George Zimmerman has gone public for the first time with a new website, therealgeorgezimmerman.com, and a paypal link to raise funds for his litigation costs. The website is a smart move, but Zimmerman used the occasion to describe the shooting as a “life altering event.” That is manifestly true except for the fact that he was speaking of himself, not Martin.
Zimmerman states “On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website’s sole purpose is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.” He goes further to warn that he “cannot attest to the validity of these other websites.”
I am a bit surprised that no one looking at this first statement (guaranteed to be picked apart by the media) would pause at the use of the phrase life altering when referring to the shooter rather than the deceased individual. Just for the record, in the next public letter, Zimmerman may want to avoid saying that he hopes to make “a killing in this outreach campaign.”
The motto of the site is the quote from Edmund Burke that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.” The site includes pages on “My Race” and an “album” of photos. In a particularly bizarre addition, the photo album shows graffiti saying “Long Live Zimmerman” — not exactly the most inspiring statement of support.
Lawyers often create litigation blogs and web sites to allow their clients to release documents or facts in support of their claims. However, these sites require careful scrutiny and, as here, may backfire with ill-advised language.
Here is the full statement:
I am the real George Zimmerman,
On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website’s sole purpose is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.It has come to my attention that some persons and/or entities have been collecting funds, thinly veiled as my “Defense Fund” or “Legal Fund”. I cannot attest to the validity of these other websites as I have not received any funds collected, intended to support my family and I through this trying, tragic time.
I have created a Paypal account solely linked on this website as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment. I will also personally, maintain accountability of all funds received. I reassure you, every donation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
George Zimmerman
Source: USA Today
id707,
“That he uses the above to lend weight to character assassinate a person in a forum speaks ill of him. And that is my opinion.”
Oh, it’s not character assassination, Mr. Again Plays The Role Of Victim After Attacking. It’s an accurate description of your behavior that has nothing to do with your character.
“GeneH took my criticism of a film clip as though it were a criticism of him,”
Straw man. I took your criticism of a film clip to be factually incorrect and spoken from ignorance. It had nothing to do with me. I didn’t make the movie. If you don’t like that I pointed that out? Too bad. No one said you had to like the film, only that your statements about the theme and message of the movie were factually wrong.
Again, whenever you act with hostility toward me, you’re going to get in back. That has been demonstrated multiple times now. Your previously quoted “question” is filled with rancor.
If you don’t want rancor?
Don’t give it.
I don’t care if you’re contrite or not.
It’s really that simple.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Or as I already said, “In the future, if you want clarification about something I’ve said, ask me nicely or screw you.” My treatement of you is based on your treatement of me. The Golden Rule. It’s reciprocal.
idealist your issues w/Gene are between the 2 of you….but this ‘Putting a label, psychiatric or otherwise, solves nothing, it only allows you to conveniently added one more person to a stack, and be off with him in convenient way. It is only bureaucratic. But legally accepted.” is upsetting . You are right in the respect that people are too blase about applying labels for thier own ends….and doing great harm, sometimes, in the process. Labels are easily applied, and they can stick longer and do more damage than any ‘fact’ which can be corrected or behavior which can be relearned. There is a lot of talk right now about race and police brutality and legal malfeasance but I am looking forward to the discussion about being responsible where medical and legal labels are applied…..I don’t think they are simple or simply bureaucratic….they are more like a weapon and a stigmatizing force.
Dear Malisha,
I am sad that my “sweet” awakened such a torrent of outrage and remembered bitterness. But it was your decision to tell me how “sweet” had been previously used to abuse you. The results, as of course you understand, are of your decision. My assuming responsibility would derive you of being responsible for yourself, which you demonstrate you can—-perhaps too well. But mondaymorning reviews are meaningless for the games outcome. Your match is over, only wish it is worth your energies.
I am glad you got challenged, well-intended, as it gave you a chance to briefly review the torment of many decades, both personal´, judicial, and bureaucratic, It greatly added to your stature in my eyes.
I can not judge the content of what happened, but on the face of it it sounds like a great injustice came into being and became
a boo-boo which no one would touch and right.
I don’t feel it wise to go further other than to say you have my heart’s support.
And, speaking of hearts, your previous praise touched mine.
I was thinking of proposing marriage, but in view of my age and diminished virility, realize you must have better. That is one joke of course,
Another would be that you would quickly tire of me; that I had a brilliant one for 27 years was one miracle, more can’t be expected.
You arose from an illusion I had of the young girl who leads with her heart, to become a fully-armed Amazon, bearing books of law in one hand as a shield and a very sharp sword in the other.
This is a short inadequate paean of praise. Matching you is not possible.
Nice feelings you engender.
And a bit ironic that words carry such weight, both negative and positive. Particularly here at Zimmernan’s thread.
😀 Quotes Idi Amin out of context. lol
Hey Mike and OS! I think Malisha has some interesting proposed diagnostic criteria here. As the resident psych pros, I’d love to know what you guys think about IBAIS.
Woosty,
Don’t feel bad. If you thumb through DSM-IV, you will likely come away feeling you are afflicted by a bunch of them.
Did you note the following in Wikipedia?:
“The passive-aggressive concept was developed by the US military to describe soldiers who would not obey instructions happily. Its use as a diagnosis has also been questioned in clinical and social terms.”
QUESTIONED IN CLINICAL AND SOCIAL TERMS.
Further GeneH cites 12 symptoms (good eye Gene, Wiki said 11 in the text).
What he did not say is that they are from a book, not from DSM.
And if you look at the DSM list, you can wonder how anyone can make a decision based on them as criteria, particularly a lawyer who is so insistent on evidence. You might as well accuse me of loitering when waiting at an intersection waiting for the green man. Or accuse me for malingering when taking a cigarette pause with the other EMs.
That he uses the above to lend weight to character assassinate a person in a forum speaks ill of him. And that is my opinion.
Further for you, Woosty, even tho’ you were joking of course.
All such diagnoses are based on obverved benaviour and speech.
Judgements/diagnoses are a very subjective matter, which is the underlying weakness of the whole DSM or psychiatric business, That is an assertion, my own conclusion, which won’t waste time on proving. Take it or leave it.
Putting a label, psychiatric or otherwise, solves nothing, it only allows you to conveniently added one more person to a stack, and be off with him in convenient way. It is only bureaucratic. But legally accepted.
We see the same thing daily. Yesterday, it was an American scientist who claimed to be able to diagnose autism by an on-line series of less than ten questions. All such behavioral diagnostics have been clinically proven deficient in both diagnosis and degree of affliction. An English scientist has instead demonstrated over 4 years ago the superiority of brain-scanning to gove a reliable and better diagnosis.
But the psychologists don’t want to lose this money-maker, nor do the drug companies.
I will only say that I seek to find myself, partly through contacts here, and at the same time éxpress my concern for the fate of us all. Sounds over-noble.
Perhaps, but the latter is true for me.
GeneH took my criticism of a film clip as though it were a criticism of him, informing me of its great and generally acknowledged importance.
What it has for effect on others is not relevant. I was expressing an opinion, which carries all the weight of a fart here, and shall be judged thereafter.
It is regrettable that it was the cause of his outbreak.
He has no understanding that he is not the center of the world.
He can not realize that I can see this clip with completely other reference points of all kinds; moral, visual, artistic, dramatic, cultural. etc.
And my review was not addressed to him, so in no way was it a challenge to others opinions—-which I wrote to Pete separately to reassure him of that.
Could he realize that then his reply at best would have been: “That’s interesting that you see if otherwise. Please tell me more, ”
Or simply: “I don’t agree.” That I dissed it in a way which may awaken ire, is still my privilege—as it is that of other reviewers. That is why we have them. And in art forms the review is alway subjective, even tho’ if you are pro you have many other ref points to mind.
Using its reception in the USA as a reference point seems peculiar.
Someone, oh yes, Michael Murry, perhaps, said that our seeing the world as an extension of ourselves, or our nation, not only is dangerous for us but for the world. And the world understands our egocentric (it’s more than ego of course) distorted view’s existence. I had hoped there would be more here who understand this problem for the world.
Wishing to go on to more useful things than arguing with GeneH, I will hope he can go on without rancor, as that is a sore thorn to bear in ones heart. I can. No sweat. There is in all critiique some kernel of truth, and I try to sift from them, and digest them. Don’t always succeed of course. Contrite? NOT IN THE LEAST. On the contrary, quite proud.
I make no claims to always be right, as some do. Just a general observation of course. Inasmuch as that is a type of cryptic comment I abhor, particularly from AY, I will say it was offered in the sense of it being meant, but wish to avoid personal challenges.
And now a bit of poetry:
If I am aggressive, then it is on the horse of true human natural justice.
If I am passive, in the first hand it is hopefully in the manner of Joseph Welch, who defended the US Army against the attacks of Coen and McCarthy at their hearings.
.
Suggested addition to DSM-V-TR text: Intermittent Blogger Acute Irritation Syndrome (IBAIS) (not to be confused with Blogger Illumination Assumption Syndrome, a/k/a BIAS). x
Five or more of the following symptoms over a period of three or more months.
Blogger identifies three (3) or more co-bloggers as Nazi, Communist, or Mongolian.
Blogger quotes Neville Chamberlain, Madame Chiang KaiChek, Pablo Neruda or Idi Amin out of context more than four (4) times in any one week;
Blogger prescribes medications for co-blogger without including a link where they can be purchased in Mexico;
Blogger breaks the rule “if the theorum is true, the contrapositive is true”;
Blogger uses the word “suck” more than three times in any one day;
Blogger cites World Book Encyclopedia to substantiate claims on more than two (2) occasions;
Blogger accidentally says two whole consecutive sentences previouly said verbatim by Newt Gingrich, and thus incites charges of plagiarism unintentionally; and/or
Blogger uses “cut and paste” function to transfer 400 pages of Washington, DC parking code into comment on blog.
damn Gene….ouch!
on a good day I have a bunch of those ‘criteria’….sheesh!
I think I’m about done holding your hand, id707, but this one last time I will:
“And don’t sling the Constitution in the face of an ignorant man. Then YOU are bullying me and you know it. Explain to me my obvious lack of knowledge. I never read the Constitution until it was mentioned here amendment by amendment, clause by clause, bit by bit. And yet many parts have not been explored here. Nor by me.
So show you knowledge. Don’t browbeat with it.
Don’t come with what could be suspected as snide superiority (superiority I admit, that’s been proven as to logic and law was never a question) and shit on my head.
Now be nice, and I’ll forgive you.”
If you don’t understand something, it helps you get a response you might like if you ask nicely instead. If you don’t like my responses – especially when prompted in such freindly terms as the above – ask somebody else. Again, you act with hostility to me, you’ll likely get hostility in return. I don’t cater to the passive/aggressive behavior. If you don’t understand what I mean by that, let me clarify in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior
You haven’t exhibited all of these behavoirs, but meeting arguably/demonstrably four of the DSM-IV criteria and 6 out of 12 symptoms listed in addition is a pretty good indication that describing you as passive-aggressive isn’t unreasonable or unfair.
Consider this being put on notice about an intentional blind spot in my generally humanitarian and compassionate nature. There are certain mental disorders I don’t cater to and passive-aggressive behavior is one of them. Take your meds and/or get some therapy, if you’re trying to help yourself I’m likely to be a little more patient and sympathetic, however if you think I’m going to act as your unecessary bullshit recepticle under any circumstances without push back, you’d be sorrily mistaken.
In the future, if you want clarification about something I’ve said, ask me nicely or screw you.
Is that clear enough and easy to understand?
I sincerily hope so.
GeneH.
Top of the morning to you. And ya-da to you too.
To help me with my halting understanding, could you please point out which “innocuous comment” from you was replied to in an uncourteous manner. Seeing ones own position as it is perceived by another is not always easy.
Will look up the second amendment to enlighten myself. Secondly, I posed what I thought had been the cause of your comment on hyperbole, but have received no clarification from you. It was expressed as a question, not rebuttal or attack. Read it again if doubtful. Can you clarify there too please?
And as soon as you stop attacking my mental capabilities and my senility; then I might be inclined to question less your character of using insults as a form of “discussion”. Tit for tat; I think you once called it.
Gene,
I don’t disagree with that assertion. If she keeps it up, your concern is justified. If it’s a one shot deal, I consider it well played.
Somebody up thread mentioned she was Episcopalian. If that is so, and I don’t know if it is, they aren’t, as a rule, inclined to “prayer circles”.
Blouise,
My objection isn’t rooted in the humanist angle or even in its calculated use, but rather that it creates an impression of legally systemic propriety where there is none.
“I couldn’t find the place you considered your typing sloppy.”
I misspelled your name in the header. 😀 Sorry.
As to religous iconograhpy in courthouses, I used to be a lot more tolerant to that practice because as you note, religious laws are part of the history of law. Most governments throughout history used some form of religous based doctrine as the foundation for their laws. What we now know as civil law in the West was really invented by the Romans/Byzantines and in fact the Code of Justinian is the foundation upon which all Western civil law is built. However, there is a problem in the form of theocrats who often resort to such things as “evidence” that America is allegedly a Christian country when in fact (and specifically according to both Jefferson and Madison as well as the plain languge of the Constitution) we were founded as a secular pluralistic nation. Since educating a theocrat about history isn’t going to change their complaint (they tend to be irrational and evidence proof), I’m now for removing all such mention from public buildings.
Gene,
“I’ll stipulate that it was admirable in a humanist way as well, but if the humanist angle and showing empathy was the key consideration, there was no need for the press to ever hear about it.”
Exactly. My opinion is based more on my knowledge pf prosecutors who I know well. They are fairly religious guys, meaning they go to church, pledge, send their kids for confirmation etc., but when they take on their prosecutor role, their eyes harden, their voices become cop-like in tone and, they get all combative and argumentative.
These guys do work a humanist angle with the victims but it’s calculated … always calculated. They do what it takes to calm the victim, loosen them up, reassure them that justice will be sought, etc.
That’s what I think she did. I think it was huge in that it was calculated. And I think it was calculated because she released the info to the press.
Gene H,
I couldn’t find the place you considered your typing sloppy.
As to my mistake on the murder/manslaughter thing, I just read too hastily and didn’t take notes — I can only remember significant points when I either take notes or type while hearing speech (yes, I’m fast, though not always accurate).
I will venture a guess that the reason second-degree murder might work, even WITH malice, is that the forensics of the wound in Martin’s chest shows that there was distance between him and Zim when he was killed. If Zim shot Martin from, say, 6 or more feet away, I’m thinking that would make a BIG BIG difference in how this thing is analyzed.
The fact that the cops didn’t even care about the forensics when they interviewed Zim and let him go that night is what keeps impressing me (negatively).
About my experience in the family court, it was not really just about the “hatred of former lovers” issue. Not at all, unfortunately. My ex just got a few of his facts wrong to start with. I did not realize it at the time, but he married me for citizenship and money. The stupid part is that I HAD no money; he just THOUGHT I had money because I was generous and he believed nobody would give away what they had unless they were unbelievably wealthy. This all came out later; I was as stupid as he was, actually. He believed I was rich; I believed he loved me, a prescription for the worst form of crack-up.
The real problems occurred when judges began to act like incompetent parents, thinking that distracting a child from a temper tantrum by giving him a nice toy was an effective way to stop tantrums. The judges actually created a frankenstein. They should have “just said no,” but no…
When they realized that the thing was getting REALLY bad they blamed the victim. Typical self-defensive fool behavior — we have seen it in the Trayvon Martin case ad nauseam.
The real opposite of love is not hatred, I believe, but indifference. Had my son’s father not returned to grab yet more money from me 30 years after I was truly done with him, this whole thing would have simply stayed a joke that we told a bit too often. As it is, it will not be a joke for very long.
People with whom I discuss the religion-in-government issue often do not realize that religion used to BE government. Civil government is a relatively modern development. I am reminded, however, of a visit to Monticello, and seeing the mass grave for the slaves. There was a marker there that bore some inscription I cannot remember, but it was a Biblical exhortation to obedience, because if the slaves were obedient, they would receive their reward in Heaven, after having served their masters so well all their lives. What a convenient god! Also, he could conveniently provide punishment for those who did not do his will on earth as it was in heaven. OMG, OMG.
Outside the District Court in Iowa City, Iowa, in the nineties (and perhaps now, I don’t know) there stood a large chiseled stone tablet in the familiar shape with the ten commandments written on it. I ascended the steps to the courthouse with a mother out there trying to defend her custodial rights, and as soon as I saw the stone tablets, I said, “What is THIS?” She looked at me pityingly: “The Ten Commandments from the Bible.” I explained, “Oh I KNOW what it IS, I meant, what is it doing HERE?” She answered, “This is the Courthouse!” as if that explained it. I was stunned. “What does the ACLU have to say about THIS?” I demanded. “Oh, there are no Jews in town,” she declared, and we both proceeded into the courthouse.
Blouise,
But huge how? As you note, PR tactical brilliance. You have to pardon me if that doesn’t aleviate my concerns about religiosty in public officals in their public capacities. Just because it may play well in the press doesn’t mean she should have done it just because she could. But then we get back to that whole “can versus should” debate and we both know where that leads. 😉 I think on a personal level – since it seems the Martins are religious people and in a time of trouble – I’ll stipulate that it was admirable in a humanist way as well, but if the humanist angle and showing empathy was the key consideration, there was no need for the press to ever hear about it.
Gene,
Ordinarily I would agree, but given that this took place during her initial meeting with a family that had been so traumatized by first the death of their child and the ensuing tribulation that their determination for justice created, the fact that she, a stranger to their grief, was comfortable praying with them is huge.
That she released the information was, in my opinion, tactically brilliant.
mespo,
I agree with both you and raff. Religiousity is a matter of concern in all government officials, but especially those with powers of prosecution. The 1st Amendment and their duty to the Constitution requires they leave God at the Courthouse door.
Doh! Malisha. Pardon my sloppy typing. 😀
Mailisha,
I am truly sorry about your trevails in family court. Many lawyers avoid that area of practice precisely because of the level of drama it invites. As my grandfather used to say, “Enemies are one thing, but when two people used to love each other? One will walk across a mile of broken glass and climb a tree while riding a camel at night for no other reason than they see a mere chance to screw with the other one. Hell hath no fury like a lover scorned.”
As to the Martin case, you may want to re-read how the Florida charges work. “I think the second-degree murder charge is actually probably accurate because it does not rest upon the idea that there was a malice issue or a hatred issue. ” That would be manslaughter in Florida if the malice component is removed. The charge facing Zimmerman is second degree murder which has a malice component, but not a premeditation component. That’s why I said I suspect either the DA of having iron clad evidence of malice or it’s an overcharge to force a plea.
About the prosecutor calling on religion while announcing the arrest and charge of Zimmerman strikes me as both worrisome (the authority here should not be a deity — even if that deity is a “caring” one — but the law of the State of Florida) and heckofa clever. This woman knows how to use power! She’s not just facing the law in her state, she’s got her career on the line, and she’s trying to make something work that is dangerous in many subtle and some not so subtle ways. I think the second-degree murder charge is actually probably accurate because it does not rest upon the idea that there was a malice issue or a hatred issue. But the cleverness of her avoiding the grand jury and of her also not trying to drop down to the lesser included(s) shows political savvy and intelligence. Now judging from the comments posted on the FOX sites (quoted above — actually too shocking to have been expected!) there is a serious problem brewing no matter what takes place from here on out. Although from a point of view of “what should and should not be a governmental consideration,” strictly speaking, God should be left out of this situation, on the other hand, this prosecutor is REALLY doing something that is not SIMPLY quasi-judicial, it is irremediably POLITICAL. A little help from the biggest judge she could call upon — to seal the impression (among millions of people in her state and our country) that he is on HER SIDE, is smart. I’ll give her a pass this time.