“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 '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
I don't know about despicable...
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
James Of England
Tommy De Seno
James Of England
I'm fascinated by how you'd try to evade hearsay restrictions. ·
I'd bolster the "coon" allegation with his friend's testimony that "coon" is a frequently used word by George.
My hurdle would be relevancy, not heresay. ·
How is "I heard Zimmerman say "coon"" not offering "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted"?
Are you saying it's character evidence? I'd say that the Florida statute also makes that a high bar. ·
Habit evidence. ·
That would be "Routine Practice", right? Florida Statute 90.406. "Routine practice.—Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice."
What "organization" was Zimmerman?
Edit: It occurs to me that your confusion may arise from a belief that this is a federal trial. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, habit would have been admissible.
Edited on April 22, 2012 at 2:37amApr '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 I? I've typed a lot of words here and honestly don't remember talking about a justifiable attack. Can you point that out?
I recall musing about the likely state of mind of Tryvon, and concluding that it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for a minor to wonder that about an adult who is following him. I don't remember saying "justifiable attack."
Tommy, this is the comment. #33
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. · Apr 20 at 3:34pm
Apr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Regarding the relative fighting ability of the two, and who started the fight, one of the few things that we can be confident of in the story is that before Zimmerman shot Martin, Martin was winning the fight. Zimmerman was seriously hurt, while Martin's only serious injury was the fatal gunshot. If Martin was beaten up, then shot, this would be a much easier case for the prosecution.
To my mind, this somewhat implies that Martin started the fight, but it much more strongly implies that Martin was not obviously physically inferior to Zimmerman.
It's my hope that, if you have been teaching Trey to beat up guys who might be pedophiles, this case persuades you to tell him that if he does so, you will not applaud him for it, whether or not he survives inflicting his abuse. It is important that children grow up being taught not to murder people, even if they are weird.
Dec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Whiskey Sam
Tommy De Seno
Whiskey Sam
Your post #11:
"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."
[Ed. Question about earlier insult redacted.]
[Ed. Reformulation of earlier insult redacted.] Where did I say this is what Trayvon thought as opposed to supposition as to what he could have thought? · 3 minutes ago
At least you're spelling his name correctly now. I said, "You fabricated the ideaof Martin possiblythinking Zimmerman was a pedophile out of whole cloth". I did not accuse you of saying Martin did think that. Thanks for proving my point. · 6 hours ago
I find it fascinating that Mr. De Seno refuses to own his own words and in fact accuses others of lying for paraphrasing him correctly.
Isn't an unfounded accusation of lying a CoC violation?
Edited on April 23, 2012 at 8:29amDec '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
Pick the 17 year old you are most fond of and ask him to walk across Camden NJ tonight. I'm betting you'll think it rather unfair to put him in that postion at his age.
I nominate these 14- and 15-year-olds.
Hey, at least the commuters were smart enough to say "Uncle."
Dec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Or maybe this 16-year-old.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/22/MN2O109UVU.DTL#ixzz1sj3dLk43
Jul '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Reminder for the curious, Basil Fawlty is confirmed for the May 5th DC soirée, details under Upcoming Meetups in the member feed. Perhaps he will agree to autographed pictures for a modest fee.
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Albert Arthur: Do the editors seriously think that Tommy's post quoted below is a reasoned, cogent argument? It is inflammatory to the extreme, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Tommy is a nut who would murder children. The hypocrisy of the editors in this thread is really unfortunate.
Tommy De Seno: Well, it's off to a walk through with my Jr Pee Wee team who have a playoff game tomorrow.
Here's hoping none of them look suspicious enough to any of you so that you follow and shoot them. NO SKITTLES at this game, OK?
In the meantime, I leave you with this cherubic, very boyish looking face: · 15 minutes ago
8 hours ago
I wouldn't say they constitute a cogent argument, but more of an offhand explanation that he'd be leaving the thread for a while, along with a little (but not CoC-violating) dig.
It certainly doesn't seem to me that "It is inflammatory to the extreme, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Tommy is a nut who would murder children." You're not reading him literally, are you?
Edited on April 22, 2012 at 5:53amApr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Logo, do you feel the same way about Comment #205's description of comment #180? 180 really does seem to be a very clear set of replies. To paraphrase:
WS: "You suggested X."
TDS: "[self edit]. I did not suggest X."
WS: "[quote of the suggestion of X]. Tu quoque."
TDS: "Where did I suggest Y? I only suggested X"
Obviously, the tu quoque also comes close to a personal attack; CoC redactions often come in groups. Nonetheless, it seems worth drawing attention to as Tommy is a contributor posting in an incendiary thread, both of which seem like factors that would call for a heightened discretion. Tommy's libel of Sam appears in the feed and Sam's name is thus unfairly muddied before a wide audience. The "permission giving" effect on the tone of the community as a whole also seems greater. I agree that the Skittles comment is not CoC violating; I think it might have been if a specific individual or group had been targeted, but vagueness and clear frivolity seem like pretty strong defenses. This, though, appears to be genuine, serious, specific, unfair, humorless, and tone lowering. I do not understand it remaining.
Edited on April 23, 2012 at 8:07amDec '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
The Logo
I wouldn't say they constitute a cogent argument, but more of an offhand explanation that he'd be leaving the thread for a while, along with a little (but not CoC-violating) dig.
Interestingly, none of Mr. De Seno's arguments in this thread have been cogent. He's focused on creating perceptions of George Zimmerman as an epithet-spewing racist and a figure of possibly sexual menace, the latter in absence of any evidence and the former in direct contradiction to the prosecution's affadavit.
However, he did cross the line when he warned Whiskey Sam not to lie in response to Sam's entirely accurate characterization of Mr. De Seno's comments. I hope that he has the integrity we've come to expect from Ricochet contributors and apologizes to Sam for implying that Sam is a liar - hope, but do not entirely expect.
Apr '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Stuart Creque
Interestingly, none of Mr. De Seno's arguments in this thread have been cogent. He's focused on creating perceptions of George Zimmerman as an epithet-spewing racist and a figure of possibly sexual menace, the latter in absence of any evidence and the former in direct contradiction to the prosecution's affadavit.
While I agree that Comment #175 was out of order, many of Tommy's 53 posts have been constructive, and some of those that have not offered cogent arguments have nonetheless been valuable (saying "I'm AFK for a while, for instance, seems important when debating so many people). Given that almost none of the >150 other posts have been supportive, I don't blame him for getting a little snarky, as with the skittles comment; it can be emotionally challenging, facing so many attacks.
His view that the prosecution would overcome their own sworn testimony with evidence that he believed to be admissible, for instance, was cogent and constructive, if almost certainly wrong on at least two levels. His arguments for treating Trayvon as a "cherubic" child, or that Zimmerman may have been a manhunter and should have taken his beating, likewise.
May '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Maybe Tommy should have honored his own code and , rather than lose his cool, "taken his beating like a man."
...and another thing, Tommy's use of the word "boy" would have been, and still is, considered a racial slur where I grew up. Maybe we should run down that rabbit hole since it's so appropriate to make assumptions about motives and character.
Edited on April 22, 2012 at 10:11amMar '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
The Logo
Tommy De Seno: Well, it's off to a walk through with my Jr Pee Wee team who have a playoff game tomorrow.
Here's hoping none of them look suspicious enough to any of you so that you follow and shoot them. NO SKITTLES at this game, OK?
In the meantime, I leave you with this cherubic, very boyish looking face: · 15 minutes ago
8 hours ago
I wouldn't say they constitute a cogent argument, but more of an offhand explanation that he'd be leaving the thread for a while, along with a little (but not CoC-violating) dig.
Edited 5 hours ago
In the interest of further clarifying the CoC, perhaps you could explain exactly what it was about my comment at #9 (a reference to a fantasy out of the Rocky franchise, if I recall correctly) that warranted redaction. Personally, I don't find it nearly as snarky as many of Tommy's unredacted comments. In fact, Tommy gave what I consider to be a pretty good response to the comment before it was redacted.
Mar '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
No pictures, please. I'm trying not to let my new-found notoriety go to my head.
Kenneth
Nov '10
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
James Of England
While I agree that Comment #175 was out of order, many of Tommy's 53 posts have been constructive, and some of those that have not offered cogent arguments have nonetheless been valuable (saying "I'm AFK for a while, for instance, seems important when debating so many people). Given that almost none of the >150 other posts have been supportive, I don't blame him for getting a little snarky, as with the skittles comment; it can be emotionally challenging, facing so many attacks.
James, you are kind to give Tommy so much credit. I am a little ambivalent myself, because he has taken so much time to interact with the Ricochet community. Not all Contributors do so. There have been times when I have been frustrated by leaving comments on a post and hoping to see how the Contributor responds, only to observe that the Contributor never revisits the thread long enough to leave a single comment.
Nevertheless, I think the large number of page hits and comments on this thread come at a price in rudeness, negativity, and disillusionment that should cause the editors to consider carefully Tommy's future role here.
May '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Can we please stop calling a 17-year-old a "boy"?
May '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
Valiuth: 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? · Apr 20 at 4:18pm
Given the prior history of the women's jewelry and the screwdriver, why does everyone assume that Trayvon was not engaged in "questionable behavior"? Is it possible that Zimmerman's "sixth sense" was triggered by seeing someone looking for a place to break into?
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
So Tommy, I'll throw you a bone since you've been so badly beaten here whether you'll admit it or not. Scalp wounds bleed way more than their significance on many occasions. A very vascular area. On a separate note, my 17 yr old 145 lb son just left for his high school musical practice and he could not beat up any adult male Zimmerman's size. But he can run very well and stays out of trouble, he's been taught that. Furthermore, his Twitter handle isn't "no limit cracka", he has no tattoos, gold teeth, stolen goods, truancy, assaults, or drug use issues.
Jul '11
Re: “I did not know if he was armed or not.” That, and George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Might Be An Idiot
TerMend, I agree. The Man could easily have had tools or drugs on him and ditched them when he knew he was being followed in addition to casing homes.