“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:
Feb '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Is everyone who has someone walking nearby- perhaps even behind- justified in attacking them and knocking them to the ground?
If I walk behind someone in a public area am I provoking them?
Should I avoid other people at all times, lest I become liable when I provoke them into knocking me to the ground, pinning me, bouncing my skull off the pavement, and breaking my nose?
Seriously, I put the onus for all this on Martin. At the most he was justified in telling Zimmerman to eff off, not attacking him.
Apr '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
A 28 year old following a 17 year old and saying who knows what provocative things to him is grounds for that.
If Zimmerman were a pedophile, wouldn't we all be applauding Treyvon for banging his head into the ground?
Children are taught that weird looking adults following them are not to be taken lightly. ·
Children are taught to murderously assault men who look weird? In A Clockwork Orange, perhaps, but not in the high schools I've been familiar with. Where in America are these post-apocalyptic wastelands?
You object to people calling a 17 year old who flashes gang signs and dresses like a gangbanger a gangbanger, but feel comfortable throwing pedophile around? I don't know if you mean a: Treyvon thought that Zimmerman was in the process of an attempted violent rape. I agree that if Martin were under attack, self defense would be admirable. or b: if Zimmerman's sexuality was perverse, it would have been right to assault/ kill him.
May '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Xennady
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.
Stalk is defined by my pop up dictionary as "pursue or approach stealthily."
No one disputes Zimmerman's right to be there (nor his right to ask a question that Martin has no obligation to answer), but it sounds like it could reasonably have been seen as menacing.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Ottoman Umpire, if you're losing bad the size isn't important. I'm 6'5" but have lost to a 5'8" boxer. It wasn't even close. He had the class to ask me of I wanted my ass kicked more and I gave up. Tommy himself should know what a 6'2" 150 lb or so football player is capable of and I'd bet on the football player every time over an out of shape guy 100 lbs more.
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 8:21amMay '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Xennady
Seriously, I put the onus for all this on Martin. At the most he was justified in telling Zimmerman to eff off, not attacking him. · 5 minutes ago
Clearly, Martin was wrong if he attacked Zimmerman. But Tommy's point is that he didn't deserve to die for the mistake.
Oct '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.
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. · 22 minutes ago
Edited 22 minutes ago
Tommy's snarky comment about Basil never having been in a fight had no purpose other than to shut down debate. It was the equivalent of, "Shut up, you're a wimp."
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
Clearly, Martin was wrong if he attacked Zimmerman. But Tommy's point is that he didn't deserve to die for the mistake.
I'll agree with that. But obviously I also think Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin, alas.
Nov '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Whiskey Sam
Diane Ellis, Ed.
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.
Diane, I agree with this. It is unfortunately not the first time Mr. DeSeno has engaged in this kind of discussion, but this post seems even more unpleasant and aggressive than most. I am afraid that I think his writing is not really in keeping with the desired tone here on Ricochet. I thought about sending a private message to this effect, but then I thought it might be better to make my feelings public, so as to see whether other people feel the same. Maybe I am wrong or in a small minority, and if so I will simply renew my previous efforts not to read the things he writes.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Albert Arthur
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 case go right ahead. But calling something stupid shuts down any semblance of productive debate, which your fellow Members have paid for. · 22 minutes ago
Edited 22 minutes ago
Tommy's snarky comment about Basil never having been in a fight had no purpose other than to shut down debate. It was the equivalent of, "Shut up, you're a wimp." · 18 minutes ago
Demonstrating that someone's argument is weak with a cogent, reasoned case of your own is the equivalent of saying "your argument is stupid." Except for that you aren't actually saying "your argument is stupid."
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
You mean the "f'ing cold" tape? · 3 minutes ago
Freezing in Florida that day? · 1 hour ago
I looked it up. It was fairly typical for Florida, although at 7:30 or 8:00 PM it would have been at the colder point of the day. The 94% humidity may mean that it was raining or just very humid, which would also affect how the temperature feels.
Dec '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
Seriously, I put the onus for all this on Martin. At the most he was justified in telling Zimmerman to eff off, not attacking him. · 5 minutes ago
Clearly, Martin was wrong if he attacked Zimmerman. But Tommy's point is that he didn't deserve to die for the mistake. · 16 minutes ago
Do I like to think that in some cosmic way he didnt deserve it, sure. Do I think that given what we know, Mr. Zimmerman was justified in defending himself even if that ended in Trayvon's death I do as well.
Sometimes mistakes end in tradgedy and its nothing more than a tradgedy.
Oct '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
So few facts, so many assumptions and hot buttons being pushed. Seems pretty clear the post was a baited and meant to inflame a very public issue. Take a breath or two.
From the get go, Tommy proposed that one should run away or just say Uncle when confronted, therefore diminishing any act of self defence to a schoolyard context. Strikes one as an immature view of real world events.
As for Diane and fights between girls or women, from historical observations, even a brave man that choses to intevene with peacefull intentions will come up short.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Saying " your argument is stupid" is not the same as saying "you are stupid". I have no disrespect for Tommy but I think his argument, logic, and position here is premature and "silly". I think someone pulled out the editing gun and shot prematurely and now his 17 minute old comment is gone forever.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
My purpose for asking Tommy if he'd ever been in a scenario where he was about to be beat to death potentially had to do with how someone in that position might reasonably act if they had a CCW on them. If you think something very bad is happening and about to continue oe get worse, it justifies homicide even if Z should have never pursued in the first place. I think Z is not some sort of hero and may get prison, murdered in the street but that he should let this large man whoop on him is preposterous.
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.
Albert Arthur
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 case go right ahead. But calling something stupid shuts down any semblance of productive debate, which your fellow Members have paid for. · 22 minutes ago
Edited 22 minutes ago
Tommy's snarky comment about Basil never having been in a fight had no purpose other than to shut down debate. It was the equivalent of, "Shut up, you're a wimp." · 18 minutes ago
Demonstrating that someone's argument is weak with a cogent, reasoned case of your own is the equivalent of saying "your argument is stupid." Except for that you aren't actually saying "your argument is stupid." · 9 minutes ago
Diane, all I can say is that your view of what constitutes a "cogent, reasoned case" differs from mine. In my view, such a case doesn't consist solely of playground banter. And please note, 'twas not I who headlined the post by asserting that Zimmerman's lawyer "might be an idiot."
Oct '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
For what it is worth, take into account a great number of folks that try to speak to these kinds of issues have no real world experiences.
Until they have been faced with life threatening situations, all is just self serving conjecture and posturing. Get my drift ?
Dec '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Let the person who has never said anything intemperent on the internet cast the first stone.
Sep '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
A former Brazilian fighter was interviewed once about who he feared the most in a street fight. His answer?
"Some punk kid 135 lbs soaking wet, because he's probably got a shiv hidden somewhere and I won't feel it till its in my kidney."
Even experienced fighters in the ring often have no memory of how they got on the canvas and if you black out momentarily and awake to find someone on top of you who you believe is going for your weapon, then its the Texas scramble as to who gets the gun first.
If Trayvon had "curb stomped" Zimmerman and was unlucky enough to cause a fatal head injury (a not uncommon occurrence these days in bar fights) then if caught Trayvon would be up on manslaughter charges, and his lawyer would be trying to argue that Zimmerman outweighed him, flashed a gun, and Trayvon was justified in defending himself.
(The curb stomping might be hard to explain if the victim was still a threat, but that's what counsel is paid for.)
Oct '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
If there is a Hedge Fund on Hens Teeth, there would something.
Oct '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
When you title your post, "So-and-so is an idiot," it kind of implies that anyone who disagrees with you is also an idiot.