dailybeast.com:

It wasn’t enough for George Zimmerman to kill Trayvon Martin.

In an interview with The Daily Beast this week, Zimmerman made it clear he has no remorse about shooting the 17-year-old boy to death in Sanford, Florida, and bears outright hostility for the parents whose son he took away forever.“They didn’t raise their son right. He attacked a complete stranger and attempted to kill him,” Zimmerman said of Martin.

“Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin did everything they could to capitalize on her son’s death,” he said. “She was never a mother figure to him. Tracy Martin couldn’t have cared less about their son. He treated him like a dog without a leash.”

Four years after Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, the acquitted killer is trying to turn a profit on the gun he used to do it.

 

 

On Feb. 26, 2012, Zimmerman was following Martin down the street of the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, a gated neighborhood in Florida, and called police to describe him as suspicious. The suspicion seemed only based upon the fact that Martin was black, male, and wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Despite a 911 dispatcher saying he did not have to follow the teenager, Zimmerman did so anyway. Sometime later, after Zimmerman ended his call with the police, he and Martin got into an altercation that ended with Zimmerman, the coordinator of a local neighborhood watch, firing a 9 millimeter bullet from his Kel-Tec PF-9 pistol into the teen’s chest.

“It is what was used to save my life from a near-death brutal attack by Trayvon Martin,” Zimmerman said of the gun. “If it was a stick or mace, it’s the one tool I had that prevented Trayvon from killing me.”

Zimmerman was not anywhere near close to death when police arrived: He had a bloody nose and lacerations on the back of his head.

He tried to stay out of the public eye after his acquittal in 2013, remaining on the fringes of American society as a one of the 21st century’s greatest villains and occasionally stirring the pot of outrage as he attempted to find gainful employment and financial security. Zimmerman was investigated by the Department of Justice for civil rights violations and lived jobless and homeless for a year after the trial. The same year of his acquittal, Zimmerman’s girlfriend alleged that he had pointed a shotgun at her and started breaking her things. He was charged with felony aggravated assault for the incident, charges his girlfriend later requested to be dropped.

A year later, Zimmerman was involved in a road rage incident with Matthew Apperson, who shot at him on a public street in a separate incident six months later. (Zimmerman was hit in the face by a ricochet.) At the time, Zimmerman was using his infamy to auction off American flag paintings he made on eBay—one even sold for $100,000.

When he wasn’t getting into shootouts or hawking memorabilia online, Zimmerman was calling President Obama an “ignorant baboon” on Twitter and retweeting a photo of Martin’s dead body (caption: “Z-Man is a one man army”). Zimmerman claimed he couldn’t see the photo, just the caption, adding, “I do not want to see or relive the night that I was attacked and had to use lethal force to defend my life. No part of the events that transpired that night were heroic or admirable.”

Yet a year later, he has marketed the gun (the sale ends tomorrow) as a symbol of liberty and American history—something to be treasured and owned by a patriot.

When asked if he considers how Martin’s family feels about him requesting $100,000 for the gun he used to kill their son, Zimmerman called them bad parents.

“Sure, I’m sorry for any parent that has lost a child,” Zimmerman said. “That being said, I also believe it’s their duty to have an internal dialogue to see what they should have done better and what they should have done appropriately.”

Zimmerman is a moral degenerate or something. He feels no shame.

Perhaps Zimmerman ought to look at his own parents if he wants to call out “bad parents.”  He certainly is no shining star.  He has been in continual trouble since the Trayvon Martin killing.  He has done incredibly stupid things and doesn’t seem sorry.

He appears to be proud of the fact that he killed Trayvon Martin.   He projects his own mercenary outlook on the death of Martin onto the parents.  He appears mentally ill.

Prediction–George Zimmerman will slip up one day and end up pretty much like OJ Simpson.

 

39 thoughts on “Zimmerman taunts Trayvon Martin’s parents

  1. Pat.Herve

    Zimmerman should fade into history as a nobody. Disgusting that he wants to make money off of the fame of the gun he used to shoot Trayvon. I feel Zimmerman would never have been attacked had he not started to stalk Trayvon.

    1. Steve Thomas

      @Pat.Herve

      “Zimmerman should fade into history as a nobody”

      I agree. Were I in his shoes, I would move to Alaska, and start over. He dodged a legal “Bullet”. He should be thankful and should try to stay out of the public eye.

      1. Totally agree with Steve and Pat Herve.

      2. punchak

        @Steve Thomas
        What do you have against Alaska / except for Palin, of course? 🙂

      3. Steve Thomas

        @punchak

        Nothing. Has a ton of open land, within which someone can live, and never impact another soul. I was supportive of Zimmerman’s right to self-defense, in the Martin shooting. However, my sympathy ended there. Instead of fading from the public discourse, he’s managed to make himself a trouble-magnet. Move to Alaska, George. I know you’ve been through a lot, and “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger” but the bears you regularly seem to poke in the lower 48, aren’t figures of speech in Alaska. They are quite real, and they will eat you.

      4. Think of Zimmerman as polar bear food.

    2. Cargosquid

      @Pat.Herve

      He would not have shot Martin if Martin had not attacked him.
      Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, having lost him even before he left his vehicle, while talking to the police.

      1. I bet to differ. He was out looking for him. Why? What had Martin done?

  2. Starreyflights

    What a sorry excuse for a human being.

  3. Lyssa

    Wow – consensus.

  4. Watching

    What goes around comes around, in this life or the next or in the hereafter. He is a great example of an ignorant, scared individual who props himself up by taking others down. He is a pathetic excuse for a human being. How sad to be him or someone who supported his right to kill the other human being.

    1. Steve Thomas

      @Watching

      Not to be nit-noid, but he was tried and his actions found to have met the standard for justifiable homicide. However, his actions since the acquittal indicate that he’s not someone able to garner wisdom from experience. At least we can agree on this point.

      1. I wanted him tried. He was. I can go with the “jury of your peers” and the laws he was under. I support his right to self defense up to a point. If he wasn’t tailing Martin, then he wouldn’t have needed self defense.

        However, he was not found guilty. That sure didnt mean he was innocent. I agree he should have crept off into oblivion and learned a lesson including being a more responsible gun owner and handler. He killed Trayvon Martin, regardless of what we call it.

      2. Watching

        I think it is pretty apparent from his behavior in these years after this shooting that he is a complete schmuck and liar. I think that colors everything he has ever said. Do you really believe his testimony to be true in your heart? Only you know that, but I can tell you that my own judge of character meter is pretty low on George and I think he lied completely about what happened that day. That makes him guilty in my eyes.
        @Steve Thomas

      3. Steve Thomas

        @Watching

        Watching,

        Your current assessment of Zimmerman is not something I can disagree with. As for the Martin shooting, Zimmerman was not acquitted on the strength of his testimony. He was acquitted because the forensic evidence supported his testimony, which gave him credibility. As for his conduct since, evidence would seem to support your charge that he is a “schmuck”. The public altercations, the charges of domestic assault…and his placing the blame on the parents, all smack of “schmuckiness” I as a jury member would vote to convict…he is guilty of being a “schmuck”.

        He recently auctioned off the gun. Someone purchased it for $120K.. It’s worth about $350.00 NEW. Rule #1 of armed self-defense is “have a gun”. Rule #2, is “have a good gun”. I can tell you, he only satisfied rule #1. I wouldn’t have paid $200.00 for it, and if I owned it, I’d never bet my life on it.

        George…take your $120K, Move to Alaska. Sooner or later, your luck is going to run out, and the cheap guns you carry will fail you.

      4. There was a lot to that story that really couldn’t be tested forensically. That’s the part I think he played willy nilly with the truth on.
        I feel about his gun like I do about Lorena Bobbitt’s knife. She has the class not to auction it.

      5. I always thought his story was twisted to match the law in Florida.

  5. Steve Thomas

    But don’t let my disdain for Zimmerman cloud the fact that I think (based on the evidence presented at trial), that Trayvon Martin was a thug-in-training, and his chosen life-path would have likely garnered the same result…him on a slab in the morgue, sporting a toe-tag. I just don’t thing Zimmerman is doing himself any good by throwing this on the parents. He might be 100% spot-on in his critique…but this looks like a “logs and specks” statement. (Moon…please don’t make me explain this reference again).

    Also, I don’t hold Zimmerman up as a paragon of armed citizenry. If I am going to do this, I choose this lady: http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812.

    That’s a “Momma Bear” or better yet, a “Momma Honey Badger”. She applied just enough force to stop the attack, when the assailant left her no other option. Her home, during daylight, she retreated and chose to defend her kids. She applied just enough lethal force to stop the attack, and shepherded her children to safety. The assailant wisely decided that continuing to press the attack would be a foolish decision, and decided to flee the scene. That momentary flash of wisdom saved his life.

    If I ever meet this lady, whatever she’s drinking is on me. THAT’S how it’s done. Meet force with force. Apply enough to end the threat, and no more. If the attacker lives or dies is inconsequential, as he (or she…wanna be fair) made the decision to commit a criminal act. What matters is the actions of the armed citizen. End the threat and move to safety. That’s it. If you can do it with Mace…good on you. That’s why I carry mace. If you can do it with some ninja moves, good on you…that’s why I took Krav Maga. But sometimes you need a gun. Shoot till the threat ends…and no more. If they die, they die. If they live, they live. That’s up to God. What I can do is act appropriately, and lawfully. Society can expect no more, but is correct in excepting no less.

    This is the mindset of the average lawfully armed citizen.

    1. Got it…splinter in thy own eye….I am familiar with the reference…just not quite the way you said it…which is fine now I know.

    2. I am not convinced Trayvon was a thug in training. Absolutely not an angel but I have known many kids like Trayvon who made something of themselves. Life is patchy. That entire incident should not have happened.

      1. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        Moon,

        I will admit that Martin could have turned his life around. He could have joined the military and won the Congressional Medal of Honor. He could have become a motivational speaker and a mentor to at-risk teens. He could have found Jesus and pastorerd a church. He could have become the next Ben Carson. But at the time of his death, a result of him making a bad decision to physically attack an armed adult (a crime), he was living with his father, because his mother sent him there. She sent him there because he was committing crimes at school, and Martin himself presented an image on social media as embracing the “thug life”. Yes, he could have become a productive member of society, and I think it’s great when a young person gets back on the straight and narrow path. However, Martin didn’t appear to be doing so, and unfortunately, our prisons and morgues are full of people who walked the same path as Martin was walking, got further along…all because of the decisions they made.

      2. Had Zimmerman not stalked him he might have had a chance.
        I think defenders of Zimmerman have exaggerated his thuggery. The only thing I have seen actually documented is that he smoked weed. He is hardly the only kid to do that.

        The mother sent him to his father. Fathers often have a strong influence on their sons. Yea, he should have gone home. Instead he had to big ass like many 17 year olds and he ran into the business end of Zimmerman’s weapon.

        Zimmerman needed to do what he was told. He will get his. I feel certain.

    3. Watching

      Close your eyes and imagine for a moment that Trayvon Martin had been a white high school kid coming home from buying ******* skittles, with no gun or other apparent weapon, and George Zimmerman shot and killed him. What do you think would have happened? I think George would be sitting in a cell today. Period. Thug-in-training? Really? You watch too much TV.

      @Steve Thomas

      1. Steve Thomas

        @Watching

        Watching,
        It’s not as if Martin was just walking along the sidewalk, eating his skittles, and Zimmerman whipped out a gun and shot him. Martin sucker punched him and then proceeded to beat him. This was supported by the forensic evidence. Martin’s race has nothing to do with this. Thugs and punks come in all colors. I watch too much TV? I base my assessment on that which the news presented, items such as Martin got in trouble for breaking into students lockers, theft, drug use, and carrying a weapon in school, pictures and comments posted by Martin on his facebook, glorifying “thuglife”…plus the fact that he decided to physically attack an adult from ambush.

      2. That whole list of sins seems to be exaggerated. If he had a weapon in school, he wouldn’t have been enrolled. I think he had been suspended but that’s a bit different than an expulsion.

        You also left out the part that Zimmerman stalked Martin.

        At any rate, had Zimmerman minded his own business, a kid would be alive. I just think what Zimmerman did was so horribly wrong. Then he has refused to learn a lesson and he obviously feels no remorse for shooting a kid.

  6. Cargosquid

    I guess I’m just ornery.

    Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Zimmerman did as he was told.
    He did not follow Martin on foot, staying on the sidewalk.
    Martin, at that time, was arriving “in back of his father’s place.” 400 feet away.
    Martin returned to confront Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman is apparently freaking human. He’s had people stalk him, threaten him, shoot at him, put out an illegal award for his death, and had the fed’l gov’t take a useless look at him. His history has been gone over with a fine toothed comb and everything he does or says is looked at in the worst light possible by the press.
    Is he perfect? No. He seems to be a mess.

    Would I have sold the gun for as much as I could get to make my life easier after all that…and pay any bills?
    HELL YES.
    Many infamous items have been for sale. Why not this one. A fool and his money are soon parted. As we see by the fact that a cheap gun went for $120K.

    1. Zimmerman is the poster child for bad judgement. Selling that gun was blood money.
      Zimmerman did a great deal wrong. why was he following Martin. What had Martin done wrong? You cannot answer that question.

    2. Watching

      Zimmerman did nothing wrong? Zimmerman killed another human being. You are so blinded by your own twisted view of the world you that I am sure you are going to start explaining why that was okay some how.

      @Cargosquid

      1. Steve Thomas

        @Watching

        Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Murder is “Malum in se”. He was charged with murder by a special prosecutor appointed by the Republican Governor, as the local authorities declined to prosecute. He was tried and acquitted. Perhaps he did wrong under some subjective moral code, but as far as the civil standard, yes, he did nothing wrong. What’s that “Innocent until proven guilty” standard? Well, he was acquitted, ie. proven innocent, after being held to a high standard.

        Doesn’t mean I like the guy. It means as far as society goes, he owes no debt.

      2. I am going to postulate that “not guilty” doesn’t mean proven innocence.

        No one can still tell me what Zimmerman was doing out there, trying to follow Martin around. What was Martin doing wrong?
        Eating Skittles? Drinking ice tea? Talking to some dumb girl on the phone?

      3. I also don’t necessarily think Zimmerman was not “not guilty” but a jury of his peers said he wasn’t so….he drew the right straw.
        Legally–not guilty. Ethically and morally? guilty or at best, semi-guilty.

      4. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        That is a subjective measure, and you are entitled to your opinion. Eating Skittles, drinking Ice Tea, talking to a girl on the phone, while crossing through people’s yards, and then of course, engaging in an ambush assault on a person… mess with a bull, sometimes you get the horns.

        And in other news, in spite of the media sensationalism and rhetoric of certain politicos, the prosecution is 0 for 2 in the Freddy Grey case. Riots at eleven.

      5. What was he doing wrong before he jumped Zimmerman?
        Why was Zimmerman following him? He was not on duty. He was obviously stalking Martin since he called in his “suspicion” to the cops.

      6. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        Moon,

        If you saw something suspicious (ie. out of the ordinary), would you take notice and call the cops? Just asking. Had a similar situation in my neighborhood, just last week. Single car pulled up in my cul de sac, after eleven, not belonging to anyone who lives there. 6 young males hanging around. Noticed two went into a yard, and came back around the front. We called the MCPD (who were there in like 5 minutes…great response time for a non-emergency call). Were we stalking? If I waled to the end of the drive way, stepped on to the side-walk, would I be goading them?

        The jury seemed to disagree with your assessment.

      7. Watching

        Yes you would be goading them. Especially if you said stupid things to them and started to get in their face. We don’t really know what happened that day between Martin and Zimmerman because one of them can’t tell us because one of them is DEAD. Do you really think, deep in your gut, that Martin just attacked Zimmerman because he was standing there? I don’t, but my guess is we will never know.

        @Steve Thomas

      8. Steve Thomas

        @Watching

        Watching…you are wrong. My mere presence on a public walk is not a provocation, especially if it is adjacent to my property.

        Also, we do have a very good picture of what happened. George Zimmerman was on the phone with police dispatch until Martin ran behind some houses. Martin was on the phone to his “friend” so we have her testimony. We also have the recordings of 8 911 calls, while the attack was happening, and there were several eye witnesses. The forensic evidence, audio and eye-witness testimony supported Zimmerman’s account of the events. He underwent a voice-stress analysis, which indicated he was being truthful. He had injuries that supported his account.

        If that’s not enough, let’s break it down further:

        -Going out on a rainy night to buy skittles and tea: Not a crime
        -Driving around your neighborhood at night, possessing a firearm with a license to carry: Not a crime.
        -Walking down a sidewalk, in the rain: Not a crime.
        -Observing someone walking down the sidewalk: Not a crime
        -Crossing someone’s lawn and ducking under eaves: Suspicious, but not a crime
        -Calling the police to report suspicious activity: not a crime
        -Running away and ducking into a yard: suspicious, but not a crime
        -Exiting your vehicle to see where they ran to, while on the phone with the police: Not a crime.
        -Standing on the sidewalk, waiting for the police to arrive: not a crime.
        -Charging someone from ambush, striking them, knocking them into the street, straddling them, and continuing to strike them: A criminal act.
        -Calling for help 16 times in 38 seconds, while being physically assaulted by a larger, stronger individual: Not a crime.

        -Drawing a legally possessed, legally carried firearm to stop an attack: Potentially criminal, act, unless the act satisfies the legal criteria for the use of lethal force in self-defense.

        Here’s what “my gut” tells me: Trayvon Martin made a bad decision. He could have kept on walking, or he could have run away. Instead he made the conscious decision to attack George Zimmerman. Once the attack was initiated, George Zimmerman faced a choice: Continue to be attacked (as he was in a vulnerable position and had already endured 38 seconds of blows) and scream for help, hoping the police arrived before he was killed or grievously injured or draw his pistol and fire.

        The facts presented in evidence support my view, because my view is based on the facts, not emotions.

      9. I never heard the jury say that they thought Martin was up to something. I understand that Florida has different standards than Virginia.
        Zimmerman didn’t really elaborate about what he found “suspicious.”
        I think what you described in your neighborhood is very different from a kid coming home from 7-11 and talking on his cell phone.

        Additionally, the more crap Zimmerman pulls, the more I think he was spoiling for a fight and did stalk the kid.

      10. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        Moon,

        It doesn’t matter what Martin was doing. According to the audio of Zimmerman talking to the police dispatcher, describing Martin’s actions, the police seemed to think Martin was acting suspiciously, and they arrived on the scene almost immediately after. According to the police, a patrol car was routed to the neighborhood upon Zimmerman’s call to the non-emergency line. 8 calls to 911 by neighbors reporting an assault in progress, triggered a call to the original responding officers to proceed as an emergency. They arrived within 120 seconds of the shooting. We know this, because someone was on the phone with 911, while Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and was still on the phone when the shots were fired.

        Whether or not Martin’s actions should have warranted Zimmerman’s suspicions is immaterial. Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman.

        You don’t like Zimmerman. I’m not a huge fan either. But everyone has a right to self-defense, when being assaulted by bigger, stronger, individual, who (according to eye-witnesses) and is in a position of advantage to the point where the victim cannot run, and cannot effectively stop the attack by less-than-lethal means.

        Maybe it’s the classes I’ve attended, or the studies I’ve read, dissecting this incident. Maybe it’s the evidence presented at trial. Maybe it’s my binary-brain. Once attacked, Zimmerman acted properly. Sure, Zimmerman could have exercised better judgment by sitting in his truck, with the doors locked, and waited on the police to arrive. Martin could have exercised better judgement and continued home, and told his father that some creepy dude had followed him in his truck. But Martin chose to attack Zimmerman. From that moment on, Martin was the attacker, and Zimmerman the victim. Facts are facts, and the law is the law. Same legal standards apply here in Virginia.

      11. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        My last thought/comment on this topic:

        I hope I never find myself in a court, having to prove my actions justifiable in ending a potentially-lethal threat. That would mean that I actually had to face another human being acting in a way that could cause me or an innocent death or grievous bodily injury, and I was forced by circumstances to respond with deadly force.

        But I do know one thing. If I ended up in George Zimmerman’s shoes, I am requesting a trial by Judge. No jury. Too big a chance for someone like Ed or “Watching”, or even you, sitting in that box, letting emotion override reason and evidence. Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury, true. But a jury of Eds and Watchings would have put him away for life, the facts be damned.

Comments are closed.