

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:30 AM

You again?

You are still too stupid to have an adult conversation with, and a troll.

farsighted on July 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Ha. I just noticed-
 
Old/busted:
 

Was Zimmerman was charged with stalking/unlawful pursuit? It’s a yes or no question. Thanks.
 
rogerb on July 25, 2013 at 7:13 AM

 
One can use a term colloquially (and correctly) even though the actions one is describing do not satisfy the requisite elements of a state law crime that word happens to describe…
Get it?
 
righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM

 
New 43 minutes later hotness:
 

Who is homicidal?
 
righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:35 AM

 
The guy who tried to murder someone and ended up with a bullet hole instead. Hence the definition of the word homicidal.
 
sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 2:44 AM

 
Huh? Look up the definition of homicidal. This is mind-boggling. In your view, the victim of a homicide is homicidal, but the person who committed homicide is not. Absolutely nuts.
 
righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:55 AM

rogerb on July 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM

characteristically? Ha. Back to the ad hominems. Well done. Sorry you’re out of your depth and can’t adequately defend a position (again) without resorting to them. Do you really think they help your credibility?

Do you realize that the bolded is itself an ad hominem? And the post you linked to was not. Do you know what an ad hominem is?

Admittedly, calling your ankle biting and “arguments” in this thread “characteristically” stupid was an attack on you, personally. But frankly, if you continue to post as you do (full of misdirection, juvenile taunting, pointless links, and lack of any substantive argument), I don’t see how you can expect other posters to treat you with respect.

Did you know about NBC editing that “scum” Zimmerman’s words before I gave you the link, btw?

I stopped clicking on your links because they are never (literally, never) responsive to anything I say or supportive of your “arguments.” But yes, I’m aware of NBC’s editing. Once again, I don’t see how it’s relevant to anything we’re discussing.

Regardless, a position isn’t “pretty tough to argue with” when it’s countered with a simple yes or no question that you won’t answer. Hey, remember this?

It’s a yes or no question. Thanks.

righty45 on July 24, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Appreciate the non-response. Just as good as a yes. Thanks.

righty45 on July 25, 2013 at 12:09 AM

Thanks for establishing that. Neat how it works in reverse, isn’t it?

Speaking of credibility, do you care to try the yes/no part again, or would you rather reinforce your logical and well-reasoned position by calling me names after you realize what happened?

rogerb on July 26, 2013 at 6:51 AM

No, Zommerman was not charged with stalking. He was charged with Murder 2 and manslaughter — much more serious crimes. Again, what exactly are you getting at? Is it your position that because he was not charged with “stalking” under Florida state law, it is inaccurate to say he stalked Martin? Does that strike you as a logical argument? To reiterate:

One can use a term colloquially (and correctly) even though the actions one is describing do not satisfy the requisite elements of a state law crime that word happens to describe. For example, if I say you are harassing me, I don’t think I’m incorrect simply because you have not committed each element of “harassment” under Wyoming (or another state’s) law. Get it?

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM

righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Do you realize that the bolded is itself an ad hominem? And the post you linked to was not. Do you know what an ad hominem is?

 
Oh, sorry. I thought you’d broken that suit. Please let me know when it’s okay for us to play, too.
 

But frankly, if you continue to post as you do (full of misdirection, juvenile taunting, pointless links, and lack of any substantive argument)

 
I’m not entirely sure why you’d want to draw attention to it, but I’m sorry your positions require such little effort to counter.
 

(Can you see yet how it’s almost always to your advantage to stick to the actual topic?)
 

I stopped clicking on your links because they are never (literally, never) responsive to anything I say or supportive of your “arguments.”

 
Nicely done. Like last time, it’s amusing that you think I’ve posted them for you.

rogerb on July 27, 2013 at 6:36 AM

BTW, you do realize that I enjoy letting poster’s counter their own arguments by quoting their own contradictory positions and double standards, right?
 
Because, in all seriousness, when things like
 

scum like Zimmerman
 
righty45 on July 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM

 
are posted, there’s no changing that person’s mind. It’s belief, and religion can’t be argued with. That’s what makes faith such a powerful thing.
 
It can be effectively laughed at, chided, and minimized so that other less-informed readers aren’t influenced by it, though (re:NBC). That it can be done with the person’s own words makes it more amusing and challenging.
 
Because arguing with the faithful
 
He’s scum!
No he’s not!
He’s scum!
No he’s not!
He’s scum!
No he’s not!
ad nauseum
 
is extremely boring otherwise.
 
I realize it’s probably irritating to not catch on, but it goes back to credibility. The solution is to hold actual and similar moral positions regardless of the (D) or (R) name, race, topic, etc. (see stalking vs. homicidal above, the noticeable silence re:Chicago, and our previous abortion/guns rights discussion).
 
Hint: The link isn’t just for you.

rogerb on July 27, 2013 at 6:49 AM

Roger,

Helpful hint: posting quotes to reveal supposed double standards is itself an ad hominem. And your use of ad hominems reveals a double standard on your end (as you’ve complained about others using them against you). Pretty funny, huh?

All that wouldn’t be so bad, but the double standards you allege are poorly reasoned (like most of the content you post). Again, people will probably take you more seriously and treat you with the respect you desire when you at least attempt to advance affirmative, logical arguments, rather than copy and pasting unrelated posts and whining about ad hominems. Seriously, try it. You’ll feel more grown up, and people (including me) will treat you that way too.

Lastly, I resent your implication that my view of Zimmerman as “scum” results in a failure to make principled arguments. You (probably purposefully) neglected to mention that I said in this very thread that I would have found Zimmerman not guilty at trial. That alone demonstrates more principle than anything I’ve ever read from you.

Anyway, have a nice weekend. Hope you take my advice to heart. But sadly, I don’t expect you to.

righty45 on July 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM

Anyway, have a nice weekend. Hope you take my advice to heart. But sadly, I don’t expect you to.
 
righty45 on July 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM

 
Thanks, righty45. You, too. See you next thread.

rogerb on July 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4