Skip to main content

Obama firing gun

Although there is a history of mall and theater shootings in this country, Sandy Hook Elementary School was the straw that broke the camel's back. So many innocent children died. The smallest thing to come out of federal legislation will most likely be mandatory background checks prior to purchasing any guns. Personally, I'm all for it because this country is overflowing with kooks and gun nuts. No matter how much the NRA and other gun rights advocates protest, something must be done. For instance, during one of the more recent break-ins at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a 9mm pistol was stolen from the residence, not just a television. Why shouldn't homeowners lock up their guns before leaving home each day? What's wrong with a law like that? Why leave them in a drawer in the nightstand; the first place a robber would look? Would you leave your knives out for your grandchildren to play with? Of course not. That gun is now a Saturday night special and it didn't have to be that way. Before anyone calls me as a bleeding heart liberal for thinking this way, which is really nothing more than common sense, consider the following.

Nathan Haddad

A month ago, on January 6, a decorated combat veteran was driving through Jefferson County, NY, when he was stopped for a random vehicle check by a deputy sheriff. Staff Sgt. Nathan "Nate" Haddad had five 30-round assault rifle magazines in his possession. All were empty. He was arrested on the spot and charged with five felony counts.

According to his brother, Michael Haddad, those magazines were legally made before the New York (state) Assault Weapons Ban was enacted. If true, this was no criminal act. In the military, Haddad was trusted to handle weapons that far surpassed what he was carrying the night of his arrest, and now he finds himself facing a lengthy prison sentence. Oh, those liberal New Yorkers!

Haddad was recently honored by the Union League's Armed Services Council and by the Philadelphia chapter of Blue Star Mothers for his work in assisting disabled veterans get back on their feet. (If you want to view his defense fund site, go HERE)

My point is not to preach about gun laws or what's right and what's wrong; it's all about Nathan Haddad and Sandy Hook and how, somewhere, George Zimmerman falls between the two. Huh, you may ask?

Yes, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, so that's not an issue at all. The problem is, who should be able to handle guns? Haddad? Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook murderer? George Zimmerman?

What I find ironic about the shooting of Trayvon Martin is how justified so many people think Zimmerman was based on his Second Amendment rights. Considering that logic, so was Adam Lanza -- not that I'm attempting to put the two of them on a level playing field, but death by gun is still death by gun and, generally speaking, the court system decides how to handle those deaths, not us. Had Lanza's mother locked up her legally obtained guns when not in use, would children have died that day? And don't tell me anyone is going to keep an assault rifle in a nightstand. He couldn't have shot up a school with a lone pistol; all she needed to feel safe at night.

§

To put things in a more proper perspective, let's look at exactly who we're talking about in this particular case. George Zimmerman is so proud of his Hispanic heritage, he made it clear very early on that he is not a White person. He doesn't associate his background with them despite his father being Caucasian. He considers himself, as an ethnic Hispanic/Latino, to be other than White, and that places him closer to Trayvon Martin than most of his White supporters would like to think, let alone believe that he is. (Quickly, look the other way!) Wasn't his great-grandfather Afro-Peruvian? Granted, he may have said so to prove how diverse he is; that he is not a racist by any means. Or he could have said it to save his butt from a federal hate-crime charge. That means he's either telling the truth or he's lying. Take your pick.

Whichever one you choose, the fact remains that Zimmerman is not White, yet it's the race that has aligned itself with him throughout this ordeal. Why? Because he's laughing all the way to the bank, in my opinion, after begging for funding. He's milking the system. White milk, of course. Most certainly, he's not getting a pittance from Black people, and I've spoken to many Hispanics that are ashamed of what he did. "He's not one of us," some admonish. In truth, many Hispanics don't consider him to be a true Latino because only his mother is one.

What's left is White people supporting him because of gun rights and/or racism, and it makes no sense at all. Who knows anything about his past prior to the shooting last year? Anything at all, really? No one has a clear understanding about whether he did, in fact, molest his younger cousin for years. Right now, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because nothing has been established, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Trayvon's past is to be exploited, so must Zimmerman's. What do we know about him as a teenager; I mean, really know about him? That he was lily white and pure as the driven snow?

This leads us to three perplexing scenarios for Zimmerman's supporters. If they support him because of race -- Trayvon being an inferior Negro and all -- they're barking up the wrong tree house but, in truth, Zimmerman ain't truly White now, is he? (Not that it matters a hoot to me.) If it's because of advocating gun rights only -- the right to bear arms -- his supporters should look Nathan Haddad's way; not toward some lying cop wannabe who should have ceded to the right side of caution and let real cops handle the situation. In the real world, Haddad should be the hero to gun rights advocates, not Zimmerman. To those who support Zimmerman because of gun rights and racism, may God have mercy on their soul. Had Trayvon merely been white, they'd be spitting on Zimmerman right now instead of his victim's grave.

§

Remember, I'm a White boy saying this. I grew up in New Jersey. I know a thing or two about the Mafia, and you can trust me on this one. But that doesn't make me a mobster, even if I had an ounce of Italian blood in me. Trayvon grew up in Miami. He knew about gangs. Ergo, that didn't make him a gang member. The kid had a heart sticker on his cell phone, for crying out loud. What sort of bad ass would do that? The Heart Killers? Oh no... that was Zimmerman, but speaking of gangs...

"They do a year and dont ever open thier mouth to get my ass pinched."

We will never know what went through Trayvon's mind that fateful night, but once again, what's good for the goose should be good enough for the gander. He could have easily seen his eventual killer as a gangsta chasing him down, just like Zimmerman looked at him -- a threat. Why not? He had every right to. Growing up in the 'hood, he knew all about those types; White and Hispanic dudes acting Black. Yo Yo, Bro, Wazzup?

What's up with that? And stop calling me Bro. You stalkin' me. After all, Trayvon was raised to be very careful around not just Whites, but all light-skinned people. Every African-American kid is. They are out to get us. How else would you explain that, had Trayvon been White, a little pot wouldn't matter? He would have been just like other boys his age; a rite of passage -- part of growing up. Boys will be boys. Not Black boys, though. Black boys can't smoke pot. If they do, they are bad asses. No in between. Only White people can stand their ground. And mostly White, 'cept Mexicans.

"I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!"

It's abundantly clear that the above two statements were fairly prejudiced and/or somewhat gangsta-minded at the time they were written. As a matter of fact, I'd be inclined to call the person who wrote them a bit of a racist, wouldn't you agree? But, then again, wasn't Trayvon "messin' with people's houses" the night he was shot by looking toward their windows from the street where he walked? There is no proof he actually looked into any of them close up.

What's most compelling about those statements is that they were made by Joe G., Zimmerman's alter ego, on his Myspace page from not so long ago. How strange, coming from such a "national hero" to many adoring fans. Well, that was then, some may decry, but so is Trayvon's past. In my opinion, there is a strong indication that when he stepped out of his vehicle with his 9mm gun on the night of February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman transformed himself into Joe G. and decided to stalk a soft-ass wanna be thug by the name of Trayvon Martin. In his mind, that's exactly what the boy was; one of the "thugs on drugs" and up to no good. He didn't dent up any cars along his way, though, nor did he pull a knife, but he still got dead.

Yup. All of his boys back home in Manassas -- that D.C. 'burb -- would be proud of Joe G. someday. He was going to prove it, too. Where are his boys now? Coming out of the woodwork for him or still chasing Mexicans around for no good reason?

WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE! Zimmerman is no hero, no matter what any of you think. That Kel-Tec did him no good, and a real cop would have shot him dead that night had one showed up a minute or two earlier. Count on it, Homie.


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

  •  um, he wouldn't be looking to sell those (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, historys mysteries

    illegal items, would he? I don't have any sympathy, sorry, no.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:43:56 PM PST

    •  Illegal Items? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know whether the items were illegal. Anyway, the point was made for gun enthusiasts. Why support Zimmerman? At least, this guy didn't have bullets on him. Some people are gun collectors and, prior to the new law, what he had in his possession was not an issue. That's all. Even Trayvon's parents' attorneys are not against guns.

      Do you suggest outlawing all guns in this country? If so, we will be shot by outsiders. If you're OK with that...

      •  You have straw coming out of your ears (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, historys mysteries, crose, Sandino
        Do you suggest outlawing all guns in this country? If so, we will be shot by outsiders. If you're OK with that
        No, I'm in favor of enforcing the existing laws, like the gun fans always say. Plus some additional requirements, like actual background checks.

        This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

        by Karl Rover on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:52:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Straw? (0+ / 0-)

          Aren't you just full of insults, among other things; one of which falls to the bottom of a bird cage.

          You insinuated the guy was selling those clips. Where did your silly idea come from? Was he charged with that offense?

          You know nothing about me and the fact that I have never owned a gun and never will. I just respect people's rights and the fact that the court system will sort this mess out, not you, Straw Man. If you only had a brain, you'd learn more about the particulars before randomly throwing barbs my way.

          Incidentally, this article is about George Zimmerman and his legally obtained gun, not that it matters to you, obviously. Your target lies elsewhere.

          •  I have an issue with this phrase (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite
            He couldn't have shot up a school with a lone pistol;
            This strikes me as overly optimistic as well as naive.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:00:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Naive? (0+ / 0-)

              Talk to the officials that responded on scene, BlackSheep1. Ain't no pistol in the world that could have done the horrible damage of that assault rifle. You are naive to think so. Some bodies were so mutilated, they were unrecognizable. That school was decimated.

              If you want to discuss the mindset to kill, I'm all for it, but Lanza was well aware of what that rifle was capable of doing. And he did it. It was a real confidence builder. In a matter of seconds, he killed many and it was over. A pistol would have taken more time and effort. Obviously, he set out to do a quick job. He did.

              •  No, I was thinking about other shooters (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                Virginia Tech, mostly, who used pistols to considerable effect -- and although it sounds awful to mention this, to shoot more people in a single incident.

                Also Tucson, when Rep. Giffords was shot. Pistols again.

                I'm not disputing that a Bushmaster can turn a roomful, or two, of surprised, frightened murder victims into unimaginable carnage.

                What I was thinking of is that pistols are also very capable of inflicting savage damages to human bodies, and we've seen the results at Fort Hood, in Tucson, and at Virginia Tech.

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:07:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pistols (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BlackSheep1

                  Yes, they are very capable of carnage, but so is any weapon, I guess. Someone purposely plowing their car into a crowd would do plenty of damage.

                  In Lanza's case, I think it was a matter of convenience for him - the rifle, I mean. I don't know if his mission was to take out as many people as possible or it was to do as much damage as he could. The bottom line was, he definitely wanted to kill, but how do you do a head count with a gun like that? It's just spray and splatter. Destroy everything in sight.

                  Did he kill his mother with the pistol? I think so and, if so, that's part of my point. As in many cases, it's selective killing, not slaughter. Lanza would have taken out a hundred kids if he could have, I'm sure. As a matter of fact, I'm not convinced he didn't use his pistol on his targeted victims; the ones he set out to murder, like the principal and other personnel.

                  •  I meant to say... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlackSheep1

                    I don't know if his mission was to take out a select number of people going into the school or was it to do as much damage as he could?

                    •  I suppose there will be an accounting, someday (0+ / 0-)

                      ISTR that it took several years for the entire Columbine story to come out, and that an awful lot of what is "known" about that incident (as in, what went out in the media in the early aftermath) is not consistent with facts.

                      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:42:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ISTR that... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BlackSheep1

                        ... you're right. In the Sandy Hook case, it was first reported that his brother from NJ was dead. I don't know if we'll ever know all of the details - not that I'd want to, but there was an awful lot of anger and hatred that day - mental illness or not.

      •  If I understand the recent kerfuffle about David (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        exlrrp, a2nite, Sandino

        Gregory rightly, the problem with the 30 round assault rifle magazines is not when you bought them, but the mere fact that you have them in your possession in the jurisdiction.  You want to own them, fine, just take them out of the jurisdiction to somewhere where they're legal, and don't bring them back.

        And who are the 'outsiders' who are going to shoot us?  You sound like you're about ready to start shouting 'Wolverines!'

        •  I agree about upholding the law... (0+ / 0-)

          ... but I don't know if there's a built in grandfather clause and, if so, how it pertains to the Haddad case had he purchased those magazines prior to the law being enacted. That's part of the problem I had with Karl Rover. He ignored everything else I wrote in my article, it seems, and jumped to a conclusion.

          The real message of my post (in this particular instance) deals with gun advocates that select someone like Zimmerman and proclaim him a champion of Second Amendment rights. And to those people, I say, if you want to support someone, take a look at the Haddad case. At least he's a veteran who looks after the disabled. What has Zimmerman ever done? Haddad could simply be a collector and not out to illegally sell magazines as Karl Rover strongly suggested. That's quite an allegation. Clearly, I never intended to condone what he had done. It was merely for the purpose of comparison.

          Unfortunately, I neglected to respond to his statement regarding background checks. I'm all for them! At the same time, Adam Lanza's mother legally purchased her weapons and would have had no trouble passing one. He wouldn't have had to worry about that. So, had his mother only locked up her assault rifle, and she knew her son had mental issues, would a more thorough background check have helped in a situation like that? Would it have saved lives? As a consequence of the Sandy Hook killings, should background checks encompass all family members? Every family has a black sheep. Where should the line be drawn? Was your son busted with pot? Been on medications for depression? How about your sister? Sorry, no gun for you.

          In all seriousness, it would be impossible to coordinate background checks and gun ownership with medical records and prescriptions. There is no magic bullet, so to speak, that would bridge the vast expanse of laws designed to keep medical records private, i.e., doctor/patient privilege, without rewriting an array of federal and state laws, and no one should be penalized over problems some relative created. Or should they? If that's the case, then no one but the military and police could own firearms, and out the window goes the Second Amendment. Do we really want to live in an Orwellian police state?

          I am ALL for new laws restricting guns being left unlocked when not at home. In my opening paragraph, I expressed my opinion on that matter, which is why it's so important to keep weapons under lock and key whenever practical. Why leave a pistol in the nightstand while at work or over the river and through the woods? It's just a common sense thing to do. Lock it up!

          Finally, I think collectors should have to be licensed to do so. They (themselves) are the people that generally don't pose a threat, so let them collect as long as they take their collection seriously. They are the most responsible ones, with a handful of exceptions.

          No one can realistically keep an assault rifle in their nightstand. My brother is an Air Force major. He is a highly responsible gun collector, and they are locked up until he wants to take them target shooting. Of course, his house is a fortress, too, but, most of all, he's extremely responsible and that's incredibly important. Sadly, Adam Lanza's mother was not, and you cannot legislate responsibility.

          •  To be absolutely honest (0+ / 0-)

            I found your writing confusing, so the part about the guy getting arrested was almost as far in as I got before giving up.  You seemed to be jumping all over the place, rather than building step by step towards your argument.

            A good starting point in writing longer diaries is to state your central thesis first, even in the very first sentence, then give a brief outline of the points or areas you'll be hitting before diving in.  That's essentially what is done in academia, and largely for the same reasons, to prep the audience and let them know you're not just going all James Joyce stream of consciousness on them.

            In re your other notions - I'm for the universal background checks, even when, as the NRA says, grandpa wants to give little Jimmy a rifle for his birthday, or 'two farmers want to swap shotguns'.  Individual guns should have 'birth certificates' that show manufacturer, numbers, and the groove patterns they leave on bullets, and should be titled like cars, so that every time they change hands, the ownership change is kept on file.

            I'm against 'concealed carry' on public property, and think that your 'personal protection' weapon at home should stay at home, locked up when you're not there, on your hip when you are.

            How anyone could consider Zimmerman a good pro-second amendment argument, I can't imagine.  He stalked and murdered a kid for carrying around a bag of skittles in the wrong place (it being the wrong place only because it was near that nutjob Zimmerman.)

            •  Six Degrees of Separation from Humility (0+ / 0-)

              “One entered the world, Denis pursued, having ready-made ideas about everything. One had a philosophy and tried to make life fit into it. One should have lived first and then made one's philosophy to fit life...Life, facts, things were horribly complicated; ideas, even the most difficult of them, deceptively simple. In the world of ideas, everything was clear; in life all was obscure, embroiled. Was it surprising that one was miserable, horribly unhappy?”

              ― Aldous Huxley, Crome Yellow

  •  I hope G. Zimmerman is convicted and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gordon20024, AoT, OldSoldier99

    Lives the rest of his life in jail. He can go to he**.

    Hate him, hate the police, hate his parents, hate his supporters.

    Trayvon Martin could be my nephew.

    •  Ain't gonna happen. (0+ / 0-)

      You can hate all you want, but George Zimmerman is going to spend the rest of his life in fear on the outside. My advice to him is to move outside the USA with his NBC settlement money.

      BTW, I'm not a "supporter" as you say. I don't particularly like the guy. Doesn't mean you can't shoot someone who sucker-punches you and bashes your head into the pavement. And I've seen nothing, nada, zilch, zero evidence to disprove that version of events.

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

      by HairyTrueMan on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:55:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just remember... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        solliges

        It is only George's word that he was sucker-punched. That doesn't mean it's true. I see no proof that his head was seriously bashed, either. None. And no medical records that back him. To be frank, I haven't seen any evidence that actually verifies his version of events. If this goes to trial, the jury will decide whether he's an honest guy or not. So far, he hasn't shown me any reason to believe him. First off, and I could go on and on and on, he shot the boy within feet of the T intersection, yet Trayvon's body was found approximately 40 feet south of there. How did that happen, truth be told?

        By the way, I don't hate anyone. If George lives in fear for the rest of his life, he should have thought about the possible repercussions before he exited his SUV with a fully loaded gun. Use gun, will tremble. He is. He should have given the police a chance to do their job. That makes the events leading up to the homicide a huge mistake on his part.

        Thank you very much for your thoughts.

        •  Refocus. (0+ / 0-)

          There's people who are more worthy of your disgust (not hate).

          And reasonable doubt is the test in a criminal trial. I see a mountain of it in the Zimmerman case. The prosecution is looking to get this to trial so that the civil cases can move forward. They aren't concerned with the criminal trial. There aren't 12 people who will see past the evidence. Your best scenario is a hung jury. George will walk; He called the prosecution's bluff. This isn't second degree murder. That's a silly stretch.

          George Zimmerman will walk and probably have some money from his lawsuits. Maybe that money will go to Trayvon's family and their attorneys. But make no mistake, Zimmerman won't get convicted of Murder Two.

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

          by HairyTrueMan on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:31:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disgust? (0+ / 0-)

            I live in Zimmerman's backyard and he's plenty worthy of my writing. You can call it disgust or whatever you want, but in case you missed it, this is a huge story. The courthouse is about 2 miles away from my house. I attend the hearings as a credentialed journalist, and I will attend the trial if the case goes beyond the immunity hearing in April. Speaking of the trial, there are 6 jurors in second-degree murder trials, not 12. If you don't live in Florida, I can understand your confusion. Otherwise, there is just a breakdown in your factual knowledge of the case. For example, the criminal aspect has nothing to do with any civil actions. None at all. The prosecutors have no interest in the outcome of civil litigation, such as the family suing the HOA of the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Why should they? There is no involvement. Ben Crump, attorney for Trayvon's parents, does not work for the prosecution; nor does the prosecution work for Ben Crump. I don't understand your "logic" at all because it is mere opinion.

            How did Zimmerman call anyone's bluff? He sits in the courtroom like a turtle on a log. His attorneys lost a continuance motion and they are virtually broke. Witness 8 will be the state's star witness. She will prove that Zimmerman's timeline does not work. Her words will counter his. To be honest, I'd really like to read your take on why she will aid the defense because documented time-stamped phone records prove she was on the phone with Trayvon while he was supposed to be pummeling him to a pulp. That alone lends her story credibility. Zimmerman was completely unaware that the boy was talking to anyone, let alone that neighbors had already called 911, also on record. As a matter of fact, Zimmerman gives no account of any chasing or scuffle up and down the sidewalk. Why not? It happened, yet Zimmerman is firm about the fight starting and ending near the T. By the way, you gave no response to me about the body being found 40 feet south of that T. Was there a chase or wasn't there? Not according to Zimmerman.

            •  Zimmerman was supposed to plea out. (0+ / 0-)

              It would have kept the peace and allowed the lawsuits to move forward. But George said "fuck that" and decided to fight back. He called their bluff. It's not as complicated as you're making it.

              As to Witness 8, why won't the prosecution and Crump provide her name, date of birth and address to the defense? Is she a minor or not? Did she turn 18 after the killing? Why would the lead prosecutor depose her, and in such a sloppy manner? How could she hear the sound of grass over a cellular phone? Etc., etc., etc... She is a terrible witness. And she didn't SEE anything.

              Finally, why would Zimmerman lie about the location of the "fight" as you say? By the way, a beating and a fight are two different things. Expect the defense to make the distinction frequently. Perhaps George was trying to get away after being sucker-punched.

              Perhaps you are right about everything and George recklessly killed an unarmed little boy in cold blood. It's possible. But there's too much reasonable doubt. If I were on the jury, I'd have a tough time sending a guy to prison for life based on the evidence I've seen. The State of Florida screwed this up big time. The case should have gone to the Grand Jury where charges lesser than 2nd degree murder could have been made. At least George could have served some time for his foolish behavior.

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

              by HairyTrueMan on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:03:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It could still be manslaughter (0+ / 0-)

                Regardless of what you think, Florida has a law that makes it mandatory to serve a minimum 25-year sentence if convicted of a felony when a gun is used in the commission of a homicide.

                Zimmerman can be convicted of a lesser manslaughter charge, but it is still a FELONY manslaughter. He is fighting for his freedom, for crying out loud! Who wouldn't plead not guilty???

                You can convince yourself of anything you want, which you obviously have, but if I were you, I'd call his defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, and tell him it's not a complicated case because you said so. Then, call the prosecutor and tell him the same thing. Perhaps, if you tell them this, all charges will be dropped. They should listen to you. Tell them, "fuck that" because George issued such a mandate. Right?

                •  Why did George fire his first attorney? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'll bet he was trying to convince George to plea to a lesser charge.

                  Who wouldn't plead not guilty???
                  Someone who knows he's guilty would plead out to avoid life in prison. That's who.

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

                  by HairyTrueMan on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:58:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You mean like Jodi Arias? (0+ / 0-)

                    And Casey Anthony? And millions of other people charged with murder that are really guilty but will not admit it? Wow, are you ever disillusioned.

                  •  Therefore... (0+ / 0-)

                    Jodi Arias, according to your logic, is most definitely not guilty. Throw the case out, right?

                    •  Was Jodi Arias offered a plea bargain? (0+ / 0-)

                      I know she asked for one and didn't get it.

                      But we're talking about Zimmerman, which is a completely different situation. George did not know Trayvon and called the police first. Also, the police didn't think there was sufficient evidence for an indictment. They believed GZs statements, especially with the stress test results, and had no evidence to contradict his story. And then the magical Witness 8 appeared. I can't wait to see her under cross examination.

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

                      by HairyTrueMan on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:05:35 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Casey Anthony (0+ / 0-)

                        Yup, it worked for her. She refused to plea bargain and was, ultimately, acquitted. Certainly, she was not guilty of killing her daughter, right?

                        By the way, Ted Bundy, thinking he could beat a guilty verdict, TURNED DOWN a plea bargain. He would have had to plead guilty to killing two sorority women and Kimberly LaFouche in exchange for three 25-year sentences. I guess he was not guilty, too, but he's dead now, isn't he?

                        •  GZ admitted he shot Trayvon (in self defense). (0+ / 0-)

                          You're comparing apples to oranges.

                          And the plea option for Bundy was a 75-year sentence, hardly a good scenario for someone in their 20s.

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

                          by HairyTrueMan on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:55:41 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  And for the record... (0+ / 0-)

          The prosecution would be making a mistake by calling Witness 8 to the stand. In fact, if they don't the defense will. She is the star witness and her story is sketchy at best.

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

          by HairyTrueMan on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:36:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, then... (0+ / 0-)

            ... Obviously, you have considerably more knowledge about and insight into this case than the prosecution/State of Florida. To you, I acquiesce.

            Have you considered contacting Bernie de la Rionda to let him know what a grave mistake it would be to put Witness 8 on the stand, let alone, allow the defense to cross examine her?

            I'll tell you, that George Zimmerman is some kind of genius, isn't he? He went from a nothing to something huge overnight. Well, it did take him some time to put on 100 lbs.

  •  LOL, WUT? nt (5+ / 0-)

    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:10:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site