“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:
Mar '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: This is fun, but I have to go. Tonight I have sign-ups for the youth football program I run.
You need not remind me not to shoot any of the registrants, no matter how many skittles they brandish in my direction. · 0 minutes ago
Just keep your hands to yourself, Tommy. They may take it the wrong way.
Oct '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I do agree with Ken. Just because the media had a knee-jerk "he's guilty" reaction and then doctored evidence to try to make Zimmerman look racist doesn't actually mean that Zimmerman is not guilty. Of what crime, I'm not sure. But similarly, just because Zimmerman shot a 17-year-old doesn't mean he's a "punk", as Tommy put it. If what happened was that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement, then Tommy's suggestion that Zimmerman should have taken it "like a man" is, well, just ridiculous.
Edit: for some reason I wrote Tony instead of Tommy. Sorry, Tommy!
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 1:15amApr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Albert Arthur
Tommy De Seno
We'll get to it someday - when that "f'ing coon" tape is played in Court. · 5 minutes ago
Edited 4 minutes ago
Are you kidding? Not even the prosecutor thinks he said that. · 10 minutes ago
Mr. De Seno,
Sarah Palin never said, "I can see Russia from my house!"
There is not a huge spike in wife-beating on Superbowl Sunday.
George Zimmerman didn't say "f-ing coons"
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I'm home, here's Drudge front page.
Feb '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
Don't think you know what a gangbanger is.
And your fear of ...skittles... is showing.
Hilarious.
So now your argument is that I can't recognize criminal behavior, topped off by an insult.
Got it.
Mar '11
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
[The editors advise Basil to ease off the rude snark and to instead engage in reasoned, civil debate]· 52 minutes ago
Edited 15 minutes ago
"Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight." That's not rude snark? Really, Diane?
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 1:15amJul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Ottoman Umpire
Xennady
I conclude from that exactly what I stated: Zimmerman defended himself against a deliberate unprovoked attack by a wannabe gangbanger thug.
I wouldn't call it unprovoked. Zimmerman was stalking him.
Zimmerman also outweighed Martin by 30 lbs., yet he was unable to defend himself without resorting to his gun? He was in mortalfear -- not just fear, which I take as one of Tommy's points -- of Martin? · 6 minutes ago
As I said to Tommy, I doubt you've ever had the living daylights kicked out of you and wondered if this was your last moment on earth or just a week of ibuprofen. I've been there and parts of me have been operated on related to such an event. If I'd had my gun then I'd have killed all three or died trying.
Maybe it wasn't like the way Z says but if it was then bad luck for T for trying to brutalize the the wrong wannabe cop because he got confronted by him.
Jul '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy De Seno
Freezing in Florida that day? · 5 minutes ago
It was 63 and raining. Have you actually researched any of this, Tommy? Because it seems you're getting all of your information from discredited sources as the "f'ing coon" reference shows. Even CNN who initially made that claim won't support it anymore admitting they were wrong. Quite frankly, your aggressive attitude where you have tried and convicted this man and now toss around inflammatory comments about pedophile behavior is beneath you and this site. If a member were to post comments like that, they would be redacted by an editor.
Police on the scene investigated this. Witnesses were interviewed who corroborated Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman spoke to the police voluntarily that night and met with them the next day to walk them through what happened, both times voluntarily without an attorney. He turned himself in when charged. According to his attorney today, he wanted to apologize to the Martin family in private but was not given that opportunity so he chose to do so in court. For a guy you seem convinced is so guilty, he sure isn't acting like a guilty man.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I just realized you got edited Basil. My goodness, Tommy wanted a fight and he got one but apparently needs help.
Oct '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I agree with Whiskey Sam. If Basil is getting redacted, then so should Tommy.
Edit: I wrote Tony before when I meant Tommy.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 1:13amOct '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy should take it like a man instead of hiding behind an editor, you mean? ;-) Oops, was that rude snark?
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Basil Fawlty
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
[The editors advise Basil to ease off the rude snark and to instead engage in reasoned, civil debate]· 52 minutes ago
Edited 15 minutes ago
"Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight." That's not rude snark? Really, Dianne? · 4 minutes ago
I see multiple instances of you men accusing each other of never having been in fights. For some reason, I don't see that as all that rude. (If someone accused me of never having been in a fight, I wouldn't be offended. I concede that may have to do with gender differences, though!)
Sep '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy De Seno: 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.
...
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.
· · 2 hours ago
Cool. Your mind is made up until the evidence comes out. But you hate coming to conclusions before you've heard all the facts. I feel your pain.
Apr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Whether or not Trayvon was an up and coming gangbanger would seem irrelevant. There is no way Mr. Zimmerman could know of Trayvon's misdeeds. Even if Trayvon was guilty of some unrelated crimes, that still doesn't change the facts that he had every right to be there and wasn't engaged in any questionable behavior aside from looking out of place to Mr. Zimmerman. So unless Mr. Zimmerman has some unknown sixth sense I think there is a good chance that Mr. Zimmerman made some false assumptions, and then engaged in unnecessary behavior and reckless behavior that may have cascaded into the events that lead up the the death of an innocent person.
So here is the question did Mr. Zimmerman inadvertently pick a fight by pursuing Trayvon?
Feb '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Ottoman Umpire
I wouldn't call it unprovoked. Zimmerman was stalking him.
Zimmerman also outweighed Martin by 30 lbs., yet he was unable to defend himself without resorting to his gun? He was in mortalfear -- not just fear, which I take as one of Tommy's points -- of Martin?
I dispute that Zimmerman was "stalking" him.
Zimmerman had as much right to be in the area as Martin did, and he even had the right to ask Martin a question.
And if you believe Zimmerman- and I do- he said that he was returning to his truck when Martin attacked him, pinned him to the ground, and attempted to take his gun.
From that I conclude Zimmerman was justified in his action.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Listen up, folks. We do not tolerate comments accusing people or posts of being "stupid." If you want to demonstrate why someone's argument is weak by making a civil, reasoned case go right ahead. But calling something stupid shuts down any semblance of productive debate, which your fellow Members have paid for.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 1:19amJan '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
This is one of the strangest posts I've seen on this site!
Mar '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Basil Fawlty
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
"Spoken like a man who has never won or lost a fight." That's not rude snark? Really, Dianne? · 4 minutes ago
I see multiple instances of you men accusing each other of never having been in fights. For some reason, I don't see that as all that rude. (If someone accused me of never having been in a fight, I wouldn't be offended. I concede that may have to do with gender differences, though!) · 1 minute ago
"You men?" Now that's snarky.
Jul '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Listen up, folks. We do not tolerate comments accusing people or posts of being "stupid." If you want to demonstrate why someone's argument is weak by making a civil, reasoned go right ahead. But calling something stupid shuts down any semblance of productive debate, which your fellow Members have paid for. · 0 minutes ago
And you don't think half of Tommy's comments shut down any semblance of productive debate? This entire post is arguably nothing but a troll post trying to provoke a reaction. This is easily the worst post and worst interaction I've ever seen between a contributor and members. It flies in the face of everything this site is supposed to represent and is not even pretending to be civil discourse.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 1:31amMay '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
DocJay
As I said to Tommy, I doubt you've ever had the living daylights kicked out of you and wondered if this was your last moment on earth or just a week of ibuprofen. I've been there and parts of me have been operated on related to such an event. If I'd had my gun then I'd have killed all three or died trying.
You are correct: I've not been in that situation. A few bloody noses and split lips... that's about it.
But when I was 28, I don't think I'd have been terribly worried about a 17 year old I outweighed by 20%. It sounds like you had three guys going at you, and that seems to be quite a difference.