Zimmerman: The Case of the Useless Press Conference

Mark O’Mara raised expectations late last week with an announcement that he would have an important announcement to make Monday morning and would follow it up with a press conference.

Having raised expectations, he effectively dashed them with a bucket of ice cold water early Monday afternoon when he announced that he was filing for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals to get Judge Lester off the case.

Nothing surprising about this continuing foolishness to unseat the judge who dared not praise George Zimmerman and his partner in perjury, Shellie Zimmerman.

The motion to disqualify did not pass the straight-face test and this latest effort does not even merit a yawn.

Why did he do it?

The only reason I can think of is that he’s still trolling for dollars from anyone still willing to contribute money so that George and Shellie can continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed.

Therefore, we had to endure yet another repetition of the absurd self-defense claim and lives-in-danger nonsense that is growing tiresome and old.

Absolute waste of time.

I said long ago that only a racist would believe that an innocent 17-year-old boy walking home in the rain talking to his girlfriend, after walking to the store to buy his little brother some Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea, would suddenly for no apparent reason go psycho, start speaking in 10-20 year-old ghetto slang and B-movie dialect, attack, and attempt to kill with his bare hands an older menacing man following him who outweighed him by more than 40 pounds and whom he had successfully eluded by running away and hiding.

I’ll say it again.

Anyone who believes George Zimmerman is a racist.

Anyone who contributes money to his continuing dog-and-pony show is a racist and stupid.

359 Responses to Zimmerman: The Case of the Useless Press Conference

  1. Malisha says:

    People become confused pretty easily when there is a lot of information available, regardless of how stupid and non-credible much of the information is. I remember a case in California — not a criminal case, a family law case. THREE children, all of the age of reason, gave credible stories of being abused by their father and this actually caused a divorce (not the other way around where there is a divorce and then children disclose abuse). The father vehemently denied it and accused the mother (not the children) of being mentally disturbed. The court (which had a mandatory mediation process but called off the mediation because “a complicated situation has arisen”) ordered about a dozen evaluations of everyone but the father. The children had individual evaluations by about five different evaluators and then were placed into their father’s sole custody before the evaluations were completed. Strangely, they continued to allege abuse and even said they were being threatened with punishment for continuing to allege it! The oldest girl (13) smuggled letters out by asking her friends in school to take them home and copy them and send them! A year and a half later, all the determinations and evaluations were completed and the conclusion was: Now there is so much information that the evaluations are totally contaminated and nothing will ever be clear so we do not know what happened and we will never know what happened.

    I think that’s where O’Mara is going with this. Unfortunately, in the public mind, the more information there is, the less people pay attention to actual data, real logic, and common sense. So the public will grow sick of it all and a plea deal will be quietly cut that lets Zimmerman off with a slap on the wrist, after which he will get parole quickly and drop out of the headlines as quickly as possible. That’s why although O’Mara looks like a total fool right now to any real defense lawyer, since he’s not actually trying to defend his client in court (he does not anticipate a trial, IMO), I think he’s cagey smart because all he is doing is acting like a PR guy in a loosey goosey “George is the good guy” dog and pony show, that will help him maneuver into position to plead his guy out.

    He’ll get paid later in donations that cannot be traced.

    I understand he’s purchasing a house in the neighborhood where the murder took place so he can deal with information there. (I cannot check the accuracy of this rumor.) Hmmm.

  2. Patricia says:


    In your wildest imagination, could you envision an attorney defending Murder 2 by saying, as Mark O’Mara did, “I think the evidence in this case suggests that my client was reacting to having his nose broken and reacted to that by screaming out for help.”

    Let the prosecution quote O’Mara by substituting, for the fake screaming claim, “… and reacted to that by deliberately, willfully, cruelly, and in great rage, by pumping a 9mm hollow-point bullet into Trayvon Martin’s young heart – a heart that until that deliberate action by George Zimmerman, had pumped valiantly for young Trayvon … for just … 17 years. And three weeks …

    “Who knew George Zimmerman’s handsome profile was so ‘important’ to him?

    “And who KNOWS if it was really broken?

    “George Zimmerman did his very best to deny you that knowledge. He was an efficient killer, and he was equally efficient at seeing that you get NO evidence to back up his claim.”


    There are going to be two or three guys on that jury who went through a pummeling in the schoolyard when they were teens. They took a crack to the nose – like a man. At 14. It was a mark of honor not to snivel.

    I would like the prosecution to bring some guys forward (dream choice: Sean Penn. Think of the media!) who have REAL broken noses.

    Bring in the X-rays.

    Let the medical experts go over them line by line, bone by bone. Parade Penn before the jury, turning a profile before each one.

    Then show photos of George the next day. Same “CutiePie” nose (per Shellie), with a strong Mayan bump. Fully aligned.

    What George had was a cracked nose, like we all get cracked ribs, and cracked toes, and at best they get a Band-Aid or a gauze wrap and the cartilage knits.

    Literally, it’s a nothing event.
    Would you turn around and murder somebody because of it?

    There are plenty of documents with testimony that Zimmerman ADAMANTLY REFUSED to submit to a professional medical observation and imaging, despite being repeatedly urged to do so by police, EMT and his own doctor’s personal PA, right the next morning.

    The State puts those reports up on the screen.

    We got X-rays of Sean Penn.
    They got NOOOOOO X-rays on George.

    Zimmerman did NOT want documentation that would show the truth of how minor this crack was. There is video of George out with the detectives the next day doing the elaborate reprise of his heroic crime-fighting adventure.

    Tell me how black those black eyes are within hours of this massive ‘’injury.”

    No, George was going to blame his “broken” nose for motivating him to kill Trayvon Martin, because this “broken” honker put him in fear for his life.

    That was his first statement to the neighbors:
    “It was self-defense.”

    We’ve all heard of people dying from a broken nose, right?

    So why this laff riot in such a serious case?

    O’Mara does NOT want the jury to focus on GZ’s supposedly bashed skull.

    O’Mara knows the prosecution will have a dozen top-rated trauma physicians ready to testify with cadaver craniums (crania?) to show what a REALLY battered skull looks like.

    George ain’t it.

    Also simple & direct testimony of how vascular the scalp is in that area, with photos of real bleeding. Zimmerman’s claim of head-battering will be laughed off the stage.

    Further, any emphasis on the bleeding head is sure to get that cell-phone photo from right after the murder, up on the big screen, with the prosecution slowly and deliberately tracing the drying blood down into the goatee – of the man who was over Trayvon Martin when he shot him.

    And so, as the Professor taught us earlier, introduce the jury to the big question:

    “Members of the Jury, as you deliberate, ask yourselves, ‘Where is the simple, everyday, professional evidence that Mr. Zimmerman’s nose REALLY WAS broken, if this “broken” nose terrified him so, that he TOOK this young man’s life, at such an early age?’

    “And why would he refuse to provide YOU THE JURY this simple evidence to back up his story – evidence he knew that YOU, THE JURY would need?

    Why this EVASION?
    Why did he NOT want YOU to see the evidence?

    “Frankly, the State does not need that X-ray.
    Obviously Mr. Zimmerman’s doctor doesn’t need that X-ray.

    “YOU THE JURY need that X-ray to substantiate George Zimmerman’s story.

    His own attorney has stated – the “broken” nose put George Zimmerman in fear for his life.

    “That’s pretty dramatic, isn’t it? Can you imagine the terror?
    ‘My profile is ruined!’

    Wouldn’t he do everything to PROVE this terror to you?

    “But he hasn’t … has he?
    “Instead, he made EVERY EFFORT TO DENY YOU what you need: the evidence.

    Just one simple image, and a doctor’s diagnosis.

    “CAN YOU BELIEVE George Zimmerman’s story without this?

    “Ask yourselves, Members of the Jury, as you deliberate:

    “WHY would George Zimmerman make SUCH AN EFFORT TO DENY US the evidence?

    “WHY would he do that?

    “Why … ?”

    • Patricia,

      Love your passion, but your closing argument in this comment crosses the line into potential mistrial and reversible error country because it’s a comment on the defendant’s failure to produce evidence.

      That violates his 5th Amendment right to silence and his due process right to the presumption of innocence and it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution having the burden to him having the burden to prove something.

      The proper way to make the argument is to note that the photographs taken by the police at the station after the shooting do not support his claim that his nose was broken, etc.

      • Patricia says:

        Thanks, Professor – being wrong is a good learning experience for me!

        Was trying to apply your strategy, mentioned earlier, of leaving the jury with “the big question” in their minds.

        Would you do that only when you are defense counsel?

  3. Malisha says:

    Now that George Zimmerman can no longer prowl the neighborhoods to save good folk from the depredations of unarmed candy-bearing kids, where is the most dangerous place in Seminole County to be?


      • Malisha says:

        Since you like my joke, let me interest you in my serious stuff.

        The Constitution says we will not be deprived of “life, liberty or property” without due process. From our property, a “property interest” is derived and there are over 200 years of litigation of the property interests of litigants. You don’t need to grab their property and remove it in order to implicate their “property interests.” (You can, for instance, fire them from a job without good cause and you have deprived them of their property interest in their salary.) There are over 150 years of litigation of the liberty interests of litigants. You don’t need to slap the cuffs on them and throw them in the klink to implicate their liberty interests. (You can, for instance, prevent them from living in a certain part of town.)

        What can you do to deprive a person of his life interest without due process?

        “Life interest” is missing from our law! Only a person condemned to death, by the state, has a “life interest” and he only has that “residual life interest” in not being killed until the day and hour that the death warrant specifies for the state to execute him! So a person needs to have the state declare itself the measurer of the size of his “life interest” for him to actually HAVE a “life interest”! Yet of the three things that are protected by the Constitution, surely life is the most important!

        To me, the absence of the “life interest” in our recorded law is the basis of “the injustice habit,” from which so many shockingly wrongful things are perpetrated by the state itself.

        Don’t get me started.

        What do you think about this concept, expressed in its briefest form here?

  4. Crazy, as a veteran English teacher of 20+ years, you know I nearly went nuts reading that petition.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      thanks for the warning, i am just about to dig in. i had a hard enough time with judge lester’s improper syntax with his statement that zimmerman ‘flaunted the system’. i’ll take an advil or two in advance of reading the writ. 😉

      • George Smiley says:

        He (or his aides) later sent a corrected version with “flouted”, but the media didn’t pick up on it.

      • crazy1946 says:

        GS: >>>He (or his aides) later sent a corrected version with “flouted”, but the media didn’t pick up on it.<<<

        You know this as a fact? Do you have a link? Or do you have direct knowledge? Or are you just guessing that they might have done such?

  5. crazy1946 says:

    Did I notice correctly that MOM is mixing civil cases and criminal cases in seeking to disqualify Judge Lester? Is that normal? One other minor little thing I noticed was that MOM and West both failed to check the motion for errors in spelling and grammer, now to me, a person that is poor at both (age and brain fade?) it is surprising that I would notice them, is that normal in court documents?

  6. TruthBTold says:

    Crane-Station wrote,

    “Well, at the very least, it is risky to ask for Lester’s replacement. Chances are they could get a judge who is even more hard-nosed.”

    I tell ya. Not only that, do they believe that these judges don’t know what’s been going on? There weren’t many judges to begin with and after Recksiedler recused herself, Judge Galluzzo who was next in rotation immediately stepped aside because he practiced law with MOM and MOM is the godfather to one of his children, now we have Lester and I doubt he is going anywhere. So, there are not many judges left at all. Their names escape me at the moment.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      IMO, the politicians would like to see the following high-profile case happen in order that there has been justice for Trayvon Martin served.

      SYG stays as is – does not apply in this case – satisfies Floridians

      GZ gets a sentence of some term – satisfies everyone

      …and it all goes away. No need to have to address any of the real issues in this case. GZ will not win the self-defence claim and he will make a plea deal following that decision.

      …and the powers that be can breathe a sigh of relief.

      • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

        I’m afraid that I am cynical enough to believe your story. Still, as an idealist that hopes things like justice still exist, I’d like to see this settled in court with all of the evidence discussed.


      • lynp says:

        I want to see this settled in court too with all the evidence like other cases such as Anthony and OJ.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          This case contains an element near and dear to many that the other cases did not and that is — gun laws. Few want to tackle changes to a SYG law because a case such as this is exactly what SYG supporters do NOT like to see happen. They have circled the wagons and will defend the law beyond the confines of this court case. The OJ, Peterson, MJ, etc. cases were high-profile but did not involve guns. This is the difference. This is why I believe there will be a plea and it will try to slither away quietly.

      • George Smiley says:

        There will be no plea deal. Trayvonites would never allow the prosecution to offer a sentence short enough that Zimmerman would accept it.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          i think we could all do without the name calling. it is juvenile and the first sign that you are losing an argument.

        • Cielo says:

          No doubt poor put-upon zimmerman will feel that time served is enough and most “Trayvonites” will insist on the minimum set by Florida law which is 25 years. Ok let’s do this: it goes to court, the jury finds zimmy guilty and THEY can send him to life in prison. Hmm… Sounds good to me!

        • Then he will be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of at least 25 years and possibly life in prison.

          And no, the prosecution will decide what result it wants in this case.

      • George Smiley says:

        “i think we could all do without the name calling. it is juvenile and the first sign that you are losing an argument.”

        I agree, which is why I had to laugh at the incredible irony of your statement (on a post referring to GZ supporters as “racist” and “stupid”.)

        But you consider “Trayvonites” offensive? I’ve even heard Trayvon supporters refer to themselves as a Trayvonite. Silly.

    • lynp says:

      There has gotta be lots and lots of Judges in Florida. Whats the problem?

  7. TruthBTold says:

    “The court completely ignored Mr. Zimmerman’s voluntary disclosure of the alleged wrongdoing and failed to acknowledge Mr. Zimmerman’s surrender of those donated funds to his lawyer, within four days, of the initial bond hearing on April 20, 2012, and certainly before their existence was discovered by the court.”

    For pete’s sake, they must want a cookie for this. How does this somehow exonerate them or assuage their intentional misleading of the Court? Although, he didn’t have to take the stand to explain himself in the second Bond Hearing, it was definitely encouraged so that the Court can hear from him, his explanation. But nooooo, they attempted to circumvent the cross-examination afforded to the State. Then MOM attempts to somehow paint George as being “young” and the man is pushing 30 years old, naive, distrustful, fearful, and all this other nonsense. Like JL said at the hearing before the second Bond Hearing when MOM was saying if he knew about the money, he would have disclosed the next morning (paraphrasing) and the Judge accurately stated (paraphrasing) that’s not the issue and it isn’t. That’s clearly after the fact. Also, who knows what brought up his “voluntary disclosure.” Maybe MOM started further pressing him about it. Who knows? So boo hoo.

    • But AFTER the entire ruse was recorded at the jail. Yeah, real “honest” to admit to something you did KNOWING you’d been caught! “Honey, I can explain….”

  8. ajamazin says:

    Re: Petition for Writ of Prohibition

    So who is the judge that is next in line after Lester?

  9. whonoze says:

    Prof. Fred:
    Can the prosecution rebut Zimmerman’s story, even if GZ doesn’t testify, by introducing his statements in order to question other witnesses about their substance?

    E.g., could they call Police Operator Sean and ask him, “On February 27th, George Zimmerman stated that you had asked him for an address before he left his truck the previous night. Did you ask him for an address at that time?” Etc. Etc. ???

    • The usual way to prove what was said, would be to introduce the tape of the call and question Sean about it before and after it is played.

      BTW, I gave you a plug and linked to your most excellent video in my new post.

  10. Justkiddin* says:

    Some people just eat up MOM but since the comment “to those of you that would do the same” or however he begged for money– it then hit me he is a POS also. You can defend a client without willfully excusing the murder of a minor child. Who cares if his wife supports his sorry ass? No reason he can not pick up more clients.
    I am really sad that Trayvon did not give Z the beating he deserved before that coward shot him dead. I hope the appeal is denied, and I hope a thorough investigation into whether MOM knew of the funds will eventually be done. IMO MOM is starting to act like another Florida attorney J. Baez. A side effect of drinking Florida water is you become a liar.

  11. bmh says:

    Hey Guys, Go to Orlando Sentinel……. New article titled- Judge must go because of disparinging remarks! OMG! My head is about to explode! What the hell is in the water in Florida? First the Casey Anthony drama and now this….. I am so disgusted with all these flippen games. So tired of these lying, whining defendants! UGH!!

  12. Okay, Professor! I am beginning to feel what you felt yesterday! This is, indeed, bullsh*t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. I found what I was looking for concerning Martin’s knuckles: the other fresh injury on martin’s body was an abrasion no more than a quarter of an inch in size to his left ring finger below the knuckle.

    O’Mara conveniently left out the other parts of his statement. Didn’t some news reporters recently get fired for reporting bits and pieces of the truth like that?

    The fact that the abrasion was below the knuckle proves that it was not sustained while beating someone. Come on, O’Mara! Have you no shame????!!!!!!!

  14. I just read O’Mara’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition. O’Mara makes some blatantly false statements in this document:

    *He says, “Martin was seen by a witness to the incident on top of and straddling and beating Mr. Zimmerman…” He failed to mention that this very witness recanted his original statement and indicated that he saw no beating and that the bodies were prone rather than one “straddling the other.

    *He also says, “Those cries for help were recorded in the background of another witness’ 911 call and lasted for at least 40 seconds…” O’Mara is stating as fact that the cries for help were those of Mr. Zimmerman’s.

    *He writes, “EMT’s observed that Mr. Zimmerman had… and a swollen, bleeding, broken nose.” There is no evidence that Mr. Zimmerman sustained a broken nose, none at all! He is also stating this as fact.

    In addition, he writes, “…other than the gunshot wound, the only injury to Trayvon Martin was an abrasion to his knuckle.” Wasn’t the abrasion to the underside of Trayvon’s finger? I could be wrong on this.

    Finally, he asserts, “The state did not offer evidence to rebut Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense claim [at the June 29 bond hearing].” The prosecutor clearly stated that the bond hearing was not the place for responding to the dog-and-pony show that O’Mara put on at the hearing.


    • Rachael says:

      All very good points. Thank you for taking the time to read that and post.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Would you supply a link to the Petition please?

      The weakest part of the Mo to DQ was the defense argument that Lester’s judgment at the Arthur hearing (aka the first bond hearing) was error or evidence of bias that the prosecution’s case was “strong.”

      I haven’t done any independent research beyond reading the statutes, but would be surprised if the prosecution and court were mistaken that no evidence attacking the “strong” holding could be considered.

      Even if they were wrong, an error in law is not grounds for disqualification unless the petitioner makes some showing that it was caused by bias.

      The strongest part of the Mo to DQ was the argument that Judge Lester’s remarks about Mr. Zimmerman’s lack of candor, and the finding that Mr. Zimmerman harbored an intent to flee revealed bias. (I’m not buying it, just sayin’.)

      Did the defense make any arguments to strengthen their position that Judge Lester considered Mr. Zimmerman so incredible that Judge Lester would be unable to consider any statement from Mr. Zimmerman without bias?

      Is there any new authority? On point?

      I’d really like to take a look at the Petition.

  15. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    Sorry, I meant to say his imaginary authority.

  16. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    What disturbs most people and me is the fact that Zimmerman never once referred to Trayvon as “that boy” or “the young man” or “teenager” or “Trayvon” or “Martin.” Instead, he refers to him as “the suspect” and “the subject” because in his twisted mind he has murdered a criminal or thug—no big deal. Even in his so-called apologies to the Martins he said, “I’m sorry “you” had to bury your son.” He does not say, “I’m sorry I shot your son and he died.” In fact, “I” is not included in his apology because in his twisted mind he is remotely detached from any responsibility in Trayvon’s death and blames Trayvon for his own death.

    He blocks out the fact that Trayvon was walking along minding his own business, was not committing any crime, and that he pursued the “suspect.” In his mind, Trayvon is not the victim, he is. Nor does he show any kind of remorse or empathy that Trayvon died because Trayvon is still that “suspect” in his mind and he’s the good guy. Trayvon is just another “suspect” or “a criminal” killed in the line of duty.

    George Zimmerman isn’t wrapped too tight. He likes to feel that he is in control—he likes ultimate control. The slightest threat to his sense of control taken as a personal affront because he feels his self-worth diminished. This is more than likely the reason why he picked up that woman, threw her, and beat his girlfriend—they proposed a challenge to his authority.

    • Rachael says:

      You are so right, and it makes me so angry and gives me a kind of pain in the pit of my stomach that I can’t define. He never does acknowlege Trayvon as a person or that he took a human life and never showed an ounce of remorse, at least none that I ever saw or heard. To me, this shows intent because if he had done it in self-defense or accidentally, he would have to have had regrets. Many of them. But to pull the God card because he doesn’t…grrrrrrrrrr

    • lynp says:

      OMG, can only imagine the uproar had Zimmerman or anyone connected to him had said “that boy”.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        lynp, Not in Trayvon’s case would there have been an uproar because he was a boy, he was not a grown man, that’s the difference. Had he been a grown man than, yes it might would have caused an uproar because a GROWN (adult) black male is not a BOY. Smh!

      • Granny! I wish there was a “like” button so I could click it. I’ve always enjoyed your commentaries!

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:


  17. ajamazin says:

    No one who supports the defense team and Zimmerman is going to argue that the Stand Your Ground law applies.


    Because if it did apply, then its critics could use this case to get some traction on repealing it.

    So, Zimmerman will continue to maintain that he knew nothing of the Stand Your Ground law as he and O’Mara rake in $$$$ from the NRA and ALEX.

    • lynp says:

      I am not a lawyer and have no idea what law applies where. Depending on the Professor to analyzie this for me.
      Actually, I have read that George’s average donation is around $30.00 and have no indication that the donors are from the NRA or ALEX, whoever they are.
      I have also read that almost 60% of Florida voters don’t want SYG repealed. Isn’t SYG out of the picture for George’s defense? What difference does it make if he know about it or not?

      • ajamazin says:

        “I have also read that almost 60% of Florida voters don’t want SYG repealed.”

        That is correct.

        “What difference does it make if he know about it or not?”

        The point is that Zimmerman made the statement publicly
        indicating it is of importance to him.

        If Zimmerman as a politician, I would say he is ‘playing’ to his ‘base”

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          And now that SYG has been taken off the table by O’Mara, that base has even less reason to donate.


    • MedicineBear says:

      @ajamazin, my Spidey sense is tingling the same thing! In fact, I’ll repost my theory (that I originally posted here about 6 hrs above your post) . . .

      “I have a ‘follow the money’ theory for an additional reason why MOM isn’t going to try this as a SYG case: I don’t think the NRA and ALEC et al want this case to be a referendum on SYG laws in FL or across the nation! If MOM drops the SYG (effectively removing SYG from public discourse), the NRA may ‘scratch his back’ by filling the Zimmerman donation coffers with a flood of cash ([sponsored by NRA/ALEC funds], laundered, of course, through covert NRA surrogate donors). The fresh influx of donations will be attributed (by hook-line-and-sinker [Zimmerman supporters]) to how effective MOM’s ‘brilliant’ ploy was in yesterday’s (08-13-12) Press Conference/Dog-and-Pony-Show. Be suspicious if you hear about a flood of new donations from ‘Zimmerman supporters’!”

      • ajamazin says:

        My thinking also.

        >________________________________ > From: Frederick Leatherman Law Blog >To: aja_young@ymail.com >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:36 AM >Subject: [New comment] Zimmerman: The Case of the Useless Press Conference > > > WordPress.com >MedicineBear commented: “@ajamazin, my Spidey sense is tingling the same thing! In fact, I’ll repost my theory (that I originally posted here about 6 hrs above your post) . . . “I have a ‘follow the money’ theory for an additional reason why MOM isn’t going to try this as a” >

  18. Bernard Lee says:

    “O’mara has confirmed off the record that the SYG defense does not apply. The SYG hearing is now just a matter of going through the motions to placate Zimmy and make a competent showing on his behalf.. At this point ‘traditional self defense’ is O’Mara’s euphemism for ‘plea bargain.’ I would question O’mara’s strategy here. To be officially disqualified from SYG is to expose your hand prematurely. Now that the prosecution knows he does not have the SYG card I doubt they’ll let him plead to less than manslaughter which carries 30 years. To actually go to trial on traditional self defense is a mega gamble with life imprisonment at stake. The federal prosecutors who are operating behind the scenes in this case are sharks. To them this revelation is blood in the water.”

    • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

      DANG! Where did you read this? It would make life SO MUCH EASIER if Zimmerman admitted what he did, and take a Manslaughter charge with its 25 year sentence. The gamble, based on what I have seen/read/heard about the evidence, is way too high. But then again, based on what I’ve come to expect from Zimmerman, this is something he would never do. ‘sigh’


      • lynp says:

        Easier for who??? The Prosecution that has no case?? I am sure Zimmerman taking a plea would make them very happy but I expect George Zimmerman to fight on with lawyers West and O’Mara. Zimmerman’s supporters want him to fight on and that certainly includes the folk donating to his fund. While the pundits and naysayers were discussing the sad tragedy, dumb nobody from Florida, George Zimmerman, sets up an internet site that brings in over $300,000 dollars and the money is still rolling in. I don’t expect anything from this trial but the truth and nothing but the truth and for an honest trial by a jury of his peers. “The facts Ma’am, just the facts” Joe Friday.

        • Cielo says:

          Even after ALL the evidence presented in this case- the forensic, ballistic and logistical evidence, you STILL think the prosecution has no case? SMH…. Nothing but the facts will sink Zimmerman. Heaven knows his words don’t mean diddly.

      • case#1 says:

        Its not a matter of evidence. Its a matter of do you take the chance a jury won’t nullify? Also, do you take chance that they go for an imperfect defense although that’s not the law? Manslaughter as a plea would be safe to ensure a conviction.

    • Vickie votaw says:

      “O’mara has confirmed off the record that the SYG defense does not apply. The SYG hearing is now just a matter of going through the motions to placate Zimmy and make a competent showing on his behalf.. At this point ‘traditional self defense’ is O’Mara’s euphemism for ‘plea bargain.’ I would question O’mara’s strategy here. To be officially disqualified from SYG is to expose your hand prematurely. Now that the prosecution knows he does not have the SYG card I doubt they’ll let him plead to less than manslaughter which carries 30 years. To actually go to trial on traditional self defense is a mega gamble with life imprisonment at stake. The federal prosecutors who are operating behind the scenes in this case are sharks. To them this revelation is blood in the water.” I would be very happy if this is true. 🙂

      • lynp says:

        We have not seen the forensic, ballistic or logistical evidence to date. The evidence will be presented on both sides for a jury to evaluate and determine the case. That is why we are having a trial. It is George’s life and his gamble to make. I think Lester has to be removed due to George’s concerns. The Judge must be absolutly impartial and neutral which I don’t believe Lester has shown. I don’t understand about “federal prosecuors who are operating behind the scenes in this case are sharks” means. Is there something shennagians going on that is a secret? Which “federal prosecutors” would that be? Right now, it is a State issue not a Federal issue. Is this the same FBI who found no evidence of racism in the Zimmerman Case?

        • You said,

          “I think Lester has to be removed due to George’s concerns. The Judge must be absolutly impartial and neutral which I don’t believe Lester has shown.”

          You’re forgetting the Zimmerman principle. He always lies.

          He’s just forum shopping looking for a judge he can manipulate and control.

    • I also would like to know your source of information. For example, O’Mara announced at the press conference that the SYG defense does not apply. That was not off the record, obviously.

      Moreover, he’s right. SYG doesn’t apply because GZ was hunting for Martin with the intent of restraining him until the police arrived. The evidence will establish that conclusively, despite what GZ says.

      By “traditional self-defense,” I think he’s saying that he’s going to present the ye olde victim-went-psycho-on-me-and-tried-to-kill-me-with-his-bare-hands defense. He’s going to argue that GZ was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm such that it was reasonably necessary for him to use deadly force in self-defense.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        Until the prosecution’s forensic experts establish beyond a doubt that GZ was holding on to Trayvon preventing him from moving, made sure not to shoot his own hand, aimed, and pulled the trigger despite hearing Trayvon’s 40+ seconds of pleading for his life. MHO

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          I do believe the evidence showing the entry wound/ shirt locations would establish the “holding the shirt so that TM couldn’t leave” part.


  19. TruthBTold says:

    Vernon wrote,

    *He is does not like a nationality, which is not racism if he is the same race as they are. That is like me saying I cannot stand people from Texas would suddenly make me a racist*

    Stick a fork in me, I am done. I just can’t.

  20. TruthBTold says:

    Rachel quoted,

    ‘ “The statute can be used and distorted by hard-core criminals or someone who has committed a crime,” she says. “Most times, someone will get arrested if the other person does not die. … It’s ironic. If someone dies, the other person is less likely to get arrested.” ‘

    It is a crazy law that really needs to be modified or repealed. It’s like duh, if the other person dies they cannot present their side of what happened. Doesn’t automatically mean that the person that did not die, was in the right. To hear SPD state that they didn’t have enough to arrest GZ that night or there was nothing to contradict his claims….ugh…ya think? When the other person is dead. I mean, It’s just absurd.

    • Case#1 says:

      If GZ had kept his mouth shut, he probably would, however, here have a much stronger case for SYG.

      What hurt him is the constraints that his statements put on his defense options.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        What I find scarier than this case is one where the murderer was not on a NEN call telling the world what he was doing. To all the lawyers monitoring this case – would the case have enough evidence to find the defendant guilty without the call.

  21. boar_d_laze says:


    Is the “liberal defense lawyer” Jeralyn at talkleft? If so, I’ll have to go back and take a look, as it’s been a long time since reading her.

    Assuming you’re reporting her right, she’s wrong. The defense has a big problem with using any of Mr. Zimmerman’s prior statements because — as far as the defense is concerned — they’re “hearsay without exception.”

    The only way the defense can get any of them into evidence is if the prosecution creates the exception by introducing some part of an interview, statement, etc. Then, while it’s true the defense can use any other part of the interview they’re in the position of letting the prosecution choose what is and what is not available.

    • Pooh says:

      Well, I guess the idea is that GZ just takes the stand in the immunity hearing and tells his side of the story. I don’t know how else he gets his defense into the hearing. I understand that his prior statements can’t be used by the defense. My assumption is that whatever he says on the stand is evidence that is weighed against … other evidence that shows he was not acting in self-defense, did not attempt to retreat or indicate his desire to withdraw, had other choices, etc?

      • boar_d_laze says:

        If Mr. Zimmerman gets on the stand, he’s subject to cross examination. Given anything approaching a competent cross, I don’t think Zimmerman can do the ‘splainin’ he needs to do without digging his hole still deeper.

      • case#1 says:

        If this is Talk Left, the oddness of her position is that she does not take into account what opposing counsel will rightly do in the case. Thus, she allows her readers to be ignorant on what prosecution is allowed to do in this case and often spins or directly misinterprets what the law says. I remember having this issue with her interpretation of the rules for recusal. She said as I remember that the test is subject, but the test is objective. Its not whether as she claimed the defendant believed he would get a fair trial or fair process, and its not that a judge can not form any opinion as she suggests. If it were, as a practical matter, it would lead to an absurd judicial process in which anytime a party doesn’t get what they want, they claim the judge is impartial for saying something untoward about that party. I simply do not trust her views on the subject.

    • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

      @Case1,before someone turned me on this blog, I went to Talkleft and some of the stuff Jeralyn was saying was so ridiculous and far-fetched, until I questioned in my mind if she was really a legitimate lawyer. I went once and never went back.

      • lynp says:

        I find nothing ridiculous or far-fetcher about TalkLeft’s take on the Zimmrman Case but her musing on Mitt and Paul makes me a little crazy. I am a big fan of Jeralyn since the Duke Lacrosse Days and post on her blog regularly. I don’t agree one wit with her liberal politics. Not only is Jeralyn a lawyer but was the lead lawyer for Timothy McVeigh during his trail. Different opinions keeps the brain alive and sparking.

  22. TruthBTold says:

    George wrote,

    “Just because you are fanatically assured he is an innocent victim, doesn’t make it so.”

    You seriously can’t be this daft or are you? No, I have that pesky little thing called forensics, GZ’s various inconsistent and implausible accounts, and other God given abilities that has led me and whole host of others to the conclusion that we have in that, TM was an innocent victim in this case. Now do me a favor and leave me alone. I am not going to play these games with you and other GZ supporters. Y’all offer absolutely nothing. Ciao.

  23. Three-judge panel named in George Zimmerman appeal


    The three appeals court judges who must decide whether or not murder suspect George Zimmerman deserves a new trial judge were named today.

    They include two former Orlando judges and one from Brevard.

    The Orlando judges are Alan Lawson and Jay Cohen. The one from Brevard is Kerry Evander.

    On Monday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara filed the appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach.

    • TruthBTold says:

      Thanks SouthernGirl2.

    • Cielo says:

      “waaa waaa! Daddy, Lester wont leave us alone!” I bet the COA won’t replace Lester.

      • TruthBTold says:

        LMBO @ Cielo.

      • LOL @ “waaa waaa! Daddy, Lester wont leave us alone!”

      • Well, at the very least, it is risky to ask for Lester’s replacement. Chances are they could get a judge who is even more hard-nosed. Where I come from, for example, people charged with murder are held without bail.

        How can these people be upset over being busted for lying through their teeth to a judge?

      • crazy1946 says:

        If you listen to the press propaganda meet, you will hear MOM state at roughly the three minute mark that the motion filed was at Zimmerman’s request! The demeanor of MOM all the way through the thing was of a man that was not overly happy with the direction that his client was pushing the case. I wonder if MOM will actually go the full distance before asking to be removed from the case?

      • lynp says:

        I bet they will. George has a right to an impartial and neutral Judge which Lester’s own statements show he is not.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          What we see is one ticked off judge that was lied to in his courtroom, during a VERY public trial. NOTHING Lester said was incorrect. GZ had the money and the passport and the MOTIVE to flee. GZ lied or refused to tell the truth on several occasions, especially when money was involved. I don’t see Judge Lester’s rebuke as being partial to the prosecution, but instead a lecture to a bad boy who didn’t tell the truth at a very important hearing.


          • ajamazin says:

            Ms Cielo Perdomo 

            “What we see is one ticked off judge.” 

            A judge must give the impression of impartiality.  Lester knew exactly what he was doing.

          • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

            Then Judge Lester must be being held to a very high standard. It’s outrageous what judges can and do get away with, and STILL be considered “impartial”. Lester was irate but NOT particularly pro-prosecution. I just don’t see that his rebuke rises to the level of misconduct.


  24. julia says:

    Good God. This whole case is a nightmare and thinking about it makes my head hurt. It just doesn’t make any damn sense that anyone with even half a brain could believe for two seconds that George’s version of events is true. I think even O’Mara is aware that he’s on a sinking ship and all he’s doing now is trying to tread water and stay afloat long enough to recoup some of his costs and save what little dignity and good will he had before he agreed to represent Zimmerman. How can this possibly go to trial?

    • TruthBTold says:



    • Cielo says:

      The question is how could it NOT go to trial? There is no way this case can be dismissed as SYG.

      • julia says:

        I don’t think it will be dismissed. I think the only reasonable outcome For Zimmermanis a plea bargain. I don’t expect that he’ll take one if offered, but O’Mara has to be telling him behind the scenes that the odds aren’t good for a trial. At least with a plea bargain he wouldn’t spend his whole life in prison.

  25. Pooh says:

    I agree completely with you, professor, and all the others who comment eloquently on the fact that only a racist could believe the story laid out by GZ and his defenders.

    Regarding the immunity hearing, MOM’s claim that GZ was unable to retreat, and preponderance of evidence: a liberal defense lawyer who has appointed herself GZ’s unpaid national public defender claims that anything GZ says must be considered as evidence in such a preliminary hearing, and that it doesn’t matter whether it is true or not. Maybe that is self-evident, and that when GZ says multiple different things that contradict each other, some of that “evidence” cancels out, and evidence that what GZ says cannot be true will also weigh against his statements. I wonder if the professor or other lawyer would comment on that?

    Now in particular, since MOM brought it up specifically, I am wondering what evidence GZ will present that he was unable to retreat or how he will describe that. Others may remember the details better from GZ’s multiple interviews and reenactment. However, I do not recall GZ saying anywhere anything about how he tried to defend himself or escape prior to unholstering his gun and shooting TM. He says he “tried to lift his head” or something similar. He says he thought his “head would explode.” He says TM was sitting on top of him and punching, punching him in the face, pressing his hands on GZ’s mouth and nose, etc. But GZ never says anything about what he was doing to prevent that, avoid it, defend himself from it, or how or why he couldn’t throw TM off, roll over, get away, etc. And of course, GZ has admitted that he made no effort to defuse the situation by identifying himself. I’m thinking GZ didn’t do anything like that because he was convinced (and continues to believe) that TM was a criminal and that identifying himself as some sort of citizen volunteer wasn’t going to change anything.

    Could MOM be referring solely to that short, specific moment when GZ says he “felt” TM had seen his gun and “felt” TM’s left hand creeping down his side? GZ says in the reenactment he was able to trap TM’s left hand with his arm and grab TM’s right wrist. Was he not then capable and in control of the situation? (He describes this moment differently in different interviews and I wish someone other than me would take the time to compare. In particular it would be interesting to compare the screams leading up to the shot with GZ’ claims, in his 2/27 police video interview, that in the moments just before the shot TM had his hands pressing “with all his weight” on GZ’s nose and mouth “trying to suffocate him.”)

    But where does GZ describe TM’s resistance that GZ was unable to overcome? How was he, according to his own statements, so easily able to withdraw, point, and shoot his gun if he was so helpless? GZ never describes a struggle over the gun once he had released TM’s left hand with his right arm and unholstered his gun from under his back with his right hand. (GZ answers in the video interview that doesn’t really remember about a struggle over the gun at that point and describes simply being able to “get to it first.”) GZ agrees with Serino that he had “wrist control” over TM’s right wrist. (TM was still pressing with all his weight with that right hand on GZ’s nose and mouth, GZ says in the video interview, while also demonstrating that his own left hand holding TM’s right wrist was somewhere out in front of him as he had to be careful to aim around his own left hand.) What then was TM doing with the left hand that had been reaching for the gun?

    • Pooh says:

      Okay, as someone pointed out upstream, the defense will argue that GZ was the one screaming for help which was an indication of his desire to withdraw.

      • You said,

        “Okay, as someone pointed out upstream, the defense will argue that GZ was the one screaming for help which was an indication of his desire to withdraw.”

        This argument does not pass the straight-face test.

        Listen to this tape that has the 911 call with the terrified scream in the background followed by Zimmerman’s scream for help spliced in after the scream.

        Zimmerman voluntarily provided a voice exemplar to the police.

        The judge at the SYG hearing and the jury at the trial are not going to have any difficulty rejecting Zimmerman’s claim that he’s the one screaming for help on the 911 call.

        It’s a really pathetic lie.


    • Case#1 says:

      If you are referring to Talk Left, I do not believe she treats GZ as the aggressor. She argues that we are suppose to only look at the last few seconds of the interaction between GZ and TM as relevant without regard to GZ following TM because it was legal for GZ to follow TM. Her argument misses the point. The legality of the pursuit is irrelevant to whether it provides evidence of whether GZ was acting aggressively toward TM. Some of her other arguments, such as her statements about GZ’s statements, are self serving of her position, and she actively excludes the way that a real trial would occur (e.g. she leaves out logical inference and she assumes that his testimony would not be impeached with his prior contradictory statements, which would determine whether, if the evidence is even admitted, the jury would choose to ignore Zimmerman’s account in whole or in part). She mostly also ignores the physical evidence in favor of testimony and statements.

      Ultimately, I don’t she’s putting on a good defense. A good defense to me offers a counter narrative that takes into account the holes in ones own arguments that the prosecution may raise. Instead, she limits the table to those arguments that she thinks proves her position without regard to whether thats how a trial would occur. Many others do the same thing. They aslo misinterpret the law as far as I can tell. For example, the standard for recusal is much higher than they say. Essentially, when all is said and done, the judge in this case rules in favor of the defendant despite the judges reservations about the actions of the defendant. The law does not require the judge to not have an opinion, which is their mistaken view. That impartiality of decision-making means a judge is supposed to play pretend.

      As for the actual SYG/self defense claim, remember to make the claim evidence has to offered by either the prosecution or defense that would give rise to the claim in the instructions and for the SYG hearing the preponderance, separate from the trial standard, is on the defense. At trial, as I understand it, the prosecution most prove it was not SYG or self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt if the SYG or self-defense instructions are given to the jury.

      IN either case, evidence must be offered. My guess is that the defense will try to use things like the photos to claim “its the thing itself.” Meaning, if GZ has even minor wounds, this proves he was fighting for his life or in danger of serious bodily harm.

      The argument would not likely include testimony from GZ because that opens the door to impeachment.

      So, the defense would rely on physical evidence of the struggle and non-GZ testimony from experts about the scream and finally witness testimony to say this shows there is self defense or SYG

      Utlimately the problem with this is that this is not evidence that disproves the strong evidence that GZ was the aggressor.

      In other words, it will be very hard to create a narrative resting on just the last 30 seconds or so without also viewing the rest of the lead up to it that lasted only a few minutes rather than some much earlier time period that could easily e described as separate.

      I think the professor may be right about the aggressor issue being key. I don’t see how the defense gets around it. The best they can hope for is that GZ can show that he was in a death struggle, but their hand on that front his limited. No one else was around to see the fight. Who would testify that the details he claimed occurred as he claimed?

      No one. What’s left is the physical evidence. It does not corraborate his claim either. There was no evidence showing the type of fight that Zimmerman claimed- therefore, how would such a fight be entered into evidence?

      On e argument goes that the defense would not have to put on much more evidence than what I described of a fight and testimony that is non-GZ

      That he could win with that.

      That’s true. He could. but it would be an extremely, extremely weak evidence on which he would be winning even if he did get the SYG. Much of which would rely on logical inference that would not be reasonalbe to make in that it would not build a consistent narrative. But that doesn’t stop juries from making them.

      • Pooh says:

        I agree that a good defense would anticipate counter-arguments, which are not allowed over there.

        And I agree with all your points. And probably what I am now saying repeats them.

        “So, the defense would rely on physical evidence of the struggle and non-GZ testimony from experts about the scream and finally witness testimony to say this shows there is self defense or SYG.”

        Okay, well lets focus on the last 30 seconds or so. And assume that GZ does not take the stand in the immunity hearing because he would get destroyed. (Although some of his supporters think he makes a great witness, is very credible and sincere, and his inconsistencies and contradictions are perfectly understandable under the circumstances.)

        The defense has photos of minor wounds and other evidence that GZ got boobooed at some point during a struggle. Who other than GZ can say that the struggle began with an attack from TM? Unless GZ takes the stand, how will the defense introduce the death threat (no one else heard it)? Witnesses heard and saw a struggle, but that only proves there was a struggle. Who other than GZ can describe TM going for his gun? Who, in fact, other than GZ can say that TM hit him? Some witnesses saw at some point TM on top of GZ. Is that definitive evidence that GZ had no other choice but to shoot him? Who other than GZ can say he had no other choice but to shoot TM? Who other than GZ’s father and maybe some hired audio experts can say that it was GZ screaming for his life?

        How basically does the defense present a preponderance of evidence at the immunity hearing in front of a judge without GZ taking the stand?

        What sort of witnesses can state the killing was self-defense based on some photographs of GZ’s wounds and an opinion about who was screaming?

        Seems that GZ will have to take the stand in the self-defense hearing. And I guess his supporters believe he will.

      • case#1 says:

        First, I agree with your questions. They are questions that I can’t answer, and it is why it leads me to the defense has a problem.

        Second, I think his supporters are delusional about the impact of his testimony given the ability of the prosecutor to impeach it. The excuses that I have read are quite bad. ie He had no choice, but to lie because he wanted to prove himself innocent. So, you are saying that the defendant is willing to lie to get off? Where does that lying stop?

        I mean- how does such an argument help the defense? Yet they think it does, and that tells you something about how much critical thinking is involved in what they are saying.

  26. whonoze says:

    I finally finished my video about GZ’s ‘re-enactment’. It’s updated, improved, covers the whole thing in one video. There’s nothing there that hasn’t been discussed in the threads here and/at bcclist, AFAIK, but I thought it might be useful to collect it one place and in A/V form. Of course, I didn’t include EVERYTHING anyone has mentioned, only the ones that strike me as significant and also (for the most part anyway) concrete rather than speculative. And I hope I did enough to distinguish the ‘this doesn’t seem to make sense’ comments from the ‘this absolutely could not have happened’ comments.

    • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

      This is AMAZING! I would hope the prosecution would PAY you for all of this detailed work. I saw it 1 time so far, but will take time later to watch and pay closer attention.



      • Vickie votaw says:

        I ‘m only half way through & have to take a break from watching GZ’s walk through of his crime. Any sane jury would convict him on his lies alone, excellent tape!

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Great Audio Visual. Short and sweet. He somehow doesnèt explain how all happened where he is standing and Trayvon ended up where he was. But, you can see him pausing and looking down. Seems he couldn’t think fast enough to explain that one away.

    • Rachael says:

      Excellent! Thank you. I noticed something, and it may be absolutely nothing, but I’m just mentioning it because I know some people have said they think someone was in the vehicle with GZ – but again, may be absolutely nothing – at 1:19 he says, “…my wife…I” I also am really bothered by where he says at 18:39 “and I went to go grab my cell phone.” I know that is what he says, but what if instead of cell phone…well, total speculation. I’ll keep my mouth shut

    • Pooh says:

      Great work, whonoze.

      Now how about a little video comparing the screams that were heard during the moments GZ says TM is pressing down on GZ’s nose and mouth with both hands and all his weight trying to suffocate GZ?

    • You did a fantastic job.

      Many thanks for posting it here for all of us to read.

    • TruthBTold says:

      Great job whonoze. Ugh where does one even begin, but the part when asked was he following him and he says yes, because he was “in the area.” I can’t anymore.

    • C Shell says:

      Great video! I was wondering if you’ve had a chance to listen to Witness 11 (911 call)…I listened last night and was surprised to hear “Jeremy” say in the background…”he warned me, he’d shoot him.” I’m not sure if that is what was said, but I listened several times and heard the same thing.

  27. edgySF says:

    Pardon my ignorance, but can someone please explain (or provide a link) re: the differences between SYG & traditional self-defense?

    What is the benefit from switching from SYG to traditional?

    O’Mara said he doesn’t think SYG applies to this situation. Why not, and why does traditional apply?

    There’s a strange irony here in that Chief Lee immediately freed GZ due to SYG. He doubled-down on this decision at his press conference when he was asked by reporters why GZ remained free: Chief Lee cited the SYG law.

    Can Chief Lee be investigated for his error? Corey had GZ arrested for Murder Two, and O’Mara conceded that this is not SYG. And yet an admitted killer remained free for 44 days, inflaming the situation, garnering international protests, and soiling the reputation of Sanford, FL…all because of Chief Lee’s decision.

    Will we ever know the role State Atty Wolfinger played in that decision, or how he is connected to GZ? Why did Wolfinger recuse himself? He retired swiftly & quietly after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

    • edgySF says:

      reading this thread, I found my answer re: syg v. traditional self-defense.

      I would be interested in knowing your thoughts re: the “strange irony here” mentioned in my post.

      thank you.

      • Rachael says:

        I would like to know that too.Would things have been handled differently (i.e., arresting GZ or at least doing a toxicology or something) had it been thought originally thought to be self-defense rather than SYG or would that still be considered the same thing.

        I just have a very difficult time with this law. In a case similar that occurred about the same time (April 3) I found this statement:

        If there are no witnesses and the victim is dead, or if the evidence is conflicting, the chances are greater that someone can “get away with murder,” Savannah Law School professor Elizabeth Megale says.

        “The statute can be used and distorted by hard-core criminals or someone who has committed a crime,” she says. “Most times, someone will get arrested if the other person does not die. … It’s ironic. If someone dies, the other person is less likely to get arrested.”

        “I look at the Trayvon Martin case, and what happened to my son is almost the same thing,” says Daniel Adkins, 59, who mourns the death of his only son and namesake, Daniel Jr., 29. “I want justice. … Why haven’t they arrested him?


        I realize that I have sidetracked some from the original topic, but I just do not understand laws like these. I just don’t.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O’Connor, the investigations supervisor, made the decision to release George Zimmerman on the night of February 26th, after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger — in person.

      Wolfinger’s presence at the scene or at the police department on the night of a shooting is highly unusual. On a typical case, police contact the state attorney’s office and speak with an on duty assistant state attorney; they either discuss the matter by phone or the on duty assistant state attorney comes to the crime scene – but rarely the state attorney.

      There appears to be more of a connection between Osterman, Lee, and Wolfinger. Osterman was at the scene immediately following the shooting and Osterman is Zimmermans good friend who has been at Zimmerman’s side every step of the way.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        osterman and lee worked together when both worked for the sheriff’s department. i do not know how close they were outside of work, but that connection is enough i would think to request ‘favors’.

  28. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    I got a few questions is it too late to go back and check out that tree and if they did would they be able to get anything off of it?

    I was thinking with it being dark could Zimmerman have ran into that tree. Do you think that running and the impact, that tree could have caused those minor injuries to his nose and also those minor cuts in the back of his head from a kind of boomerang motion from the branches?

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Granny – the fact that MOM appears to be focusing on the supposed “broken nose” and no longer on the head injuries tells me he has seen or heard something from the prosecution that leads him to believe what the original detective stated during the original bond hearing, that (paraphrasing) GZ’s head injuries were caused by something harder than his head, but not by Trayvon bashing it into the cement, is true. Or, GZ has finally admitted to MOM how it really occurred and the “broken nose” is the only thing MOM has left to rely on. Until I hear otherwise, I tend to go with the speculations I’ve read that he most likely slipped on slime or wet grass and hit a sprinkler head or something of that nature. JMHO.

  29. TruthBTold says:

    boar wrote,

    “Even though Mr. O’Mara says he’s not going to defend Mr. Zimmerman on the basis of Florida’s SYG law, he can still make a Motion for Immunity which will very likely result in what the newspapers and blogs are calling an “SYG” hearing.”

    Okay help me out here boar. Last week, according to MOM, he filed or is going to file a Motion for Immunity. However, if he loses that than during the actual trial he will defend GZ on the basis of traditional self-defense. Correct?

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Let me see if I can explain a situation I don’t understand that well.

      Florida has four justified homicide statutes. Sec 776.012 is traditional self defense; Part of 776.013 is “castle doctrine,” and part is “stand your ground;” 776.031 is irrelevant to this case; and 776.041 is “use of force by aggressor.”

      776.012 and 776.013(3) are the functionally the same as far as the defendant is concerned. Neither includes the duty to retreat which has traditionally been part of self defense doctrine. Both impose a very low burden on the defendant at trial than was traditional. I.e., now the person claiming justification must only create reasonable doubt. Each poses the same standard for justification. I.e., the defendant must show that he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or GBH.

      A defendant claiming justification under either standard may make a Motion for Immunity. The Motion imposes a heavier burden on the defendant. In order to gain Immunity, the movant must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

      The legal formulation for preponderance is “more likely than not,” but a lot of people like to think of it as 50.1%. Try not to take that too seriously though. Jurors tend to “feel” and “know” more than “weigh.” The same is true with judges, but they’re usually too smart to say so.

      It seems that Mr. O’Mara plans on using 776.012 for Mr. Zimmerman’s defense and not 776.013. He probably has some good reason which might be obvious to a Florida defense attorney; but whatever it is…

      No matter which statute the defense says is controlling, the prosecution will attempt to prove that the facts leading up to the shooting show that Mr. Zimmerman provoked Mr. Martin into using force against Mr. Zimmerman, which would put the claim into the ambit of 776.041. 776.041 creates a higher hurdle for the defendant in that he either has to show that the defendant’s actual force was enough to put him in reasonable fear of imminent death or GBH.

      You can see that 776.041 is a problem for Mr. Zimmerman because Mr. Martin’s use of force was not enough to cause more than mild injury.

      And again, whether the defense tries for 776.012 or 776.013 the prosecution will go for 776.041. So either way, as a practical matter, alla time same same.

      Finally, I’m not familiar with Florida law and might be missing something obvious. But that’s the way I see it.

      Hope it helps,

  30. TruthBTold says:

    Kate wrote,

    “Not only that but according to GZ’s statement, TM allegedly said he was going to kill him after a witness came to the door and yelled out that he was calling 911. That would have normally scared most kids enough that they would have gotten up quickly and run from the scene.”

    Exactly. The way TM was screaming on that tape call me crazy, but suggests to me that he would have welcomed the help. But noooo, he became sooo enraged that all he saw was blood and was going to kill GZ. It just defies credulity. A previous poster in the other thread, obviously drunk off the the kool-aid, intimated that TM didn’t even listen to an adult that came out and told them to stop. These people have no shame.

  31. TruthBTold says:

    Professor wrote,

    “So you think it’s OK to sit there like a potted plant as your wife perpetrates a fraud on the court about your finances and do absolutely nothing to correct the false impression.”

    I tell ya. He wasn’t going to do anything because all of that money moving was for them to use for personal bills, etc. They wanted to make sure that GZ would get a low bail by portraying themselves as individuals without a pot to piss in and a window to through it out of. So either way, GZ was in the wrong. Don’t you know Professor, these supporters have a response or an explain away for everything. Never said they were good ones though. Ha!

    “Now that we know that you think misleading others is OK and you have no respect for the legal system, I guess we do not have any reason to listen to what you have to say.”

    Were we really listening anyway? LOL

  32. TruthBTold says:

    Ms. Cielo wrote,

    “Well the “broken” part was never verified. Bruised maybe, but not broken.”

    Oh I know, that’s why I put the broken nose in quotation marks.

  33. TruthBTold says:

    Cielo wrote,

    “Do you ever wonder what the ‘po’ folks do when faced with a serious crime and can barely afford a lawyer? How low to beg on TV for “food and shelter.”. Time to join the masses George! Freedom ain’t free when charged with murder.”

    Standing ovation.

  34. TruthBTold says:

    Cielo Perdomo wrote,

    “And so many people feel vindication when they read even the littlest bit of poop about Martin, as if to say “SEE, I told you so! A no-good punk!” Those are the coomenst that can’t be answered; they are already blinded by their hatred.”

    Preach!! Like the individual in this forum bringing up that Tracy Martin is still married to some woman. I never even heard about this and it obviously wasn’t verified. They won’t answer though, how is this relevant to the issue at hand?

    • George Smiley says:

      I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a few things brought up about George and his family that hasn’t been too relevant either.

      • TruthBTold says:

        *Yawn* Predictable as usual. Feeble attempt at a “tit-for-tat” with nothing to offer. TM is the victim here. I know that is difficult for GZ supporters to grasp. Whether I indulge in it or not, it is not uncommon or wrong for people to try and explore facets of the accused, perpetrator or whatever.

      • George Smiley says:

        Just because you are fanatically assured he is an innocent victim, doesn’t make it so.

      • verafish says:

        George Smiley; Trayvon Martin IS the victim. Period. In all legal proceedings he will be identified as The Victim. Corey represents The Victim for the state of Florida. In all court proceedings Martin will be referred to as The Victim, while Zimmerman is the accused, The Defendant. Your personal characterization of the parties to this case is irrelevant.

  35. TruthBTold says:

    Aussie wrote,

    “(brief turn of head and soulful gaze directly into camera 3).”

    LOL. Hilarious.

  36. whonoze says:


    “I said long ago that only a racist would believe that an innocent 17-year-old boy walking home in the rain talking to his girlfriend, after walking to the store to buy his little brother some Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea, would suddenly for no apparent reason go psycho, start speaking in 10-20 year-old ghetto slang and B-movie dialect, attack, and attempt to kill with his bare hands an older menacing man following him who outweighed him by more than 40 pounds and whom he had successfully eluded by running away and hiding.”

    That goes down with Patricia’s closing as the most eloquent rhetoric on the blog. We should all print that out in big type and post it on our walls.

    This really is the elephant in the room that gets ignored in all of our delving into minutiae. GZ’s whole self-defense angle rests on premises that make no goddamn sense. TM has NO motive to attack GZ, and the means (bare hands) and opportunity (running away) are pretty darn shaky as well..

    • TruthBTold says:

      @ whonoze wrote,

      “GZ’s whole self-defense angle rests on premises that make no goddamn sense.”


      “TM has NO motive to attack GZ, and the means (bare hands) and opportunity (running away) are pretty darn shaky as well..”

      Exactly and GZ supporters offer nothing sensible in terms of why TM would all of a sudden decide to kill GZ. They tried the gang and impress girlfriend bit which is as weak, typical, and pathetic as I don’t know what, and that was quickly shot down.

      • Not only that but according to GZ’s statement, TM allegedly said he was going to kill him after a witness came to the door and yelled out that he was calling 911. That would have normally scared most kids enough that they would have gotten up quickly and run from the scene. Instead, GZ wants us to believe that what happened after that was TM tried to smother him while banging his head on the concrete and attempting to take his gun?! What an imagination GZ has and how freakin’ gullible does he think most people are that they would believe this preposterous story?!

  37. Vernon says:

    Since the FBI did not fine evidence of racism, what evidence that has been released leads you to believe that Zimmerman is a liar?

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      I truly believe the man said “coons”. I feel it will come up again. Someone posted on the previous blog about that comment. In my opionion the media was told to denounce it. I know what I heard…

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        I don’t believe that he said “coons” because there is a gang called the “goon” in FL. And although, Zimmerman is not that bright, he wouldn’t risk making a statement like “coon” where a dispatcher could hear him, but he would say “goons” because he of his hero-complex to let them know that he’s out chasing the so-called bad guy.

      • Rachael says:

        I have been a medical transcriptionist for 20 years, and to my trained ears, I very clearly heard coon. I would stake my professional reputation on it.

      • George Smiley says:

        “I have been a medical transcriptionist for 20 years, and to my trained ears, I very clearly heard coon. I would stake my professional reputation on it.”

        I would stake my life on the fact that he didn’t.

      • lynp says:

        If you google “FBI finds no evidence of racism in Zimmerman Case”, we can read exactly what the FBI said and did.

    • princss6 says:

      Do you have the link to the FBI Report that found no evidence of racism?

      • Vernon says:

        Yes, I do. I believe that if they did it would have been published. FBI voice analysis does not agree with you on him saying ‘coons’. What came out in the old my space is that while he does not like ‘Mexicans’ (still not racism) his friends were black as was part of his family. I did see where the media (NBC) poisoned well so to speak by using selective editing to make him sound like a racist.

      • Vernon says:

        Yes, I do. I believe that if they did it would have been published. FBI voice analysis does not agree with you on him saying ‘coons’. What came out in the old my space is that while he does not like ‘Mexicans’ (still not racism) his friends were black as was part of his family. I did see where the media (NBC) poisoned well so to speak by using selective editing to make him sound like a racist.

        It was part of the 200+ pages released 12 July by the SA.

      • princss6 says:

        Ahhhh…so you are of the mind that his racism hinges on saying, one word. Gotcha.

        Moving on. Go read Case#1’s comment. He/she nails it. The willful ignorance is just too much for me.

      • Vernon says:

        So where is your evidence of racism since the FBI did not find any?

      • Case#1 says:

        The example I give of Sikh massacre with the white supremacist above was given for a reason. Its to underscore just how tilted the public discourse and people’s views of racism are. Even in that case, they keep saying and I paraphrase “No one can know for certain what motivated the shooter” The line about not knowing his motivation appears again and again. this is with a white supremacist. The point is that asking people what they believe is racist is next to useless. There are better tests. One of which is logical testing of assumptions and beliefs. For example, looking at fact patterns and keeping everything the same, but changing race, looking at people’s actual behavior, etc. All those things can provide a much better snapshot. In fact, the denial in the face of the evidence is quite common. That’s the whole point.

    • whonoze says:

      Vernon: learn to read and write before posting.

      • George Smiley says:

        “Vernon: learn to read and write before posting.

        Learn to be civil to those who disagree with you.

      • ajamazin says:

        What George Smiley said.

      • whonoze says:

        George Smiley: Learn what ‘irony’ ‘hyperbole’ and ‘tropes’ are before lecturing people on web boards about the tone of their discourse. (GS: plz read last paragraph below…)


        Vernon wrote: “Since the FBI did not fine evidence of racism, what evidence that has been released leads you to believe that Zimmerman is a liar?”

        The Professor claimed Zimmerman supporters are racists. The FBI did not investigate Zimmerman supporters. So any FBI report is irrelevant to the Professor’s claim. Vernon gets an ‘F’ on reading comprehension.

        Vernon generates a non-sequitor by changing the (grammatical) subject from “racism” to “lying” in mid sentence. Tons of evidence has been released that leads rational people to believe Zimmerman is a liar. Racism and lying have no necessary relation. The Professor has not claimed that Zimmerman has lied about his racism or lack thereof. One can BE a racist, yet think oneself to be merely an objective evaluator of human difference, and thus, not lying at all when claiming not-to-be-racist, becuase lying would require you to know yourself, which you do not. In short, Vernon’s query gets an ‘F’ on basic sentence construction, use of language, etc.

        Regardless, I take responsibility for my tone being mis-read, and I apologize. I would not characterize my remark as ‘uncivil’, but as extremely pedantic. And I meant the extremity of the pedantry as a sort of joke, a theatrical excess. Yet, I did mean to make a critique of Vernon’s posts, and I was too tired to actually spell out what I meant. I combine ironic humor and seriousness all the time, and it’s hard enough to parse in person sometimes, and downright obscure in text one-liners. My bad. Of course, my remark to George Smiley above is an echo, and thus actually intended in the larger context of this post as a self-deprecating jab at my own discursive inadequacies, as well as a constructive suggestion that George Smiley might consider that some posts are not meant to be taken literally.

    • I guess lying to the judge ( by omission) at his bond hearing, keeping a 2nd valid passport secret, saying that he was almost concussed and having two small cats on his head don’t count as lies in your book? Zimmerman HAS expressed racist feelings before, although not about blacks. He has said some rather nasty things about Mexicans, which still makes him a racist. BUT the FBI couldn’t prove that he is racist towards BLACKS, so they just said they couldn’t prove he was racist, which is not entirely correct.

      • princss6 says:

        The FBI has said no such thing. We don’t have a report. What we have is a summary of interviews with his friends and family. We need to be clear – the FBI has released no report as to the findings on whether GZ had racial issues.

      • Vernon says:


        I am not sure I understand. When did it become lying to not interrupt a court proceeding to declare that some testimony was in error? It was reported by O’mara that he had the 2nd passport from the time it was found and forgot to turn it in. If I remember correctly, the one found was reported lost and replaced several years ago, so it was no longer valid anyway. I have been concussed with no cuts, in fact if is fairly common to receive a concussion with out a cut, once again, how is that lying? I am not saying he does not lie, but I would like to see some evidence of it.

        He is does not like a nationality, which is not racism if he is the same race as they are. That is like me saying I cannot stand people from Texas would suddenly make me a racist. I do not see that as racism.

        If the FBI cannot prove he was racist with blacks, then what does his dislike for Mexicans matter, unless you mean to imply that Trayvon was Mexican.

        • Cielo says:

          He issue with the passport was originally glossed over by MOM AFTER the jail tapes were made public. GZ told Sheliie “hold onto that” NOT “make sure you turn that in”. Also the 1st passport turned was expired but NOT the 2nd one. Yes GZ could have clarified at any point during the bond hearing but did not. I hate Texans, too but they are not a nationality. Hating Mexicans for the stereotypical reasons he says he hates Mexicans DOES make him a racist. He makes me embarrassed to be a white Hispanic.

        • You said,

          “When did it become lying to not interrupt a court proceeding to declare that some testimony was in error?”

          So you think it’s OK to sit there like a potted plant as your wife perpetrates a fraud on the court about your finances and do absolutely nothing to correct the false impression.

          You know, like nudging your lawyer to speak up and correct the record.

          I guess misleading the court is OK with you.

          Now that we know that you think misleading others is OK and you have no respect for the legal system, I guess we do not have any reason to listen to what you have to say.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Maybe those were cat scratches. You may be on to something!

      • MedicineBear says:

        Now if Zimmerman claimed two small CATS did the damage to his head, I could believe that — I have ended up with far more serious injuries than Zimmerman just by trying to pill my cat!

      • longtimegeek says:

        Yes, sir. I think it’s okay to sit like a potted plant, especially when someone else is doing the talking for me. I think I talked to my wife enough ahead of time that she did a fine job in court.

        My lawyer said something about nudging, but he still hasn’t explained it well enough for me to understand it or to know when to nudge. Should I nudge him before or after court? If I nudge him, should I tell him $37 or $37,000—and no more? Should I just keep it between me and Scott? For example, when I told my lawyer about the expiring passport, I didn’t tell him about the newer passport. At the time, I decided to just keep it between me and my wife. That seemed to work out okay. My lawyer may have mentioned something about my telling him everything that could be relevant, but he didn’t explain it well enough. My lawyer may have mentioned something about being 100% accurate and complete with matters material to the court, but he didn’t explain it well enough. My lawyer definitely didn’t explain nudging well enough.

        By the way, isn’t 70% passing? I can’t remember the last time I scored 100%. Even if I score less than 70%, don’t I get a do over, like algebra class in community college? Tomato, tomatoe. Why are there so many people who just want to pick on me? My mistakes don’t really count against me, because I know why I made them. I have plenty of reasons, some of which you may or may not be allowed to know.

        Why isn’t everyone focusing on everyone else’s mistakes? Even after the first mistake they made, although it may have been inconsequential, I knew right there that they were wrong, not to be believed, and not to be considered credible. I knew right there that their one mistake absolved me of all of my mistakes. By the way, I don’t regret anything. I only look forward. I don’t worry about going back and fixing any of my past mistakes. The more people try to hold me responsible or accountable for my past mistakes, the more I realize that not only are they picking on me, they have developed some kind of inexplicable beef against me. How can people call me a liar or racist? I can’t tolerate the way they talk about me or their dysfunctional behavior against me. They need to stop or be made to stop.

        Couldn’t my connections sweep all this under the carpet anyway? It’s too bad judges are elected and not appointed. It makes one of the many options that I’ve been thinking about more difficult to invoke. I’m still trying to get the judge removed. He’s picking on me. He has a beef against me. He needs to stop. At some point, it seemed like my Martindale AV preeminent lawyer started picking on me too, but he’s learned where I draw the line.

        P. S. I hope everyone’s sarcasm meter is working. Professor Leatherman – You run a great blog with great contributors. I’ve been learning a lot. Thank you!

      • longtimegeek says:

        TruthBTold – Uh, oh. You’re encouraging me. Encourager beware. Now that I’ve registered, I may speak up more.

  38. ed nelson says:

    David Leatherman: Professor of Law.

    Well yeah about the appearence that there are abundant racist elements!

    My point is not to take on that turkey, but to realize that we are in a world, where there is some things, that might not pass muster in… the view of… “Spock”. You know Mr. pure “Objectivity”… but that isn’t to disparage the effort to be… objective, in my way of thinking that is what a real man does! To wit: the west is in the grip of a griptinight eating oligarchie,

    Spock will sit in for the “good man” such as we may not see much of in these times… but be atuned to the fact that: ” where there is life that there is hope”, and where there remains some hope, the devils are not happy.

    Back to the top, it is deplorable that such a great “nation” would become null and voided by those who would be so slick as to ply the worst of the worst… that they built up the worst psychology from the monster of the id… (the movie: “Forbilden Planet”) they actually played that number on the American populace, and it worked, there were more of the worser than the better!! Please say it ain’t!!

    • Mr Leatherman ~ ~thank you for your response upthread. I am going to stick with Rionda’s in that Zimmerman was ‘criminally’ profiling Trayvon.

      I learned many moon ago that discussing religion, politics and race is taboo. Now that is just my own personal opinion from past experience. It is a no win situation.

      Now I am off to con up on a few laws. Bye for now.

    • David Leatherman…lol I kept putting Prof Letterman. I am outta here.

  39. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    I had to run some errands, so I couldn’t put my two cents in as fast as everyone else did.

    Anyway, Professor Leatherman, you and I are definitely on the same page. I agree wholeheartedly with you. You left no stone unturned.

  40. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Just a little more information for everyone to explore. Check out this link from Roy Black Website. OH WOW! when high priced lawyers are calling Mark O’Money out that is bad news… Roy Black has questions that Zimmerman will need to answer to win a self-defense case!


    Imagine the cross-examination when he takes the stand:

    You lied at your bail hearing?
    You lied to the judge sitting right here?
    You lied to the man judging whether you should be released?
    You lied to get out of jail?
    You lied to hide the amount of money you had?
    You were under oath at the time?
    You volunteered to testify?
    Your wife lied as well?
    The two of you conspired to lie?
    You knew this was an important issue?
    Yet you lied anyway?
    You are facing a far more important decision today than just bail?
    You could spend a lot of time in jail?
    Your incentive to lie is far greater?
    Now that you have been exposed as a liar no one should trust what you have to say?
    Now that you have been exposed as a man who would lie under oath no one should believe you?

    There are brillant minds here on Professors Leatherman blog…this blog makes you continue digging for answers…

  41. Zhickel says:

    Fred, can you explain the points of difference between SYG and Self Defence hearings?

    Why would MO’M and GZ opt for the latter; is there any clear advantage?


    • Digger says:

      Professor, I also would like to know the difference re: Zhickel’s question @7:40pm

    • You said,

      “Fred, can you explain the points of difference between SYG and Self Defence hearings?

      Why would MO’M and GZ opt for the latter; is there any clear advantage?”

      Stand Your Ground means a person does not have a duty to retreat before they use deadly force to defend themselves; however, they still must reasonably fear imminent death or grievous bodily harm in order to justifiably use deadly force in self-defense. The use of deadly force must be reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

      MOM is conceding that GZ’s situation is not a stand your ground situation; it’s a traditional self-defense situation where a person is suddenly attacked by someone and finds himself battling for his life.

      In other words, he’s basically conceding that GZ followed TM and he’s going to claim that TM overreacted.

      As MOM explained it today, the hearing will proceed in similar fashion.

      MOM didn’t say this but SYG really describes TM’s situation as he is minding his own business talking to his girlfriend when GZ shows up, confronts and attempts to detain him. GZ is the aggressor and TM has a right to use reasonable force to prevent GZ from assaulting him.

      MOM is going to deny that GZ attempted to restrain TM, but why else did GZ follow and approach him if not to detain him? His purpose was not to locate TM and monitor his movements from a safe distance or he never would have strayed south of the T intersection. And we know he did not approach him south of the intersection to strike up a conversation because he told Serino that he did not tell TM who he was and why he was following him. He approached him to restrain him and that is confirmed by Dee Dee.

      If the Court finds that GZ was the aggressor, which it should, GZ cannot use deadly force in self-defense unless he first attempts to disengage, which he did not do, and deadly force is being used against him, which it wasn’t.

      Bottom Line: He loses.

      Note: I don’t think GZ is very happy with MOM conceding that he doesn’t have a SYG defense.

      • Professor, please forgive my ignorance on the SYG vs Self Defense.. If it is SYG then George has to prove his case and the prosecution does not have to prove anything, correct? What about the self-defense trial? They are two separate animals I am assuming. Does he also have to prove his case or is the burden on the prosecution? Thank you in advance.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        heart… No.

        Traditionally, any defendant who claims an “affirmative defense” like justification has the burden of proving the defense. However, in Florida and some of the other ALEC states, the defendant has a lower burden at trial. In Florida, the burden is that of creating reasonable doubt.

        On the other hand, the prosecution has a much higher burden — showing the defendant did not act in self defense with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

        At a so-called “SYG Hearing” the defendant has the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

        Even though Mr. O’Mara says he’s not going to defend Mr. Zimmerman on the basis of Florida’s SYG law, he can still make a Motion for Immunity which will very likely result in what the newspapers and blogs are calling an “SYG” hearing.

        The actual differences between Florida’s “regular” self-defense law, 776.012 and the SYG law, 776.013 are inconsequential.

        Don’t let the magic formulas of the different burdens of proof weigh you down too much. In my experience it’s much harder to get a jury to give a plaintiff money for breach of contract by a corporation with all the proof in the world, than it is to put a gang-banger in jail for life on obvious lies. Go figure.

      • Digger says:

        Professor, You have used two words restrain and detain. If GZ
        had meant to detain him why did he not announce who he was and why he was following Trayvon. There was no reason to restrain Trayvon if he had not gotten so close as to put the fear of “GOD” in Trayvon, so for him to fear and fight for his life would only be that GZ has attempted to accost or threaten (with a gun)

        I really wonder if George Zimmerman announced to Trayvon
        “GOD WANTS THIS DONE” “so you’re dead”! Boy! imo
        this pretty much is the way George Saw it as he shot Trayvon.

      • Digger says:

        Thank you for your explanation Prof.

      • MedicineBear says:

        I have a “follow the money” theory for an additional reason why MOM isn’t going to try this as a SYG case: I don’t think the NRA and ALEC et al want this case to be a referendum on SYG laws in FL or across the nation! If MOM drops the SYG (effectively removing SYG from public discourse), the NRA may “scratch his back” by filling the Zimmerman donation coffers with a flood of cash (laundered, of course, through covert NRA surrogate donors). The fresh influx of donations will be attributed (by hook-line-and-sinker Zimpkins) to how effective MOM’s “brilliant” ploy was in yesterday’s (08-13-12) Press Conference/Dog-and-Pony-Show. Be suspicious if you hear of a flood of new donations from “Zimmerman supporters”!

        If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bu//zhit!

  42. Wow Professor! I can see the emotions taking over this thread. Just tell us how you really feel. Whew! Your human side has come out with horns! I’ve been outraged for quite some time over this… all of this. It’s just sort of comical to see it come out in your posts. Can I get you a cup of tea?

  43. Justkiddin* says:

    So because Z said it happened this way we are to believe it? Is that what his followers are implying? He shot TM in self defense? Well from where I sit Z’s cousin has him pegged as Chester the Molester so IMO Trayvon only did what anyone of us would do, defend ourselves. I would hope my children, grand-children and great-grand-children would do the same.
    Who cares if Z is stuck in Seminole County, uh Trayvon Martin is not leaving the cemetery. As far as his life being endanger oh please! He is not worth a bullet. How about cry baby sit down and stfu for a while. My head hurts from listening to all his b.s.. Sorry this old woman is pi**ed off today. Professor if you want me to come back tomorrow when I am in a better mood (God willing) I will. O’Mara needs to stop with the broken nose, the 2 reports I read said likely and possible. And when the heck did a broken nose deserve the death penalty?

    • I think we’re all getting tired of the Zimmerman whining parade and feel like calling bullshit.

      You’re in good company.

      • Digger says:

        It would be nice if O’Mara would not ADD HIS whining to that of George’s. I couldn’t believe he just laid so much out there for George, his poor little poopie. Got to have all that security for George, someone might “do him harm”, really? Should have given Trayvon the same consideration, don’t you think so too Mr. MOM?

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Don’t forget MOM announced that he too is having to depend on his wife right now because he has gotten nothing out of the fund yet. Poor guy. If you can’t see your way clear to donate for George please do it for my sake.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Justkiddin – So am I…. Zimmerman and She “Lie” needs a long visit in the State Penn… Maybe with Sandusky because it is alledged GZ is a child molester. With all his lies I believe it….

  44. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    It was suggested that the SH interview was edited… Can someone revisit and find the edit. If this is so maybe this is why O’Mara kept his mouth shut.. It isn’t all being exposed… Someone check this out!!

    • Justkiddin* says:

      Everyone I.E.T.T.O. Sorry you have a very long name and I am lazy, it is Monday. Haha, he said everyone has the right to remain silent USE IT! I would love to know the answer to the editing also, my stomach is not strong enough to watch Z lie about a kid.

  45. Agree with aussie upthread. No joke: GZ would have been better off by far (financially and otherwise, if he really is so scared) had he stayed in jail.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      i sooo wish we had a thumbs up feature here – i’d give you one for sure. i have been making this argument on the huffpost for weeks.

      also, it is nice to meet you crane-station. i am glad that i have another nurse to ask medical question – my 75 year old, still practicing RN mother is beyond tired of looking at autopsy reports with me, although she does share my views that gz is a sleaze.

      • Too cool, I have no doubt lots of folks with medical or nursing experience are looking at this case. The forensics are fascinating, even though the case is just terribly tragic.

  46. ajamazin says:


    You might recall that I told you long ago that O’Mara is a sleazy, greedy shyster.

  47. PYorck says:

    O’Mara brought up the possibility of indigence again. I wonder how that is supposed to work. The average murder defendant does not have an internet defense fund. Even if donations have slowed down they are still on the order of hundreds of dollars per day, tax free. For most people that is pretty good money. It may not be enough for the Zimmermans’ lifestyle and O’Mara’s seven-figure wish list, but can that really be the measure? Would someone of comparable means in a low profile case be found indigent or would they have to make do?

    • PYorck~~anyone ( high or low profile) charged with a crime and has no financial means can file for indigency and be assigned a public defender. JAC will only pay a set rate for defense expenses. For instance , if Z filed for indigency, they would not pay $400 per hour for an attorney. Z funds would have to be exhausted ( except for living expenses) for him to file for indigency.

      • PYorck says:

        Yes, but while the funds fall short of what they say they need, people keep donating respectable amounts and probably will do so for a while.

      • So, if Zimmerman has to file as indigent, he can’t keep O’Mara? Or will O’Mara just get the standard pay for a public defender?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        Cielo Perdomo says:

        So, if Zimmerman has to file as indigent, he can’t keep O’Mara? Or will O’Mara just get the standard pay for a public defender?

        – – – – – –

        o’mara is the defense lawyer on record for this case regardless of whether gz becomes indigent or not. o’mara would receive nominal compensation for his work in accordance to the whatever has been established as ‘normal’ for an indigent in that county.

        the relationship between gz and o’mara could only change by the choice of those two parties (and for o’mara, his choice to disengage would have to comply with specific legal criteria which someone more knowledgeable than me could detail.)

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Don’t forget the Robert and Gladys Charity Fund. Nobody is duty-bound to report the income in this case. I wonder if GZ is the manager of those funds. I wouldn’t exactly say that Mr. and Mrs. Robert Zimmerman were hurting for money before and I really think this threat thing is a pile of bull-pucky.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        George and Cindy Anthony didn’t beg on the Internet. Yet, they are alive and have moved along.

      • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

        That website is pretty low key. I heard about it recently. I doubt it has received much money, if at all. The parents are NOT the ones on trial, and no one feels sorry for them. From what IS known, they are comfortably well-off. They can afford to disappear for a few months to a nice B&B out of state. They and their website are pretty much non factors IMO.


        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          One never knows, though. GZ is receiving e-mails and could very well be asking people to donate to his Mom and Dad including some type of con. If they are able to escape to a comfortable B & B somewhere, then why would they have posted the website in the first place. I agree they are not on trial and I wish them no disrespect. But, Shelley wasn’t involved in the killing either. She sorta got sucked in though, didn’t she. Maybe, in my suspicious mind, some considering this website a non-issue is exactly what the GZ public relations advisor had hoped for. I found it absolutely shocking that his Mom and Dad would put up a website because they appear to be upstanding folks with more than adequate means of support.

    • ks says:

      That’s an interesting point that I’ve thought about. I’m not sure how that’s supposed to work. You claim indigence after trying to falsely claim it and after spending over 250K in donations?

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        I have wondered about what would happen if the well ran dry. Does he get a do-over and then a refund. (just kidding) What would be his next step.

  48. Robert says:

    I think that the other thing that is really really eating at O’Mara’s credibility is this insane notion that Seminole County is a dangerous place for Zimmerman. I live here in Orlando and Zimmerman is hardly the talk with in the Black community very much. O’Mara appears to play on that energy back in March where people were upset because he was not arrested.

    I think that it is fair to day that people are no longer energized to the point of holding large rallies and people are simply waiting to see how this plays out in court, I have not heard or read of any threats.

    • That’s what I thought.

      Nobody is threatening Zimmerman. That whole story and the claimed need for a security detail is 100% bullshit.

    • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

      Exactly! This is one incident that even other countries are watching closely.

      • lynp says:

        From what I have read, folk are not even watching it in Sanford.

      • ajamazin says:


        The US is not the center of the universe and those who are watching,  know us for what we are.

        We are a civilization in moral decline that can no longer mask its imperialism, greed, and hypocrisy.

        We are a white, ‘Christian’ nation that places little value on those of color.

      • aussie says:

        So far on the main 2 blogs really looking at the facts, I’ve counted at least 7 non-Americans. I don’t know how much “the world is watching” that counts as.

        I can understand Sanford being sick of it. The must hate being in the news for the wrong reasons, and would try to ignore it and hope it will go away.

      • George Smiley says:

        “We are a white, ‘Christian’ nation that places little value on those of color.”
        Yet we elected one as our president?

      • PYorck says:

        German here. The case made it onto the prime time news here at some points but of course not in as much detail as in the US.

    • My nephew lives in Orlando and has many black friends. I asked him what they were saying about GZ and he said that the sad thing is that they are are almost complacent about what happened. They’re angry, they’re sad, but nobody is about to get a gun and shoot Zimmerman because they all know that wouldn’t do anything but make matters worse. Sadly, none of them expect Zimmerman to get any jail time. My nephew has been stopped by the police several times while driving when he has his black friends in the car with him yet not once has he been pulled over while alone or with just white friends. The racist attitude in the area is quite prevalent when it comes to law enforcement. I’ve met his friends, they are either in college with my nephew or they are already graduated and working. They have parents who care about them and they are decent young men but because they are black, they are continuously harassed by the local police. If they are outside in the driveway playing basketball and the police drive by, they slow down and will often circle the block, yet if my nephew is out there with his brothers, they don’t look twice. I really wish this wasn’t the case but it’s what happens on a regular basis. There are still a lot of racists in our country.

      • TruthBTold says:


        You, Case #1 and Granny are preaching. To bad for others, these types of conversations makes them uncomfortable. Oh well.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      The uproar was created by the injustice – George Zimmerman was not even arrested!!! That was the issue — no arrest. Now that there has been an arrest, the public is relying on the justice system to determine guilty or not guilty. Let the evidence fall where it may. But, in the beginning, the killer of an unarmed American teenager who was minding his own business was walking away scot free. Outrageous!!!

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        Exactly, Sandra and that sums the whole deal up in a nutshell. We live in a country that is supposed to represent “liberty and justice for ALL.” I’m a firm believer in the safety and well-being of children because they are the future.

        Like Coretta King used to say all time, “If you gone stand up for anything, stand up for righteousness.”

  49. bob says:

    Wow, so I am a racist for not bowing to your royal decree? Please explain how thinking that a person acted in self defense makes me racist. Please explain how the simple act of disagreeing with you and acting on that disagreement makes me a racist. Sounds to me it is more likely that you know you are wrong and you are just lashing out in spite.

    • You and anyone else who believes Zimmerman’s nonsensical story is a racist.

      If you are white, you would not believe it if TM were a white kid visiting someone overnight in your neighborhood and a neighborhood watch guy gunned him down.

      • Mr Leatherman~ ~ that is quite a statement coming from a law professor/attorney. I am sitting on the fence regarding a lot of things so what does that make me?

        • You are someone sitting on the fence.

          Zimmerman’s story depends on the listener suspending disbelief and swallowing hook, line and sinker his story that TM suddenly went psycho and tried to kill him with his bare hands.

          If TM were a 17-year-old White kid, I don’t think White people would be so willing to suspend disbelief. They would be calling bullshit because people don’t act like that.

          When one considers who TM was and what a liar George Zimmerman is, the absurdity of Zimmerman’s claim is even more apparent.

          Please don’t take this personally and don’t get me wrong because I am not comparing myself to Jesus, but this is my throw-the-money-changers-out-of-the-temple moment.

          Watching that press conference set me off.

          Zimmerman is not a victim. He’s a child killer.

          • ajamazin says:

            You, like many others, grow more certain of Zimmerman’s guilt� and are offended by �his absurd story, his deceptive statements, and� his greedy, manipulative actions.

            You,�like many others, expect Zimmerman to be found guilty and answer for his crimes.

            This may be both logical and reasonable, but bear in mind that� little�has been logical �or reasonable about this case.

      • case#1 says:

        It makes you a racist who has a problem with what he or she believes.

        There’s a difference between saying you aren’t sure what the law will do with the case as far as misuse of the laws (as has happened with SYG in Florida) and saying you believe the outlandish story offered by Zimmerman. Even if you claimed that you aren’t sure the prosecution outside of the statements can prove their case, that’s different. But the actual stories spoken by Zimmerman?

        If you believe those stories, you are a racist

      • case#1 says:

        Let me add, one of the issues with Americans in terms of dealing with their racial issues is there inability to (1) see it in themselves and (2) realize that it doesn’t have to be the guy walking around saying racial slurs like “nigger” or wearing a white hood. In fact, that image of racism is a convenient excuse to ignore racialized attitudes that can not make any sense (logical and rationally speaking) unless its a perception of race that’s racist. Here, there is no other way you come to view the situation in terms of the story offered in any way that’s non racist. The choice of claimed dialogue that Zimmerman says TM stated alone is racist based on stereotype that no kid TM’s age would use. It is, however, something that would tug at the hidden believes about race in America. Indeed, the whole incident is based on the idea of a racialized space. TM wasn’t supposed to be there because of race. The racism here is more difficult to address. It assumes because one has black friends or knows blacks or even if one is black that one can not hold negative views about race that influence how one sees the credibility of a clearly outlandish story. The fact I even have to tell you the story is outlandish underscores the point.

      • princss6 says:

        Thanks, case #1. Well said and I think definitive regarding this case. Of course, there are many other points that support your case but you nailed it.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        I could answer that question for them. They would automatically assume that the white kid did not deserve to die and be totally outraged! They would be praising the white kid accomplishments from sun up to sun down, bringing out his neighbors to speak in his behalf, the church, his friends, etc. Woe unto anyone who would have the audacity to smear the child’s reputation. The media would be playing it over and over and over, until justice was served. And they would automatically be picking apart every single detail of that neighborhood watchman’s story, voicing out loud their anger, until justice was served and putting pressure on the justice department to see that justice is served. In fact, they wouldn’t let it rest, until justice was served.

        If they even got wind of someone donating money to the killer, they would be ostracizing them and that’s person’s name would be mud. In essence, he would not be able to get away with his lies period!

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          Granny~ Lay it out what we get with black kids instead: the automatic assumption that the kid is a criminal, the all out assault on his character, grades, clothes, ANYTHING to justify the unjustifiable. That entire fabrication of the Facebook page, the entire blow-out of some weed residue, and having women’s jewlery, which by the way, wasn’t stolen. And so many people feel vindication when they read even the littlest bit of poop about Martin, as if to say “SEE, I told you so! A no-good punk!” Those are the coomenst that can’t be answered; they are already blinded by their hatred.


      • George Smiley says:

        “…and having women’s jewlery, which by the way, wasn’t stolen.”

        Not sure I buy that. Not that it’s particularly relevant to what happened that night.

      • Case#1 says:

        Let me add to the chorus of what would have happened if the victim were white and Zimmerman the defendant in such a case.

        Not only would the kid be attacked, but we would be hearing a great deal about the Latinos and how illegal immigrants are a problem. The way race works in the U.S. is insidious.

        While for the purposes of this case, white people view Zimmerman, they would suddenly be very clear about his ethnicity (race) were the kid white.

        In short, any difference that could be used to demonize the killer along the lines of “he’s one of the brown people” would be used.

        This insidiousness is all around us, and we are touched by it every day. The only way to even have a chance of overcoming it is to realize that we are all infected by it.

        Look at how in the Sikh shooting case, they are doing everything possible to call a duck, not a duck. He was a drunk. His motives are unknown. Days later, after reports about his connections to skin heads and other hate movements. The anything-but race argument was still preventing an honest discussion of race.

        And there in lies the problem. We can not deal with race in this country or ethnicity. So we hide, and we pretend that its something other than race.

        I honestly do not mean to attack people here. But, the idea that you can type you were not viewing this case through racist perspectives when you are believing such an outlandish story just angers me. Its such a lack of real introspection. The type of introspection that is the very start of trying to even come close to dealing with the issues of race.

        I am not, once again, saying that you can’t find that the prosecution has its burden, and that it hasn’t met its burden for other reasons out side of Zimmerman’s story.

        However, on the Zimmerman’s story alone, anyone who say they have their doubts, is a stone cold racist, whether you are willing to deal with your issue son the subject or not.

    • George Smiley says:

      It’s pretty simple here. George Zimmerman is a bad person. His friends are bad. His family is bad. His attorney is bad. His supporters are bad. It’s really that simple it seems to me.

      • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

        LOL! Present some good things and we’ll consider them. It’s hard to defend a sociopath who killed a young unarmed man.


      • I recently came across a website called “the smoking gun” and all I can say is WOW! Those folks are beating people up with their bible about killing vs murder. It was the ugliest website I’ve seen thus far. Trayvon in their sick mind was an adult and a criminal thug, very deserving of what he got.
        It was as if they were murdering Trayvon over and over again.
        Very sad.

      • Case#1 says:

        Ah, yes, the “You are as bad as they are argument.”

        Its actually a pretty famous one:


        For the record, even if what you were saying is true, it’s not relevant to whether or not you get to use racist views to justify believing an outlandish account of what happened that night between Zimmerman and TM.

        All you are doing here is the typical circling of the wagons, which is really what this all about.

        “Whiteness” has been attacked. Let’s circle the wagons.”

        As I mentioned above, if this had been a white kid killed, I fully believe Zimmerman’s ethnicity (which here does not matter because he has become a symbol of racialized spaces where blacks better not tread) w ould suddenly be an issue over illegals, etc.

      • George Smiley says:

        This site represents one extreme, but the other sites represent other extremes that aren’t much better. What actually happened is somewhere in between. At worst, Zimmerman may have over-reacted in a self-defense situation. It may not have gone down exactly like he said it did, but it sure as hell didn’t go down like Crump said it did.

        • We are not one “extreme” as you put it.

          We are a mix of conservatives, liberals and 2nd Amendment supporters. We have based our opinions on the forensics and Zimmerman’s lies and inconsistent statements.

          Our opinions are evidence-based and neither left nor right.

          You appear to be blowing smoke because I have yet to see you discuss any of the evidence.

          No one here is going to respect and listen to what you say, if you do not know and discuss the evidence.

          Your empty words about extremes versus the middle of the road is nonsensical bullshit and shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

          Go blow your smoke somewhere else.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Cielo – It goes further than that. Yes, it is hard to defend someone who has killed an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business. But, it is even HARDER defending someone who believes he needs no defending!!!!!

      • ks says:

        No George Smiley, what’s pretty simple is your argument via exaggeration tactic.

      • George Smiley says:

        “We are a mix of conservatives, liberals and 2nd Amendment supporters. We have based our opinions on the forensics and Zimmerman’s lies and inconsistent statements.”
        Conservatives? Really? Can we have a show of hands for all of the conservatives in here? Who here will be voting for Romney, for example?

        “You appear to be blowing smoke because I have yet to see you discuss any of the evidence.”
        That’s because I’ve been discussing the law.

        “No one here is going to respect and listen to what you say…”
        Very few will, I agree. But there are some that will.

        “Your empty words about extremes versus the middle of the road is nonsensical bullshit and shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Go blow your smoke somewhere else.”

        You don’t care to be characterized as having extreme views. Nevertheless, that’s how I would personally characterize them.

      • Case#1 says:

        There have been a couple of conservatives here, or at least links to conservatives here. One of which included a guy discussing that he did not believe Zimmerman because of the ballistics. That the range of elbow motion considering the restrictiond of how Zimmmerman claimed he feared for his life was not possible if he on the ground as he claimed with Martin on top of him. I admit I did not understand all of analysis. He was discussing it from technical points because, I believe, he was an engineer, and a gun enthusiast. He included images to help.

        The basic thrust was that the shot GZ claimed to have made would have been near impossible. I don’t know if they posted specifically here because I don’t pay that close attention and frankly don’t care. The rightness of the facts here are not dependent on a count of how many liberals or conservatives there are who agree. THis is not the US press where “objectivity” is determined by the he said-she said Kerry’esque swift boating approach. It is one where you make the argument, and if its something that’s plausible it can have merit.

        \For example, my arguments over race come from looking at historical data, the present attitudes, and the outlandish story that people are willing to believe from GZ. Its a reasonable inference based on a pattern in our society.

        On the other hand, so far all you have offered is the usual “let’s try to get them on the defensive” approach involving just accusation rather than analysis. So, let’s return to the case- what about the story doesn’t seem outlandish to you? Do you truly believe a kid that age would have been spouting language that kids that age don’t use today? What about the physical nature of how the crime occurred or the injuries? Nothing about any of that strikes you as outlandish? I mean- even Talk Left, which supports Zimmerman, has posters saying that his story sounds like an exaggeration. They explain it away as he had to do so to prove his innocence. At least that admits the story is an exaggeration. THe bigotry part is where you don’t even admit the story as it is outlandish.

      • Case#1 says:

        By the way, you don’t seem capable of understanding that it doesn’t matter how you characterize views.

        The others- because they are likely Liberals- feel a need to play this game with you of whether they are extreme or not.

        It doesn’t matter whether views are seen as extreme or not extreme.

        What matters is if the view is correct.

        Others may feel the need to defend themselves based on how you characterize their views. I do not.

        I don’t care how you see my views. They are the right views to take given the evidence and logical inferences that can be made from them.

        If you cannot discuss the substance of those views, which apparently you can’t, you resort to the trick of pushing middle class buttons: “Oh you aren’t reasonable because your views are extreme.” The only extreme view is the one that allows a kid to be dead not because the prosecution has failed to prove the case (which would be a fair argument) but because you choose to believe an outlandish story.

        I will tell you something: The same way I don’t believe the story of OJ Simpson, and felt the jury nullified in that case, is the same way I will believe that here. The evidence, if one is thinking rationally, comes down to believing the defendant after he pursued this kid. The defendant, whether because he felt he must present an outlandish case to win or because he is guilty, choose to lie, and has continued to bring his character into question with his behavior in pre-trial activities. Thus, I don’t believe him, and I am left with the evidence at hand.

        The “extermism” is looking at the set up facts and asking are they consistent with story being offered by Zimmerman. That’s either going to be proven right or wrong, and that isn’t a matter of how your character people here. Its just a deflection to even go there. However, the issue of racial views, if you don’t admit racism plays a role in how you view an outlandish story as credible on its face without making the talk left exception that he had his reasons other than guilt- that’s where you cease to be rational to me. What else explain it? Other than denial- explain how someone can believe it.

  50. Robert says:

    Two sides. The thing is, I have seen CCW permit carriers who concede that Zimmerman should have never taken the course of action he did. This group sees him as an idiot.

    But I agree with Prof. Leatherman. Who supports an adult who shoots an unarmed kid who is just walking?

    Also anyone know how I can change me name? I am Porky usually 🙂

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Hi my friend.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      You guys are wrong. Anything Mr. O’Mara says during the course of representation may be used against Mr. Zimmerman.

      For a great many reasons, prosecutors don’t like to go after stupid statements made by defense attorneys, so you’re unlikely to see this particular statement come back to bite Mr. Zimmerman’s tuchis. But unlikely isn’t the same thing as won’t.

    • Tzar says:

      “Who supports an adult who shoots an unarmed kid who is just walking?”

      Survey says!?! [“crazy people”]
      *#1 answer*

      *cue music* ♪♫

      • bmh says:

        The type of IDIOTS that would support GZ for murdering an innocent 17 year old are either- ignorant, racist , have like minds or all of the above! That simple….. oh, and of course his family and friends!

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        I think most of the GZ supporters are not GZ supporters at all. I also think MOM HAD to hold a press conference. He knows SYG does not apply. But, he had to tell the ignorant that what he is going after is just as good, so don’t worry. GZ supporters don’t really care about GZ or TM. GZ supporters do not want any gun laws reigned in as a result of this case. His supporters are the fanatical SYG folk. Sorry, those are the only ones he has left. The smart ones never gave money. The rest are dropping like flies. What he has left are the ones who only read the headlines or watch the news after dinner and don’t bother checking anything else out. I think this is also why he would speak at the NRA meeting.

    • Mike S says:

      I’ve seen people on the more responsible CCW & 2nd amendment rights forums curse Zimmerman’s name because he did everything you’re NOT supposed to do, and in doing so is giving anti-gun advocates ammunition (if you’ll pardon the pun) to make the case against CCW permits. Zimmerman (and some other stereotypes) are what people worry about with concealed carry permits.

      They curse Zimmerman’s name for good reason, but at the same time I think they need to tighten up CCW A LOT. Rifles are one thing; concealed hand guns are something else entirely. They let too many bozos and yahoos walk around armed in some states, and it leads to tragedies like this. From my point of view CCW should be draconian in its requirements.

      • George Smiley says:

        This is partly because, like many people, they do not fully understand the facts of the case. Many are convinced that Zimmerman was chasing Trayvon, hence their criticism of his actions.

        • Nonsense. I know the facts of this case and George Zimmerman certainly hunted down Trayvon Martin and executed him.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          The evidence indicates that GZ chased Martin. Only Zimmerman’s STORY says he didn’t. Have you been keeping up with the forensic evidence? There is no way Martin would have acted as he did, but Zimmerman’s supporters buy it all, hook, line and sinker.


      • George Smiley says:

        That’s your opinion. I suspect the defense will argue otherwise.

      • ks says:

        @George Smiley,

        Semantics are fun, huh? Trying to trun the GZ following TM into “was chasing him” in order to knock down the latter.

  51. aussie says:

    Hi Cherokee
    yes it was odd, but I believe the attorney’s comments to the media don’t get to count as evidence.

    If he’s not going for SYG that means

    * the SYG supporters will be lost as backers

    * he has decided the evidence shows/the court may see it as, that GZ WAS THE AGGRESSOR.

    That is a huge concession.

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Yes, I agree Aussie, what O’Mara says is not evidence and cannot be used against GZ in court – but it is an incredibly stupid thing to say when you are trying to claim that your client was attempt to defend himself – to me, that statement was just a tad better than having come right out and said, “my client is guilty.” LOL

    • George Smiley says:

      This is one of the reasons he called the press conference I imagine. People have completely misunderstood how SYG applies. MOM was absolutely NOT conceding that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He wasn’t “conceding” ANYthing.

      The SYG law basically did two things.

      1. It eliminated the duty to retreat.
      2. It created hearings for civil and criminal immunity in self-defense situations.

      The 1st part does not apply because MOM argues, GZ was on his back and unable to retreat- so the SYG component isn’t necessary.

      This component of SYG- removing the duty to retreat- is irrelevant in this case, he argues, because GZ was UNABLE to retreat anyway.

      The pre-trial criminal and civil immunity hearing created by the SYG law is the part of SYG that applies. People get this confused constantly, especially the media, but even attorneys.

      • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

        But you could argue, and should, the duty to retreat was present multiple times BEFORE any contact was actually made. Since GZ pushed and pushed the issue, he basically maintained being the aggressor. I don’t think he could use SYG because of that.


      • You said,

        “The 1st part does not apply because MOM argues, GZ was on his back and unable to retreat- so the SYG component isn’t necessary.”

        He wasn’t on his back when he fired the fatal shot. The photograph of the back of his head and the forensics establish that.

      • George Smiley says:

        If he argues traditional self-defense, then it doesn’t matter if GZ provoked the encounter. All he has to prove is that he tried to retreat but was unable to.

        If he argues SYG, then it doesn’t matter if he was able to retreat. But then he has to prove that GZ did not provoke the encounter.

        MOM believes it will be easier, based on the available evidence at this point, to prove that Zimmerman was unable to retreat than it will be to prove that Zimmerman did not provoke the encounter.

        But he is not conceding that SYG would not *also* apply. He will surely make the secondary argument that, should the court find that GZ could have retreated, that the SYG law still would have given him the right to defend himself, and then hope the judge finds that Zimmerman proved that he didn’t provoke the encounter.

        MOM will argue that Zimmerman was justified under either traditional self-defense *or* SYG, but he is going to approach it as a case of traditional self-defense, because he thinks it will be easier to prove.

        SYG did two things:
        1. Eliminated the Duty to Retreat
        2. Created a pre-trial hearing for immunity from criminal and civil liability that applies to all self-defense situations (but is often confusingly called a “SYG hearing”.)

        Gun control advocates and the media have often emphasized that part 1. will be exceptionally relevant when, in fact, it may very well end up being completely irrelevant in this case. I think this was the point MOM was trying to make.

        • You said,

          “If he argues traditional self-defense, then it doesn’t matter if GZ provoked the encounter. All he has to prove is that he tried to retreat but was unable to.”

          Your interpretation is not correct because an aggressor cannot claim self-defense under traditional self-defense law.

          The SYG law changed traditional self-defense law by eliminating the duty to retreat.

          The SYG law did not affect the aggressor exemption.

          Under both traditional self-defense law and SYG, an aggressor cannot claim self-defense.

          There is only one exception. If the person attacked responds with deadly force that is unreasonable and unnecessary to defend himself against the aggressor, the aggressor can defend himself using deadly force, but only if he first attempts to withdraw from the encounter and communicates his desire to withdraw to the person attacking him.

          The SYG law does not apply to Zimmerman because the evidence shows that he followed, confronted and attempted to detain Martin. That makes him the aggressor and the only question left to argue about is whether his conduct fits within the narrow exception.

          It does not because there is no evidence that Martin used or attempted to use deadly force and Zimmerman has admitted to controlling Martin’s movements by placing him in a wrist lock at one point, grabbing Martin’s sweatshirt with his left hand to prevent him from getting away, pulling his gun, extending his arm, aiming and firing his gun into Martin’s chest.

          That is not self-defense under SYG or traditional self-defense law.

          Not. Even. Close.

          It was an execution because he lost his temper when Martin dared to question his authority and fought back in an effort to escape when Zimmerman attempted to restrain him.

      • George Smiley says:

        “Your interpretation is not correct because an aggressor cannot claim self-defense under traditional self-defense law.”
        Yes they can, so long as, like you said:
        “…he first attempts to withdraw from the encounter and communicates his desire to withdraw to the person attacking him.”
        The defense will argue that GZ was screaming for help (a clear communication of his desire to withdraw) and that he attempted to withdraw but Martin prevented him from doing so.

        I realize that you disagree, but this is what the defense will argue.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          Yes the defense WILL argue that, but the EVIDENCE of the shot/shirt trajectory show that GZ was pulling down the shirt and keeping Martin in place while he aimed and shot. There’s the discrepency between what GZ SAYS and what the EVIDENCE indicates actually happened. GZ has multiple opportunities to retreat and yet refused to do so. To claim at the last minute to be “in fear for his life” is bogus. It didn’t work for Rodriguez in Houston, TX and it won’t work for GZ in Florida.


        • The defense argument will fail.

          I say this because of this tape that presents a comparison of the terrified scream in the background of the 911 call with Zimmerman’s voice sample that he voluntarily gave to the cops.

          BTW, take a look at Zimmerman’s nose injury in the photo at the link.

          That was taken in the police station after the shooting.

          That ain’t no broken nose.

  52. CherokeeNative says:

    Correct me if I am wrong here Professor, but wasn’t that a terribly stupid thing for O’Mara to say (pharaphrasing): “I think the facts suggest in this case that what probably happened was that my client was reacting to having his nose broken.”

    To me, that sounds like O’Mara is saying his client lost control or became enraged and that is why he shot Trayvon.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Exactly! This guy knowns his client is “Guilty” And his wife “Shel” “Lie” is also guilty.. Her name has “lie” in it… OOPS!

    • I thought at the time he said that that he would regret it after he realized that he forgot to add the headbanger’s ball. Losing your temper and killing because someone you attacked without provocation and they bumped you in the nose is not justifiable self-defense.

      And even if TM went psycho as GZ claims and punched him in the nose, he still would not be justified in using deadly force.

      MOM also appears to have conceded that SYG does not apply.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        “MOM also appears to have conceded that SYG does not apply.”

        What do you think MOM means? Looks to me as though he’s going to argue 776.012 instead of 776.013(3) which appears to someone with no experience in FL law as a distinction without a difference. Same procedures, same rights, same burdens, same definitions…

        Maybe he’s got some appellate law on .012 or a swell jury instruction, or a Get Out of Murder Free card he got from Cot, Shower, and Beyond which has been sitting in his drawer for awhile.

        Your thoughts? Know anyone competent in Florida you can ask?

        No matter which statute he wants as a self haven, his problems are 776.041(2), Mixon v. State 59 So.2d 38 (1952) and Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (2011). Even though it’s more than 60 years old, Mixon seems to be the last word on “provocation;” is on all four corners; and should be a formidable obstacle if this sideshow ever goes appellate.

      • princss6 says:

        O’Mara conceded that in the do-over bond hearing. My ears perked up when he did. At that point, I knew they would not argue SYG. Please don’t make me go back and listen to it to prove it lol

      • George Smiley says:

        He was absolutely not conceding that SYG didn’t apply in the way you have suggested. He said SYG doesn’t apply because SYG is about not needing to exercising an ability to retreat. He is arguing that ZImmerman didn’t have that ability, so it’s not really SYG.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Right, so they have moved away from the head being repeatedly bashed? Resting on the “broken nose” is ridiculous as well. He really should stop talking and continue going through the process. This seems to be common sense 101.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          Well the “broken” part was never verified. Bruised maybe, but not broken.


      • Rachael says:

        Is he conceding that SYG does not apply, or is he acknowledging that he knew it wouldn’t fly?

      • Rachael says:

        I guess I just don’t understand why it applied last week when he filed for it but doesn’t now. I just wondered if he thought he couldn’t win rather than it not applying.

        Thanks for your response.

  53. Animaljunkie says:

    I call it clutching at straws & I’m positive Zimmerman has had a hand in this absurd flip flop from SYG to a Self Defence plea. Either way, he’s got to take the stand to substantiate it, so even before the hearing, it’s going to be a losing cause. GZ is a complete & utter sociopath. For your information, no one has ever (so far) rehabilitated a sociopath, so it would be safer for everyone if he gets life.

    • lynp says:

      If you read the traits of a Sociopath, included are things like charming, glib, good at a con. George Zimmerman has not a lick of glib, charm or a con such as Ted Bundy. George is not mentally ill. Holmes and Laughner are mentally ill. George is dumb.

      • Cielo says:

        Like I mentioned before, the cousin who accused him of molesting her said he IS charming, to the point where grown ups loved him and her own father said he was the son he never had. He’ s got enough charm to get his wife to lie for him.

        Sent from my iPod

        On Aug 13, 2012,

      • princss6 says:

        Don’t forget the co-worker he harassed that said GZ made him start doubting he was even harassed. He is a control freak and manipulator and liar. And when he uses that soft voice and that No, sir, Yes, sir BS – it is all a facade.

      • julia says:

        Sociopaths lack a sense of moral responsibility and have no social conscience.They persistantly violate the rights of others and feel no remorse.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          Julia~ Sounds like GZ all over. On SH he said he had no regrets, and supposedly he said “Sorry” and walked away when confronted with his sexual molestation of his cousin. NO conscience at all.


      • Animaljunkie says:

        You’re permitted your own opinion, but I’ve completed quite a bit of research on sociopathy and as with everything, there is a spectrum of this disorder for which GZ might be placed lower in the scale than Ted Bundy and his ilk. Nevertheless, even though nature (genetics) has dealt GZ a cruel hand, nature (environmental influences) has played a part in triggering his disorder i.e. his childhood abuse by his mother, the molestation of his cousin/s, his behaviour at work/home etc. Make no mistake, observing his behaviour closely whilst in that first interview, then subsequent interviews, plus all the other insurmountable evidence against him, I truly believe he is a sociopath and I don’t make such conclusions lightly, I assure you.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          The abuse and consequences of the abuse of GZ by his mother and his molesting his cousin are both allegations and are not evidence. His mental disorder(s) have yet to have been proven. Even his father said he knows of no mental issues and I interpret that to mean he knows of no ADHD or ADD or PTSD or whatever else GZ claims.

      • Animaljunkie says:

        In reply to Sandra E. Graham’s comments:

        “The abuse and consequences of the abuse of GZ by his mother and his molesting his cousin are both allegations and are not evidence”.

        If you think, for one minute, anyone would submit such ‘allegations’ freely without believing them then I’m surprised. No one would admit they were abused by their mother, especially a man AND no woman, so obviously distressed by her experiences, would submit such either. Your invalidation, especially of GZ’s cousin’s testimony, is truly tantamount to mental abuse.

        “His mental disorder(s) have yet to have been proven. Even his father said he knows of no mental issues and I interpret that to mean he knows of no ADHD or ADD or PTSD or whatever else GZ claims”.

        Firstly, he’s on medication for ADHD AND he sees a psychotherapist regularly, does that help your incredulity? Secondly, GZ and his parents have been estranged for years, therefore how on earth would his father know AND do you truly think he’d admit to them, perhaps hampering his defence if he did?

        So, in conclusion, I believe your arguments are incorrect; but, those are just my opinions and like everybody else, I’m permitted to have them.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Animaljunkie: I don’t know if your comment was directed toward me. But, GZ has said he had ADHD, is seeing a psychologist, may have PTSD, and, in his good friends statement says GZ was abused by his mother. Not one of GZs or his friends, cousins claims have been substantiated. However, they have all been reported by GZ himself, his friend, and cousin.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Animaljunkie: Please refer to the statement made by Mark Osterman entered in evidence. IMO, Osterman may have been told about the child abuse by George himself because he did not know GZ as a child. So, what is it you are telling me. These are not my allegations. Each are in evidence but unproven.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          According to evidence – although unproven, George was not estranged from his family, Animaljunkie.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      How would anyone know whether a sociopath had ever been rehabilitated.

      • Animaljunkie says:

        Specialists in their field have conducted longitudinal SCIENTIFIC research and have published their work in peer reviewed publications, that’s how. Patients are resistant to any treatment available or simply THEY don’t believe there’s anything wrong with them, so they don’t accept such treatments consciously or sub-consciously. Either way, those that have been studied (mostly prisoners) are just too dangerous to release into the community, since they will just recommit their crime. Unfortunately, most dangerous sociopaths are discovered AFTER the crime. You might be surprised to know that there is also such a disorder as workplace sociopaths, so unknowingly, you might have or will work with one in your lifetime; they are so devious as to make everyone like and respect them, but in the real world they are not very productive in their working habits.

  54. Two sides to a story says:

    Hi Mr, Leatherman – I’m not sure I’d go as far to say that ALL GZ supporters are racists – there seem to be quite a few CCW permit carriers in the mix who love their guns and like American’s permissive self-defense laws.

    Hopefully most of these are far more responsible than GZ, though there are certainly a few fearful and militant ones who are likely to get themselves into a pickle in the future, judging by some of the comments made at GZLC on FB.

    But it’s true that the press conference was a yawn, though revealing in many ways. You notice that O’Mara emphasized the FL self-defense statute over SYG many times – and in a surprise move (to me) he emphasized GZs (supposedly) broken nose and made no mention at all of the head wounds supposedly acquired by TM bashing GZ’s head on concrete, which used to be a regularly recited mantra by GZ supporters, and which we’ve suspected here may have been caused by TM striking GZ with his cell phone in hand, or by GZ falling backwards and striking his head on something during the alleged punch to the nose.

    What I don’t like at all about this case being aired in public is the constant repetition by the defense of things that may not be true or truth stretched, as though to mesmerize the court and public with their PR. It’s a sad state of affairs when justice can be manipulated in this fashion, though FL law certainly facilitates this with their “sunshine law.” I suppose it’s also a natural reaction to counter pro-prosecution speculation like our own . . .

    • Professor Leatherman~~I would be interested to know how you would go about defending Zimmerman. Maybe you would refuse to be his counsel so what if you were a public defender and ended up trying to defend him? Would you have him cop a plea for a lesser charge of manslaughter? I have never been able to speak with a lawyer as yourself, one on one and pro bono to boot. lol

    • lynp says:

      I was standing IN, sitting IN, walking IN, marching IN, rallying IN for Civil Rights many years ago. I am not a racist. I also donated $25 to Zimmerman not because I am stupid but because I believe in Justice, the right of the accussed to get a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven quilty. Even George Zimmerman has his civil rights inspite of being a minority hispanic. Those 3 boys who died in the Struggle wanted everyone to be treated per the Constitution as do many of us who want a fair and legal trial.

      • princss6 says:

        Bravo – you pulled off a lot of posturing without once mentioning the victim, Trayvon.

        In a book by Kozol, an inner city principal had this to say to all those who “marched for Civil Rights,” Don’t tell me what bridge you were on 50 years ago, tell me where you are standing now vis-a-vis the Civil Rights of young black men.

      • Tzar says:

        “I am not a racist. I also donated $25 to Zimmerman not because I am stupid but because I believe in Justice”

        I think I am going to have to just agree to disagree on this one. lol.

        “the right of the accussed to get a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven quilty”

        While Trayvon’s parents suffer the loss of their innocent child, Zimmerman currently sits free, financially padded and almost managed to get a month of luxury hotel vacationing from Barbara Walters; I think he is getting way more than the innocent until proven guilty treatment, wouldn’t you agree?

      • Karma says:

        Keep donating you racist.

      • Mike S says:

        I think Prof. Leatherman went overboard saying anyone who supports Zimmerman’s version of events is racist. I don’t believe Zimmerman’s story, but at the same time I’m not at all convinced he’s racist, and I know many people who are not racists who do believe him and want to support him, if only to affirm 2nd amendment rights.

        I think Zimmerman did profile Martin, but only to the degree that he probably thought he was a local gang member. Perhaps that’s a fine line and people believe “profiling = racism”, but I think it’s more complex than that.

        That said I don’t see how ever giving George money was doing anything for justice. George sure didn’t see it that way – he spent tens of thousands paying off his bills and is now probably throwing $100K+ on needless security to feed his paranoia.

        • I didn’t say anything about Zimmerman except that he’s a liar.

          I said anyone who believes his story is racist.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          Affirming 2nd amendment rights should have NOTHING to do with killing an unarmed person , of any age, without reason or provocation. IF that is the excuse they give you, I wouldn’t believe it. NO ONE is suggesting making guns illegal or suspending SYG.


      • Mike S says:

        @ Prof Leatherman
        You’re right, I misread your post the first time around, I think I read it too fast and filled in some blanks that didn’t exist.

        I still don’t agree that everyone who buys into the Zimmerman story is racist, but I did completely blow it in how you were portraying Zimmerman. Apologies on the gaffe on my end.

      • Rachael says:

        George Zimmerman had as much right to a fair trial as anyone could expect. Now he will only have as fair of one as possible for someone who publically impeached himself on more than one occasion. If he is not able to obtain a fair trial, he has only himself to blame for not acknowledging his right to remain silent.

      • I wish George Zimmerman had considered Trayvon Martin to be innocent until proven guilty. If GZ had granted TM the same consideration you wish him to be given, he wouldn’t be going to court in the future on 2nd degree murder charges. He had two opportunities to introduce himself as a member of the Neighborhood Watch program, instead, he decided he was guilty and continued to do so even as he wrote up his statement after shooting him, referring to him as the “subject” as if he was a member of law enforcement. GZ has only himself to blame for his actions. I haven’t heard anyone mention GZ’s being a minority as being a factor in this case. However, after listening to Taafe on TV, I know the fact that TM was black had a great deal to do with GZ’s attitude towards him.

        GZ was the judge, jury and executioner IMO when it came to TM, he needs to be held accountable for his actions.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        I believe all the good citizens in the State of Florida believe on Justice, the right of the accused to get a fair trial, and innocent until proven guilty. The fund is not set up for that. The fund is set up to pay GZs expenses. The contributors are paying for his security, food, and housing. Knowing this, the State of Florida will provide GZ what the fund is having trouble accomplishing. A jail provides the finest security, 3 square meals a day and a warm bed to have a peaceful night;s sleep.

        MOM still wants to bring up the hardships GZ is having to endure and thinks we all want him to feel safe (and we do). It is just that GZ doesn’t like what the non-contributors have to offer.

      • TruthBTold says:

        I also donated $25 to Zimmerman not because I am stupid

        LOL @ your choice of words. Anyway, how is your donation preventing GZ from getting a fair trial? Are you doing anything else in this area of justice with respect to ensuring others are getting a fair trial and are considered innocent until proven guilty? Or how about donating to the Innocence Project where they tirelessly advocate and help exonerate those wrongfully convicted.

        “Even George Zimmerman has his civil rights inspite of being a minority”

        *quizzical look*

        “Those 3 boys who died in the Struggle wanted everyone to be treated per the Constitution as do many of us who want a fair and legal trial.”


      • ks says:

        I’m sorry but that’s absurd. Please explain EXACTLY how GZ is NOT getting a fair trial or how his civil rights are being violated or how he’s not being considered innocent until proven guilty?

        Uh huh.

        GZ is getting a much fairer shake than your average Murder 2 defendant. The idea that he’s not is ridiculous considering that he’s STILL out on bail after being caught in an elborate and transparent scheme to lie to the court about his finances.

        In terms of your donation, I wouldn’t say you are stupid. Gullible is a more appropriate word. I think the majority of the donations went to GZ’s personal expenses. O’Mara hasn’t gotten paid a dime.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          I suspect that if anyone feels that GZ isn’t getting a fair trial, they should blame the “Sunshine Law” for allowing so much evidence to be made public. In a high profile case such as this one, people from all backgrounds are taking an active interest in reading, discussing and rebutting what information the COURTS have made public. GZ is LUCKY that he got bail at all. Even with his “restrictions” he has far more freedom than a jail inmate.


          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            I’d like to add the following: GZs mouth is also to blame. He went on a Major News Network to tell his story to many that had never heard his name prior to the broadcast. I would think some would think the answers to killing an unarmed teenager were somewhat callous, including some of his supporters.

      • longtimegeek says:

        One of the handful of people who have been making the You Tube videos that we’ve been watching donated $10 to GZ early on. After more facts came out, he changed his position and posted damaging videos.

        • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

          If one is honest, you can’t argue with the forensic facts. He saw his error after doing some critical thinking. I respect a person who looks for facts in spite of an early opinion.


  55. Robert says:

    Prof. Let me ask you this. Do you think that the rest of the Seminole County Judges are looking at the way O’Mara has conducted himself during this case?

    Whether provable or not, the whole deal where Zimmerman suggests that O’Mara knew about the 37k just has to be in the back of the minds of these Judges. Then, we have the pandering.

    I am thinking that it may not matter much which Judge finally hears this. They may have created such a negative impression among all of the Judges that they simply will not be able to get over the credibility hump at SYG. I dare say, the Attorney is creating a credibility issue as well, though not the extent that Zimmerman has.

    • I think it’s extremely unwise to piss off a judge and now he has managed to piss off all of the judges that sit on the Seminole County Circuit Court.

      I believe this strategy deserves serious consideration for a Darwin Award.

    • Exactly! It’s not as if a new judge is not aware of GZ’s past actions. A new judge, if granted, could possibly be much more inclined to look at things with greater scrutiny and a biased eye due to O’Mara’s request.

    • Professor Leatherman~~with all due respect to you and your contributors, I witnessed some good lawyering on the part of O’Mara today. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder and I will be the last person to stick up for him or donate any monies to his fund.

      O’Mara is just doing his job to the best of his ability with what he has to work with. I tend to view this case from the legal aspects and observe what the state and defense put forward. After all, isn’t a trial a contest of lawyers and not who is guilty or not guilty?

      I will probably get flack for my comments so I may stay sit on the fence and just read for the time being. MSF

      • TruthBTold says:

        Ah foooey, you’re just bias. You’ve been following him for 3 years and spoke highly of his integrity yada yada yada in the other thread LOL. Just playful jabs with ya MSF.

      • I am not going to give you any flack because you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

        I don’t doubt O’Mara is doing what he thinks is best, but I don’t agree with his strategy of playing the race and fear cards. I think it’s backfiring badly and will inevitably hurt his client even though his client wants him to keep doing it.

        I think more and more people are offended by this pitch.

        I know I would never do this, if I were representing GZ.

        I would be keeping my mouth shut and insisting my client do the same.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions, but I would hardly call what O’Mara has been doing as “good lawyering.” He has played the race card and is relying upon racists to monetarily support his client and eventually pay his fees. I believe his pandering to the public for funds while saying, “if you would have done what GZ did,” while not illegal, is about as unethical as an attorney can be. I also see no reason for calling these continued press conferences merely because he is filing a document with the court. O’Mara is trolling for dollars and attempting to taint the jury pool while he is at it. JMHO.

        • Cielo says:

          Do you ever wonder what the ‘po’ folks do when faced with a serious crime and can barely afford a lawyer? How low to beg on TV for “food and shelter.”. Time to join the masses George! Freedom ain’t free when charged with murder.

      • Tzar says:

        Nice try O’Mara

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        He came across well to me.

    • TruthBTold says:

      Thanks MSF. Daralene Jones asked a good question. Someone should have brought up what we are discussing, the press conferences and money issues. Ha, ha. I am confused now though, MOM stated that he was going to try and get the case thrown out on traditional self-defense as opposed to under the SYG statute. I thought he filed to have an SYG hearing? Unsure about FL, but with regular self-defense, doesn’t one have to meet force with like force? What was GZ doing with his hands during that time prior to gaining wrist control? *sigh*

    • Frank Wilcox says:

      Thanks for the link.

  56. MichelleO says:

    PROFESSOR: I would like your opinion of why the two of them have not been brought up on perjury charges. They committed perjury but there doesn’t seem to be any court dates for this offense; and the judge released The Fool (sorry, but this is how I see him) even though he stated that he knew what they were up to in their jailhouse conversations.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Mrs. Zimmerman is charged with perjury based on testimony given during Mr. Zimmerman’s first bail hearing. Her trial is not yet scheduled, but most likely will be at the docket sounding scheduled for Sept. 19.

      Defendants are rarely prosecuted for perjury. Even more rarely if they’re convicted.

    • Shellie was charged with perjury and I believe she will be assigned a trial date at a hearing on September 19.

      I think the two main reasons the prosecutors haven’t charged him is (1) they already have a pending murder charge against him that they believe they can prove and view as more important and (2) he did not actually lie under oath about the money in the Paypal account.

      He just sat there “like a potted plant” (Judge Lester’s words) and watched her commit perjury by denying any knowledge about the money.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        Dear Professor, in the end do you feel justice will be served for Trayvon Martin? Will O’Mara get this judge removed? Looking at the evidence so far… the games this O’Mara group plays is just shocking… Your thoughts..

  57. MichelleO says:

    Bonnie and Clyde are running out of money. Don’t you feel sorry for ’em?

  58. MichelleO says:

    WHOOO! Well, get down, Professor Leatherman! Show ’em how you really feel…..

  59. Like the Good Prof said, just trying to rake in more money because the cupboard is bare.

    I don’t see the Appeals court doing anything. Judge Lester has been recognized by his peers as being very professional. You can do a whole hell of lot worse than Judge Lester.

    • Brown says:

      Now it looks like begging. I expected better from O’mara. Have you no decency, Man!

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Cielo Perdomo – I am bumping my comment over from the prior article because I posted it unaware of this new article. But I agree:

      Shall we take wagers on whether O’Mara’s Writ will be summarily denied without the COA seeking further briefing? LOL As I see it, if the COA takes this Writ up for consideration, it will be to clarify Judge Lester’s confusion contained in his footnote regarding whether or not O’Mara’s motion to recuse should be looked at as his first or second motion – Otherise, it will be summarily denied. JMHO

    • Considering Judge Lester gave him a second chance at bail and set an amount that he knew they had the money to cover, it’s difficult to keep up the “Lester has it in for GZ” nonsense. He could have kept GZ in jail until trial but didn’t do it despite the lies of GZ & his wife. He could have set a much higher bail that would have been difficult for GZ to come up with in order to get released but he knew what was available and kept it at an amount he knew they could supply. O’Mara may be doing this only at his client’s request or he could be thinking this is the best thing to do for him. He’s pushing the limit IMO.

  60. TruthBTold says:

    What can one say to this? Preach Professor.

  61. Brown says:

    I don’t know what O’mara is thinking, but this song and dance is getting old.

    • TruthBTold says:


      It truly is old and boring. Why don’t MOM focus on just doing his job and stop jumping up in front of cameras with this foolery? Is it a Florida thing because the prior “legal advisers” held a press conference to announce they were no longer “representing” GZ. They couldn’t get in touch with him yada yada yada. This went on for about 45+ minutes or so. Bizarre.

      • Brown says:

        High profile case, got to keep the dwindling dollars coming in. Funny I don’t hear how much they are raking in anymore. : ^ )

        • TruthBTold says:

          Ha! The well has run pretty dry. The SH interview didn’t really generate the funds they were hoping for. Out of all the legitimate causes, concerns, charities in the world, people actually donated to this. Wow.

          • Brown says:

            IMO, after the SH interview, GZ and maybe O’mara thought, ok first interview we will rake in the dollars. But when he said God’s plan, and no regrets, I don’t think that sat well even with his supporters.

      • aussie says:

        I saw it live, he muttered something about not keeping a close eye but it’s only been about another $50,000 and poor G is running short of money for FOOD and SHELTER (brief turn of head and soulful gaze directly into camera 3).

        Also wants GZ allowed out of Seminole because it’s the most dangerous and therefore expensive place for him to live, out of of state “would be good”.

        NEWSFLASH: cheapest and safest place for someone facing murder 2 is in JAIL.

      • Dennis says:

        I agree. It is sad that so many people are quick to give a murderer money yet those same people have probably never donated to a legitimate charity that helps children in impoverished countries. Remember after the Casey Anthony trial her degenerate parents started a fundraiser and it was shut down because those pieces of crap were paying themselves over 80% salary from the donations. I already didn’t have any respect for them after they helped get their monster of a daughter acquitted, but the stealing money from honest thoughtful people that were handing them money to do some good in the world really sealed it for me.

  62. boar_d_laze says:

    Well, yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. And… wait for it… yes.

  63. CherokeeNative says:

    Hear ye, hear ye Professor. Blunt and to the 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: