Help George Zimmerman. Send Money!

[nighttimer]

Well, if you haven't somebody sure has:

(AP) ORLANDO, Fla. - George Zimmerman's attorney says a website created to raise money for his legal defense has raised more than $200,000.


Mark O'Mara said on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Thursday night that he learned about the money on Wednesday and will inform a judge at a Friday hearing.


Zimmerman, who has been charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, was released from jail this week after paying 10 percent of $150,000 bail.


O'Mara says the bail amount may have been higher if the judge knew Zimmerman had raised $200,000.


The website used to raise the money has since been shut down, but O'Mara said he'll likely start a new defense fund for Zimmerman.

Welcome to post-racial America. Where you can kill an unarmed Black kid and fools will send you nearly a quarter of a million dollars so you can beat the rap.

In another "better late than never" revelation, O'Mara now concedes his client's "apology" might not have been the best move.

At least now after the fact that it worked.

(CBS News) The attorney for George Zimmerman apologized for the apology his client offered to the parents of Trayvon Martin during his bond hearing last Friday, saying he did not understand the victim's family would find the timing of his remarks inappropriate.


"We had reached out to see if we could do it privately," attorney Mark O'Mara said on "CBS This Morning."


Mark Strassmann reported that Zimmerman had asked for a private meeting with Martin's parents before Friday's hearing, which was rejected. Their lawyer, Benjamin Crump, said Thursday that requesting a meeting a day before the bond hearing was "self-serving."

At the hearing Friday Zimmerman took the stand and, speaking to Martin's parents, said, "I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am, and I did not know if he was armed or not."

Crump told the press following the hearing that Zimmerman's apology was poorly timed and insincere. "The apology was somewhat of a surprise because we had told them this was not the appropriate time, but they just disregarded that, and he went and pandered to the court and the media and gave a very insincere apology."

O'Mara dismissed the notion that Zimmerman's apology was aimed at the judge whose decision it was to release him on bail, but said he did not realize the family would think it inappropriate.


"My concern is, I didn't realize that the way [Martin's family] had responded to me was through a press conference where they said it was too late or not an appropriate time," O'Mara said.


"To be honest, had I known that - maybe had I seen the press conference - I'm not sure that we would have done it at the bond hearing, because the purpose of it truly was to get to the family and to respond directly to the family's request. Had I known or been told that that wasn't the time, it wouldn't have happened. So, I apologize for that.

Let's recap: Mr. O'Meara didn't know his client's website had raised over $200,000 until after he was sprung on a measly $150,000 bond and he didn't know the "apology" his client made in open court to the Martin family was neither wanted nor appreciated until after he heard about it at their press conference.

I have to admit this guy is pretty slick. If O'Mara were any more oily he should have a pipeline shoved up his asshole and we could get gas prices under $3 bucks tomorrow.

I also have to admit I really thought O'Mara was more principled than the two ambulance chasers previously representing Zimmerman. Now I see he's just a more polished version of the same sort of snake oil salesman. Only far smarter and much more media savvy.

$200,000 won't buy Zimmerman his own version of O.J. Simpson's "Dream Team" legal counsel, but like 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea, it's a good start.

O'Mara is a vast improvement over those first ass clowns representing Zimmerman and he's good. REAL good. He ate the prosecution's lunch at the bail hearing and served it back up to them. They had better step their game up because while they're playing checkers, O'Mara is playing chess.

[backslashbaby]

I don't know. He looked pissed on AC360. I think George kept the money a secret from his own damned lawyer! This guy is a freak; I'll say it again.

I wonder if the judge's reaction will be televised tomorrow?

[Lyv]

It's so cute when you pretend to be objective, JWGriebel, and chide the rest of us for getting information from sources like CNN (which you did in another thread) then break out sites like the ones you linked to, which you might want to check again. Click on the first. I believe they're the source that had the photo of a kid who wasn't even Traryvon Martin. That could explain why there's nothing at that link.

And a blog that tries to paint Trayvon Martin as a drug dealer?

You know, I don't believe for a second that he was, but even if the worst the remarkably biased sites you linked to were true, so what? Zimmerman knew nothing that night except that a teenager was walking in his neighborhood and he decided that kid was an "a--hole" he did not want to get away, and complained that the teenager (who would not have known anything except a strange man in an SUV was watching then following him) ran away from him. It doesn't matter if Trayvon smoked or sold pot. He was walking home, unarmed, doing nothing wrong. He tried to run away from a strange man who was following him, a man who we know did not want him to get away.

I've asked before when you thought Zimmerman got his gun out. I can't recall; did you answer? Do you think it was when he was (allegedly) being straddled and having his head beaten on the ground. Do you think you could get a gun out of a waist-level holster if you were being straddled and beaten almost to unconsciousness?

[cmi0616]

Originally Posted by Lyv

And a blog that tries to paint Trayvon Martin as a drug dealer?

You know, I don't believe for a second that he was, but even if the worst the remarkably biased sites you linked to were true, so what?

Exactly!

A lot of these Zimmerman-sympathizers have used this excuse "Oh, Trayvon Martin had a bad reputation. He got caught at school with pot, and people say he was a drug dealer."

So, just because our country has stupid laws and a stupid attitude when it comes marijuana, that makes the death of an unnarmed team justified?

That people not only sympathize with this man, but that they give him money so he can spend time out of a prison is sickening to me. It's troubling to see that we're still so racially divided here in 2012.

[Lyv]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

The news sites ignore Martin's personal life/past.

"The" news sites? Actually, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've read about Trayvon's past on mainstream sites, including the New York Times and Miami Herald, to name two. Now, those sites, unlike yours, simply reported the facts and didn't try to twist them and exaggerate them to paint a kid who had a baggie with pot residue as a drug dealer and gang member.

Trayvon was a kid and he got into some trouble. But he was also a kid who was getting good grades in school and had a plan for his future (which is almost exactly like my 17-year-old nephew's plan; he's an aviation nut, too). A plan that ended because he walked home.

I don't think he was a drug dealer, but he was obviously a far cry from that "well-adjusted great boy" his parents have painted up if he was on his third suspension for drug paraphernalia.

He wasn't on his "third suspension for drug paraphernalia." You're a writer, since you're here, and should know better. Trayvon was not suspended three times for drugs. He was at the time of his killing suspended for pot residue in a baggie and I think maybe a pipe.

However, a history in drugs can show a level of paranoia that has been portrayed onto Zimmerman, and can lead to just as irrational of an action, such as attacking a man.

The "history in drugs" is pot residue in a baggie. What you're trying to make of that would be laughable if you weren't talking about a dead teenager.

If you want unbiased, read this, although it is still a little wavy because CNN admitted their fault on the "coon" quote and it was proved to be the words, "It's fucking cold."

It wasn't "proved" to be anything. There are differing opinions. Even at least one article you linked to points that out.

And this photo from your beloved CNN looks pretty legitamte to me of Zimmerman's head injury:

My "beloved" CNN? Well, it's better than Wagist and a bigoted, biased blog, which are your two sources.

So, you first say "the news" is biased and then you cite CNN showing what you think is a legitimate photo.

As such, you won't find any news reports delving into Martin's background. That in and of itself is suspicious.

It's also not true, since the stories are out there, and the only people saying they aren't are those who are also trying to smear a dead kid.

Also, there is no report that says Martin ran.

The hell? Zimmerman said so. And Trayvon's girlfriend said at first, he did not want to run, while she was speaking to him, but he thought he'd lost Zimmerman. But she also said at one point, he was going to or did run.

I wasn't trying to derail this into another Zimmerman/Martin debate, although I felt I should reply since you asked.

You weren't? So, you just wanted to present two biased sources to smear a dead kid and NOT have any discussion result. I probably shouldn't have even dignified it.

[AncientEagle]

If the fact that somebody MAY have used marijuana in the past and is walking home at night because they were suspended from school, and the fact that they are not a perfect person, and the fact that their parents, like most parents, think they were pretty wonderful—if those facts mean they can then be shot with impunity, we ought to at least set up an official firing squad to do it, not leave it to some jackass who decides to conduct police actions on his own.

And, as for Zimmerman being innocent until proven guilty, he is, in a court of law. AW is not a court of law, nor is the population at large. Therefore, we all have the right to call it as we see it, without being constantly reminded that he's innocent until proven guilty.

I have a lot of sympathy for Zimmerman. He did something in the heat of the moment for which he is no doubt profoundly sorry and which he will likely regret the rest of his life. Which may be short, unless he is protected for a long time. But let's keep things in balance. A kid is dead, and all because he was walking home peacefully. Zimmerman is alive. Given those facts, it's kinda hard to cast him as the victim.

[Lyv]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

I use a news report after you complain about my other sources, then you complain about me using a news site.

No, I pointed out that you have spent a lot of words condemning "the news" and specifically CNN (in an earlier post). Then you used CNN as a source.

I don't agree with what they say, but they are the only ones with the photo. Thus, I use your means to show you possible evidence which could be a break in the case and you then have the gall to tell me that, since I don't believe in what they say, I shouldn't use an article for a picture? Okay.

My "means?" Look at my post history. I use lots of different sources. So, yes, you used my means in using a source that isn't ridiculously biased, like the other sources you cited. Good move.

You keep using the whole "dead kid" thing the same way everyone has been using the "black kid" angle; as if it absolves Martin of any possibility of having had a hand in that night's events.

I use "dead kid" because he's a dead kid. I believe, based on all we know, that Martin did not bring about his own death, did nothing to justify his killing. He was deemed an "a--hole" who Zimmerman did not want to "get away." He ran from Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed. You can choose not to believe that, but it's what the evidence shows. For Martin to be the aggressor, both parties would have to completely reverse their motivations at roughly the same time. I don't buy that.

Of course, guilt trips don't work in a court room, and I don't let them sway the fact that I still have no way of knowing what happened that night, and neither do you, as a matter of fact.

But we do have certain facts and evidence. I discuss those. I am interested in discussing those. You appear to be, also, since you keep posting in Trayvon Martin threads. I think you can dispense with "we don't know what happened that night" since that's stating the obvious. We don't know all that happened, but we do know some of what happened. I am interested in discussing the case based on the information we have so far. You are, too, or at least you're interested in discussing how fair you are being while posting stories from Wagist.

And sure, the links I posted were biased, but I have yet to see an article that wasn't that actually took into consideration both Zimmerman's and Martin's personal lives.

They exist. I mentioned two sources. There are more. Now, they won't twist the facts to create a narrative that a kid who had a baggie and a pipe was a drug dealer, like your sources did. But they do contain facts about Trayvon that you wrongly say "the news" hasn't covered. When you say that, it is not true.

Trayvon didn't have to be paranoid to fear an adult male staring at him and following him from an SUV. He ran, which is what we tell kids to do when strangers follow them. He may have also fought to get away. We tell kids to do that, too. Even kids who sometimes smoke pot.

Because yes, evidence of drug use is considered a history, seeing as it is a past event and it had a baring on why Martin was on the street on that night. I'm not saying he didn't have a right to be there, but he wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been suspended.

I'm glad to see you've back off a bit from "a history in drugs can show a level of paranoia that has been portrayed onto Zimmerman, and can lead to just as irrational of an action, such as attacking a man" but still, what you've said is ridiculous. Trayvon could just as easily have been visiting his father. Gee, my sister got mugged going to the pharmacy for her kidney transplant anti-rejection medication (true). Should I blame her for not wanting to lose her kidney or my other sister for donating the kidney that put her in the path of a criminal?

As for running, here's an article that makes me scratch my head in wonder:

You said Martin never ran. Zimmerman said he did. His girlfriend said he did. I've done my own version of what that article attempts to do (well, without trying to paint Martin as "tracking" Zimmerman, which goes against the evidence) and if you take all the locations and times of phone calls yourself, you might see a different picture. Or you can keep visiting sites that are trying, actively trying, to paint Zimmerman as a victim.

[Miss Plum]

Originally Posted by FalconMage

Can we please give the defense attorney a break? This is what he's constitutionally obligated to do.

Yes. Although we don't live in Obama's much-vaunted post-racial America, we also, thankfully, don't entirely live in a post-Constitutional America.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

You keep using the whole "dead kid" thing the same way everyone has been using the "black kid" angle; as if it absolves Martin of any possibility of having had a hand in that night's events. Of course, guilt trips don't work in a court room, and I don't let them sway the fact that I still have no way of knowing what happened that night, and neither do you, as a matter of fact.
.

You might want to rephrase this. Some people might consider that the death of a child is more than just a '"dead kid" thing'

You seem to be neglecting what kind of case this is. This is not a situation where a person is declaring their innocence of a crime. Zimmerman admits to having done the killing. Zimmerman is claiming self defense. That is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is legally and morally on his side.
The legalities will be dealt with in court.

But the admission of a killing, particularly the killing of a child, squarely
places the moral responsibility on the shoulders of the killer.

To justify such a killing more than innuendo is necessary and the propagation of innuendo in such circumstances can and should be met with a high degree of suspicion.

[Lyv]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

Thank you. I've read over two dozen news articles from CNN, ABC, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc., and there were very few that weren't slanted toward slandering Zimmerman. I was wrong to say that "all were"

Since there are so many, please provide a link. I would love to see what you consider "slanted toward slandering Zimmerman." Especially what you consider "slander," given demonstrated your interest in using the legal definitions of words. Bear in mind, factually reporting on Zimmerman's past legal issues isn't slandering him. It's doing exactly what the articles I linked to did--reporting facts.

But, please, show me the slander!

[Lyv]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

Actually, since slander is oral in legal terms (as you want it used), I'll keep to bias. But, I'll post some of the articles up this afternoon when I have time to go through my history, seeing as there are dozens more each day.

I'll look forward to seeing articles from the sources you named that slander George Zimmerman.

(And, yes, I know you used the wrong term, but I let it slide).

[Lyv]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

. But, I'll post some of the articles up this afternoon when I have time to go through my history, seeing as there are dozens more each day.

Wow, dozens more each day! Since it's afternoon, I will check back periodically to see a sample of these hundreds of articles in the mainstream media you claim slander George Zimmerman. And what about those sites you posted, one that made a case for Trayvon Martim being a drug dealer and one that presented him as the attacker. Did they also post articles slandering George Zimmerman, as you claim dozens of media outlets do daily?

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by Lyv

Since there are so many, please provide a link. I would love to see what you consider "slanted toward slandering Zimmerman." Especially what you consider "slander," given demonstrated your interest in using the legal definitions of words. Bear in mind, factually reporting on Zimmerman's past legal issues isn't slandering him. It's doing exactly what the articles I linked to did--reporting facts.

But, please, show me the slander!

JWGriebel: I'd also like to see this, because as I've understood your posts, you have condemned what you call slander against Zimmerman while repeating slanders against Martin. By comparison, whatever comments in the media you consider slanderous against Zimmerman must be some humdingers, if they're worse than what you have presented as reasonable concerns about Martin, and I'll be surprised if I've missed them.

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

Actually, since slander is oral in legal terms (as you want it used--although in layman's terms it can refer to defamation in any form), I'll keep to bias. But, I'll post some of the articles up this afternoon when I have time to go through my history, seeing as there are dozens more each day.

The word for slander in written, published form is "libel," not "bias." FYI.

[Celia Cyanide]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

See third section of above, please.

I did, but I don't see how that answers my question at all.

[JWGriebel]

Originally Posted by Celia Cyanide

I did, but I don't see how that answers my question at all.

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

And my point was that people who are involved in illegal activities can be claimed to have a tendency toward paranoia (and just as people have said Zimmerman's paranoia could lead to violence, so could it be said in this case as well), hence why I said "can" meaning that the defense "could" say something along those lines. I never said that I believed Martin was a violent drug-addict who attacked Zimmerman. What I believe, as I have stated numerous times, is that there is no way of knowing.

Not saying this is how it is used, but this is one of the effects of pot linked with paranoia:

http://web4health.info/it/add-cannabis-paranoia.htm

And here's a bit from TIME:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/0...-are-paranoid/


Again, before I have five people quoting and arguing further, I was suggesting what is said in my self-quote above, not that Martin was a hardcore druggie or anything that will eventually be derived from my statements in a matter of time.

[backslashbaby]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

Despite the replies to my comments, I never said I agree with Zimmerman. In fact, several of his claims don't hold up to facts that have been proved, such as when he claimed he didn't know how old the kid was. I believe the "running" claim was another of the same kind. According to the girlfriend, who said she was on the phone until the first and second blows or pushes were dealt, by which side I'm not sure and neither is anyone, Martin refused to run and, after doing so, the conflict broke out in whatever way it did. The reason I believe this is because, as the map thingy pointed out (not sure I believe the exact way it was planned out) there is a twenty minute window after Zimmerman's call. If Martin had run, as Zimmerman claimed, he would have been long gone--and Zimmerman chasing after Martin, as has been claimed, is laughable; he's an overweight, out of shape man.

...

No, it was not anywhere near a twenty minute window from the sources I've read. I'm going to have to ask for a good link on that one.

[Lyv]

Originally Posted by backslashbaby

No, it was not anywhere near a twenty minute window from the sources I've read. I'm going to have to ask for a good link on that one.

Yeah, no credible source I've seen has claimed a twenty-minute window. Probably because it's easily proven incorrect, just by looking at the documented times. This source has a timeline at the top of the page that states Zimmerman's call began at 7:09 (and has Zimmerman getting out of his truck at 7:11:43). Police found Trayvon Martin dead at the scene at 7:17 pm.

[shawkins]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

I But why should I side with one over the other just because one is dead? Death shows nothing besides the result of the event, not how it played out. Delving into both backgrounds, as I've said numerous times and which is very hard to do because Martin's parents have deleted all social accounts that would lead to any unpainted traits and the true mentality of their son--which is hard to get a picture of seeing as he was seventeen and at that age, there isn't much hard history to look up--is the only way to understand.

I'm sincerely curious - what sort of information might you have hoped to get from Facebook (or whatever) that would affect your opinion of the case? Could you provide a purely hypothetical for-instance?

[JWGriebel]

Originally Posted by shawkins

I'm sincerely curious - what sort of information might you have hoped to get from Facebook (or whatever) that would affect your opinion of the case? Could you provide a purely hypothetical for-instance?

Originally Posted by Kaiser-Kun

Did Zimmerman knew about Martin's historial before he decided to go after him? Because otherwise, all the people bringing it up are just saying people with a history like Martin's deserve to die.

Since I can answer both with the same words, I'll just do so. It isn't whether or not Martin's past is a green light for what happened (said it so many times I'm tired of having to say it--never said he deserved to die, but that seems to by the popular response or counter-argument), it is that his personal life, which his family has not given much insight into and which, from what little has been gathered, has been much different than they have claimed, can help figure out if Martin did or did not provoke. Yes, personalities play a big role in this case, because knowing his personality and the way he acted when not around his parents can show if he was randomly shot or if he was the aggressor and the victim of chance--that the man he attacked for whatever reason happened to be armed.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

It isn't whether or not Martin's past is a green light for what happened (said it so many times I'm tired of having to say it--never said he deserved to die, but that seems to by the popular response or counter-argument), it is that his personal life, which his family has not given much insight into and which, from what little has been gathered, has been much different than they have claimed, can help figure out if Martin did or did not provoke.

You actually think Martin is at all responsible when Zimmerman was the one who stalked him in the suv, got out against the dispatcher's orders and approached him while armed? This self-appointed watch captain sounds a thousand times as suspect as Trayvon, driving around at night looking for people to phone the cops on. How many times did he before, like forty? He was probably just itching for an excuse to unload that weapon.

And I don't know if it's been said, but the fact Trayvon's mother, and I think other witnesses, said it was him screaming before he was shot is pretty compelling.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

Since I can answer both with the same words, I'll just do so. It isn't whether or not Martin's past is a green light for what happened (said it so many times I'm tired of having to say it--never said he deserved to die, but that seems to by the popular response or counter-argument), it is that his personal life, which his family has not given much insight into and which, from what little has been gathered, has been much different than they have claimed, can help figure out if Martin did or did not provoke. Yes, personalities play a big role in this case, because knowing his personality and the way he acted when not around his parents can show if he was randomly shot or if he was the aggressor and the victim of chance--that the man he attacked for whatever reason happened to be armed.

That's a nice round-about way to say that we can just make shit up based on our personal prejudices to declare without facts that killing Martin was okay. If a person is prejudiced against a certain set of personality markers (such as, oh, say, teenage, male, possible pot-smoker, possible urban youth) then, sure they can assume that such a person might "provoke" a fight with the armed stranger who stalked them in a car and then followed them down an alley on foot in the dark after they made an effort to avoid him, and thus be entirely responsible for getting themselves shot by poor, innocent Mr. Zimmerman.

But the hell with personalities. Unless we know for a fact that Martin did indeed provoke Zimmerman, "knowing his personality and the way he acted when not around his parents" is useless trivia which can serve no purpose but to prejudice the public against the victim of the shooting. It will accomplish that by dirtying Martin's reputation and suggesting that he deserved to die because of his background, which is why that objection was raised in the first place.

[Celia Cyanide]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

However, a history in drugs can show a level of paranoia that has been portrayed onto Zimmerman, and can lead to just as irrational of an action, such as attacking a man.

Smoking pot makes you attack people? Can you provide a link to support this?

[thebloodfiend]

Originally Posted by Celia Cyanide

Smoking pot makes you attack people? Can you provide a link to support this?

Didn't you know? Big bad drug dealer Trayvon was just finishing up a million dollar pot deal and decided to smoke a bit of his stash before he walked home to steal jewelery from his grandmother. Stoned and paranoid, he came after Zimmerman, who was just minding his own business, with an AK-47 that squirted Ice Tea, and an Uzi that shot skittles.

I'm still lost at why Martin's past has anything to do with this. Zimmerman didn't know who Martin was. He could've been a homeless crackhead or a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. It doesn't matter. Martin was minding his own business, Zimmerman called the police, and then he decided to take matters into his own hands.

None of the present facts show that Zimmerman was fighting for his life. Perhaps the gun accidentally went off? I'm willing to give him that. But he still killed a teenager who didn't deserve to die. Nothing's going to change that.

[Lyv]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

The news sites ignore Martin's personal life/past.

I'm going to take a moment and debunk this statement. It's not hard because all I need is one "news site," since this was a sweeping generalization.

But I'll throw in a handful:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us...pagewanted=all

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...in-suspension/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46858504.../#.T5rWwKtYs98

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/30/us...ile/index.html

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...om-school?lite

I could keep going, and going, because there are hundreds if not thousands of stories on "the news sites," but this seems to enough to prove JW wrong. The difference between these sites and the two he linked to is that these sites presented the facts and didn't use them to create a "Trayvon was a drug-dealing punk who jumped an innocent man" narrative."

[Chrissy]

Who gives a shit if he was I don't think the issue is whether he was a drug dealer, or a user, or whatever.??

What, I don't think only well-adjusted boys should be exempt from getting shot.?

I believe Zimmerman should have sat his ass remained in the car after calling the police and let them deal with it.

I'm not comfortable with judging the incident based on Martin's "past." is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.