SteeleJoe

This pointless bickering about some tiny detail is why I usually just try to ignore your attempts to start an argument. Pretty much everything gl555 said was correct, but the headline of the acrtcle he quoted from was slightly misleading. The point is that the FBI investigation did not find any signs that Zimmerman was racist and either did the lead detective. Why continue to nitpick about it?

Someone made a false claim that had been repeated by many (including perhaps yourself). I pointed it out. He insisted it wasn't false and even tried to show evidence. I showed using that same source that it was. He still says he stands by it even after it's shown to be false.

That's all.

(As for what you claim you usually do and you inference about my posting...well, you're the same one who earlier in the thread made a false accusation about me and then faded away when I called you on it. So...credibility? Not so much. You "ignore" when you can't rebut.)

Something like this - with perhaps the scumbag's mugshot and an inset of the carnage (without being too graphic)

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1374153962.384416.jpg

The main problem is that they purposely used a glamour shot to make him look like a movie star. Rolling Stone was trying to provoke controversy.

The first part I am very much inclined to agree with. And I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the latter were true as well.

I have no problem with them writing the article and indeed it may be an important bit of work. An article of that import deserves a cover. But why does he have to look like some Indie rocker - the romantic image is of a youthful rebel...

All they see is the guy as a sexpot with no named girlfriends and a sweet guy by the accounts of the buddies they chose to interview.

Nothing about the horrors he committed and his self-satisfaction at what he did.

Do you base that on the article? Doubt it, because that comment is in direct contradiction of the facts as far as I know.

Rolling Stone isn't Time but they have done some solid investigative journalism in their day. It's my understanding they have done so on this instance.

Yes I stand by what was written. If you choose to see the article as 'inaccurate', that's your interpretation.

While I cannot read minds and know what's truly inside George Zimmerman's heart, I'm pretty sure he isn't racist from his actions alone.

And while in this particular case, him being racist doesn't make him guilty or innocent, I'm rebutting all the people who are hoping and wishing that the Federal government goes after him for civil rights violations. Him being racist or not is a big deal if Holder decides to go after him.

I stand by what was written. Good luck with Eric Holder trying to charge Zimmerman when even his own FBI can't find any dirt. Besides which, this courtesy of Steely Dan's post should show he isn't a racist.

So you stand by "what was written" (by YOU - just thought I'd emphasize that since you carefully avoided that part) even though it was inaccurate; a person of integrity would have conceded error, I would have thought.

As for the rest:

* I have no position on any potential action (or lack thereof) by the AG.

* I have no knowledge that Zimmerman is a racist (and no one can know for certain).

* Whether he is a racist or not, that neither makes him guilty or innocent.

PS: Any comment on the other input from the detective you inadvertently credited?

I never claimed the article was inaccurate - and I doubt you are so unintelligent as to not be able understand that from reading (but that would leave only deliberate and dishonest twisting of my words...).

YOUR statement was inaccurate. I have interpreted nothing, rather I have pointed out what was actually said and by whom.

I stand by what was written. Good luck with Eric Holder trying to charge Zimmerman when even his own FBI can't find any dirt. Besides which, this courtesy of Steely Dan's post should show he isn't a racist.

So you stand by "what was written" (by YOU - just thought I'd emphasize that since you carefully avoided that part) even though it was inaccurate; a person of integrity would have conceded error, I would have thought.

As for the rest:

* I have no position on any potential action (or lack thereof) by the AG.

* I have no knowledge that Zimmerman is a racist (and no one can know for certain).

* Whether he is a racist or not, that neither makes him guilty or innocent.

PS: Any comment on the other input from the detective you inadvertently credited?

I stand by what was written. Good luck with Eric Holder trying to charge Zimmerman when even his own FBI can't find any dirt. Besides which, this courtesy of Steely Dan's post should show he isn't a racist.

So you stand by "what was written" (by YOU - just thought I'd emphasize that since you carefully avoided that part) even though it was inaccurate; a person of integrity would have conceded error, I would have thought.

As for the rest:

* I have no position on any potential action (or lack thereof) by the AG.

* I have no knowledge that Zimmerman is a racist (and no one can know for certain).

* Whether he is a racist or not, that neither makes him guilty or innocent.

PS: Any comment on the other input from the detective you inadvertently credited?

Well, anyway that's a different use altogether. Of course Americans use it in that way (though typically in formal writing like a newspaper). I just don't recall having heard it used as you did - except by people from the UK.

The only other person on ThaiVisa to use the word as I did, appears to be an Australian.

See if you can find another!

No, thanks.

Currently watching tv series "Continuum"

Thanks for that. I hadn't head of it before. Ill try a few episodes.

Don't waste your time, it's really dire.

I don't believe I've ever heard an American use "dire" in that way...

Just sayin'.

http://news-herald.com/articles/2013/07/12/news/nh7243978.txt

If it's good enough for the Ohio Herald, it's good enough for me.

You actually went searching for that?!

Huh.

Well, anyway that's a different use altogether. Of course Americans use it in that way (though typically in formal writing like a newspaper). I just don't recall having heard it used as you did - except by people from the UK.

I knew a guy who got busted on KSR for half a jay. He spent 2 nights in jail and was prosecuted- the fine was minimal. However, when he went on a visa run he was advised by the immi guys that he was on a BL and if he left he wouldn't be allowed to return. The guy advised him to return to his Thai town of residence and get it sorted out. He did with the help of some contacts he worked out- cost him 300k baht according to him. This would be about 6 years ago but everything I know about it came from him, so no 3rd party proof.

Some knowledgeable folks say it is virtually impossible to get off the BL, so the price mentioned strikes me as not higher than I would have thought - and perhaps lower.

By the way, the person who said Zimmerman was not a racist? Well, that's the police officer who also said that the conflict was avoidable by Zimmerman, that there was no evidence of Martin doing anything wrong, that Zimmerman reached an incorrect judgment about Martin before the confrontation, that Zimmerman's action was the sole instigation...

You wouldn't be one of the posters who claimed the contrary to all of that, would you?

"The FBI report on George Zimmerman which found that the Florida neighborhood watchman was not racist but did have a hero complex."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/little_document_pursues_zimmerman_uAQjdqGhtH6RVcBFemuPyK

- A possible US Federal Civil rights trial against G. Zimmerman for violating the deceased's civil rights

Good luck. Zimmerman isn't a racist and he didn't go after Martin because he was black. An FBI investigation has shown that he isn't racist.

-A possible wrongful death civil suit by Mr. Martin's Family

Sure why not? In America, suing people is a right. Will be interesting because the defense will be allowed to go through Trayvon Martin's dirty laundry.

-A boycott of the State of Florida's tourism and cruise industry

-A boycott of orange juice processed in Florida (even though most of it comes from Brazil)

Yeah good luck with that also. I really don't see Florida getting hit by any boycotts that will hurt them but whatever.

-The refusal of black and maybe other entertainers including Stevie Wonder to perform in Florida and other states -- with stand-your-ground laws

Yeah entertainers make a whole chunk of their income from concerts and Florida isn't the only stand your ground state. People can talk the talk and say oh poor Trayvon Martin blah blah blah. But when their pockets are hurt, I'm sure they can do the concert and then dedicate it to Trayvon Martin haha

Going so soon? I wouldn't hear of it. Why my little party's just beginning. -- The Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz

Here's what may be upcoming for those who choose to linger:

Going so soon? I wouldn't hear of it. Why my little party's just beginning. -- The Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz

Here's what may be upcoming for those who choose to linger:

A possible US Federal Civil rights trial against G. Zimmerman for violating the deceased's civil rights

A possible wrongful death civil suit by Mr. Martin's Family

A boycott of the State of Florida's tourism and cruise industry

A boycott of orange juice processed in Florida (even though most of it comes from Brazil)

The refusal of black and maybe other entertainers including Stevie Wonder to perform in Florida and other states -- with stand-your-ground laws

These are items actually mentioned in mainstream news stories -- I could probably anticipate a few others but, for now, the above should suffice.

These are items actually mentioned in mainstream news stories -- I could probably anticipate a few others but, for now, the above should suffice.

Over and over I have seen this , "FBI investigation has shown that he isn't racist." Or versions thereof. Until I've not bothered to express my interest in this extraordinary claim. Can I have a source for the non-racist certification from the FBI?

(I knew it was an impressive agency but it's remarkable that they can prove something like that and are will to say so).

The only thing I know of is:

"(MIAMI HERALD) — After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin..."

Which is, of course, quite different.

Sorry. Inaccurate New York Post headline not withstanding, that is not the FBI saying Zimmerman is not a racist.

Currently watching tv series "Continuum"

Thanks for that. I hadn't head of it before. Ill try a few episodes.

Don't waste your time, it's really dire.

I don't believe I've ever heard an American use "dire" in that way...

Just sayin'.

I agree with the OP that there are a lot of pre-justice about Pattaya, but

mostly by very short-minded people.

Let's be honest about this. Most of these "short-minded" people jumping to conclusions are on the money.

Most people who post in the Pattaya forum on Thaivisa are probably the exception to the rule. It would be quite unexpected to outsiders that many people live normal lives in Pattaya.

It's best just to save these "short-minded" people the pain by being evasive.

With respect, the OP was talking about those of us that live here, or spend a considerable length of time here, or work offshore but consider Pattaya to be their home base. In that sense the people jumping to conclusions are not on the money.

Of the people I know well (say 20), and of maybe another thirty that I associate with regularly, all fit the above categories, all have Thai wives/children or long term relationships, most own houses or condos, and most have "a life" in the generally held view.

All of these people are of a character and demeanour whereby I would easily form friendships with them in Farangland - and they come from many different countries and backgrounds.

The two-week millionaires are generally a different kettle of fish. Have met many and found them to be OK people, and met many I would not care to meet again- just like it is in any society.

... however, you can't blame people for jumping to conclusions considering the nature of the place.

A lot of these "normal" people came here with other things on their mind... then they found someone special and settled down and started posting on Thaivisa forum about how normal they are.

So you know 50 normal people now? That doesn't change a thing. I know quite a few "normal" folk too, but I also know why they originally came here.

I haven't lived in Pattaya for decades but I used to go on and on about how people don't understand how it's possible to live a normal and not at all sleazy life there (though obviously one has the possibility to indulge in the sleaze to whatever extent one might wish even if just voyeuristically); I totally get the post from Gsxrnz and am glad he posted it. BUT:

I'd be willing to bet that this accurate:

'A lot of these "normal" people came here with other things on their mind... then they found someone special and settled down and started posting on Thaivisa forum about how normal they are.'*

* Note: he said "a lot" not ALL. I would vehemently dispute the latter, if someone were to claim it.

Juror B37 stated that she disregarded the lady that was on the phone with Trayvon because she was inadequate , uneducated with no communication skills, not on the evidence she testified to, The only part of the testimony she consider was the statement attributed to Trayvon "Creepy ass Cracka" She considered it because it was the truth! This was stated in the TV interview with CNN's. Anderson Cooper.

Also Juror B37 when asked did the answer Detective Serino gave if it influenced her, she answered "Yes Greatly", the host then showed the Judge ordering the answer stricken and for the Jury to disregard the answer, Juror B37 failed to disregard it as ordered by the Judge ( Same interview).

On May 10, 2013, in the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman filed "State's Motion To Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence"

"The State of Florida, by and thought the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, hereby files the Motion in the above-Captioned proceeding.

The Defendant has indicated via questioning in pre-trial proceedings that he apparently intends to attempt to argue or introduce opinion testimony from one or more witnesses as to their opinion, prior to and/or after Defendant's arrest, as to his guilt or the propriety of being criminal charged.

Such testimony (be it from Defendant's family members, civilians, or even law enforcement personnel) is improper."

Judge Debra Nelson granted the State's Motion. No opinion evidence pertaining to George Zimmerman's guilt, innocence, nor "the propriety of his being criminally charged) was allowed during the trial.

Juror B37 has reportedly signed with a "literary agent" and announced that she intends to write a book.,Sharlene Martin, President of Martin Literary Management, represents Juror B37 in obtaining a book deal.In her news release, Sharlene Martin has stated that the jury in the George Zimmerman case decided he was not guilty.... due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions,"

The jury based it decision on information not presented at Trial

Juror B37, or another juror able to persuade her, had already formed an opinion that George Zimmerman should not have been charged and therefore, the evidence presented by State prosecutors at trial was never going to be considered in determining the defendant's guilt or innocence.

By the jury deciding that George Zimmerman should not have been charged, he effectively did not stand trial to determine guilt or innocence. A decision of not guilty by a jury cannot be reversed. However, with the release of this information by Juror B37's literary agent. There should be an investigation that fraud was committed on the court to, and that, undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

Cheers: alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Yes, you should give credit to were you get your information.

Your lack of understanding of American jurisprudence in appalling.

As the trial begins, the judge instructs the jury on the law. The jury may form opinions about the charges, legally, from that.

Again just before the jury deliberates, the judge again gives the jury instructions on how to deliberate and on what the law is.

These are the things you are quoting, especially in bold, showing your lack of understanding of how things work.

Get over it. The trial is over, the jury has ruled, and Zimmerman is not guilty.

He deliberately left out a key segment of the bolder statement. In its entirety, it was:

"The reader will also learn why the jurors HAD NO OPTION but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions," Martin had said Monday. (emphasis mine)

Moreover this was a statement made when Martin had rescinded her offer to represent and the decision had been made to NOT write the book.

An article in USA Today - which has some of the same stuff Kikoman passed off as his own - also said:

"But she added that she and other jurors nevertheless felt a lot of sympathy for what happened to Trayvon and that she wished she could have given his family "the verdict they wanted."

"I don't want people to think that we didn't think about Trayvon Martin," she said, her voice appearing to crack with emotion. "We did."

She said that the jury deliberations were intense. She said she and others wanted to find something they could convict Zimmerman of, but there was nothing legally that they could do.

"I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses, but you can't fault anybody," she said of Zimmerman. "You can't charge him with anything because he didn't do anything unlawful." "

However:

"Late Tuesday, the 18th Judicial Circuit court in Florida issued a statement from four other jurors in the Zimmerman case, who said juror B-37's opinions "were her own, and not in any way representative" of their views."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/16/george-zimmerman-juror-book-drops-plan/2520159/

"I don't blame you a bit for feeling passionate about this or for feeling the situation is unjust, but - and I mean no offense - even if you are right, you discredit your self with this sort of post."

By the way, I could have said essentially the same thing to many of the Zimmerman supporters but I generally see no point in trying with such blind zealots. It is a measure of relative regard and the degree to which I share your view to some extent, that I say it to you.

Juror B37 stated that she disregarded the lady that was on the phone with Trayvon because she was was inadequate , uneducated with no communication skills, not on the evidence she testified to, The only part of the testimony she consider was the statement attributed to Trayvon "Creepy ass Cracka" She considered it because it was the truth! This was stated in the TV interview with CNN's. Anderson Cooper.

Also Juror B37 when asked did the answer Detective Serino gave if it influenced her, she answered "Yes Greatly", the host then showed the Judge ordering the answer stricken and for the Jury to disregard the answer, Juror B37 failed to disregard it as ordered by the Judge ( Same interview).

On May 10, 2013, in the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman filed "State's Motion To Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence"

"The State of Florida, by and thought the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, hereby files the Motion in the above-Captioned proceeding.

The Defendant has indicated via questioning in pre-trial proceedings that he apparently intends to attempt to argue or introduce opinion testimony from one or more witnesses as to their opinion, prior to and/or after Defendant's arrest, as to his guilt or the propriety of being criminal charged.

Such testimony (be it from Defendant's family members, civilians, or even law enforcement personnel) is improper."

Judge Debra Nelson granted the State's Motion. No opinion evidence pertaining to George Zimmerman's guilt, innocence, nor "the propriety of his being criminally charged) was allowed during the trial.

Juror B37 has reportedly signed with a "literary agent" and announced that she intends to write a book.,Sharlene Martin, President of Martin Literary Management, represents Juror B37 in obtaining a book deal.In her news release, Sharlene Martin has stated that the jury in the George Zimmerman case decided he was not guilty.... due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions,"

The jury based it decision on information not presented at Trial

Juror B37, or another juror able to persuade her, had already formed an opinion that George Zimmerman should not have been charged and therefore, the evidence presented by State prosecutors at trial was never going to be considered in determining the defendant's guilt or innocence.

By the jury deciding that George Zimmerman should not have been charged, he effectively did not stand trial to determine guilt or innocence. A decision of not guilty by a jury cannot be reversed. However, with the release of this information by Juror B37's literary agent. There should be an investigation that fraud was committed on the court to, and that, undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

Cheers:

If your post is a C&P of someone else's thinking, research and writing the correct thing to do is credit the source.

I particularly liked the way, to my mind, no one in the film was vilified even though everyone was flawed and some or all weren't on the face of it very likable but you still like everyone or at least don't dislike them like you would had the film been made differently: it's not that you don't see their flaws or don't dislike them but you forgive them. ..or something.

And the one person that it seems like would be the most likely to inspire sympathy is the one whom is the least likeable - a woman in a coma.

But maybe all of that is just me!

Id agree with that summation SteeleJoe.

Another recent-ish George Clooney movie (2009 ) is Up in The Air. Again, there were some twists and turns in that movie which surprised and I found it better than I thought it would.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/

Clooney is pretty remarkable I think: a TV star - which in the US, almost always means that's all you'll be no matter how big a TV star you are - and a guy who one might easily dismiss as very charming and goo looking but without substance who turned out to be a very solid actor, a good writer, a good director, and someone with a certain amount of artistic integrity who tends to go for quality projects (even the Oceans movies are good for their genre and helmed by a first rate director - and good friend of Clooney's).

I suspect we'll see some more good stuff from him, as a filmmaker if not an actor, and I'd not be very surprised if by the time he dies or retires, he winds up being regarded as one of the major players to come along.

I particularly liked the way, to my mind, no one in the film was vilified even though everyone was flawed and some or all weren't on the face of it very likable but you still like everyone or at least don't dislike them like you would had the film been made differently: it's not that you don't see their flaws or don't dislike them but you forgive them. ..or something.

And the one person that it seems like would be the most likely to inspire sympathy is the one whom is the least likeable - a woman in a coma.

But maybe all of that is just me!

Finally saw "The Descendants" couple nights ago (been meaning to since it came out over a year ago): liked it very much.

Well written and masterfully directed I thought, with solid performances from everyone in it. Just short, perhaps, of a "great" film but very good.

As long as opinions are abound, here is my opinion as a resident of The State of Florida and specifically in the greater Orlando area where these events occurred:

I do not like the notion that someone can carry a concealed weapon and shoot an unarmed person who had no prior intent to cause the armed person any bodily harm, and walk away Scott-free without any suspended sentence, probation, temporary revocation of the permit to carry the concealed weapon etc.

But given the law in Florida that the main determinant is whether someone had legitimate fear of his life or body harm, that proved to be an insurmountable hurdle for the prosecution and would probably prove so in any future case.

There were several black tenants of the apartment complex including the father's girlfriend so seeing a black man should have in and of itself caused no suspicion; it was the behavior of the deceased victim which set these events in motion according to the outspoken juror -- not the sighting of a person of a given race.

.. and I guess I'll stop there.

Quality.

Except, in regards to last bit: 1) racism isn't logical 2) I don't assume jurors know if racism was a factor ( or even that the defendant does) 3) Zimmerman wasn't charged with racism.

* But thanks to the poster's subsequent explanation, I understand why it is mentioned.

OK the trial is over. There are calls now for a possible US Federal civil rights violation case or possibly some wrongful death pursuit by the Martin family neither of which seems likely. There are calls now for a boycott of the State of Florida with one of the world's largest tourism industries. Stevie Wonder says he will no longer perform in Florida or in any state with a stand-your-ground law which is about 30+ states (according to Washington Post) including his home state of Michigan.

I can just see some family in Kankakee, Illinois telling their 6 & 4 year olds: Sorry kids -- we aren't going to go to Disney World this summer after all because George Zimmerman was acquitted.

http://t.co/F9W3M3RNBH

AG Eric Holder said to the NAACP convention the other day something every black parent knows of, i.e., after the murder of Trayvon Holder felt compelled by the event to sit with his son to caution him of the George Zimmermans of the United States, not only in Florida. Every parent at the convention who heard Holder speak responded with strong applause and personal understanding.

Trying to mock the reality of being a black parent in the United States, or a young black male, constitutes a statement of obliviousness or worse.

I do not see where I am mocking anyone's version of reality. I just go with the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan's comment:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Unfortunately, that is a blurred line for some.

And again I will say:

Indeed. On both sides of the issue.

OK i am going to go out on a limb since few picked up the ball.

Example: in the states you date or shag (am i allowed to say that here?) a gal and the chance of it being good, of there being some kind of decent chemistry is perhaps 50/50. It might be good it might not. In Thailand i put that at about 90% chance of a good/decent time.

There are other examples of how sexuality is different but perhaps this is not the best place to discuss?

I'm having a hard time replying to this without being a bit unkind...

There's a lot of things wrong with your reasoning but I will limit myself to saying that I can't help but wonder where and how you meet the Thai women you date or shag...perhaps it has something to do with you extraordinary ratio.

So he called 911 and complained about the weather?

No but he did make a statement that is was F'ing Cold

I did not listen to the tape nor care to but when I read that I thought...yeah could happen

Anyone ever been in a life or death situation, Many times right afterwards they are in a state of shock.

You feel very cold & many will have trouble talking as their teeth chatter & they shake.

EMT's know to put blankets & warm packs on these folks.

Even simple car accidents if traumatic enough induce this shock/cold

I think you are confused about the facts of the case: he made the comment before the confrontation. Life and death? State of shock? Not so much.