Photo of bloodied, broken nosed George Zimmerman released

[Cancel 2018. 3]

zappa's hypocrisy is hilarious

while whining about people saying he is innocent, he claims he is guilty.

pot/kettle

 

[zappasguitar]

and of course you have proof SF said he was innocent...right? i've never seen a single post from SF that said he was innocent.

but we all know you won't back up your claim because you're a proven liar.

Oh nononono...

That's not what you said earlier...

SF has never said he was innocent. good lord, why do you lie so often about what people say?

You claimed SF has never said Zimmerman was innocent....not that you'd "never seen" him do so.

Back it up or admit it's just another YurTard lie.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Oh nononono...

That's not what you said earlier...



You claimed SF has never said Zimmerman was innocent....not that you'd "never seen" him do so.

Back it up or admit it's just another YurTard lie.

1. my "claim" was in response to YOUR claim. back it up or admit its just another zappygetard lie.

2. you're asking me to prove a negative idiot.

watch...zappa will not back up his claim

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And now the frantic backpedaling begins...

$10 bucks says we're going to see a whole lot more of this kind of post from the very same JPP Righties who've repeatedly condemned Martin for months now.

prove he back peddled or admit you're telling another zappyretard lie.

 

[zappasguitar]

1. my "claim" was in response to YOUR claim. back it up or admit its just another zappygetard lie.

2. you're asking me to prove a negative idiot.

watch...zappa will not back up his claim

It doesn't matter what your "claim" is in response to. What matters is you stated quite clearly that SF "has never said Zimmerman was innocent."

So that's a NO...you can't back up your claim that SF had NEVER said Zimmerman was innocent.

Just as I thought.

 

[zappasguitar]

prove he back peddled or admit you're telling another zappyretard lie.

Right after you corroborate your statement regarding SF.

Don't take too long...ROTFLMAO!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It doesn't matter what your "claim" is in response to. What matters is you stated quite clearly that SF "has never said Zimmerman was innocent."

So that's a NO...you can't back up your claim that SF had NEVER said Zimmerman was innocent.

Just as I thought.

why should i prove a negative to an asshole who won't back up his claim that SF said he was innocent/back peddling?

you're nothing but a two faced douchebag

carry on loser

 

[zappasguitar]

why should i prove a negative to an asshole who won't back up his claim that SF said he was innocent/back peddling?

you're nothing but a two faced douchebag

carry on loser

So you made a statement you KNEW couldn't be backed up...but you still expect everyone else to back up their statements.

Typical YurTard double standard.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So you made a statement you KNEW couldn't be backed up...but you still expect everyone else to back up their statements.

Typical YurTard double standard.

how do you want me to prove SF never said he was innocent?

and why is it you are still WHINING like a little bitch about backing claims up, YET...you refuse to back up your claim?

typical two faced double standard bullshit from the board liar

 

[Damocles]

how do you want me to prove SF never said he was innocent?

and why is it you are still WHINING like a little bitch about backing claims up, YET...you refuse to back up your claim?

typical two faced double standard bullshit from the board liar

Everybody knows SF isn't saying he's innocent, even Zappa. It would be foolish to get into this very deeply, let Zappa open his mouth and "remove all doubt" so to say...

 

[Damocles]

Now you are just making the shit up.

They are not wary when the consequences of NOT filing charges would outweigh the consequences of failing to win the case.

Your opinion pieces are exactly that. Reality: No DA wants to be publicly shown to be too weak to say "no" to political demands on cases where conviction will not be likely, even if you really really think they do. They like to keep their jobs, to do that they only prosecute cases they believe they can win.

 

[Damocles]

I went through just the first 10 pages of responses. Here's some of the "wait & see" responses I found from Damo's "neutral" Righties...


conservative after conservative...



either justifying the murder of a young boy by a coward with a gun...



or making excuses as to why the young boy was shot...



"got what he deserved..."



"die like a thug..."



even "fair & balanced" Damo...lamenting the actions of one group, but not the other...



Then there are those who present their own opinions as fact...



claiming Martin assaulted Zimmerman, despite not knowing the whole story...



others siding with Zimmerman simply because they just outright hate someone who thinks the facts will show Zimmerman is guilty.



to those who are just such gigantic tools they feel the day isn't complete if they don't lambaste some liberals...

There you have it...snarky, one-sided comments presuming to assign guilt to Martin or cast doubt on Martin's character from 10 of the 15 conservatives I listed earlier and all in just the first 10 pages...wonder what I'd find in the next 10?

1. The two who actually called him a hero (before my post noting them) were noted in my post.
2. The rest of these do not say he was innocent, barring additional people who decided to take the "hero" angle after my comment, they mock the evidence that people brought to this thread.
3. Saying that evidence is weak, even in clear terms, is not saying that GZ is "innocent".

Basically, it is through partisan glasses you read into what they say. You forget to read "if" at the beginning of lines, and assume that simple (in my case) correction about the false information presented about the photo was me saying he was "innocent", then simply skipping the argument I am in with one of the people on your list about how DAs don't bring charges if they believe they will lose and pretending I haven't argued the other side.

I have never said he is innocent. What I did do was change my position after I found out that his 911 call was altered to making him sound like a racist. At first I believed a racist attacked a black guy. Now I don't know and am waiting for the trial, but so far the evidence I've seen seems to indicate that the government has a weak case against him.

So far the evidence does not support the assumption of guilt from the left.

I still do not know why this is such a partisan line. Are you so invested that you can't see how weak the evidence you present to "prove" his guilt appears? Your personal view seems to be based on who thinks he may be innocent rather than on any of the actual evidence.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Everybody knows SF isn't saying he's innocent, even Zappa. It would be foolish to get into this very deeply, let Zappa open his mouth and "remove all doubt" so to say...

i can't tell if zappa is just a chronic liar or simply too stupid to comprehend what people actually say

 

[CanceledB]

Total and complete nonsense. One more time. Read it slowly and you can likely actually comprehend it this time.

The photo was presented earlier by the prosecution, only as a photocopy of the photo... Literally made on a copy machine. This is the infamous "black and white" photo you heard Rana speak of. They literally just recently substituted the actual photo into evidence. This photo is from the prosecution, it was taken by the cops, it is from that night, it is not 'shopped.

Read it again. Rinse and repeat.

Stow your condescension. It doesn't intimidate because contrary to your delusion, you don't know everything. You only think you do. You've believed what you've been told, by a media whose access to the truth is as limited as everyone else's. Get a clue.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Stow your condescension. It doesn't intimidate because contrary to your delusion, you don't know everything. You only think you do. You've believed what you've been told, by a media whose access to the truth is as limited as everyone else's. Get a clue.

and what inside information do you have? what authority do you have that shows the defense had the color photo before the end of october?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

1. The two who actually called him a hero (before my post noting them) were noted in my post.
2. The rest of these do not say he was innocent, barring additional people who decided to take the "hero" angle after my comment, they mock the evidence that people brought to this thread.
3. Saying that evidence is weak, even in clear terms, is not saying that GZ is "innocent".

Basically, it is through partisan glasses you read into what they say. You forget to read "if" at the beginning of lines, and assume that simple (in my case) correction about the false information presented about the photo was me saying he was "innocent", then simply skipping the argument I am in with one of the people on your list about how DAs don't bring charges if they believe they will lose and pretending I haven't argued the other side.

I have never said he is innocent. What I did do was change my position after I found out that his 911 call was altered to making him sound like a racist. At first I believed a racist attacked a black guy. Now I don't know and am waiting for the trial, but so far the evidence I've seen seems to indicate that the government has a weak case against him.

So far the evidence does not support the assumption of guilt from the left.

I still do not know why this is such a partisan line. Are you so invested that you can't see how weak the evidence you present to "prove" his guilt appears? Your personal view seems to be based on who thinks he may be innocent rather than on any of the actual evidence.

In all seriousness...what the heck happened to you?

It's insane for you to talk about "partisan glasses." Your characterization that every leftie proclaimed guilt while every rightie "but 2" had a "wait & see" attitude is absolutely absurd to anyone with eyes, who is able to read. That isn't the conversation on this thread. Any idiot can see that.

Are you an idiot? Are you a hack? I don't think you're the former, but you are certainly more partisan than you like to let on. MUCH more partisan. And the proof is on this thread and in your persistent claim about "only 2" who really weren't ready to wait for the verdict.

It's pathetic, Damo. You've become pathetic.

 

[Damocles]

Stow your condescension. It doesn't intimidate because contrary to your delusion, you don't know everything. You only think you do. You've believed what you've been told, by a media whose access to the truth is as limited as everyone else's. Get a clue.

Says the person who condescendingly pretended to know what they didn't, the answer came with equal condescension, this time deserved, from the post it quoted.

According to the articles, the prosecution (and GZ's attorneys) said they (the prosecution) put the photo into evidence recently. I'll believe them before an ignorant tool of partisan nonsense every single time. The reality is your knee-jerk foolishness is based solely on a partisan idea that he's guilty.

That this is partisan at all boggles the mind, it's a case in the Florida courts. It will be decided by them.

 

[Damocles]

In all seriousness...what the heck happened to you?

It's insane for you to talk about "partisan glasses." Your characterization that every leftie proclaimed guilt while every rightie "but 2" had a "wait & see" attitude is absolutely absurd to anyone with eyes, who is able to read. That isn't the conversation on this thread. Any idiot can see that.

Are you an idiot? Are you a hack? I don't think you're the former, but you are certainly more partisan than you like to let on. MUCH more partisan. And the proof is on this thread and in your persistent claim about "only 2" who really weren't ready to wait for the verdict.

It's pathetic, Damo. You've become pathetic.

Since you have returned, have you made one post that did anything other than act as a clinger following me around to try to pretend that I am pathetic? You used to be one of my favorites, now you're just a clinger.

How about this, Onceler. Can you tell me, without mentioning me, why this is a partisan issue? I'm serious. I don't get this. A Democratic Precinct person shoots somebody after getting beaten up and it becomes the left against the right. What am I missing?

Tell me, why do you believe with absolute certainty that GZ is guilty?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

What is pathetic is I have yet to see one post of yours since you've returned that wasn't about me personally. If you decide to enter into a conversation on the issue that has something other than some stupid attempt to pretend I am "pathetic" in some new way, by all means post it. But if this is all you have to offer from here on out... I'm stunned. You really were one of my favorites, to turn into this shadow following others around hoping you can needle your betters... I'm sorry, you are way better than this. Seriously, you are better.

I am actually a bit sad. From a favorite to a clinger.

I don't believe any of that. That is one of the most insincere posts I've ever seen on here.

If you don't want gutter posts, don't wallow in the gutter. What is all of the BS w/ "you've been beaten down" and your idiocy on here about lefties proclaiming guilt but righties taking the high road? You've entered some kind of imaginary world. If you want to post this kind of BS drivel unfettered, I can't help you. I have a login & password, and I also have no problem calling out hackery & delusion when I see it.

And please - don't pretend that anything you post is something that sets an example for how the "high road" should look. Spend some time with a mirror.

 

[Damocles]

I don't believe any of that. That is one of the most insincere posts I've ever seen on here.


If you don't want gutter posts, don't wallow in the gutter. What is all of the BS w/ "you've been beaten down" and your idiocy on here about lefties proclaiming guilt but righties taking the high road? You've entered some kind of imaginary world. If you want to post this kind of BS drivel unfettered, I can't help you. I have a login & password, and I also have no problem calling out hackery & delusion when I see it.

And please - don't pretend that anything you post is something that sets an example for how the "high road" should look. Spend some time with a mirror.

A sad attempt at "I'm the rubber you're the glue" defense... It's too bad you don't believe it, it was sincere. You were a thoughtful poster, now you seem to just run around and pretend "outrage" when you think you have a "gotcha" moment where I get "gutter".

How about this, Onceler. Can you tell me, without mentioning me, why this is a partisan issue? I'm serious. I don't get this. Why are the democrats so sure that he's guilty that they are willing to ignore the system and declare an all out war over it? This reminds me of the Terry Schiavo thing, with less reasons to be partisan...

Tell me, why do you believe with absolute certainty that GZ is guilty, and if you don't, why?