“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 '12
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Sorry about the formatting of my post - is it an iPad issue?
Feb '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Can't we all just get along?
I don't agree with Mr. De Sono but I'm glad he made his post because it gave me an opportunity to express my own opinion- and helped me better understand why I believe what I believe.
That's something of value, in my opinion.
Dec '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Interesting comment as I have just finished reading this book. Please extrapolate.
Apr '12
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
*headdesk*
Well, I haven't even come close to reading through the comments, but it's impressive-- and sad-- that anyone on the internet could be so ill-informed as to write the original post.
GG, Mr. De Seno, for killing what little faith I had in humanity.
May you never face the possibility of being beaten to death.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Interesting comments since I took my leave.
Give them some latitude on the CofC on this one, dear editors. It is a topic and post that has inflamed passions, mine as well.
There is a group of Ricochet members who have made known before that they wish I was not here. I don't begrudge them that opinion but do wonder why they would ever want Ricochet to be a place where everyone pats one another on the back while telling each other how smart they are. If that becomes the Rico aesthetic, they'll get their wish.
Many of my posts are deliberately designed to make people defend their position, with no expectation that their position change (that would be smug), but I've heard from some that having to do so sharpens their view. Others just get mad at me.
You can't have an opinion column and not get hate mail. If that were to bother me I'd certainly be in the wrong business. So fire away, hopefully with some relevance to my own level of provocation, to which I plead guilty.
Perhaps I'm right about it all, or perhaps I have the jaded view...
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
…of a father of 4 teens (one called Trey) who wear hoodies and buy skittles at the store up the street, or the coach of hundreds of boys, many who look like Treyvon Martin. So keep me off your jury, Mr. Defense attorney.
Maybe “idiot” was too harsh a word for a Rico headline. Negligent would have been the better word. So I have no qualms with those who took me to task or called me names - it appears I started it and was getting back a little of what I gave.
One point made against me several times was a bit lazy and unfair. I never called Zimmerman a pedophile. I said from the point of view of Martin, if a 28 year old man is following him, that is something that would reasonably pop into his head. If it didn’t, it should have. I’m sure every one of you who has kids taught yours to be wary of strange men following them, for the very reason that the guy could be one. Treyvon’s state of mind has rarely been addressed in media….
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I did concede in the post that yet to be stated facts could change my view - if Treyvon reached for the gun. That’s not certain either. If I’m in a fight with a guy and he has a gun and I don’t, I might go for it.
Perhaps there is a chance to get back to a discussion because one heretofore unspoken point has me wondering -
The stand your ground law: We’ve all heard it brought up in this case repeatedly as to George Zimmerman. But what of Treyvon? I’ve heard many say he should have walked away, but does he not have rights under the stand your ground law to stay and fight?
Edited on April 21, 2012 at 9:23amDec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Chris: just to be clear, the PROSECUTOR admitted in her affadavit that the word on the tape was neither "coons" nor "cold," but "PUNKS."
So, whether the weather was cold or hot at the time in question is immaterial.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
@Tommy: You said that "Many of my posts are deliberately designed to make people defend their position". I think you left off that they are also designed to elicit an emotional response that unbalances your opponents. This is very much what an evil trail attorney does, I suspect you a very good at it.
Dec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I like how Trayvon Martin was definitely a boy, a mere child, at age 17.
I know that the law considers a 17-year-old a minor, but is it appropriate to infantalize 17 year olds as "boys" and "girls"? I mean, don't we send 17-year-olds off to college fairly routinely? Don't a significant number of 17-year-olds serve in the military? (Audie Murphy enlisted at age 17 by falsifying his birth certificate and somehow managed to thrive in the Army.)
It's very sad that Trayvon Martin's life was cut so short. But it's a bit absurd to characterize him as a mere child, especially one young enough to be a potential target of a pedophile.
Dec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Self-defense, as I understand it, is not a matter of equal armament but of reasonable fear for one's life. If I am beating a man's head against the pavement, I am not exhibiting a tender regard for whether he will suffer a fatal injury, and he may well conclude that I am about to kill him, whether deliberately or accidentally. One reason I tend to avoid beating anyone's head against the concrete is out of caution and a desire to avoid giving him a reason to pull a weapon on me. (Well, that and common courtesy.)
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 stand your ground law: We’ve all heard it brought up in this case repeatedly as to George Zimmerman. But what of Treyvon? I’ve heard many say he should have walked away, but does he not have rights under the stand your ground law to stay and fight? · 1 hour ago
I thought Stand Your Ground was about self defense. You think it means you have the right to "stay and fight?" Does that include if you're on offense? If Martin is on top of Zimmerman beating his skull into the pavement, you call that "standing your ground"?
Mar '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. · 8 hours ago
First, we have Rob on the podcast telling us that Martin was shot in the back. Then we have Tommy repeating the "coon" slander. Who needs MSNBC when we've got Ricochet?
Apr '12
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Ricochet is interesting because it does not suffer Groupthink and Tommy gives an interesting legal analysis about how to influence the jury, which is not being done to Zimmerman's benefit. Comments were all an education as we are not getting news about it here.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Tommy, it looks like you're presuming him guilty until proven innocent. I thought it was supposed to work the other way around. I know you're not the attorney trying the case, of course, and that you did make plenty of provision in your post for additional facts to come to light, and that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Still, I find the presumption of guilt coming from an attorney a bit disconcerting.
Mar '12
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Stuart Creque
Chris: just to be clear, the PROSECUTOR admitted in her affadavit that the word on the tape was neither "coons" nor "cold," but "PUNKS."
So, whether the weather was cold or hot at the time in question is immaterial. · 5 hours ago
I agree totally; I was clumsily trying to use your post to make two points. Weather is not an issue.
My fundamental point was that this storyline about "cold" or lack thereof smacked of the parochialism of NY based media and had been echoed in this thread.
Nov '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I was once on a jury, and one of the attorneys (who had the weaker case by facts) distracted some of the jurors by talking about things that were not germane. The suspect had been under surveillance for an evening and was caught in the act of robbing someone. The attorney said that the police could not have observed him continuously all evening, which was true but not relevant to the fact that they did observe him mugging someone and apprehended him immediately.
Mr. De Seno's style of argument reminds me of this. I am sure it is effective in oral arguments in front of uneducated people, but it does not pass muster in written dialogue with the Ricochet audience. His arguments depend on "facts" that are not established, never address the arguments people counter with, and are insulting in tone.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Mark Wilson
Tommy De Seno:
The stand your ground law: We’ve all heard it brought up in this case repeatedly as to George Zimmerman. But what of Treyvon? I’ve heard many say he should have walked away, but does he not have rights under the stand your ground law to stay and fight? · 1 hour ago
I thought Stand Your Ground was about self defense. You think it means you have the right to "stay and fight?" Does that include if you're on offense? If Martin is on top of Zimmerman beating his skull into the pavement, you call that "standing your ground"? · 5 hours ago
If the other guy is flashing a gun? Yes, could be.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Basil Fawlty
First, we have Rob on the podcast telling us that Martin was shot in the back. Then we have Tommy repeating the "coon" slander. Who needs MSNBC when we've got Ricochet? · 3 hours ago
I didn't say that I believed he said coon. I said it is something that could come up in the trial (not all facts that come before a jury are correct, Basil, otherwise there would be no trial to begin with).
Zimmerman said the word was "punk." But his friend said it was coon and Zimmerman calls himself "datniggy." If I'm the prosectuation, I might consider putting those facts into evidence.
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
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.
According to the only serious witness we know of: The guy is on top of him pounding his face in and announcing intent. This isn't some schoolyard brawl. You shoot the thug and deal with the consequences. Anything else is suicide. Zimmerman is proving bone stupid on a lot of things, Zimmerman's lawyers suspended their participation at least once because he was talking to Hannity but not returning their calls, but not on this point.
In my neighborhood growing up, if you picked a fight you were begging to be stabbed or shot, and that can always end terminally.
"Tap out" is fine at school or in a bar, dark streets in the wee hours are wild kingdom. Anyone with the slightest street smarts knows that.