Will Justice Turn the Tables on Zimmerman?

By Cole

Going rogue this week didn’t work out so well for George Zimmerman. He’s finally where he’s belonged since killing Trayvon Martin on February 26 — in jail.

Zimmerman has a new lawyer, Mark O’Mara, and they’ve actually met. Wisely, upon Zimmerman’s first appearance in court yesterday, O’Mara refrained from trying to get Zimmerman sprung on bail. Apparently, O’Mara realized how a quick bounce in and out of the slammer for George would go over with everyone who’s been watching this outrageous case unfold. But Zimmerman does have a bail hearing tentatively scheduled for April 20.

The option of lamming it to Peru is probably looking better to Zimmerman by the minute.

Trayvon’s mother said on the Today Show that she thinks the killing was an “accident.” That upset some people, so she clarified that the accident was really Zimmerman and Trayvon crossing paths at all.

I don’t think Zimmerman planned to shoot Trayvon when he ignored the dispatcher, left his SUV, and pursued the kid. I think Zimmerman just wanted to give his undersized cojones a self-esteem boost. He intended to bully and scare the bejesus out of a black kid to make him an example for the others he believed had “gotten away.”

What Zimmerman mis-estimated was Trayvon’s reaction, which apparently was to instinctively “stand his ground” and fight back. And that’s when Zimmerman lost control of the situation and things turned deadly.

Since Zimmerman was indisputably the instigator (proven during his 911 call) of a confrontation with an unarmed boy who was committing no crime, I hope the tables turn in court and Zimmerman finds that pre-arming himself and engaging in unwarranted pursuit of a minor made Trayvon the one protected by the Stand Your Ground law, fully justifying any injuries Zimmerman claims Trayvon inflicted on him.

Maybe a nice long prison sentence for Zimmerman will make the next gun-toting Barney Fife wannabe think twice.

Advertisements

9 Responses to Will Justice Turn the Tables on Zimmerman?

  1. adele says:

    I’m much relieved to see that Zimmerman was finally arrested, but I’m now concerned about a jury trial. First of all, it will be hard to find a 12 people, who haven’t formed an opinion on this case, and then there’s the “Florida jury factor,” which let Casey Anthony go free without a single serious criminal charge. Which of course brings us to the “lazy Florida prosecutor factor,” in which the prosecutor becomes so enamored with a high-profile case that he or she fails to put up a good case. Just sayin’ . . .

  2. catsworking says:

    Points well taken, Adele. The jury pool is definitely a concern. But I feel pretty confident in the prosecutor. She’s already bypassed a grand jury on the off-chance they’d let Zimmerman off the hook, and she must think she has a good case to have charged him with murder 2.

    If they have an expert who can say the person screaming for help on the 911 tape WASN’T Zimmerman (and I think they have already gotten someone), then I do believe Trayvon gets the “Stand Your Ground” card and Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense crumble. If he got injured in a fight HE started by tailing Trayvon for no good reason other than his own paranoia, that was his fault.

    I just hope they don’t let Zimmerman out on bail because if he disappeared once, he’ll do it again. Besides, jail is probably the safest place he can be at the moment.

  3. Imabear says:

    From what we know so far, I, too believe that the “stand your ground” defense is on Trayvon’s side.

  4. catsworking says:

    You know, Imabear, Zimmerman’s story to the police minutes after shooting Trayvon seemed so pat that it was almost as if he’d rehearsed it before. During those years he was prowling the streets looking for bad guys, he had plenty of time to fantasize the whole scenario many times. What he’d do if he ever got his hands on one of those “punks” who were invading his ‘hood. Whatever happened, if there wasn’t a crowd watching, he’d say it was self-defense. Who would refute him?

    If that 13-year-old kid who heard the screaming had showed up, Zimmerman would have mowed both boys down and claimed he’d been attacked by a gang.

    Zimmerman was taking at least one class in criminal justice. Just like Drew Peterson, the cop who probably offed a couple of wives in Illinois, Zimmerman thought he knew enough about the system to game it to his own advantage if he ever needed to. For example, he walked after assaulting a police officer.

    Zimmerman probably picked up a lot of tips growing up from his father the judge.

    I’m not saying that his intentions in keeping the town safe from thugs weren’t genuine. Once he stopped getting himself arrested for attacking people, he may have turned over a new leaf and went militantly in the opposite direction, like an ex-smoker. He wasn’t going to let any perp get away with anything on HIS watch. Besides, it was fun to swagger around with a gun and have all the neighbors in his eternal debt for their safety.

    Unfortunately, Trayvon was just somebody who happened to be in the wrong place when Zimmerman was on the prowl.

  5. annie pelfrey says:

    Dittohead here- what was a neighborhood watch person doing with a gun?
    “stand your ground” isn’t even an issue .
    no matter the events, Zimmerman was an idiot.
    that said, i’m sick of the media hype on this case(especially hoodies and skittles),when other crimes are ignored because they don’t fit the left-wing agenda.

  6. catsworking says:

    Hi, Annie! Welcome back.

    I agree with you totally on the hoodies and Skittles. We get it. They’re symbolic. Let’s move on. And yes, certainly there are other crimes that deserve whatever attention they need to get solved. I blame it on the morphing of news into “entertainment.” It’s much easier to embellish one story and drag it out than to tackle a dozen stories fresh. (Oops! I guess Cats Working is guilty of that right now, since I just posted my latest Zimmerman piece. But I did branch out to Anders Breivik.)

    But I’m not seeing where murder is a “left-wing” issue, unless you’re saying Republicans are perfectly OK with innocent people getting shot for walking down the street. That it’s just the price people pay for living under a government that lets any nut-job arm himself. I don’t think that’s ever what Jefferson, Adams, et al, had in mind. They wanted citizens to be able to arm themselves to defend the country in times of war — not for every Tom, Dick, and George to pack heat every day so they could shoot anybody, any time, for any reason.

  7. annie pelfrey says:

    i didn’t mean dem/rep, but the notion of white on black vs.any other group on group crime. and i’m so sick of the race card being played-that’s an insult to any person of any race.
    as far as gun control- most who have license are responsible- and would prefer NOT to have to use their weapon.
    CRIMINALS will always get guns (by stealing,etc)- no law will prevent that.
    obviously, Cho was able to murder many innocent people by obtaining a gun. the ball was dropped when his family chose to ignore his mental illness, and authorities didn’t respond to concerns of his state of mind.

  8. catsworking says:

    Annie, I’m with you on the race card. It just showed, in spite of electing a black president, how little we’ve progressed that everybody jumped on the race bandwagon (including Obama). The point is that NO kid should have to worry about ANY person chasing and shooting him.

    As for gun control, the cow is too far out of the barn now (thank you, NRA, and your years of political bribery while innocent people get mowed down every day by guns–just read the Richmond TD). With so many zillions of guns out there, let’s say, OK, let any idiot buy a gun, or MANY guns (since many are hoarders). Guns themselves don’t kill people anyway.

    Let’s stop selling BULLETS. Or let’s make bullets so expensive that every time somebody pulls the trigger, they’re blowing about $100.

    For somebody like Cho (the Va. Tech mass killer), in addition to his weapons, he would have had to scrape together $3,200+ for bullets (I forget how many wounds he inflicted, or misses he may have had, but they would have cost $100 each as well).

    Maybe if carrying a loaded weapon meant taking out a second mortgage, more people would stop doing it.

    Then it would be only the wealthy who could afford guns (and the ability kill anybody whenever). Control of wealth AND violence would be consolidated in the hands of the 1%.

    In other words, we would have a Republican utopia.

  9. annie pelfrey says:

    you make a brilliant point!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: