Skip to main content

George Zimmerman's police record has come to light. NBC is reporting He was arrested in 2005 in Orlando Fl. for resisting an undercover alcohol control officer (who was making arrests in a bar), and obstructing justice (a felony). The police report described Zimmerman as interjecting himself into the situation, and when the officer identified himself Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are". When police ordered him to leave again and George replied "Fuck you!". The police report stated Zimmerman "used violence and battery against the officer".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Charges were reduced from a felony and Zimmerman was sentenced to anger management classes. If Zimmerman's charges hadn't been reduced he would have been unable to get a concealed weapons permit

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  was he (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Ladig, luckylizard, Siri, MKSinSA, semiot

    "resisting offices" or resisting officer? It sort of makes sense either way.

    And as more and more information comes out, it does sound as if he were a freakout explosion just waiting to happen.

    Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov

    by Mnemosyne on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:12:01 PM PDT

  •  good bit of less than flattering information (10+ / 0-)

    is surfacing on this guy as well as a lot of speculation.  However it seems that much of the unflattering information is coming from his own family and defenders.  With help like some people are providing, he is in real trouble.
    (warning these are satire sites)
    http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/...
    http://www.sadlyno.com/...

  •  Phew! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, Siri

    I thought I ran out of room for the title, but only almost.

    Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:20:43 PM PDT

  •  "Interjecting himself into the situation" (8+ / 0-)

    This fellow really has an obsessive thing about playing cop, to the point of repeatedly ignoring the instructions of the real cops.

    He was determined to be the hero to stop the burglary he was sure Martin was about to commit.

    He carried a gun, giving him an unrealistic belief that he had the muscle to carry it off.

    He kinda forgot that, without a badge (let alone training, etc), his aggression and his gun made him appear to be the dangerous criminal, making Martin fear for his safety.

    He obviously got close enough to Martin to make Martin feel he had to defend himself.  Two scuffling men, each in mortal fear, and a gun.

    The sad denouement was foreseeable to any but an idiot.

    It's entirely possible that, at the time Z shot, he genuinely feared for his safety.  But he's the idiot who created--actively sought out--the dangerous situation.  Even if Z actually had to shoot to keep Martin from grabbing and shooting first, Z is guilty of manslaughter.

    •  I don't think there was any scuffle (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, catullus, blueoasis, libnewsie

      Martin had absolutely no signs of scratches or bruises on his body consistent with a fight.

      Secondly, Martin was the one screaming for help - and he screamed several times before the gun went off, so how could Zimmerman claim to have been in "mortal fear for his safety?" I just don't by that, and it's not consistent with the 911 tapes and the fact that the Zimmerman camp keeps changing the story.

      Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin and he did. His decision was made to kill Trayvon from the time he told the cops that he would call them to let them know where he was, after they advised him to not follow the teen.

      •  Eye witnesses (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKSinSA, flatford39

        saw the two fighting, one on top of the other.  They could not tell which was which.

        I do think there is room for some version of the Z story to be correct.  I don't think he went looking for someone to shoot.  Whatever did happen--he shot out of agression more than reasonable fear, perhaps, or shot out of actual fear, because Martin was putting up a hell of a fight, and tried to get Z's gun, there's no question in my mind of Z's culpability for being the asshole who brought the whole sorry adventure to pass.

        I agree with you in one important respect, that Z is fabricating a lot of his story.  Nonetheless, knowing that they were brawling in close contact, hell, I'd have been afraid if I were either one of them.  There was a gun right there.

        •  Zimmerman created the situation. (10+ / 0-)

          He had every opportunity NOT to act. He murdered Trayvon in cold blood and it doesn't matter if they scuffled because Zimmerman was the one stalking Martin. Zimmerman cannot claim he was fearful for his life when he was the one in pursuit.


          Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

          by jayden on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 09:02:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh I agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe wobblie, MKSinSA

            He's culpable.  That's not inconsistent with him starting out as the pursuer--not to kill, but to be a supercop crimefighter--and then, genuinely fearing for his life when Martin fought back.  

            It's degrees of culpability.  It's at least manslaughter.  Whether it rises to the level of murder 2 will depend on the facts as they come out.

            I do also believe that Z is embellishing the story, even if it was Martin on top in the scuffle.  I don't think he was beaten severely, if at all.  I do think you can be hella afraid when you're that close to a scared, scrappy kid, and he sees your gun.  Even if Z was the one on top, if Martin had a shot at grabbing the gun, Z could have had a genuine fear for his life.

            •  By stating that (0+ / 0-)

              "Z could have had a genuine fear for his life" you are essentially granting him the "self-defense" excuse, which would totally exhonerate him.

              The facts of the 911 tape are not consistent with Z being "genuinely fearful for his life" especially when you hear Trayvon screaming "help me!" for at least 20-40 seconds before the gun goes off.

              Martin once worked as a bouncer in a club, and has a history of anger issues and violent assault. He was most likely much physically stronger than Trayvon, and it's very unlikely that he was met with equal or greater strength from a boy that did not have a violent history and was nicknamed "slimm" by his comrades for being so skinny.

              •  No indeed (0+ / 0-)

                Having a genuine fear for his life does not give him a self-defense acquittal.  You only get that if you are blameless.

                It is possible to be genuinely fearful for your life, but still culpable (manslaughter or such), because you were the reckless idiot who created the situation.

                If it was Trayvon screaming and not Z, that goes to proving whether or not Z was also fearful for his life.

                That will be a key piece of evidence, if experts are able to determine whose voice that was.

                I am firmly in the camp that says Z is culpable.  I am firmly in the camp that suspects Z has lied about what how the episode unfolded.

                I'm just saying, with homicide there are--appropriately--many degrees of culpability, and we do not yet know all the facts.

        •  The vigilante that cried "n*gg&r" is a hoax (0+ / 0-)

          Think Christine Todd and the backwards B. Since Zimmerman lied to the cops and his surrogates have lied at every opportunity, even the potentially true aspects of his statements to the police should be viewed w/ skepticism. Why should anyone believe him when he has no injuries and was not in a life and death struggle. The guy is a sniveling fat coward and liar. He should get no leeeway here folks, he was the asshole who cried, there's a n*gg$r, let me get one because them damn _ always get away.

          •  Eh (0+ / 0-)

            It is possible to be a racist, and still not have gone into that situation intending to kill.

            It is possible to lie, and still have some grain of truth in what you said.

            There is one key piece of evidence that has come out:  There was a physically close scuffle.  One or two eye witnesses saw the two men fighting, one on top of the other.  (not able to tell which was which)

            With a gun involved, that may well be a situation where both men actually feared for their lives.  That may turn out to be simply a fact here.

            That Z lies in order to claim a complete self-defense exoneration (that he was being beaten senseless), is not inconsistent with the possibility that the crime he is guilty of is not murder 1, or murder 2, but some form of manslaughter.

  •  want source link for those quotes... (0+ / 0-)

    not on his side. just want one good quote source link.

    YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE RICH TO WANT SOMETHING BACK FOR YOUR TAX MONEY OTHER THAN WARS. search for "Go Back to Your Own Country. You're a Terrorist" - MORE U.S. GUN TERROR.

    by theChild on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:45:07 PM PDT

    •  no wait, sorry, didn't get the video link loaded (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Love

      first time around. sorry for that...

      broadcast-reported as such, well... that's just more grease for that fire.

      i worry about those who only trust fox right now... i wonder how much rupertgate is getting through to them.

      YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE RICH TO WANT SOMETHING BACK FOR YOUR TAX MONEY OTHER THAN WARS. search for "Go Back to Your Own Country. You're a Terrorist" - MORE U.S. GUN TERROR.

      by theChild on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:50:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's a perfectly upright gentleman ... (5+ / 0-)

    unless he's drinking or flips out on you - then lookout.

    One of the next shoes to drop will be the how and why he flopped tying to get into law enforcement.

  •  typo in title (10+ / 0-)
    Management
    otherwise important diary, recommended. I don't know about FL, but in NYC the police get a little offended when you assault an officer, stiff penalties for doing so. Wasn't Zimmerman's father a judge? Wonder how Zimmerman got such a lenient penalty?

    Hmmmm . . . very interesting

    #OccupyWallStreet ~ I will protest when and where I damn well please. I have the constitution in my pocket. That is my permit.

    by MinistryOfTruth on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 08:03:49 PM PDT

    •  Ran out of space (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 09:06:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no more plea bargains in violent crimes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North

      Zimmerman undoubtedly plea-bargained to get the charges reduced from felony to misdemeanor.   And without the felony on his record, he got the concealed carry permit, and eventually committed a murder.  

      What we need in legislation:

      = Wider latitude for judges to sentence, but only to suspend some part of a sentence, and not to move a violent crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.  The felony conviction should remain even if the sentence is reduced.

      = Thus someone who gets in a bar fight or street brawl, who is clearly an active participant but not the one who threw the first punch, could end up doing one year instead of five, or even strict probation if the judge believed the defendant could be reformed that way and stay out of trouble.  

      = However the remainder of the five year sentence for the assault charge would only be suspended, so if the person committed a subsequent assault or other violent crime, the suspended fraction of the sentence would come down in full force.  

      What I'm trying to accomplish here is to leave a door open for rehabilitation, with the carrot of probation and the stick of the suspended sentence.  And also, by sustaining the felony on the record, the individual would be barred from a concealed carry permit, preventing hotheads such as Zimmerman from walking into situations where they might be tempted to use the weapon and commit a murder.

      What do you think?

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 10:34:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What about banning gun ownership? (0+ / 0-)

        Can plea bargains--or judges acting on their own--include a term that the defendant is barred from having guns for, say, five years?

        Could this be part of a misdemeanour sentence?

        •  only for violent felony convictions. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MKSinSA

          Otherwise do you really want someone in a rural area who got caught with pot to be denied the ability to protect their family and livestock from wild animal attacks?   Or for that matter hunt for food, which can make all the difference between adequate and inadequate nutrition for poor rural folks?

          The goal is to allow for flexibility of rehabilitation while maintaining the felony conviction for the crime.  

          The idea that a violent crime will always be a felony conviction even if you only do probation for it, has some degree of deterrent effect.

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 11:17:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think mandatory minimum sentences are a blight (6+ / 0-)

        On the justice system.  This is a great example of hard cases making bad law.  What may seem like a good idea in the context of this case would undoubtedly be unequally applied and would likely lead to even more minority disenfranchisement in Florida.  

        •  to put it bluntly... (5+ / 0-)

          ... it always seems that it's the minorities and other relatively disempowered people who end up with the mandatory minimum sentences, and the advantaged or connected who end up with the reduced charges so as to escape the mandatory minimums.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 11:19:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think he got a pretrial diversion and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, True North, MKSinSA

    his record expunged

  •  So silver spoons can protect their defective (0+ / 0-)

    children from learning any life lessons about responsible behavior.   Kids of cops, preachers, politicians, judges etc. learn all too young how to wriggle free and grow to expect a free pass for any screwy alibi they concoct.    

    Their parents are really NOT doing them a favor.  They turn out unable to understand other humans --- like Romney and Bush.    

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 11:41:10 AM PDT

  •  A friend of mine once sped away from an... (0+ / 0-)

    undercover cop after attempting to buy beer with a fake ID. They initially arrested him charged him with assault with a deadly weapon, claiming that he tried to run over the cop with his car.

    He eventually paid a $300 fine for attempting to purchase the alcohol with a fake ID. The DA rightly believed that he was simply trying to get away and did not intend to run over the off-duty officer. By the way, the officer did not identify himself as such at the scene.

    Here's the thing, cops can be serious assholes when you mess with them. They might even arrest you on a ridiculous charge. I'm not sure what happened in the 2005 Zimmerman arrest, but I'm sure that if he had "used violence and battery against the officer" the DA would have pursued a conviction and not settled for anger management.

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 01:34:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site