Featuring: Piranha Mom’s New Theory About Defendant’s Motive for Killing Trayvon

January 8, 2013

Piranha Mom is in the house tonight with a new theory regarding the defendant’s possible motive for killing Trayvon Martin.

I find it quite intriguing and it fits well with another theory presented here that the defendant was using Neighborhood Watch as a cover for a burglary ring.

This is her comment:

For the Open Thread (and discussion):

A Class Report on MOTIVE by PiranhaMom

Yes, I’m among the very few who don’t think that Zimmerman set out on that rainy night in the interest of killing a Black youth out of racist hate, or perversion, or for “the thrill of the kill.” Or to make himself respected, glorified, or an ally of Sanford P.D.
I believe he set out that night because he was sub-employed, in debt, with no possibility of becoming a cop, and no career in sight.
Frankly, I think he set out FOR PROFIT.
He hoped this would lead to a future as “an executive.”

Sadly – especially for young Trayvon Martin – Zimmerman turned out to be not an executive, but an executioner.

I believe he had a scheme – and after a year’s finagling, he had all his connections lined up.
If there was a conspiracy among Zimmerman, Taaffe, and Osterman – who may, or may not still have a job as Air Marshal – I believe it was to set up a business venture – a “professional patrol” company for condo HOAs, with Retreat at Twin Lakes as the first, prototype client. They probably had no clue that security work pays little, and did not care, because they could be “The Three Honchos” after a few short months, then hire out the patrol work to others. Preferably, cops – with SPD and Chief Bill Lee’s blessiing.

“Today, Twin Lakes – tomorrow, the world” would be their slogan.

Here we have Zimmerman, underemployed (and with an unemployed wife); Taaffe at loose ends and facing foreclosure, and Osterman working less than full time as an Air Marshal due to flight rules. They could wing it at Retreat at Twin Lakes as the workforce until they lined up a few more condo HOAs, then they’d be rolling in the big bucks. Los Honchos would become “the executives.”

Cops in Sanford are on the low end of the pay scale nationally and many would be glad to get some easy overtime, even if it was less that “cop rate”. How much do Sanford officers make? $35,720 per year, to a max of $49,445 plus an added bonus for higher education that tops out at $3,060 for BOTH City and State educational credits – even with a Master’s Degree.

That’s not a lot of bucks for putting your life on the line and struggling with the family disruption of shift work. If you could get $20+ an hour for ten or twelve hours a week cruising condos, it could help meet your credit card payments (just ask George Zimmerman).

Sanford PD has a comprehensive policy covering “Off-Duty” and “Extra-Duty” employment, and even has a special Coordinator for it. It appears to be competitive among the officers. Both “Off/Extra-Duty” work cannot exceed 44 hours per month; “Extra-Duty” employment carries the responsibility of use of full police powers and can utilize departmental equipment.

An example of “Off-Duty” would be retail not related to police work (say, yacht sales) while “Extra-Duty” is literally having one of SPD’s uniformed finest as your own – say, crowd & traffic control during motion picture filming “on location.” Employers of “Off-Duty” personnel are only responsible for Workers Compensation (plus wages) and not the wide array of employee benefits provided by the city. You could have a patrol officer work security – but not in Sanford PD uniform – as Off-Duty employment, at a much lower cost. Note: neither “Off-Duty” or “Extra-Duty” employment can be investigative.

(Sanford PD graciously provided a copy of Policy P/P 01-46 within hours of my Public Records Act request. The policy was amended April 2 of last year, but has been in force for seven years.)

“Build a better mousetrap” has always been the way to success in America – “find a need and fill it.” During the previous year Zimmerman appears to have laid the groundwork by not “finding” a need, but by creating one: he developed a “high crime profile” for his own condo development by calling in multiple complaints about Black suspects (most so wily, they slipped away).

The fact that the “suspects” kept on being Black was not, in my opinion, because Zimmerman was a rabid racist, but because he could figure that was his best “sell” in a community like Sanford, FL and with those in local law enforcement that served it.

Bigotry, yes, but bigotry out of convenience, bigotry for bucks.

That is vile.

It’s not that Zimmerman hated Blacks, it’s that Zimmerman could simply consider them the most “credible” threat he could gin up to raise the locals’ fears: blame it on the Black “criminal element.”

This is known as “Profiling for Profit.” Profiling Blacks, that is.

During the same year, Zimmerman was busy sucking up to the Chief Bill Lee and other Sanford PD brass – and individual officers. Why were so many cops who were immediately on the scene after Trayvon Martin’s murder already acquainted with Zimmerman? Had any of those patrol officers been approached yet by Zimmerman to become part of some future money-making venture?

Also during the year, Zimmerman was establishing his bona fides with both Sanford PD and his own HOA. Got himself appointed as Neighborhood Watch coordinator – but never coordinated ANYthing.

Nosed around the neighborhood, clipboard in hand, establishing himself as the local protector of his neighbors – and adding an edge to their fear.

Then there was the Home Owners Association Board – who eventually (December 10, 2012) got an agreement approved by the City Commission for Sanford PD to patrol its three private streets as if they were city streets (i.e. at no charge), and enforce its 15 MPH speed limits.

Now, this service, by State law, was ALWAYS available to the HOA (Sanford PD provides it to 14 other HOA developments) but the HOA Management company only requested it August 20, 2012 (I have Kent Taylor’s e-mail to Sergeant Smith). The tragedy in all this is that the HOA did not request police patrolling of its roads BEFORE “the renegade patroller” profiled Trayvon Martin – and ended up killing him.

Up to February 26 last year, Zimmerman was doing his best to get in thick with the HOA Board as its protector … I believe,for his future business interests.

How? Why, be the local crime prevention hero. “The Captain.”

But, of course, he’d need a trophy.

Preferably young, on foot, alone, and easy to intimidate.

And very, very preferably, Black. That would be the catalyst to getting the contract.

The kid wouldn’t even have to be DOing anything criminal – it would be Righteous George’s word against “the kid’s,” and let’s face it, all YBM’s have criminal records, right?

The plan was a slam dunk – all he needed was a “suspect” to apprehend, and detain until the cops got there.

All he needed was to be tipped off when there was a “suspect” in the neighborhood.

And then one dark and rainy night, did friend Osterman stop at the ATM to pick up cash – cash he intended to drop off at Zimmerman’s house to help his young friend through a rough patch?

And was that the same dark and rainy night that young Trayvon Martin had hiked all the way to the 7-11 and back, just to pick up an Arizona iced tea and a bag of Skittles, and was trudging home, tired but happy, talking on the phone to his girlfriend?

Did Osterman spot Trayvon Martin on the pathway of The Retreat — and tip off Zimmerman?

Was George Zimmerman packing heat?
We know this answer: “Yes.”

Did Zimmerman trail Martin in his vehicle and call 311? We know this answer: “Yes.”

Did Zimmerman exit the vehicle in pursuit?
We know this answer in Zimmerman’s own words, “Yeah.”

Did Zimmerman engage in a verbal and physical confrontation with Trayvon Martin?
Physical evidence and witnesses tell us: “Yes.”

Did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin?
His first words to the cops: “I shot him.”
Re-enacted, recorded, videotaped and signed under penalty of perjury by George Zimmerman.

Was Zimmerman whisked away to private “protective custody” by buddy Mark Osterman as soon as the cops turned him loose after the killing, and was Osterman Zimmerman’s “shadow” throughout the re-enactment? We know the answer: “Yes.”

Did Zimmerman and his family set up a website FOR PROFIT even before he was charged with Murder Two, and did he PROFIT by over $230,000 after this killing?

Do these folks have PROFIT on their minds? $230,000 says, “Yes!”

Have you ANY doubt that THE PROFIT MOTIVE ended up setting this whole, horrible killing in motion – that dark and rainy night of February 26, 2012?

What could go wrong with this scheme?
And if it did? Hey, wouldn’t George Zimmerman’s word count for more than some Black kid’s – especially if that Black kid was dead?

Who you gonna believe – the guy who can tell his side of the story (in this case, ALL sides of his story, all the “variations on a theme by Zimmerman”) — or the kid who can’t tell you ANY side at all?

Remember, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Ah, yes.

On the road … to PROFIT.

Featuring Piranha Mom and her Devastating Analysis of the Lawsuit against NBC

December 7, 2012

Friday, December 7, 2012

Featuring Piranha Mom, whom we have long known as the first Patricia who graciously changed her name on this blog to Piranha Mom to accommodate the new Patricia, posted the following comment at 5:12 am this morning.

I am featuring it today because it’s accurate, succinct, and I could not have said it better.

For those of you who want to read the SCOTUS cases that are the source of the legal rule defining the elements of a cause of action for defamation against a public official or public figure, the cases are New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which stated the new rule for cases involving public officials and Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), which extended that rule to cases involving public figures.

I imagine that the defense will argue that NBC should not benefit from the relaxed legal standard of liability for a public figure because NBC’s defamatory and outrageous remarks made GZ a public figure. That argument is unlikely to prevail because, as Piranha Mom points out, he already had achieved that status and notoriety by stalking, confronting and shooting to death a peaceful and non-violent Black teenager named Trayvon Martin, who was armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles while walking home in the rain talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone.


Piranha Mom writes in response to Groans:

There is one simple reason to file this suit. It is to exploit the newly-released color photo, electronic enhancement and all.

Zimmerman suing NBC will be perceived as a David vs. Goliath contest in the public eye and MOM thinks the photo will be received sympathetically – although all it shows is a guy with a nosebleed (which may be self-induced) and most folks have seen nosebleeds in their day, and this is a minor one.

The public will not be impressed.

But that’s all this lawsuit is: an exploitive publicity stunt for Zimmerman and another attempt to influence potential jurors.

I worked as a political columnist and an investigative reporter in the political arena for four years. Won a slug of awards. Not that I was so good – but I had “the goods.” Every document. No guesswork.

The lines are clearly drawn as to what is permitted by journalistic ethics and The First Amendment. While The First protects our right to speak freely, note that the “the press” is given specific protection in it. Without a watchdog press there would no honesty in government.

Zimmerman has become a public figure – albeit, notorious – by his incessant self-publicizing. He does not get the protection a private person is granted. The quote applied to him was Zimmerman’s own words, truncated. He said those words.

Have you noticed that when Zimmerman was asked “Is he White, Black or Hispanic?” by Sean, the 311 dispatcher, Zimmerman did NOT say “I can’t tell. It’s dark and he’s wearing a hoodie,” which would have been the HONEST answer.

Oh no, right a way he had to proclaim “he … looks …. Black” with a hopeful note in his voice. That was the prey he was tracking, and he was doing a little salesmanship on Sean, to IMPRESS on Sean the necessity of dispatching a police officer.

Then, as Trayvon came in view, Zimmerman happily confirmed “And he’s a Black male!”

Zimmerman did everything except shout “Bingo!”

The press (and all media) are held to a higher standard in reports on private citizens because the media is so powerful. The ordinary citizen has no way to “clear” his name if, in fact, he has been wronged, because the ordinary citizen does not have the circulation or extended broadcast area the media have. Thus, “the retraction.”

Generally, when the media consider that reports have not met their “standards & practices” some form of retraction or statement of explanation will be issued, which NBC did. This was a clarification. This was not an admission of guilt. The Constitution protects the press when it makes errors – but it expects the media to correct their errors. That is all that is required by law And, in fact, this was no error – those were Zimmerman’s worrds. They canned the staffers for questionable editing judgment, and frankly, I think they feared “political” pressure. That’s internal, and we don’t have all the facts that went into their personnel decision.

But Zimmerman does not even get any level of protection against “errors” by the media – the media have to INTEND to do harm, if you are a public persona, which Zimmerman is, self-made though he may be. Referring to himself as a “leading citizen” doesn’t help his case – it emphasizes how difficult it would be to characterize himself as a “private citizen.”

He’s not. And if he can’t stand the heat, he and his attorneys should stay out of the press conferences and off the self-promoting websites. He said those words – conjecturing, at first that Trayvon was Black, without actually being able to see what color he was, then emphasizing it triumphantly as he spewed forth his venom against “fucking coons,” who “always get away.”

NBC made none of that up. They edited his words in the interest of time. They used no malice, and there was no deliberate intent to harm.

This is all just a publicity stunt.

Zimmerman has no case.

%d bloggers like this: