“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
Hmph. Well, while I could take very little of value from all this rather raucous dispute Mr. De Seno's post did provide something of worth to me, a rather powerful endorsement of Mr. Murray's latest work.
Although I rather doubt that was his intent.
Sep '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Also, if my memory serves me correctly, police officers are now taught that a suspect armed with any kind of edged weapon can be shot if he/she steps within a 25 foot kill zone when approaching the officer with intent (Jack Dunphy may wish to step in here) and I would be curious what type of training -- if any -- that Mr. Zimmerman received and how he remembers the incident.
Sep '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
“I did not know if he was armed or not.”
Mr. Zimmerman, did you mean that you didn't know whether he was armed with a firearm? Or you didn't know whether he was carrying a weapon of any kind? Did you believe he may be carrying a bladed weapon?
Nov '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I agree with Tommy that the unnecessary comment from the stand was not a good tactical move for Mr. Zimmerman. In a bail hearing, any unnecesssary comment ought to be avoided.
Whether his lawyer knew in advance that he was going to say what he did (or say anything at all about what happened) we do not know. I have had witnesses say the most god-awful things on the stand after even the most careful preparation,
I have been through several different ideas about the case from the time I first heard about it until now, changing my opinion as new information came out. Right now, I am much less inclined to think that Mr. Zimmerman was at fault for pressing the issue with Mr. Martin than I was at first; but, we do not know who instigated the confrontation. Insofar as I am aware, it could have been either man.
When the evidence comes out, we can all make a conclusive judgment. But, even then, reasonable men and sensible jurors may differ. Until we can read the transcript and, perhaps, watch the testimony, I think that we are in Plato's cave.
Jun '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I feel the the same as Lucy (thank you for expressing it better than I could.) I also agree with Whiskey Sam and Albert Arthur. This is not the first time I have puzzled as to why Tommy De Seno is allowed to post articles on Ricochet. My two cents worth...
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Pseudodionysius, 20-25 feet seems about right from my classes. I carry an Emerson which flips out automatically. I highly advise them. Z's defense will clearly be that he thought he was in danger of his life, gun or beating. That will be all he needs legally unless they pick OJ Simpson's first jury.
Sep '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
but, we do not know who instigated the confrontation
That's going to be a tough one to establish without other witnesses, since Mr. Martin is unable to give testimony. Even if Zimmerman put his hand on Martin's shoulder (I don't know how you could establish that unless Z himself says that's what happened) and Martin's defense is that he slugged him in self defense, Zimmerman could then counter that he feared for his life thinking his gun was going to be grabbed.
I agree with Jack Dunphy's original pronouncement on this case: I don't see how you can possibly get a conviction on Zimmerman given the circumstances.
Jan '11
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.
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. · 3 hours ago
Edited 3 hours ago
I would have to agree. This post was not designed to encourage civil, reasoned discussion or productive debate.
Oct '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Nevermind the complexity and tangled emotions of the Travon/Zimmerman case, how 'bout this Ricochet dust-up, eh?
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
The post wasn't "baited." That's how Tommy feels, as a trial lawyer, and we respect his opinions -- even when we don't agree with them, which is one of the tenets of this site.
Not precisely, but in comment number two it came close enough.
Our take: Tommy's headline presented an opinion, from a practicing litigator, about another trial attorney's courtroom practice. He followed that with some hedged remarks about Zimmerman's proper course of action. In our opinion, he isn't calling everyone who might disagree with him an idiot, and it shouldn't invite others to retaliate against him in kind.
Dec '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
The original point was that Zimmerman's lawyer made life tougher on his client today.
The rest is just a side bar.
We'll all hold our final opinions until the trial.
In the mean time, if I pick a fight with your kid, and he starts to win, if I shoot him dead, I'll expect your support. · 4 hours ago
Funny, I took Zimmerman's comment as meaning, "I thought he might have a gun and I was afraid he would kill me."
If someone starts beating your adult kid's head against the concrete, I hope you've taught him to take it like a man instead of defending himself. Probably his attacker will be well-trained and trustworthy and will know just when to stop before causing your kid a fatal cerebral hemorrhage.
One question, though: if Trayvon was only going home from a trip to the minimart, why didn't he just head home in the 93 seconds between Zimmerman's 911 call and the fatal altercation? It was only a block.
And why did the prosecutor stipulate that Zimmerman said "f**king punks," when you were clearly there to hear different?
Dec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
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. · 3 hours ago
Mollie, the prosecution's affadavit stipulates that Zimmerman said "f**king punks."
The mainstream media needs this to be a case of a white racist stalking a black teen and shooting him in cold blood because of his race. It needs that because then Obama's minions can call for a second term for our historic President so that he can complete his program of healing our racial wounds.
Hence the NY Times insisting on calling Zimmerman a "white Hispanic." (By that standard, Obama is our first white black President - but that can't be, because Clinton was, according to Toni Morrison.)
And by the time he died, Trayvon Martin was not the cherubic sixth-grader depicted in every news story.
Oct '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
The Logo
The post wasn't "baited." That's how Tommy feels, as a trial lawyer, and we respect his opinions -- even when we don't agree with them, which is one of the tenets of this site.
Not precisely, but in comment number two it came close enough.
Our take: Tommy's headline presented an opinion, from a practicing litigator, about another trial attorney's courtroom practice. He followed that with some hedged remarks about Zimmerman's proper course of action. In our opinion, he isn't calling everyone who might disagree with him an idiot, and it shouldn't invite others to retaliate against him in kind. · 5 minutes ago
The man should have presented his Bona Fides from the outset.
Otherwise, it appeared to be an invitation to a free for all.
May '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:
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.
You call these "facts"?
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 you call that a "fair" conclusion?
Sounds more like impugning his character and constructing a narrative.
Oct '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
And how hard it is to retract a comment--or edit a post ...
Jul '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
The Logo
Our take: Tommy's headline presented an opinion, from a practicing litigator, about another trial attorney's courtroom practice. He followed that with some hedged remarks about Zimmerman's proper course of action. In our opinion, he isn't calling everyone who might disagree with him an idiot, and it shouldn't invite others to retaliate against him in kind. · 11 minutes ago
Can you honestly say that had a member made intentionally inflammatory, baseless comments about hypothetical scenarios where Zimmerman was an assumed pedophile it wouldn't have been redacted? I find that hard to believe and a tad disingenuous. The post was questionable; the subsequent comments have been anything but civil or inviting of critical, reasoned thinking. I've lost some respect for this site tonight in its apparent unwillingness to hold its contributors to the same standard as its paying customers.
Feb '12
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
[Ed. Deleted for what seems like a violation of the Code of Conduct.]
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 6:57amMar '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
The Logo
The post wasn't "baited." That's how Tommy feels, as a trial lawyer, and we respect his opinions -- even when we don't agree with them, which is one of the tenets of this site.
Not precisely, but in comment number two it came close enough.
Our take: Tommy's headline presented an opinion, from a practicing litigator, about another trial attorney's courtroom practice. He followed that with some hedged remarks about Zimmerman's proper course of action. In our opinion, he isn't calling everyone who might disagree with him an idiot, and it shouldn't invite others to retaliate against him in kind.
Mr. De Sono is being given a rather wide latitude with regards to the Ricochet CoC, so be it.
So long as those who choose to respond to his provocations are given equal latitude.
Mar '12
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Two points from Stuart's post.One, as someone living for several years in Houston, I would point out that it does feel cold in winter after walking around in shorts 9 months of the year. Everyone from "the north" starts out bad mouthing the locals but give it a few years and they too start thinking it's cold - because it is not in the 90's and humid. Sun goes down, wind comes up, and it feels cold. Just like a Texas or Florida native does not think it gets too hot up north until they have lived through a few winters. Second, is it just me or are the photos showing Travon from a younger and younger age? I realize he was not 18+, but he certainly was older than easily 90% of the photos I've seen.As for the rest, I'll wait for the trial.
Dec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Why was there a neighborhood watch established?