“I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I hate coming to conclusions until I’ve heard all the facts, but sometimes a piece of a story is just too irresistible to refrain from commenting about it.
Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman took the stand in his bail hearing. In a legally unnecessary apology to Trayvon’s family, he said of the boy, “I did not know if he was armed or not.”
Good grief. Why in the world would his attorneys allow him to say that?
If George didn’t know Trayvon was armed, the less reason there is to shoot him. Even if true, that didn’t have to come out now, and it only makes George look worse not better.
Certainly there are situations where an unarmed man (boy, rather) can be shot in self-defense.
However, George may have poisoned his own jury pool. If I’m the prosecution or Trayvon’s family, I’m keeping in the public ear as long as I can George’s admission that he did not know if the boy was armed, and still shot him.
The picture released today of the bloody back of George Zimmerman's head lends credibility to the claim that Trayvon banged George’s head on the ground.
Now, what I’m about to write may come from a certain cultural background, and it also may not vitiate George’s claim of self-defense, but here it goes: George Zimmerman should have taken his beating like a man and shouldn’t have shot a boy.
The facts that have come out so far (granted they could change) are that George Zimmerman targeted the boy, not the other way around. George was being a bully. If the boy started beating up the bully, then the bully should have at least expected that he could lose the fight, since the police advised him that they didn’t need him following Trayvon. That Trayvon could have kicked George’s rear-end is exactly WHY the police told him they didn’t need him to follow Trayvon.
A fair conclusion is that when George’s “neighborhood watch muscles” failed him, he cowardly went for his gun and shot an unarmed boy.
If he legitimately thought the boy was going to kill him that could change my mind. But until that evidence comes out, George Zimmerman is a punk who shot a boy he did not conclude was armed.
And he has a lousy lawyer.
- Comment (242)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Yeah, Zimmerman takes his beating like a man--and then the boy takes Zimm's gun and shoots him with it.
Hasn't this case produced enough moral grandstanding?
Mar '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
[Rude comment redacted by editor]
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 12:40amRe: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
J. D. Fitzpatrick: Yeah, Zimmerman takes his beating like a man--and then the boy takes Zimm's gun and shoots him with it.
Hasn't this case produced enough moral grandstanding? · 1 minute ago
Like I said more facts could change my mind, and if facts come out that say Treyvon went for George's gun, that would.
But George's statement today lends no credence to that story. If Treyvon went for his gun, he and his lawyers would have been smart to plant that seed in the apology.
The statement that he did not know if the boy was armed runs contrary to Treyvon going for his gun.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
You have never been smashed down, beaten bloodied and had boots applied to your head and wondered as your consciousness wanes whether this is your last moment. Of this I am positive Tommy.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Basil Fawlty
[Rude comment redacted by editor]
Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight.
You tap out. You say uncle. You don't kill the other guy.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 12:41amRe: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Did that happen here?
Apr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Calling Zimmerman a “bully” assumes facts not in evidence. We don’t know who confronted who – according to Zimmeramn, Martin doubled back and attacked him. By the time Zimmerman got off the phone to 911, Martin could have been safe at home if he had just kept walking. The law doesn’t allow you to beat someone up just because you don’t like the way he was looking at you.
Bashing somebody’s head on concrete can be fatal. To suggest that anyone should just “take it” strikes me as bizarre.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
xenoff: Calling Zimmerman a “bully” assumes facts not in evidence. We don’t know who confronted who – according to Zimmeramn, Martin doubled back and attacked him. By the time Zimmerman got off the phone to 911, Martin could have been safe at home if he had just kept walking. The law doesn’t allow you to beat someone up just because you don’t like the way he was looking at you.
Bashing somebody’s head on concrete can be fatal. To suggest that anyone should just “take it” strikes me as bizarre. · 1 minute ago
You too are assuming facts not in evidence. For all we know George could have bumped his head after falling from a blow (a blow he could have deserved, once all the evidence is out).
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 12:06amMar '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy De Seno
Basil Fawlty
[Rude comment redacted]
Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight.
You tap out. You say uncle. You don't kill the other guy. · 0 minutes ago
[The editors advise Basil to ease off the rude snark and to instead engage in reasoned, civil debate]
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 12:43amApr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy De Seno
Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight.
You tap out. You say uncle.
Tell that to Reginald Denny.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
xenoff: Calling Zimmerman a “bully” assumes facts not in evidence. We don’t know who confronted who – according to Zimmeramn, Martin doubled back and attacked him....
... The law doesn’t allow you to beat someone up just because you don’t like the way he was looking at you.
If a guy as weird as Zimmerman was following my teenaged son, if he got close enough, I wouldn't blame my son for planting one on the guy's chin. He wouldn't know the guy's intention, and it certainly is strange for a 28 year old man to be following a 17 year old boy. Could be a pedophile for all the boy knows.
Tell Zimmerman to leave his neighbors alone.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy De Seno
Did that happen here? · 5 minutes ago
Nope but you don't know what it's like to be on either end physically. For some reason I just know this, correct me if I'm wrong.
How do you know if Z didn't think he was going to die or not? Quite presumptive that this wannabe gang banger would stop with a few love taps. Silly actually.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
xenoff
Tommy De Seno
Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight.
You tap out. You say uncle.
Tell that to Reginald Denny. · 2 minutes ago
Reginald Denny has far more in common with Treyvon than Zimmerman.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Basil Fawlty
Tommy De Seno
Basil Fawlty
[Rude comment redacted]
Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight.
You tap out. You say uncle. You don't kill the other guy. · 0 minutes ago
[Rude comment redacted]
I said it was cultural. Not everyone will get it. Some will.
Thus the importance of jury selection.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 12:45amApr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy De Seno
xenoff: Calling Zimmerman a “bully” assumes facts not in evidence. We don’t know who confronted who – according to Zimmeramn, Martin doubled back and attacked him. By the time Zimmerman got off the phone to 911, Martin could have been safe at home if he had just kept walking. The law doesn’t allow you to beat someone up just because you don’t like the way he was looking at you.
Bashing somebody’s head on concrete can be fatal. To suggest that anyone should just “take it” strikes me as bizarre. · 1 minute ago
You too are assuming facts not in evidence. For all we know George could have bumped his head after falling from a blow (a blow he could have deserved, once all the evidence is out). · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
Yeah, and maybe somebody threw a rock at him from the grassy knoll.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
DocJay
Tommy De Seno
Did that happen here? · 5 minutes ago
Nope but you don't know what it's like to be on either end physically. For some reason I just know this, correct me if I'm wrong.
How do you know if Z didn't think he was going to die or not? Quite presumptive that this wannabe gang banger would stop with a few love taps. Silly actually. · 1 minute ago
Tryevon was a gang-banger? Did I miss this report in the media? Is this presumption a black thing? Or are hoodies as dangerous as Geraldo said they are?
Feb '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, unable to escape, by a high school athlete.
Zimmerman's "neighborhood watch muscles" had nothing to do with this. He had every right to be where he was, and he had every right to defend himself against a thug who attacked him and was intent on pounding him unconscious and/or taking his gun and killing him.
Calling Zimmerman a bully is utterly, abjectly preposterous. He was a victim of a vicious, unprovoked attack by a thug.
And he defended himself, as was his right.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
xenoff
Tommy De Seno
xenoff: Calling Zimmerman a “bully” assumes facts not in evidence. We don’t know who confronted who – according to Zimmeramn, Martin doubled back and attacked him. By the time Zimmerman got off the phone to 911, Martin could have been safe at home if he had just kept walking. The law doesn’t allow you to beat someone up just because you don’t like the way he was looking at you.
Bashing somebody’s head on concrete can be fatal. To suggest that anyone should just “take it” strikes me as bizarre. · 1 minute ago
You too are assuming facts not in evidence. For all we know George could have bumped his head after falling from a blow (a blow he could have deserved, once all the evidence is out). · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
Yeah, and maybe somebody threw a rock at him from the grassy knoll. · 1 minute ago
You have settled on the facts of how this happened?
Feb '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I have not reached a verdict, but I think that is quite presumptuous of you to assume this was a mistake because Zimmerman said he was unaware of Trayvon's lack of a gun. This is for two reasons: (1) it could be part of the self-defense claim; and (2) no self-defense law I am aware of requires the other party to have a gun. If you were to say it was a mistake because the prosecution could have used this to flush out Zimmerman's self-defense claim now - and the defense got lucky the prosecution didn't take advantage of it - so they have longer to refute the claim, then you would have a good point.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Xennady: Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, unable to escape, by a high school athlete.
Zimmerman's "neighborhood watch muscles" had nothing to do with this. He had every right to be where he was, and he had every right to defend himself against a thug who attacked him and was intent on pounding him unconscious and/or taking his gun and killing him.
Calling Zimmerman a bully is utterly, abjectly preposterous. He was a victim of a vicious, unprovoked attack by a thug.
And he defended himself, as was his right. · 0 minutes ago
Wow - a cornucopia of facts not in evidence. And stated with such certainty!
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 12:18am