Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:49 PM
Number of posts: 6,972

About Me

The last one to serve on the last jury before this joint takes its rightful place in the land of the 404 error, be sure and turn off the lights. See yah.

Journal Archives

I figured as much - this had "set up" written all over it from Day One.

The Left is going to keep trying to put an innocent man in jail for ideological reasons, fury over a just verdict; Zimm needs to keep this in mind, and do everything in his power to avoid even the appearance of so much as spitting on the sidewalk.

Unfortunate, if the charges are proven to be true;

and if those charges are sustained with a conviction in a court of law, then the proper judicial punishment should be affixed for them.

That has nothing to do, of course, with the incident where Zimmerman justly exercised his right of self-defence after being illegally assaulted himself, and then was wrongfully put on trial thanks to politically-correct pressure to do so.

Still, if I could talk to George Zimmerman in person I'd say: you were properly acquitted on a bogus charge in a very, very, VERY high-profile case; you should have known that, for the rest of your life, every single mis-step you made was going to be scrutinized by the world through the lens of the incident that brought you to such public notice in the first place. I know the stress of being put through an unjust trial and all the angry hate from the Western Left has been unbearable: but you've got to put that aside, control your emotions, and not let the bad guys win. When you do things like this - to the extent you are guilty of these charges - you do just that: let the bad guys win. Get ahold of yourself.

That's just what I would say.

Tyler PD: 'Stand your ground' laws may be raised in Walgreens shooting case

Money quotes:

Caldwell approached Neal outside of the store in the parking lot. He got into a verbal altercation with Neal as Neal was attempting to use the Red Box. Caldwell became more agitated with Neal as he attempted to keep Caldwell away from him.

Neal then pulled out a handgun and after several attempts to keep Caldwell from assaulting him, he shot him once in the chest.

Investigators have confirmed that Neal has a license to carry a concealed handgun. He has not been charged in the shooting. Neal was not held in custody by authorities based on the fact that he was cooperative with police, not a flight risk, and witnesses on the scene confirmed that Caldwell initiated the altercation, according to police.

Don Martin, public information officer for Tyler police department, said that Texas "stand your ground" laws may be raised in this case. “He felt that he was in fear for his life….” said Martin.

Full story at link:

Once again, a law-abiding citizen defends his life against an illegal and life-threatening assault. Interesting to note that here, unlike the incident in Sanford, Florida, the "Stand Your Ground" defence might actually be invoked by the innocent victim who was illegally assaulted.

Don't get me wrong, in both cases, the innocent victims were in a place they had a legal right to be when their assailants started wailing away on them. The defence could have applied in either case; but in Florida Zimmerman's attorney's decided to go with straight-up self-defence.

But I doubt this gets much further than a quick review by a Grand Jury, and the innocent victim will be cleared of any wrongdoing.

*On Edit*: as island4diver points out below, "SYG is simply no duty to retreat, there is nothing special about it. It is simply self defense."

He further makes the EXCELLENT point that in the Zimmerman case, he had no ability to retreat. This was because he was on the ground getting his head bashed in, of course, and why he was forced to defend himself with appropriate force. I appreciate the corrections.

Funny reply, but as regards the OP I actually think it's on to something,

not, let me disclose, having read the entire linked Counterpunch article as of yet.

From about 2002 to 2009 was the absolute heyday of numerous web forums that touched on about every interest you could imagine; not all flourished, but quite a few drew enough traffic and "regular" commenters to make those sites worth visiting every day. As Facebook absolutely exploded in terms of raw numbers and participants in the late '00s, many of those sites/forums began to wither, as people gravitated to what we now call "social media."

Let me give one anecdotal instance of this: I belonged to the website "Horrorfind's" ( ) online forum, joining in about '02-03. I like scary stories.

That board was so active that for many years, the hosts of the site even put together "Horrorfind" Conventions in Maryland, that were not only well-attended, but often attracted "B-list" actors and actresses from horror and sci-fi movie fame.

2006 was the absolute heyday: forum posts ran in the hundreds per day, pretty darn good for a specialty website catering to one genre; the 2008 "Horrorfind" Convention was such a smashing success there was serious (if idle) talk among the attendees of scheduling TWO a year instead of just one.

By 2010-12, it all began to collapse faster than the "Pet Rock" fad of the 1970s: forum posts first declined to moribund levels, then sad levels, and, finally, to simply embarrasing levels of participation. The last "Horrorfind" Convention took place I don't know when: talk of it simply dried up.

Sometime in late 2013, IIRC, I visited the "Horrorfind" forum for the last time: there was a thread, the first that had been posted in weeks, decrying the decline of the place, and asking for suggestions on how to revive it. The (very) few replies that OP garnered lamented what had happened, but correctly pointed out that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. had rendered the place obsolete: even they only sporadically monitored the Horrorfind forum for sightings of old online friends, the few who bothered to reply admitted.

A couple of months later I revisted the forum only to find it no longer existed: had simply shut it down, without even bothering to put up archives. Indeed, it's as if it never existed, other than on the Wayback Machine.

There are many thousands of unique little islands of online human interaction that flourished during those times that have similarly simply went silent: such is the rapidity with which technology has moved during our times, that a thing scarcely heard about by ANYBODY in 1992 could rise to prominence with the internet explosion in the mid-90s, reach a peak in the decade that followed, the '00s, and be all but vanished by 2015.

Interesting stuff; thanks for posting.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:43 AM (2 replies)

USA Today Op-Ed: People Know The Consequences

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.


Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."


It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.*

More at link:

The author of this charming, errrr, "opposing view," that the liberal USA Today newspaper saw fit to give space to in their paper and on their website is a Muslim cleric; but, oddly enough, he's only saying a more forthright version of "Was it really necessary....?"

Isn't he?


*All bolded emphases added

"But what about Timothy McVeigh?" <----The mantra I see repeated over and over

and over with dreary regularity each and every time there is yet another murderous terror attack carried out by radical Islamists.

The pattern goes something like this (and was on display on this very website today):

OP - 'Breaking! Terror attack in (fill in the blank)!'

Instinctual liberal response: 'We mustn't rush to judgement. For all we know, it could be disgruntled Lacrosse players mad that there's no cold cans of Dr. Pepper left in the team cooler!'

OP - '*Updated* Dozens/Hundreds confirmed dead in attack: assailants were members of radical Mosque'

Instinctual liberal response: 'What about Timothy McVeigh?'

Wash, rinse, repeat.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Wed Jan 7, 2015, 09:19 PM (0 replies)

Good observations. A couple of things along those lines:

he and one of his other buddies on here, a very prolific poster and Hillary fan, are so radical in their anti gun beliefs (all bullets will be gone in ten years), that I don't think even they believe what they say. I think they just like taking the most extreme position as possible to try and get a rise out of people

I think the poster who keeps saying the stuff about all bullets being gone in ten years among other outrageous things is really a conservative doing satire, trying to make liberals look bad. So much of the stuff he posts is so over the top. But, putting that aside, I do believe that the other poster who goes by "Hoyt" at DU often posts stuff just as Hide-bait, knowing that what he says is offensive to many folks of good will. He's trying to get angry reactions and rises out of people, as opposed to sincerely and respectfully debating others at DI which is what the forum was meant for.

He also knows that during many times during the daylight hours, he can count on those critical 4 votes from liberal jurors to keep his frequent name-calling from being hidden, as most conservative DI'ers are at work during the daytime hours.

A prime example of that is our Canadian friend. She will make these super long retort posts, filled with all sorts of links (she must have a bible of links at her fingertips);

And actually, that's an old game she honed to perfection over in DU's "Gungeon" before Skinner showed her the door to the mass applause of about all DU'ers save HoF. When one clicks on those links in any given War & Peace-length reply of hers, one finds that the content of about half of them simply do not represent what the poster claimed as a rebuttal: most of the time, they have some tangential aside somewhere that one has to track down, not some "aha! You're wrong!" point as the poster represents when she posts the link in the first place. Indeed, some of them are 100% opposite of what is represented. Of the other half, most of those are to highly partisan, rigidly ideological sources of dubious reliability, or simply youtube links to some obscure folk song the poster somehow thinks is relevant. The poster is well aware that most posters do not have the time to run down every link, and then turn around and expose them for what they are in equally-longish rebuttals to the original post: they simply move on.

Again, good observations!
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Wed Jan 7, 2015, 04:40 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1