There has been a lot written, including here, about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, and the role it played in the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
Almost all of the criticisms of the law as applied to this case revolve around the allegation that the law creates a propensity for violence in persons invoking the law, a supposed license to kill.
This alleged license to kill is part of the attack by Color of Change on ALEC.
Such propensity, of course, requires that the shooter know the law exists. That apparently was the case in an unrelated shooting in Texas where the shooter repeatedly mentioned the law while on the phone with the police (he was convicted of murder and received an lengthy sentence).
On Hannity tonight, however, Zimmerman said that prior to the incident he never heard of the Stand Your Ground law.
It doesn’t change Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence in the shooting, but it does put a new twist on the public debate assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth that he had no prior knowledge of the Stand Your Ground law.
Zimmerman also added details of the night, which will be added in an update, along with video when available.
Update: Transcript is here.
Here’s the full sequence of segments. Portion about Stand Your Ground law starts at 3:20 of first video:
HANNITY: A lot of this case legally — and we are going to get to Mark in a few minutes here and ask him about a lot of legal aspects, because there are so many of them in this case — has to do with stand your ground. You have heard a lot about it. And I was just curious, prior to this night, this incident, had you even heard stand your ground?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
HANNITY: You have never heard about it before?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=1#ixzz212EVMCzO
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Was he wearing the proper eye and hearing protection? No? Uh-oh.
Despite being a firm believer that he should never have been charged, I don’t believe this. He has a concealed carry permit; you have to take classes that cover self defense law before receiving the permit.
Only way I could see this as being true is if he had his permit years before the law was changed — or if it wasn’t discussed under that name (because it doesn’t exist under that name).
Is it the law in Florida that you have to take a course to get a permit? It isn’t in Washington state or Arizona. I hold permits in both states and there was no class required. Arizona accepted my DD214 as proof that I knew how to handle a firearm even though I was discharged in 1968.
OK, looking at their application, it only requires the equivalent of an NRA basic pistol course. However, the application itself includes reprints of the Florida statutes.
So in other words you were wrong.
I agree that I don’t believe this. He also was aspiring to be a law enforcement officer and taking classes in criminal justice, and volunteering as a community crime watcher. And he gave an almost too-perfect description of the scenario to the police right after the incident, that just happened to ring the elements of that law. (I also think it’s unusual for someone who was so nerved up beforehand on his 911 call about a mere prowler, and had just had a scare that set him to screaming, to be so precise just a short time after killing someone.)
He knew nothing about Stand Your Ground like he knew nothing about his second passport.
I have not shaken the feeling that the guy was basically a yahoo cop wannabe who had no business getting anywhere near someone he felt suspicious enough about to call 911.
SYG was passed in FL in 2205. Seven years ago GZ was just 21 years old.
We don’t live in FL, but my husband and I are lifetime NRA members. We do follow gun-grabber controversies, read the ILA report each month and are considerably older than GZ.
I’ve certainly heard of the Castle Doctrine, but I never heard the term “Stand Your Ground” until this case.
I think it’s possible he’s being truthful about this, inasmuch as knowledge of it is not part of the carry permitting process in FL.
Oops! Make that 2005. 🙂
I just got a Florida CCW permit. Yes, we had a class, no “Stand Your Ground” was not mentioned. Nor was the Castle Doctrine. I’ll have to find the handout, but don’t recall reading about either in it.
So, we have a guy here who aspired to, and received advanced education toward, becoming a police officer but he says he’s never heard of SYG?
Not sure that claim is convincing enough to hold water.
I don’t think it would come up in a criminal justice class. They learn what police officers are required to know for the administration of justice from the cop’s perspective, not from a defense attorney’s perspective.
I have no idea who, if anyone, is giving him legal advice–or whether, as is more likely, he’s ignoring the advice he gets.
But regardless of what he says, going on Hannity or any TV show before he’s sitting in the dock is colossally stupid. This guy is doing himself no good and is probably doing himself a serious harm. He can’t possibly be helping himself.
And Hannity, knowing this, is a bigger douchebag than I previously thought he was–and that’s really saying something. (Totally phony “patriot”.) He’s allowing this guy to hang himself on his show for the sake of ratings. I can only hope he’s unable to live with himself later.
But of course, that would require him to have a conscience. So never mind.
Have you considered that Judge Lester cleaned out the money box when he upped the bail? How much do you think that Fox paid for this interview? I would expect that it is a substantial sum.
What good is the cash if his comments contribute in any way to a conviction and therefore prison?
If he didn’t say anything of importance that he hasn’t already said to the cops and hasn’t changed his story, he didn’t hurt himself and may have helped himself.
Puhleeze. It’s not Sean Hannity’s job as “a patriot” to save Zimmerman’s butt anymore than it’s Nancy Grace’s job to steer Casey Anthony onto death row. I would think the past few years would have cured anyone of making predictions about what a Floriduh jury would decide! Anyway, IMHO Hannity did the best he could to lob softballs that GZ fouled off of his toes.
E.G.: Hannity asks what made Martin “look suspicious” and “on drugs” that night, as he told a dispatcher. Zimmerman: “I felt he was suspicious because it was raining. He was in-between houses, cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather. I — it didn’t look like he was a resident that went to check their mail and got caught in the rain and was hurrying back home. He didn’t look like a fitness fanatic that would train in the rain. He just seemed like — ”
At this point, Hannity cuts him off, and asks more specific questions about how Martin and where was walking. Zimmerman either didn’t want to be or is incapable of being more descriptive of what sent up the red flags that caused him to trail Martin.
As a layman who believes Zimmerman will be acquitted but should have been charged with manslaughter rather than murder, I would love for that “resident that went to check their mail” explanation to come up in the courtroom. I’d like to know why GZ thought a resident would be checking their mail on a Sunday evening. I’d ask what heretofore mysterious movements Martin was making to suggest he was somehow inebriated. I’d like to know what he thought a “fitness fanatic” would look like if not a 6’2″ high school football player (and why a “fanatic” would be expected to be out in the rain). I’d like to know what was strange about someone who was walking outside in the rain when he was wearing a hoodie. More than anything else, I would like to know the reason for his snap judgment of Martin that evening, as recorded in the call audio, when he referred to Martin as “f*cking punk” and among “these assh*les [that] always get away.”
I am a black man who has throughout his adult life been critical of American-born black people who reflexively excuse criminal behavior within “the community” as the result of previous centuries of oppression. There are without a doubt young black men who wind up getting killed by law enforcement officers because they are foolish enough to get caught up in criminal activity (such as the parolee on the lam after a Seattle shooting whose 2011 killing by San Francisco police was the subject of a protest Monday morning). Martin, who was no choirboy, may have been headed toward the wrong path, but he had never been in behind bars or even in handcuffs before being slain by Zimmerman, a wannabe cop who has a history of violent behavior (remember, he was shopping at 7-Eleven — he didn’t stick it up). Regardless of whether Zimmerman is guilty of anything under Florida law, I refuse to swallow his ever-evolving mumblings simply because Martin can’t counter from where Zimmerman’s bullet put him.
Florida’s SYG law was made for guys like 71-year-old Samuel Williams, who busted up an Ocala invasion attempt at an internet cafe by firing his legal weapon at hoodie-wearing gunmen Davis Dawkins and Duwayne Henderson, both 19. THEY are a-hole punks who didn’t get away. Unfortunately, I believe even with the admittedly unjust piling on that the prosecutor is engaging in, Zimmerman will.
LN, I have to disagree on your dissection of Zimmerman’s observations of Martin.
1. I have no idea if he looked “on drugs” wherever GZ saw him, but I can certainly say, IMO, he looked high in the 7-11 video. He looked like he wasn’t sure what he was doing or where he was going. I don’t believe he looked menacing, but “high” was something that crossed my mind. Black or white is irrelevant – lots of high white people go into 7-11 (I think there is a law that states high people must go to 7-11), and I’d visualize them fumbling around like he was.
2. I don’t know what a resident going to check their mail looks like, but I’m guessing in a complex of 220 units, he had a pretty good idea who the residents were. And your point about getting mail on a Sunday just underscores his point – not likely that this was someone going for their mail.
3. I think we can assume he meant a fitness fanatic would be wearing workout clothes and running. Come on, you can do better than that.
4. It’s very likely he said “fucking punks” and “these assh*les [that] always get away” because, if Trayvon had been one of the individuals committing crimes in the areas, heretofore they HAD always gotten away and were in fact punks. I don’t think it’s a huge leap to reach the conclusion that he MAY have been one of those people given a) George did not know TM in the very small gated community where he was neighborhood watch, b) TM matched the description of the previous suspects who had gotten away – and I’m sorry they were young black men, but they were, and c) given whatever GZ saw, he felt TM was acting strangely.
You can put this stuff under a microscope and analyze it all day, but it’s often better to just realize this began as an ordinary night that rapidly evolved into extraordinary circumstances. When you look at it objectively and apply a reasonable person standard, it becomes hard to imagine a scenario where GZ pursued and intentionally killed TM with malice.
I agree this interview was a mess, and I see holes in his story, but I believe it’s largely accurate. For example, I think it’s possible that he was reaching for his weapon when he got clocked in the nose. This “cellphone in the wrong pocket” sidebar seems like he’s covering something. And perhaps TM was within his right to assault GZ INITIALLY. However, I have no doubt GZ ended up on the ground, the screams are his – 40 seconds worth – and he was sustaining a beating much of that time. The law says GZ must have believed he was at risk of GBI, and clearly he was. The injuries, witnesses and ballistics are all consistent with this. He was legally carrying a firearm and used deadly force to defend himself within the law. That’s it and that’s all that matters. If he’s not released at the immunity hearing, this will be even more of a travesty than it currently is.
I hope he gets paid.
Trademark’s parents have been paid about $500k thus far for their various appearances and speeches.
Oh, you’re so right, Jack. Trayvon’s parents must be glad their son is dead, or else they wouldn’t be getting all that money. I mean, wouldn’t YOU like to see your 17-year-old get a hole blasted in his gut for half a mil?
Where do you see that in anything I said? Neither one of us know how grief-stricken they are for the loss of their son, Trademark. We ASSUME they are grief-stricken. But we KNOW they’re making money off the situation.
Jack Russell Terrierist: For people who don’t know what you mean by referring to Trayvon as “Trademark,” please attempt to explain without sounding like a tool.
The floor is yours.
Jacked here has self-identified as a hater and a bigot.
You won’t get far with her, I suspect.
Obviously you can’t back up your nasty mouth with knowledge of the case. If you could, you’d know that the parents trademarked their son’s name, along with slogans like “Justice for Trayvon.”
That’s why I call him “Trademark” instead of Trayvon.
As usual, you are mistaken.
As I posted some weeks ago, the estimable Neal Boortz wrote that he would have done exactly the same thing WRT trademarking.
It was defensive in nature, but…true to form…you impute the worst possible motives to the parents. Don’t you?
JackRussellTerrierist: For the sake of argument, let’s say you have a son that died in a horrible fashion through — in YOUR opinion — no fault of his own, and his killer was walking around free. Although millions of Americans agreed with you that your dead offspring was wronged, you lack the resources to mount a challenge to bring justice.
Meanwhile, people who don’t know you from Adam are taking advantage of the situation by creating merchandise with your son’s name on it and keeping all the proceeds for themselves. You have no legal right to demand that they put their money where their mouth is unless you claim the sole legal right to the name and likeness of your son.
Are you of the opinion that you would never want to claim that right by trademarking the name and likeness of your son because it might cause ignoramii who have no clue about your daily anguish at the loss of your child to maybe think that you’re greedy?
This is not a criminal case, this is a political case. The only way you can get them to drop it is by making the politics of it so tenuous that there is no way they can continue. As it stands now, the case is already lost in the court of public opinion, I know no one now, even blacks that believe Zimmerman is guilty. In many ways its one of the those cases that people are closely tracking, waiting to see what happens but onlooking woefully.
If Zimmerman wants to win, he has to take on the prosecution in the public sphere and call them out for their political persecution of him. Call them out for perjuring themselves on the affidavits. Call them out on for not following up on the death threats. Force them on the defensive. Make it so there is no choice but to live up their obligations. Call on the Governor to intervene in this case on a rouge prosecutor looking to win points with master in DC.
Zimmerman should fight for his life, because they are going to kill him if he doesn’t defend himself. The truth is now his gun and the DA is on top beating him his head against the concrete with lies and innuendo. Don’t worry about her, like Mike Nifong, she can only be sent to jail for a day her actions, but you, you will be raped and murdered in prison! You have to defend yourself with the Truth!
Judging by the number of dislikes I’m getting here, people must be taking offense to having Hannity slammed. I suggest googling HANNITY “FREEDOM CONCERTS” SCAM to see that he raised tens of millions of dollars and gave away pennies (if that). The whole thing was a setup for him and his family to fly on private planes and travel well on someone else’s dime–yours! It’s not even arguable that he did this; the organization’s tax returns have the whole thing spelled out. That’s why the concerts ceased.
Mine had nothing to do with Hannity. I haven’t watched him in a long time.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sean-hannity-freedom-alliance-refute-attack-blogger-based-unnamed-source-citing-unnamed
Ummm… Wrong. Good flucking grief.
I really hope you don’t think citing CNS, founded by Brent Bozell, refutes the allegations made against Hannity and the organization. Please. Bozell, Hannity, Malkin, et al drink from the same trough. I’m glad they’re there, but they circle the wagons far better than Custer ever did.
Again, ask yourself why Hannity didn’t sue. Ask yourself why the concerts went away. Ask yourself why the organization publicly announced changes in how it was conducting business and disbursing funds–all after the allegations came to light.
Notice, too, that the CNS piece goes full non-denial denial. It doesn’t answer any of the specific charges. Instead, it waves the shiny object of some unnamed source.
Rags says:
“I think a lot of your questions result from having not examined this issue fairly, and that you’d find innocuous answers if you inquired. If I harbored your questions, I’d do my own research.”
My friend, I have indeed examined this issue fairly. The answers are anything but innocuous. But your not answering them, and instead referring me to generic sites having to do with argumentation in general, says quite a bit. There’s no refutation of the accusation available to link to, because the accusations are true. To say that I’m the one who hasn’t examined the issue fairly is, forgive me, ironic.
Rags says also: “I am also constitutionally loath to carry any story damaging to someone’s reputation that I am not SURE is true.”
As am I, and if you knew me, you’d know that. I frankly wish I could be more specific here, but for reasons I’m not at liberty to share, I’m certain the accusations have merit. And btw, there sure were a lot of ad hominens directed at Schlussel on this thread, all of which I’d say were damaging to her reputation.
Okay, not knowing a lot about Hannity or his charity I just did as you said – rather, I looked it up on Charity Navigator. Where his charity has a very high 3-star (almost 4-star) out of 4 star rating overall, and a 4-star rating for “accountability & transparency”.
That said, I’m not sure what your personal (and apparently unfounded) antipathy towards Mr Hannity’s charity work has anything to do with the OP anyway. I do hope this thread isn’t going to go all bitey & stabby like the last Zimmerman thread did, but.
What it had to do with was my reasonable inference about why so many disliked what I said about the self-evident idiocy of saying something on camera, in the court of public opinion, that could come back to hurt you in real court (ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God’s plan and for me to second guess it or judge it — HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that the time has passed a little bit? ZIMMERMAN: No, sir). I inferred that it had to do with impugning Hannity and his anything-for-ratings, have-you-no-decency booking.
You don’t have to trust me, because the documentation is there and is inarguable, that Hannity is not what he appears to be. But I’m in a position to know this from unimpeachable sources. Besides, I have a pretty good record of sobriety here, on this blog, and countless other outlets. I dislike ad hominems. Hannity is not the choir boy he presents himself as. And circling the wagons around him in a my-guy-right-or-wrong fashion is self-destructive to conservatives (and in this case to Zimmermann’s freedom).
As for Charity Navigator as a source, consider this: http://www.netsquared.org/blog/holden/ever-taken-good-look-charity-navigator
CN subtracts expenses from revenues. It doesn’t go through the expenses and decide if they’re legitimate. Most of the top expenses in the Freedom Concerts were Hannity’s perks: private jets, fleets of Lincoln SUV’s, four-star hotels for himself and entourage, etc. If you’d like me to find you a good site that discusses this, I will. But if you sincerely wanted to find it, I’m sure you could.
Anyway, ask yourself why the concerts stopped after the criticisms started. They stopped after it came to light that the way he was spinning the results was indefensible. A hundred bucks toward a college scholarship for the son of a soldier who’d lost both legs to an IED? Years without any money being disbursed at all.
“Most of the top expenses in the Freedom Concerts were Hannity’s perks: private jets, fleets of Lincoln SUV’s, four-star hotels for himself and entourage, etc. If you’d like me to find you a good site that discusses this, I will.”
I guess you should. At least one of us will learn from that, which is no bad thing. I’m always ready to learn.
But you’re wrong about a non-denial denial.
***The Freedom Alliance, which raises money to help wounded veterans and fund scholarships for the children of slain soldiers, issued a statement saying the allegations by blogger Debbie Schlussel were “false and malicious.” The charity further said that Hannity “pays for all his own transportation, hotels, and all related expenses for himself and his family and friends and staff,” and that he “does not use any Freedom Alliance Funds or [Freedom] Concert funds in any way, period.”***
That is a very clear denial, and one that could give rise to a lawsuit for fraud if it were not true.
Rags,
Your reply button is unavailable. So I’m using my own. Saying that the allegations were refuted is incorrect. They weren’t in any meaningful way. Also, anyone can say anything they want about Debbie Schlussel, but the question that matters is whether her reports were correct. Since they’re based on looking at the actual tax returns, I don’t see how she got it wrong. Besides, if she did get it wrong, why did Charity Navigator downgrade the org, and why did Hannity stop holding the concerts? Further, why wasn’t she sued? Where, ten years later, are all the college grads? Wouldn’t Hannity be touting them on his shows (radio and TV). Yes he would. But then he’d have to explain how they were supposed to graduate from college on a $200 “scholarship”.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/19630/big-business-who-owns-the-freedom-concerts-how-sean-hannitys-private-jets-luxe-suvs-suites-were-paid/
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/20046/responding-to-schlussel-expose-charity-navigator-downgrades-hannity-charity-freedom-alliance-rating-now-only-2-stars-needs-improvement/
“If you’d like me to find you a good site that discusses this, I will.”
I’m still waiting. Linking to MORE Schlussel stuff does not qualify.
Still, I did go to her stuff. Her link to CN goes to a page that gives the FA a high rating, and does not support her “needs improvement” allegation.
As to why who does what, why does Rush not do Rush To Excellence Tours any more?
Why not sue Schlussel? What is she worth? Some people are very litigation averse. There is also the “rolling in the gutter” axiom.
I did note she slimes Big Hollywood (Breitbart) and Malkin, all without any support. I looked hard, and never saw much more than innuendo.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.reviews&orgid=6590
Seems to support a high opinion by people rating the charity.
But I repeat myself.
Rags,
So what if Schlussel slimes others you may like. Her reporting either is or isn’t true. (Btw, it’s going to be hard to link with pride in the future to a NYT or WaPo or Boston Globe story that ratifies your worldview, given their pasts and general bias, right?)
Now, you can either see what you believe or believe what you see. When I see this, I believe it, because it hasn’t been refuted; it’s only been denied:
“I began investigating these claims, and lo and behold, I discovered that Freedom Alliance gives very little money to the children of slain troops to pay for college and even less to wounded troops. The stories of injuries to troops and how much Freedom Alliance gives them–$200 for a soldier from a poor neighborhood who lost three limbs–is heartbreaking. Soldiers with traumatic brain injuries, severe wounds to the face from disfiguring burns and explosions, and multiple amputations got $1,000 or less, with only a handful of exceptions….”
“The tax forms available to the public for the Freedom Alliance–for the years 2006-2008–paint a tragic story, a story of a charity that makes gazillions and spends very little for the purposes it claims, a charity that spends millions more on its small staff and crony consultants than it ever gives in scholarships to the children of the fallen or severely injured troops or in aid to the injured troops themselves. While Hannity’s Freedom Concerts take in millions, only a few hundred thousand go to the claimed intended recipients….”
And this: “According to its 2006 tax returns, Freedom Alliance reported revenue of $10, 822, 785, but only $397,900–or a beyond-measly 3.68%–of that was given to the children of fallen troops as scholarships or as aid to severely injured soldiers.
“On the other hand, 62% of the money went to “expenses,” including $979,485 for “consultants” and an “advisor.” Yes, consultant/advisors got more than double what injured troops and the kids of fallen troops got. The tax forms show that “New World Aviation” got paid $60,601 for “air travel.” Was that for Hannity’s G5? Like I said, neither the charity nor Hannity is talking. And finally, that year, Freedom Alliance spent $1,730,816 on postage and shipping and $1,414,215 on printing, for a total of $3,145,031, nearly half the revenue the charity spent that year and about eight times what the injured troops and the children of fallen ones received….”
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/
“So what if Schlussel slimes others you may like.”
A sound point, generally reciting the “kill the messanger” fallacy.
However, Ms. Schlussel has a (IMNHO) well-earned reputation as crank.
I disagree with Malkin sometimes, but generally she is meticulous WRT her research and documentation.
Ditto Breitbart.
I read her stuff, as I said. I saw a lot of apocryphal BS and assorted “somebody told me” statements. None of it was supported. At all.
Rags,
So you think Malkin is meticulous with research. I don’t know what you’re basing that on, at least since her first book, but for sake of argument I’ll stipulate to that.
So, let’s now turn to where she or anyone else actually refuted what Schlussel claimed. Where is it? Where’s the research? Given how outraged she said she was by this, you’d think she’d flay Schlussel. She didn’t. Neither did Mark Levin, who’s more than capable.
Further, if the claims had no merit, and the Freedom Concerts were so important to the public good, wouldn’t you think that the organizations involved would have carefully and methodically demolished the claims so that the concerts could continue and do their “good work”? Yes, of course you would.
Further, wouldn’t you think that the military families who were allegedly benefiting from the charity be outraged enough to demand that Schlussel retract her claims…or that the organizations refute the claims so that the concerts could continue to benefit them? Yes, of course you would.
None of them happened.
Just as truth is an absolute defense against libel, it’s also a hell of an obstacle when you’re on the wrong side of it.
(Forgive the duplicate below. I put this in the wrong place the first time.)
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html
This is a matter of your belief, which I do not share because I see no support for it. I find your reasoning fundamentally flawed, but that’s me.
I think a lot of your questions result from having not examined this issue fairly, and that you’d find innocuous answers if you inquired. If I harbored your questions, I’d do my own research.
I am also constitutionally loath to carry any story damaging to someone’s reputation that I am not SURE is true. As you may have noticed, I challenge that kind of thing.
You’re pissing on Hannity based on the accusations of Debbie Schlussel, who is a kook. She goes off half-cocked about conservative writers that are more popular than she is or will ever be, and tries to force them to acknowledge her by attacking them as phonies and herself as authentic. She’s about as reliable a source as a stopped clock — right two minutes a day, wrong the other twenty-three hours and fifty-eight minutes.
I guess you don’t remember when in 2007, Schlussel posted the photograph of an innocent (and alive!) Korean student and alleged he was the Virginia Tech spree killer based solely on his apparent friendship with a Muslim student. That’s the kind of stuff Debbie Does on a regular basis.
You can hate Hannity all you want, I don’t care. But if you want the rest of us to join in, you’ll have to bring us more evidence than you apparently needed.
I rest my case. Are the 19 people who pressed “dislike” at my criticism of Zimmermann and Hannity willing to concede the point that speaking out in the court of public opinion, before trial, is suicidally stupid?
The prosecution picked up on the same quotes I cited (below).
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-prosecution-tv-interview-evidence/story?id=16815296#.UAjp9ETiO11
I think they said they paid nothing, but since this seems to being tried in the media, it seemed like this would make Zimmerman seem like the victim. It puts a face in the public eye, and as he said, his second language is English … he is an Hispanic. I think he came off pretty good.
But O’Mara said it looks like the state may press charges on his wife and maybe George on the “hidden” money thing, even though they did testify … we don’t know how much is in that fund (a separate entity dedicated to their defense), but here is who you can call (right now) for that info. The lawyer and judge were not interested at that time, now they want to charge them both with another crime?
Not getting the English as a second language. I believe he was USA born USA schooled & USA fathered & USA resident for 28 years.
That you defend this stance is equally weird.
He said it was mostly his grandmother that raised him. I don’t think I’m “defending” the stance, seems like a fact. I point it out because it goes further to break the public narrative that he was a typical white (racist) American, when he is really Hispanic and not exactly raised in American white man world … the narrative the left and Obama have painted.
actually I don’t remember if it was his Grandmother, but not his Dad.
Swampbonics?
If you could talk to the Floridians , learn their languages
Maybe take a Florida Law degree
We’d study ebonics swampbonics & hispanic
& converse with alligators pythons & lizards .
…….but no engleeeeze.pleeeeze.
One can go all the way through public school in this country and never be required to actually learn English.
Not getting the English as a second language.
Spanish is his mother tongue.
My kids are bi-lingual from birth. Even when they were learning words as toddlers they never confused the languages. They always answered in the language they were spoken to in. Until you’ve witnessed it is hard to believe. They end up speaking both languages without accent.
According to Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left George Zimmerman’s father was in the military when George was a child and often away. That time spent alone with his mother the basis for the ESL claim.
I am not buying it.
Lucky other ethnic groups with weird languages eg Finns Hungarians Welsh are smarter
Imagine the length of the road signs if they started demanding welsh road directions.
Next George will be applying for political asylum in a Sanctuary City.
Imagine the length of the road signs … welsh road directions.
How about German with all the different ways you have to fahrt?
His attorney was with him. This is painful.
Witch hunt.
I don’t buy it. The media in Central Florida threw a two month hissy-fit before Stand Your Ground was passed (the OK Corral, streets running with blood, dogs and cats living together!), and one that was even longer afterwards. Anyone as dialed-in to law and order stuff as Zimmerman clearly was couldn’t possibly have missed it.
He was 21 at the time SYG was at bat. When I was 21, I never watched the news. I was finishing college, partying, and looking for a job. I sure wasn’t following the minutiae of my state legislature.
There is a lot here.
That he never heard of SYG is credible. As I’ve noted many times, people do not have perfect information.
Even from a legal POV, SYG is just a procedural wrinkle in this case. The jury will only see a self-defense case (if this ever goes to a jury). Even if jury instructions include some SYG verbiage, they will go to plain self-defense in their thinking.
As an interview goes, this was done well. One wonders about the parts that were not aired.
Watch Zimmerman’s eyes. “Indexing” is something we all do when we are remembering something. Where you index CAN be a tell as to whether you are remembering or prevaricating.
The time compression/extension is consistent with any traumatic event.
Generally, this interview is helpful to Zimmerman. It puts a human face before the public. He does not come across as a craven killer. Conversely, there are parts of his account that seem too clinical, but that could easily be his way. Also, some of his account seems embellished, which is human nature. HOW embellished is the question.
His statements about his broken nose are bothersome. I’ve been hit in the face in fights, wrecks and work accidents and never said, “My nose is broken”. It seems odd.
That he says that he was not promised payment for the interview does not suggest that no payment was made.
Concur.
seem too clinical, but that could easily be his way
In the blog post I linked above, Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left said she listened to c. 7 hours of George Zimmerman’s phone calls from jail and that he, indeed, converses/interacts as he did on the Hannity interview.
Genuine, not phony, in the interview according to her. It apparently is ‘his way’.
Appreciate the info.
But.
I take stuff from the Kos-sack Merrit with a heavy grain of salt.
Being clinical can be a VERY bad sign, or quite a good trait.
A psychopath, for instance, can speak very dispassionately about torturing someone to death.
On the other hand, you don’t want a paramedic rolling up to your accident who goes to pieces out of empathy for your terribly painful injuries.
Takes a lot more info to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Something else that rang sour to me was the, “It’s God’s will” statement. Maybe that is my “rational man” side.
Just as it was Lindy Chamberlin’s way. I would have hoped that we would have learnt something about convicting someone because they didn’t cry as much as we might have liked, from that whole fiasco.
Yeah, I was observing, not making any judgment.
As I thought I made clear in the comment above. A lot more information needed.
This is the kind of drivel that flows from Hannity all the time. It makes him unbearable.
Here is the actual question
“There are a lot of legal aspects…in this case?” No! Seriously! There are a lot of legal aspects in a legal case? Genius! Brilliant! What insight! Hannity is too much in love with the sound of his own voice.
Give me Limbaugh or Levin but you can keep Hannity…
Exactly. He’s a windbag and a dull tool. He recycles Rush’s and other, brighter conservatives’ points. He also has no idea how to moderate a discussion. I no longer listen or watch.
If Rush is our “brighter conservative,” we’re really in trouble… Brighter than Hannity, maybe, but a walking windbag just the same.
Getting paid around $250M a year just to TALK for three hours a day is pretty damn smart.
Were you slick enough to put together a gig like that for yourself?
I still think that
1. He will never get a fair trial, no matter what the evidence says.
2. Some people want to see him hanging from the highest lamppost to appease the Gods of the Pound-of-Flesh, no matter what the evidence says.
3. His reputation and future here in this country are totally ruined, no matter what the evidence says.
4. He should have left the country a long time ago and never given himself in.
Rags,
So you think Malkin is meticulous with research. I don’t know what you’re basing that on, at least since her first book, but for sake of argument I’ll stipulate to that.
So, let’s now turn to where she or anyone else actually refuted what Schlussel claimed. Where is it? Where’s the research? Given how outraged she said she was by this, you’d think she’d flay Schlussel. She didn’t. Neither did Mark Levin, who’s more than capable.
Further, if the claims had no merit, and the Freedom Concerts were so important to the public good, wouldn’t you think that the organizations involved would have carefully and methodically demolished the claims so that the concerts could continue and do their “good work”? Yes, of course you would.
Further, wouldn’t you think that the military families who were allegedly benefiting from the charity be outraged enough to demand that Schlussel retract her claims…or that the organizations refute the claims so that the concerts could continue to benefit them? Yes, of course you would.
None of them happened.
Just as truth is an absolute defense against libel, it’s also a hell of an obstacle when you’re on the wrong side of it.
I’m no Mark O’Mara, so I’d like some feedback on Parks’ comment just now that “[Trayvon] should’ve been beating [George]!” Is this guy aware that if this happened – which it seems clear to everyone that it did – that the case is over?
Deadly force is permissible to prevent GBI. Trayvon was (and according to Parks, should have been) committing GBI on George. George was legally carrying a firearm and used deadly force as permitted by the law.
Nothing else matters. Even if Trayvon was within his rights to initially assault George because he had some reasonable fear, George absolutely had the right to defend himself.
Am I taking crazy pills? Why is this still going on? Everything everyone is arguing about is irrelevant. It’s not even SYG, it’s basic self-defense. Am I missing something? What is the argument that convicts this guy of 2nd degree murder? I’d love to hear something that makes a shred of sense. Seriously.
[…] Zimmerman says he never heard of Stand Your Ground law prior to incident. Making it unlikely that the law had much to do with what happened. But, then, there was never any […]