Funny how the George Zimmerman defenders--here, there and everywhere have stopped defending him.

[trumad]

Yep---believe it or not there were several who defended this douchebag here on DU---- and many more outside DU--- folks I work with etc...who defended this guy non-stop.

They are now silent.

Even fools don't want to look like fools.

[marmar]

1. The fact that we had Zimmerman defenders here on DU .....

..... makes me want to

[PCIntern]

4. It is/was out not-so-sleepy sleeper-cell….

disgusting…but HEY! what can you do when there are so many disruptors around? Note how many of the usual suspects disappeared for now after the Kosher shop was attacked. But wait a while…they'll be back.

[FarPoint]

5. It's no longer the DU of yesterday years.

I believe I have unrealistic expectations now. I'm slowly accepting the change.

[NewDeal_Dem]

109. Those on the left were tolerated when DU was 'underground'.

Now they're hunted down & booted by corpo-dems.

[FarPoint]

113. The Left was a minimum requirement back in the day.

To revisit the days of progressive passion are missed,with fond memories.

[FSogol]

128. You've learned that in the one month you've been here?

Ooooh, gotta run, a squad of corpo-dems is trying to boot me.

[Hekate]

154. Things that make you wonder, eh?

>smh< one month

[arcane1]

201. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Sheepshank]

219. really? Bwahh.haa haa haaa?

I have no words for this take on reality.

[Chemisse]

2. It's about freaking time.

There was absolutely no defense for what he did. Only racists and gun extremists managed to twist things around in their minds to defend hunting down a black boy and killing him.

[Bjorn Against]

3. They will be back to show us how foolish they are at some point

This is not the first time that Zimmerman has been arrested for an act of violence since he got away with murder, his fan club has been silent after each of these incidents. They always come back however and they continue to peddle the bullshit lies and try to claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman first despite the absolute lack of evidence to back this up.

They are racist murder defenders, and a domestic violence arrest is not going to change their racist beliefs. They will be back to defending the murder of Trayvon Martin as soon as they think we have forgotten about Zimmerman's history of domestic violence.

[trumad]

6. true that...

But now when they come back they come back as even bigger morans than before.

[Enrique]

7. i'm skeptical there were people that defended Zimmerman

there may have been people that disagreed with you on something, and you're calling them Zimmerman defenders. That's been known to happen.

[DrDan]

9. or those who do not believe the prosecution proved their case

hardly defenders . . . but called that in grand DU tradition (not unlike calling anyone who criticizes the actions of the President a "racist hater&quot

[trumad]

11. oh please...

[GGJohn]

13. Oh please what?

Zimmerman was guilty IMO, but the prosecutors clearly didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the way our justice system works, if there's reasonable doubt, then the defendant is acquitted.
That's not defending Zimmerman, it's defending how our system is set up.

[Bjorn Against]

14. There was no reasonable doubt, the asshole admitted to following and killing Trayvon Martin

The only people who think there is reasonable doubt are people who think those who are shot by someone who claims "self defense" should be treated as guilty until proven innocent. Trayvon Martin had every last one of his rights stolen from him, but there are some disgusting people out there that believe the right to "self defense" outweighs every last one of the rights of the person the gunner shoots.

[GGJohn]

18. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

There was clearly reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and they ruled as the law dictates, if there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, then they must be found not guilty.
The prosecutions closing arguments were based more on emotion rather than facts, as most notable attorney's in the country pointed out, the jury, under the circumstances, rendered the correct verdict according to the law.

If you want to affix any blame, affix the blame to the state's prosecutor's, they did a piss poor job of trying the case.

[Bjorn Against]

21. No you go peddle your nonsense elsewhere, this is Democratic Underground not Gun Love Underground

The court system has wronged black people many times in this nation's history, and there is no reason to respect a verdict in a case in which the victim was treated as if he were the guilty party.

The fact that the prosecutors appointed by a right-wing attorney did a shitty job prosecuting the case does not make the verdict just.

[GGJohn]

22. WTF does "gun love" have to do with my post?

Hyperbole much?
I never said the verdict was just, I said it was the correct verdict given the shitty job the prosecutor's did.

The court system has wronged black people many times in this nation's history, and there is no reason to respect a verdict in a case in which the victim was treated as if he were the guilty party

Well no shit the victim was treated as if he were the guilty party, that's the job of the defense attorney, to get his client acquitted of all charges, again, that's part of our system, however vile it may seem.

[Bjorn Against]

23. The defense attorneys may try to smear the victim but the victim's rights still need to be respected

That is the problem, in many cases the defense attorneys will try to smear the victim but the courts are still supposed to respect the rights of that victim. The courts did not treat Trayvon as if he had any rights at all. Trayvon was treated as guilty until proven innocent and Zimmerman's "right to self defense" was placed above every last one of Trayvon Martin's rights.

And don't play stupid and ask me what your post has to do with gun love, anyone who looks at your history on this site knows your posts on this site are heavily focused on guns.

[GGJohn]

26. My post has nothing to do with my position on firearms, that's irrelevent to this

conversation, it has to do with the fact that the jury, given the facts of the case, the piss poor job of the state's prosecutor's, did render the correct verdict.

Again, the job of a defense attorney is to get their client acquitted of all charges, that's the way our system is set up.
You can complain all you want, but if you were in a similar situation, you would want a pit bull of a defense attorney also.

[Bjorn Against]

28. I am not talking about the defense attorney

Yes, I would want a pit bull of a defense attorney but that is irrelevent because this is not about the defense attorney, this is about a systemic issue in which the court treats the shooting victim as if he has no rights.

[GGJohn]

33. The shooting victim does have rights, that's what the prosecutor's are for,

to speak for the victim's, unfortunately, these prosecutor's failed in their job and the jury got it right, when there's reasonable doubt, the law says you must acquit.

In you earlier rant, you claim that those that defend Zimmerman are racists.....well, not one person here has defended Zimmerman, we're defending the system that allowed Zimmerman his day in court and the jury that, under the circumstances, got it right.

[IowaGuy]

189. Not exactly....

The prosecutor speaks for the state....not the victim. It is proper to note the state, the jury and the police at no point did justice for Trayvon

[gopiscrap]

168. Thank you!!!!!!

[randys1]

34. The jury referred to him as "georgie boy" as I recall...there was no doubt, you are right

The one thing I will add is the DA purposely did do a rather shitty job, the racist DA and the racist justice system in FL

But it was still clear to anybody that he was guilty

[GGJohn]

38. The jury did not refer to him as "Georgie boy", only one juror did that.

And rather or not the DA purposely did a rather shitty job? We'll probably never know, but I tend to agree that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, but because of the laughable job of the prosecutor's, the jury had no choice under the law but to vote not guilty.

[randys1]

41. Did they need a unanimous decision to convict?

and do you REALLY believe she is the ONLY one who had that attitude

please tell me you understand that is bullshit

Why are you arguing with people in this thread?


i thought all liberals were in agreement that Zimmy boy was wrong from the first action he took till his last, that he murdered that kid after hunting him...

that is what I thought

[GGJohn]

43. In our system, yes, it has to be a unanimous decision in a criminal trial to convict.

I have no idea if the other 5 jurors had the same attitude as that one juror, you'd have to ask them.

I thought all liberals don't walk in lockstep like the republicans? I thought liberals were independent thinkers, unlike republicans. I didn't think I would have to explain that.

[randys1]

45. Oh, so as a liberal you think maybe Trayvon precipitate his death somehow?

for the jury who is surely looking at this now, you MUST look at his answer to me when I said i thought we ALL agreed that zimmy was guilty, instead of agreeing he gave me a different answer so I then asked this question...




when I said i thought we all agreed he was guilty, this was his answer

I thought all liberals don't walk in lockstep like the republicans? I thought liberals were independent thinkers, unlike republicans. I didn't think I would have to explain that.

As a liberal I HAD TO ASK THE NEXT QUESTION...

[GGJohn]

47. Where the fuck did I ever say that?

Provide a link that I said or indicated that or apologize!!!!

[randys1]

50. I said i thought all liberals agreed on this, you said you thought liberals were not like cons

and didnt think in lockstep.

To me that answer did not distinguish your position on the Trayvon Martin deal so I ASKED you the question and did NOT accuse you of anything, so no apology will be coming.

If the answer is no, then this discussion is over.

but since you didnt answer it the first time , I thought I had to ask it again...

You are one of a few in this conversation seeming to take a position different from the rest of us...

[GGJohn]

52. The only fucking position I'm taking is that the jury,

given the circumstances of a piss poor job of the prosecutor's, had no choice under the law but to render a not guilty verdict.
If you had read all my comments in this thread, which you clearly didn't, you would know that, IMO, he is guilty of manslaughter.

I never once said or indicated that Martin deserved what happened to him.
Now, please apologize for your mis-characterization of my posts.

[randys1]

53. First, I agreed that DA purposely fucked up the case, the racist DA and justice system

and that while I would say 2nd degree murder, vol manslaughter would also be acceptable to me.

But you see the difference is you went immediately to reasons for his acquittal, regardless of what they were, while myself and others just went immediately to he was guilty of murdering that kid just like Darren Wilson is guilty of murdering Michael Brown.

[GGJohn]

59. Those reason for his acquittal were because of the lack of a robust prosecution

by the state, whether it was intentional or not, I've no idea, you'll have to ask them.
My reasons were the same reasons as most of the attorneys in the country, the state's case was weak, based on mostly emotions rather than evidence, given that, the jury, under the law, rendered the only verdict they could.

That doesn't mean that I think that Mr. Martin deserved what happened to him, like you attempted to accuse me of, it means that I agree that, given all the circumstances of the case, the verdict was the correct one under the law.

I disagree that Zimmerman is not guilty, but I agree that the verdict is correct.
Given Zimmerman's history, he'll either be in prison or dead in the future.

[JustAnotherGen]

125. Don't apologize randy

Don't do it. Nothing you wrote was a personal attack - it didn't break TOS. It's simply your perception.

Admin isn't in the business of making everyone friends.

[backwoodsbob]

83. why are you playing these little word games?

people like you are what make DU suck anymore.
The word games and word twisting here has become a joke.

[randys1]

85. Ahh yes, it is a liberal who AGGRESSIVELY pushes liberal positions who are the problem at DU

[GGJohn]

88. Now I get it,

we must all walk in lockstep with YOUR definition of what a liberal position is.
Thank you very much for educating us.

[randys1]

90. Not mine, the VAST majority of posters here who agree that Zimmerman hunted and killed

Trayvon...

Just like the thread I started about Darren Wilson being guilty, period

[GGJohn]

93. Who here has denied that that's what happened? eom

[brush]

96. Pls leave it alone with the hijacking of the thread . . .

which was about zimmerman supporters being silent with his latest manifestation of his violent nature.

But I guess they aren't so silent.

[backwoodsbob]

99. yep that's exactly what I said

You made my point better than you realize

[randys1]

101. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026072083

[backwoodsbob]

102. WTF?

I guess I should put a random link in here as a counter?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018710342

[GGJohn]

103. LOL. eom.

[NaturalHigh]

129. I like your link better.

[DrDan]

49. there was reasonable doubt introduced from witness after witness

and I am referring to the prosecution's witnesses.

And yes, I watched the trial. I live 30 miles away so have an interest.

And no, I am not a gun-enthusiast. I think our love of guns is adolescent.

And no, I am DEFINITELY not a fan of Florida's stand-your-ground laws.

[MrMickeysMom]

56. And from those witnesses?

I'm sure you'll infer what that reasonable doubt was now...

[phil89]

104. All prosecution witnesses

Basically supported the defenses version of events. I didn't support Zimmerman but he was clearly defending himself

[DrDan]

106. exactly

a weak case was presented on the part of the prosecutor.

Somehow that gets translated as defense of Zimmerman on the part of the OP and others.

Can't buck DU-think without repercusions.

[liberalhistorian]

139. Defending himself from what?

He was the one stalking and harassing a kid who was just trying to walk home from the damned store, which he was allowed to do without having to explain himself to a racist Barney Fife wannabe.

Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator not to get out of his car, not to keep following the kid. But he had to be macho man. His description to 911 hit every racist stereotype. And how dare Martin wear a hoodie when it was raining. The last words Martin's girlfriend heard him say was "why are you following me"? Did it never occur to you that Martin had reason and right to defend himself? He was the unarmed one, after all, and had far more reason to be afraid.

[LittleBlue]

234. That's the problem

Stalking does not give the stalked legal carte blanche to do whatever he wants.

And proving that Zimmy was breaking the law by stalking is very hard to do, as Zimmy was basically a nutjob version of a neighborhood watch. The witness who effectively ended this case saw Martin on top of Zimmy. Once that came out, and the testimony was connected with the cuts on the back of Zimmy's head, it was game over for the prosecution.

Hard to win a case when the physical evidence and witnesses are all against you. Legal analysts said before the trial that the evidence was too weak to support a murder charge.

Recognizing these problems with the case does not make one a Zimmy defender. You can go on and on with this emotional purity test, but it doesn't pass the logic test.

[R B Garr]

243. The "problem" is that you're saying self-defense only works one way.

Trayvon defending himself is twisted into "carte blanche to do anything", yet an armed Zimmerman being told to wait in his car by a 911 operator until police arrives somehow morphs into justified self-defense.

Sounds like extreme bias to me. I wonder why...

[LittleBlue]

244. And here is where your argument breaks down

Can you describe what Trayvon was defending himself against? What that defense was?

That's the problem. The prosecution couldn't make the legal argument that because Zimmy was following Trayvon, Trayvon needed to defend himself. Legally defending yourself from stalking doesn't involve beating up the other guy. With one witness, the defense could prove that Trayvon was on top of Zimmy, but there wasn't any evidence that Zimmy attacked first.

All of that was the crucial evidence that killed the prosecution. Trayvon justifiably being on top of Zimmy was one thing they couldn't explain in court. No one could, because it doesn't make sense why he would be on top other than for a beatdown.

[notadmblnd]

81. like we saw in Ferguson, prosecutors present the case they want to present

exactly how they want to present it.

[GGJohn]

84. Yes.

Now whether they "threw" the case or not? We'll probably never know, but given what the jury heard, then, IMO, they reached the correct verdict under the law, but, that doesn't mean I think Zimmerman is not guilty, quite the opposite, I just agree that the verdict was correct under the law.

[Vattel]

121. It's amazing how so many on DU cannot distinguish

between believing that Zimmerman did nothing wrong and believing that the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven't seen anyone argue that Zimmerman justifiably killed Martin. Many have argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. The idea that those who do make that argument are all racist gun-lovers is ridiculous, of course. But don't tell the lynch mob that.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Is someone who makes the following statement a "Zimmerman Defender"?

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a -- in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-remarks-on-trayvon-martin-full-transcript/2013/07/19/5e33ebea-f09a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

[Duckhunter935]

27. to many here, yes

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. He Learned His Lesson After The Henry Louis Gates Gaffe

Note that a "gaffe" is whenever an elected official speaks honestly about something.

[randys1]

37. OBAMA faces relentless racism and hate, all day, everyday, from up to ONE HUNDRED MILLION

Americans, of course he is going to say that, otherwise righty will riot and blame Obama for it.

Zimmerman hunted and murdered Trayvon and anyone who has any other opinion of it than that, is a defender.


PERIOD

[randys1]

46. Yes, Obama has to defend the indefensible otherwise the one hundred million rabid racist

assholes that live in this country will accuse him of starting a race war

[Nye Bevan]

65. So if he had not chosen to make that statement, a "race war" would have ensued?

Really?

[GGJohn]

67. It's statements like that, that you just want to

[Enrique]

63. no!

because reasons!

[GGJohn]

64. No, no, no.

Benghazi!!!!!!!

[Katashi_itto]

73. Here is an example

duffyduff (2,095 posts)
199. Lots of reasonable doubt there. The jury was correct in that case. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014536622#post121

[Nye Bevan]

75. Ah, someone mentioned "reasonable doubt", exactly like President Obama did (nt)

[Katashi_itto]

80. I don't care one way or another. I was just citing something I saw I took to be an example

I don't have a horse in this race.

[Enrique]

79. so someone says there was reasonable doubt in the Casey Anthony case

and that means they are defending George Zimmerman?

[Nye Bevan]

98. I have said Mark Furhman arguably introduced reasonable doubt into the OJ Simpson case

so I guess I am an "OJ Simpson defender".

[Sissyk]

133. I think you need to check your link therre, Katashi.

That reply you've posted is in response to someone talking about the Casey Anthony case. Not the Zimmerman case.

If we are going to smear individual posters, let's be sure we have the correct information, okay?

[brush]

91. What took you so long? nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

224. I defended Zimmerman to the extent that people were howling MURDER before the facts were known

but when the facts became clear, there was no defending him.

Now, with his clear anger issues, there can be no defending him.

I don't see the point.

[Nye Bevan]

8. I think most of them were trolls who have been banned.

That's why you don't see them posting here anymore.

Thanks MIRT!

[JustAnotherGen]

126. I saw one on Saturday

Tip toeing around . . .

[PeaceNikki]

10. At this point, the average American has a better chance of being assaulted by GZ than winning the

lottery.

[Taitertots]

12. Why would you think that people who agreed with the jury would defend him on unrelated charges

You need to learn to see things from other people's perspective sometimes.

[Bjorn Against]

16. There is no reason we should see things from the perspective of racist murder defenders

A lot of racist assholes wanted so badly to believe that the unarmed kid that Zimmerman gunned down was a criminal that they treated that kid as guilty until proven innocent. They acted as if Zimmerman had the right to kill him despite the fact that there was no evidence of wrong doing by Trayvon, but I never heard any of them express any concern what so ever for the rights of Trayvon Martin.

Fuck anyone who holds the perspective that the right to kill outweighs every last one of the rights of unarmed black people. We don't need to see their perspective any more than we need to see the perspective of the KKK supporters who defended lynching. Zimmerman defenders are racist murder supporting bigots and they should be treated as such.

[mythology]

20. But that would require not mischaracterizing other people's positions

It would require not assuming that one is always right.

Not humanity's strong suit.

[Duckhunter935]

30. many did not agree with the jury also

but deferred to the jury as they were there and had the evidence to decide. That also is not defending Zimmerman but the jury system.

[wellst0nev0ter]

35. Too Bad They Were Deferring To What Is Pretty Much An All-White Jury

And the only non-white juror was reportedly demeaned and mocked by the other jurors

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/26/the-only-non-white-juror-in-the-george-zimmerman-trial.html

[Duckhunter935]

42. Too bad that is the system

that we have all agreed to for several hundred years.

[wellst0nev0ter]

94. And You See How Well It Turned Out

So you can either accept a broken system, or at least act like you want to fix it.

[Duckhunter935]

95. how would you fix it?

[wellst0nev0ter]

118. Are You Interested In Fixing The Problem

See? I can throw questions back at people like a smartass too.

[Duckhunter935]

148. well since you are the one that said it was broken

not I, as you can double check. I would think that you would have some idea of fixing it. I guess I was wrong and all I received was a snarky response. That's OK if you do not have any ideas.

[wellst0nev0ter]

153. So It's Not Broken?

If that's what you think, then it would be a waste of time to answer any questions.

[demmiblue]

17. They are still here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6037707

[Nye Bevan]

19. I don't think sheshe2 is a "Zimmerman defender".

Did you accidentally link to the wrong post?

[HappyMe]

25. Sheshe2's whole thread is chock full of Zimmy defenders.

[Nye Bevan]

29. Do you mind providing a link to an actual post there that you see as "defending Zimmy"?

Shouldn't take you too long to find one if the thread is "chock full" of them.

[Duckhunter935]

31. I too would like to see those

but most times I have found when called out the person all the sudden stops posting in the thread.

[R B Garr]

100. And I've seen the opposite, so people have probably figured out

that game now from the same folks.

I've seen perfect descriptions with tons of references, often accompanied by numerous links, but the obtuseness continues. Hmm, I wonder why...

[JustAnotherGen]

203. I'm surprised you missed this post of someone point defending and justifying the Zimpigs shooting

PorridgeGun (80 posts)
249. Dancing around the actual facts and sticking your heads in the sand isn't going to get you very far
GZ had bleeding contusions on the back of his head from hitting the concrete sidewalk. He was bleeding from his nose and likely had a closed fracture, along with numerous other minor lacerations. UNderstand?

Zimmerman was the only one with injuries consistent with being physical assaulted, get it?

There was not a shred of evidence that Trayvon had started out as the victim of Zimmermans aggressions, not even the sort of light bruising that would result from a hard shove or the dna under the fingernails and on the hands that commonly results from defensive parry. Are you with me so far? And yes, I know, there are people stupid enough to believe that Trayvon not having Z's DNA under his nails goes against Zimmerman, but we understand differently now, don't we?

Ohh.. someone hit their head on the concrete just once and got knocked cold? Oh wait, no, it has nothing to do with that. He was knocked senseless by the first punch and likely fell to the ground limp. That certainly will ring your bell, but it has about as much to do with the Zimmerman case as the particulars of Mike Tysons last fight.

Next you'll be telling me about the guy that died after being hit by one punch, so how could zimmerman even have been alive to fire the shot? OMG! VAMPIRE!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023645749#post249

He made it all the way to November of this year with his 80 posts. Seems like he joined in August of 2013. . .


This one is so much better though . . .

the discussion thread: O'Mara: George Zimmerman will ask state to cover $200K-$300K of his legal bills [View all]
________________________________________
Response to Hoyt (Reply #24)
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 10:12 AM

PorridgeGun (80 posts)
70. Fact is? Oh dear..
Fact is, Z is not guilty of murder in anywhere other than your imagination. He never was, and should never have been charged.

Sorry assed jury?

Fact is, you'd rather make defamatory comments about people you don't know and have never met rather than admit that the 6 people who found him unanimously not guilty might have had a more even handed perspective on the thing than you can manage.

Fact is, there is no evidence zimmerman "stalked" Trayvon. Sorry, getting out of your car to see what someone who has just disappeared behind a row of houses might be up to is not "stalking" by any sane definition of the term.

Fact is, it was the unhinged, emotionally hysterical reactions to the case that prompted an unscrupulous but politically cunning prosecutor with a history of overcharging defendants to put on a show trial at enormous taxpayer expense.

Fact is. you are on to something when you cite the self defense laws, but you. like many commenters on here, are unable to get your minds off of demonizing zimmy, the jury and anyone who disagrees with you long enough to have a positive impact on that issue.

Fact is, Zimmy is a mediocrity who represents the attitudes and views of a very large swath of middle american men around his age. He was emboldened SYG to get out of his car when he should have stayed put. These laws create new Zimmermans by the tens of thousands and the focus should have been on them from the beginning rather on ridiculous attempts to paint Z as a "bigot" when, yet again, there is no evidence he is/was and some evidence to the contrary.

If people were willing to spend the amount of time and energy getting these laws amended or repealed that they've spent shrieking anti-zimmerman invectives over the internet and airwaves we might have seen some positive change on the issue.

If you're true to form you'll now accuse me of being a Zimmerman supporter despite the fact I've made it clear I believe he f&^ked up by not staying put, which is the problem. If this case has screwed with your mind to the point where you cannot brook any disagreement without spouting hysterical, defamatory drivel, perhaps you should take a break.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=577176


Oh by the way - did you know that the Medical Examiner was told to shut up even though he had proof that Zimmerman was the aggressor?


At minimum - if not outright 'defending' - then - he certainly spent his time here as a whiny little snot didn't he? Oh the POUTrage that someone doesn't like the Zimpig! Ohhhhhhhhhhhh the manateeeeeeeeeeeeee!

I'm surprised that second one which was pretty insulting to the poster wasn't hidden. He obviously was so upset that someone thought Zimmie was too wet to step on and too low to kick that he needed the smelling salts.

[Nye Bevan]

206. Thank you! Good to see that low-post count troll was removed by MIRT!

Confirms my theory that we don't see Zimmerman defenders here today because they were trolls who have been banned.

Thanks MIRT!

[JustAnotherGen]

210. So no acknowledgment - zip, zero, nilch

of how much this guy who was here for a YEAR was a Zimpig defender?

I thought your argument was people just "Oh my innocent eyes and heart" do that at DU. Like ya know? Ever?

You are kind of all over the place.

And what's really funny and cute? You should have known that thread.

Hmmmm . . . . <--- Me and Robert Downey Jr! (Reference for folks in the know on the actor and his online user name. I figured you wouldn't be familiar with that name so I thought I'd help.)

[Nye Bevan]

211. MIRT does an excellent job and did (of course) eventually ban him.

I do appreciate very much that you provided a link to the post (and showed others that doing such a thing is really not that difficult).

Thanks to you, and thanks again to MIRT!

[JustAnotherGen]

218. You could have provided that link yourself Nye

Some of the best people/posters at DU etc. etc.

You had it.

I don't want to link to the thread where you posted it as it could subject me to site discipline - but you did have it. Just a few days ago . . .

Are you implying you had NEVER seen that thread before?

Because I find that kind of interesting.

[Nye Bevan]

220. I might have seen that thread but missed the post that you spotted in the 250+ responses.

But thank you again for setting an example to others here and actually going to the trouble of providing a link.

[JustAnotherGen]

225. Really? You must not retain what you read/peruse in depth. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=11681

[Nye Bevan]

227. Wait.... so because I cited this one post of yours,

you assume that I read through, and remembered, every single one of the other 250+ posts in that thread?

[JustAnotherGen]

228. Actually no

Because you wouldn't have cited that in the AA Group - to an AA Group Host (Me)

If you had even paid attention to what the OP it was in response to.

You were so quick to prove your point - to impress upon others that YOUR view is truly the only one you will ever accept (That's my impression - not an attack - my perception of your patterns here)

That you made yourself look like an idiot.<--- (ETA - that was what I received in two text messages from two different people I know IRL - I'm just sharing with the class). Not to me - but that's what I've received in PMS.

I really hope no one alerts on me for sharing with the 'class' what I received in PM's from people. And that was -

I can't believe people who will do anything to score points that they won't even pay attention to what their NON Zingers referred to.

It also - I hope shows that perhaps as much as you want to be perceived as this 'sweet affable guy' that perhaps Nye has a dark side. Now to me - a dark side is not a bad thing! But I've got a bit of one myself.

[Nye Bevan]

55. Take your time. Let us know when you find one (nt)

[HappyMe]

72. Sorry, but real life interrrupted

the need to do your bidding.

To save time, why not read the damn thread yourself. Or not.

Laundry and a grocery list to finish.

[Nye Bevan]

74. Yep. It is very time-consuming to find a single "Zimmy-supporting" post

in a thread that is absolutely "chock-full" of them.

[HappyMe]

82. I'm not willing to play your game.

I will not post a link that will be construed as a call out, and hidden.

Have a good day.

[trumad]

86. That is the tactic.

I don't think they have the smarts to realize that they all come running to these threads at the same time.

The same exact characters every single time.

[Nye Bevan]

87. OK, PM me the link and I will post it myself. So you have no risk of getting a hide (nt)

[JustAnotherGen]

204. I gave him one

I played it safe by picking someone with 80 posts that joined right after the Zimpig got a pat on the head and good boy Georgie - and who got tombstoned in November.

I figure if it's a non member he can't alert on me for picking on another member.

[Nye Bevan]

208. Nobody ever got a post hidden for linking to a low-post count troll who got banned.

I don't even see why anyone would ever alert on such a post.

[JustAnotherGen]

209. He was here for over a year

That's the point - IF we linked to someone say -

On this thread. . .

That would be an alert and a hide.

I know you know what you know.

I know what I know. Trumad and I know the same thing.

I'm with Trumad on this.

Sorry - but you have to accept that there are people that disagree with you.

[H2O Man]

213. Exactly.

Odd how invested some are on this, eh?

[JustAnotherGen]

217. I don't understand why he's arguing this point so vociferously

What does he 'get' by pushing this idea? Like - what's in it for him since he states he's not a Zimmerman supporter at all?

Why defend those people?

[Nye Bevan]

221. Not sure that thanking you for a link and praising MIRT for banning someone

is "arguing a point vociferously".

[JustAnotherGen]

223. One of the people who doesn't post enough here these days is H20 Man

He has a beautiful mind. . . here's what he stated and I think it's a very respectful way of stating what I'm thinking - so I'm just going to c/p his words here -

If a person who didn't identify with what the OP addressed had not read posts here that defended zimmerman, I would expect him or her to respond with something like, "Holy cow! I did not see any posts like that, and I'm glad I didn't. DU surely attracts some curious people, from time to time, doesn't it, Mr. Trumad?"

When a person's reaction is to post, over and over and over (and over) a personal challenge: "Prove this unto my satisfaction!," demanding links, urine samples, finger prints, and references to the US Supreme Court's decision on Bush v Gore, I wonder: why so invested? why so sad

?

[H2O Man]

222. Exactly 2

If a person who didn't identify with what the OP addressed had not read posts here that defended zimmerman, I would expect him or her to respond with something like, "Holy cow! I did not see any posts like that, and I'm glad I didn't. DU surely attracts some curious people, from time to time, doesn't it, Mr. Trumad?"

When a person's reaction is to post, over and over and over (and over) a personal challenge: "Prove this unto my satisfaction!," demanding links, urine samples, finger prints, and references to the US Supreme Court's decision on Bush v Gore, I wonder: why so invested? why so sad?

[Nye Bevan]

229. When someone makes a complaint about behavior on DU,

like (for example) grumbling about "Zim-porters clustering and sticking", is it enormously unreasonable to politely request that the person complaining provide an example of the behavior they are grumbling about? Several DUers other than me also posted the same request, until JustAnotherGen very kindly stepped up and provided a link to the kind of post Trumad was referencing. As far as I am concerned, everything is all good and I am not attempting to "prove" anything.

[H2O Man]

230. Oh, deer!

The zim-porters comment is in no way a complaint or grumbling. That exists only in your mind. It was, in fact, me sharing a giggle with my Good Friend -- nothing more, nothing less.

[malaise]

24. Yep

They have vanished into thin air

[randys1]

39. You mean other than the ones you can see everywhere...weird how you can say you are not

defending Zimmy by just saying the jury was there, we werent, what do we know




HOW the AfAm community manages their patience

WOW

[pipi_k]

36. I don't see what's so funny about it

Assuming the word "funny" is being used synonymously with "oddly strange" or "ironic".


People defended Zimmerman dependent on what was going on during his trial. They wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now he's shown his true colors.

Now people know who he really is.


If people are changing their opinion of him, I don't think it's sporting to rub their noses in what they thought before.

[randys1]

40. Anyone who defended him at ANY point is a defender of a murderer and i wont say more

given the way things work

[underpants]

44. It's like Hannity took Cliven off his speed dial

[butterfly77]

48. Like this guy..

What happened????????

[davidn3600]

51. Defending Zimm and suggesting the state didn't prove their case are two different things

Very few people were defending Zimmerman. What you had were people who were suggesting the state's case in the murder trial was weak based on the law and the evidence.

Proving 2nd degree murder is not an easy task in a case like this when you are in a state like Florida with very lax and broad self-defense laws, and no direct eye-witness.

Plus the cops were all on Zimmerman's side. The prosecution kept putting police detectives on the stand who kept backing up Zimmerman's story. What the fuck did you want the jury to do?

[DrDan]

57. not to some here . . . one-in-the-same

[trumad]

54. I guess I was wrong...

Looks like we still have defenders.

[MrMickeysMom]

58. Yes...

… and they are bound to be drawn out by you OP, which hopefully won't be locked.

Justice is blind as a bat sometimes.

[GGJohn]

62. Here's another one for you,

None are so blind as those that refuse to see.

[MrMickeysMom]

115. Wel...

… Here's to your good vision, then!

[GGJohn]

116. I wish, eyesight going, legs going, brain going, and the most important

part of my anatomy is.....well, that's a bit personal.

Rain and snow today, an indoor type of day.

[Nye Bevan]

60. Presumably you alerted on those despicable, Zimmerman-defending posts

that for some reason I am not able to see.

Perhaps you could post the jury results, which would be interesting to see as obviously the jury system is failing in this regard.

[GGJohn]

61. Point out one person that's defending Zimmerman the person here.

Please, just one.

[trumad]

66. been here a long long time

If it walks like a Duck....quacks like a Duck and smells like a Duck... we'll it's a fucking Duck.

Now would I say that there are Zimmerman apologists in this thread???? No way...that would trigger my alert stalker...and I don't want to do that.

Nah....let's just say I was wrong globally about the Zimmerman apologists hiding in their shame.

They are not actually hiding...they are just coaching their opinion differently.

[Nye Bevan]

68. Interesting how the "DU IS FULL OF ZIMMY SUPPORTERS!" folks

are somehow never prepared to supply a link to an ostensibly "Zimmy-supporting" post that was not hidden by a jury or MIRT.

[trumad]

76. Well that's kind of hard to do...

You see there's a thing called walking a fine line and some are very good at it.

They know that if you provide a link and explain what really is between the lines---well--- an alert stalker will come along and say--- hey---that member just called out another member.

You know what I mean.

[Nye Bevan]

89. PM me the link. I'll post it and risk getting the hide (nt)

[trumad]

92. I don't trust you as far as I can throw you.

[Nye Bevan]

97. Uh huh

[JustAnotherGen]

205. I found a safe example upthread Trumad

Non member - tombstoned around the mid terms - joined August of 2013 right after the Zimpig trial.

[GGJohn]

69. So in other words, you can't provide a link to anyone here defending

Zimmerman the person?
Thought so, and I wouldn't alert on it, not my style, I'll refute it rather than try to hide, free wheeling debate is a good thing.

[trumad]

77. Uh huh

[Enrique]

71. that's not how this game is played

they don't come out and say it, they insinuate it.

I don't want to do that so I will spell out who I'm talking about: I'm talking about trumad.

[trumad]

78. uh huh

[onpatrol98]

150. I believe you are a Zimmerman defender.

There may be many here who sincerely disagree with me. Perhaps they know you better. There are some who might agree with me, but would like to remain on DU. I don't have that burden. I believe you are a Zimmerman defender. I believe the people who insist on entering each thread about Zimmerman to defend the verdict of Zimmerman is a defender of Zimmerman. I don't know how thorough your defense of him goes. For me...quite possibly only me, a person who is not a defender of Zimmerman wouldn't defend a decision that seems so indefensible. But, you say you defend the process. I don't defend a process that lets the murderer of that child go free. I think that process is seriously flawed. It doesn't deserve a pedestal. It deserves an overhaul. In fact, I think it was a grand display of institutional racism. Zimmerman had his day in court...and yet, there was no justice for Trayvon. And, that's the problem. They can shoot us dead in the street, strangle us on camera and good folk...with good intentions...will stand in front of us...and cheer "The Process". What a fine process for young black men in America? Shot dead, and denied justice by conservatives, our losses glossed over by well meaning (after my brief time on DU, I'm not even sure of that anymore) liberals.

DU is full of allies...perhaps on many issues, you are one. But, on this...I believe you are a Zimmerman defender. It is my opinion.

Perhaps it is a call out. I don't really think so. Since, I'm responding to a direct request. The one person that I would like to point out...the just one I'd choose to offer you, would be you.

Feel free to alert. Or, do the 3-Dimensional chess...jury, process apology.

[GGJohn]

152. As I have stated many times, IMO, Zimmerman is guilty of Vol. Manslaughter,

but the state so fucked the prosecution, the jury had no choice under the law but to find him not guilty, that doesn't make me a Zimmerman defender.
But if you want to believe that I'm defending Zimmerman, that's your prerogative, it's wrong, but it's yours.

And I don't alert, I prefer open and robust debate, not censorship.

[onpatrol98]

157. It's my opinion...

To me...the jury did have a choice. To me, only a Zimmerman defender could suggest the only outcome based on the evidence was not guilty.

In fact, I actually believe, quite possibly, the exact opposite. I believe the only outcome, based on the evidence was guilty.

You are right, it is my prerogative to believe you are defending Zimmerman. You believe I'm wrong. I believe I'm right. Some will agree with you. Some will agree with me.

I also believe an open, honest, and robust debate is absolutely necessary for a proper understanding. Thank you.

[GGJohn]

158. I didn't say based on the evidence, I said based on the law, the only correct

verdict was not guilty.
BTW, just about every prosecution witness were more helpful to the defense than the state.

But, fair enough, it's your opinion, I disagree with it.

[Hekate]

155. ~~~~

+1

[GGJohn]

156. You give him/her a +1 so it seems you agree, I would like to request that you

link to one, just one, post where I've defended Zimmerman the person, you can PM me the link so it won't be considered a call out and face a possible alert.
TIA.

[Starry Messenger]

171. +1

[demmiblue]

198. +1

As to the first line in your second paragraph, I highly doubt it.

[GGJohn]

200. Wow, that's deep. eom

[Bobbie Jo]

199. +1

Well said.

[Nevernose]

70. He's going to end up like OJ

He's eventually going to get arrested for something relatively minor, found guilty because of Trayvon Martin, and the judge is going to put him away for as long as humanly possible.

There's absolutely anyone who was not OJ would have gone to prison for that "robbery," by the way, and this comes from someone with pretty good knowledge of the Nevada legal system. The career criminals without guns? Not a day in prison; time served and probation. The unarmed, first time offender who was taking back his own stuff? He'll die in prison.

I can only hope the same thing happens to Zmmerman before someone else gets killed.

[JonLP24]

105. I noticed the same thing

I haven't seen a Zimmerman defender for awhile.

[GGJohn]

108. I agree with you,

and I still don't see anyone defending Zimmerman the person.

[R B Garr]

202. Yet Zimmerman, the person, is who shot Trayvon.

[GGJohn]

231. No fucking shit!!!

Has anyone here denied that?

[R B Garr]

235. Then quit separating them and pretending no one notices.

This whole thread contains many "deniers". No fucking shit.

[H2O Man]

107. Recommended.

But-but-butt-butt -- what'a 'bout innocent until proven guilty?

Thank you, Mr. T. I surely do appreciate seeing you participating here more often recently.

[bluestateguy]

110. I have seen that too

I have some conservative friends on FB. Some of them agreed with him getting off free in the killing.

I posted the news of his most recent arrest, along with a wise ass remark. Not one of the conservatives has stepped up to defend him.

[trumad]

112. Basically what my Op is about...

Of course it was hijacked by the usuals.

[miyazaki]

111. Droll post to toot your own horn

Toss your flamebait and gather up your hyenas and try to look like a hero somebody.

[Jamastiene]

114. There are quite a few still here. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

117. trust me, that crowd has simply moved to twitter

[cwydro]

119. Zimmerman is scum

No effing way anyone defended him here.

[trumad]

120. sure they did

[H2O Man]

122. I really wish

that I could "recommend" this a second time. After already recommending your OP, I've found myself re-reading through the growing number of responses. I admire your ability to post a fly-paper, where Zim-porters cluster and stick.

Good job!

[trumad]

124. same characters come running every time.

And no that

[JustAnotherGen]

127. I noticed that

Very interesting thread.

Being accused of being a Zimpig defender is the worst thing in the world. *smh*

[billh58]

212. Yep

too true...

[Nye Bevan]

130. But what is going on with DU juries?

Why have none of the "Zim-porting" posts in this thread been hidden?

How many of them did you alert on?

[H2O Man]

131. Zero.

I do not "alert" on anything on DU. More, when I do serve on a jury, I add my name at the end of my comment.

What is your favorite color?

[Nye Bevan]

132. Grumbling about DU posts you dislike, while never alerting on any of them,

is a bit like someone who never votes in elections grumbling about Congress.

[H2O Man]

134. I wouldn't know.

I don't grumble about DU posts I dislike. And I always vote -- even if there are no elections.

Again: what is your favorite rice dish?

[Nye Bevan]

160. Bemoaning "Zim-porters clustering and sticking" is not "grumbling"?

Is your comment about "Zim-porters clustering and sticking" intended as praise? If so, my apologies for misinterpreting your "Zim-porters clustering and sticking" statement as a complaint.

[GGJohn]

136. So, H2O Man, why don't you point out who here is defending Zimmerman the person.

We'll wait.

[H2O Man]

137. Yes, you will wait.

Good luck with that.

[GGJohn]

138. Thought so,

because no one here is defending Zimmerman the person.

[H2O Man]

140. Gosh.

Thanks for sharing!

[trumad]

141. because it will get juried

Every single time. You'll simply alert. ..label it a call out. ..and some dumb jury will vote to hide.

This type of tactic is easy to spot and many of us don't fall for it anymore.

So good luck.

[GGJohn]

142. As I told you before,

I don't alert, I prefer open and robust debate over censorship.

[trumad]

144. you don't maybe

But there are professional alert stalkers who love to alert.

[GGJohn]

145. I don't doubt it, it's happened to me and I condemn the practice,

so I can see why you would be reluctant to name anyone.

[trumad]

147. here's the thing

The defenders I refer to are very careful in how they respond....those new here and those who haven't paid close attention think their replies are just fine.

But...those who have paid attention and have been around awhile see the pattern...can read between the lines...and chuckle at their perceived cleverness.

[Duckhunter935]

149. yep, happened to me several times

But you could PM the person asking and he or she could state the question was satisfactory answered.

[H2O Man]

143. True, that.

Actually, the reason I do not is because I have no need to provide the person making the demand with anything. I have no interest in his opinion. None. Hence, I am not going to invest even the tiniest fraction of energy in attempting to "prove" anything to him.

Your explanation sounds nicer, though. I suppose that is because you are nicer than me.

[trumad]

146. it's like my Republican friends...

You lay out facts and they want you to prove the facts with a thesis. They want you to provide the evidence that what you say is true. Intellectual laziness on their part.

[Nye Bevan]

161. You only have 1 hidden post in the past 90 days. 4 hides to go before you are suspended.

Are you really that terrified of a single jury hide? I guess your fear is proof that the jury system works pretty well keeping folks in line.

[trumad]

169. suspended for 4 months at the end of 2013

Because of one fucking alert stalker and some lousy Juries. Jury system sucks.

[pintobean]

172. That seems so unfair

The rest of us can only get up to 90 days, and the possibility for a suspension didn't exist until 2014.

[R B Garr]

176. Yes, you do keep track of things.

[pintobean]

177. That was a bannered announcement.

Everyone should have read it.

If someone is being treated unfairly, we should all know about it.

[R B Garr]

179. Oh, I doubt that was the real reason for your post.

I would bet you know exactly what he meant since you watch so closely.

[pintobean]

180. Why don't you tell us what he meant

and the real reason for my post.

[R B Garr]

181. Better yet, you tell us why you care about his posts.

Also, why would you brag at Discussionist about feminists posting here on this website less. Why would that even be important to you.

[pintobean]

183. I was pretty clear about my concern

You seem to think people's posts mean something other than what is posted. If you are unwilling to explain, you shouldn't make such claims.

If you have a problem with something posted on Discussionist, I suggest you deal with it there.

[R B Garr]

185. Yes, you are very clear about your "concern" for trumad.

You are also very clear about your "concern" about feminists.

[GGJohn]

232. And here you are so concerned about pintobean's posts.

Why do you care about his posts?

[R B Garr]

233. You are here, too. So concerned about protecting Zimmerman

oh, wait -- the law. You're so concerned about the law.

[GGJohn]

237. Saying I'm protecting Zimmerman is a lie, so why are you lying?

[R B Garr]

238. Hey, if you want to contradict yourself, go right ahead.

But if you say that the law is your focus and the jury could come to no other conclusion, then you agree that Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was justified. Those two things go together. If the shooting was "justified", then you are protecting Zimmerman.

But you can continue to contradict yourself that it's all about the "law."

[GGJohn]

239. See? You're lying again about what I said.

Read carefully and s l o w l y, I said that, IMO, Zimmerman was guilty of Vol. Manslaughter, but the prosecution so dicked up the case, the jury had no other choice but to render, UNDER THE LAW, the verdict that they did.
Get it now?
That's not defending Zimmerman, that's criticizing the prosecution for their piss poor performance.

[R B Garr]

240. Obviously the prosecution did poorly, but it's a lie

to say that the jury had no other choice UNDER THE LAW. That's your distorted opinion. If that's all you can see from the choices given the jury, then you think the shooting was somehow justified, since the shooting was a trumped up self-defense scenario (UNDER THE LAW).

[GGJohn]

241. If you're going to continue to lie, then we're done here.

[R B Garr]

242. LOL, your own post #59 in this thread describes your OPINION

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

It's your OPINION that the jury got it right. In order for you to have that opinion, then you have to agree on some level the shooting was justified. That's the only way your OPINION that the jury had no choice but Not Guilty makes sense.

Don't get me wrong, your observations about the prosecution are shared by many and makes sense. But to say the jury had no other choice is not at all accurate.

Okay, Bye.

[GGJohn]

245. Right, it's my opinion that the jury got it right because the prosecution screwed up

royally, under those circumstances, the jury, according to the law, rendered the correct verdict under our system.
You know, that whole reasonable doubt thing.

Now, you keep saying that because I think the jury got it right, then I must think that the shooting was justified, that's completely wrong, I think the jury got it right due to the prosecution not proving their case, but that doesn't mean the I think it was justified, my opinion is, and has been, that Zimmerman got away with Manslaughter.

[Blue_Adept]

246. Jury Results

On Mon Jan 12, 2015, 08:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you're going to continue to lie, then we're done here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6077916

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is the third or fourth time he has called the poster a liar. Skinner has said it is all right to say a post is a lie, but not all right to say that the poster is lying or a liar.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jan 12, 2015, 08:44 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disagreeing and lying are two different things. Vote to Hide.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Make your life easier, don't feed the trolls. That being said, this does not rise to the level of a hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In the context I think he has the right to say that - the "lie" refers to this exchange, which is emotional. He doesn't seem to be calling the poster a liar. The poster is saying that this guy thinks Zimmerman is justified, and that doesn't seem to be his opinion.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Oh, how I miss the DU2 rules against this and personal attacks.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[trumad]

186. not saying I did not deserve it...

[JustAnotherGen]

123. Thank you Trumad

And you are correct but I will go one step further - they are defenders.

I saw a few back track on Saturday here - but still came across as smug.

[Omaha Steve]

135. Wonder what George will do next?

We need a pool going on when and what it will be.

I'll take Jan 23rd 2015 he kicks a dog and gets charged with it.

[Prophet 451]

151. I don't remember anyone here defending him

I remember several people pointing out that he was due a fair trial but that's all.

[Nye Bevan]

159. Many in this thread have pointed this out, and asked the OP for a link to any post, anywhere on DU,

that "defends Zimmerman".

The OP has declined to provide any such link, with the excuse that he is terrified that his post containing the link will be alerted on and hidden by a jury (even though he has only 1 hidden post on his record during the past 90 days and it would take 4 more to get him a suspension).

Now, while it is good to see the fear of jury hides moderating Trumad's behavior (this is certainly not the Trumad of old), I offered to have him PM me the link and I would post it, removing the risk of him getting a post hidden, and accepting this risk myself.

He still declined, which clearly calls his excuse into question.

When DUers like to complain about DU but are unable to provide links to substantiate their complaints, folks should draw their own conclusions.

[DonCoquixote]

162. Oh yes

half the people seemed ready to elect him to office.

[Nye Bevan]

163. But like everyone else who claims this, you can't provide a single link as an example, can you?

(This is where you do a quick hopeful DU Google search before concluding "darn it, he's right&quot .

[DonCoquixote]

164. here ya go

read the slop that was here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002452886

but of course, you will deny the support zimmerman got here.

[Nye Bevan]

165. That's a link to a post by UnrepentantLiberal

which does not appear to me to be supportive of Zimmerman.

Did you accidentally link to the wrong post?

[DonCoquixote]

166. no, I said

look at those yellign AT unrepental Liberal as they defend Zimmerman

[trumad]

170. there are plenty of links like that...

Plenty.

[Nye Bevan]

173. Can you provide a link to an example of such a post? (nt)

[pintobean]

174. Nice choice, Don

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217191&sub=trans

[DonCoquixote]

175. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023335057

Note the people defendingzimmerman's "rescue" story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=544934

note the people that defended Zimmerman here, especially reply 80 that assumed evidence was false.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3217110

Note the way the gungeoneers kept denying Zimmerman could even shoot the gun.

[Nye Bevan]

190. The first post you linked to said that Zimmerman's rescue "may have been staged",

which does not appear to be a defense of Zimmerman.

The second post you linked to referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker". Again, hardly a defense.

The third post you linked to (by Kingofalldems) said that Zimmerman "appears to be some sort of hero in the gun fancier community". Not exactly a "Zimmy defender".

The reply 80 you mentioned in the second thread you referenced was objecting to someone who was saying that in the absence of video evidence they would assume that Zimmerman's rescue did not happen.

Really, is it so difficult for those who claim to see "Zimmy defenders" all over DU to cite just one post that "defends" him?

[gopiscrap]

167. and I would tell each one of fools what a bunch of

ignorant stupid fuck, gun humping asswipes they are each day I see them and how wrong they were!

[LanternWaste]

178. This thread illustrates that many of his defenders' new line is "who ever defend him?"

This thread illustrates that many of his defenders' new line is "who ever defend him?"

[Nye Bevan]

192. Actually a reasonable question, as nobody is able to produce a link to a "Zimmerman defending" post.

Do you have a link to a previous DU post that "defends Zimmerman"?

[LanternWaste]

194. Bless your little heart. Of course you can't remember any posts defending Zimmerman.

Bless your little heart. Of course you can't remember any posts defending Zimmerman... memories are full of self-validating holes.

(this is where you play "Do You Have A Link" again to feel better about the people who implicitly defended him)

[Nye Bevan]

195. (Lanternwaste does quick DU Google search and is unable to find "Zimmy-defending post")

.... posts "Bless your little heart" instead.

But that's OK, your post is still informative.

[billh58]

182. Funny how this OP brought

out the usual GZ defender suspects isn't it?

[trumad]

188. yep

I don't think they are smart enough to know that they congregate like flies and crap.

[Nye Bevan]

191. Except that neither the OP nor you can cite a single post in this thread that "defends Zimmerman".

If this thread really was full of folks defending Zimmerman, wouldn't you expect to see one or two jury hides? Maybe even a "Name Removed"?

[DrDan]

196. Funny how this OP brought

out the usual "agree with me or you are a RW, racist, troll" suspects, isn't it.

I have yet to see a post defending Z, only supporting the legal system as defined. Guess in the minds of some, those are one-in-the-same.

[GGJohn]

197. Can you post a link of someone defending Zimmerman? eom.

[Nye Bevan]

215. Someone upthread finally provided a link to the kind of post Trumad has in mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6076160

It was a low-post count disruptor who was banned by MIRT for being a racist troll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=306490&sub=trans

I thought in most cases the text of disruptors' posts is removed when they are banned, but perhaps this one slipped through the cracks somehow. In any case, the good work that MIRT does is probably responsible for the phenomenon noticed by Trumad.

[ScreamingMeemie]

184. I don't know. The fools in my neighborhood and in my own family defend him.

Lots of fools don't like to be wrong.

[Hoyt]

187. Most of those defending Zman here were also gun toters.

[Catherine Vincent]

193. Not this website but there are a few still defending him

Well, not defending him hard but they are either blaming the media for hounding him or berating the late Trayvon Martin and blaming him.

They are unbelievable.

[Nye Bevan]

214. Actually someone upthread provided a link to a DU post that arguably defended Zimmerman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6076160

It was a low-post count troll who was banned by MIRT as being a racist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=306490&sub=trans

I think the fact that such people get identified and banned addresses Trumad's point in the OP that he does not see Zimmerman defenders here anymore.

Thanks MIRT!

[trumad]

216. Like I said...

I was wrong...this thread tells me they are still here...they now have a new tone.

[JustAnotherGen]

226. Agreed and the example I provided Trumad

The guy was here from the beginning of August 2013 through November (I want to say 4th) of this year.

His posts were pretty caustic - probably got juried - but the jury didn't find issues with his words/content/hostile tone.

I think in that case it's probably like how some of us get that icky sicky ewww feeling about someone - it makes you feel dirty and icky -

And you just gotta wait them out.

Oh trust me - they've changed their tone. In the link I provided I guarantee you they will now use that as a 'gold standard' of what NOT to write.

That's the problem - we give them the tools to dodge, deflect, defer, and find out how we get on to them.

[samsingh]

207. now he's beating up white people

before he killed a black youth - I guess easier to argue that Zimmerman, who started the fight and was the one who was armed, was at risk and justified.

Zimmerman is a piece of shit, coward, and moron.