George Zimmerman To Auction Off Gun Used To Kill Trayvon Martin [Updated]

zimmermans_gunIn an apparent effort to be sure that he is the most hated man in America, George Zimmerman will be auctioning off the gun that he used to kill Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. He has stated that the funds will be use to fight “Hillary Clinton’s anti-firearm rhetoric.” UPDATE: the gun to be auctioned at Gun Broker appears to have been withdrawn from sale.

abc_ht_trayvon_martin_george_zimmerman_2_jt_120318_wgThe killing occurred in 2012 and caused a national controversy over the eventual acquittal of Zimmerman. He refers to the gun as “an American icon.” Zimmerman dismissed questions about the many people who would find the auction offensive, saying “They’re not going to be bidding on it, so I couldn’t care less about them.” Zimmerman has courted controversy since the acquittal with minor arrests and has sought to sell paintings like one of an American flag, emblazoned with the words “God One Nation with Liberty and Justice For All.” That sold on eBay for $100,000.

The idea of the 9mm pistol being an “American icon” is itself a troubling thought. Lincoln’s top hat is an American icon.

The one-day online auction opens at 11:00 EDT on Thursday. The opening bidding price for the 9mm pistol is set at $5,000.

64 thoughts on “George Zimmerman To Auction Off Gun Used To Kill Trayvon Martin [Updated]”

  1. “Martin’s Girl friend, clearly* stated twice, on CNN that it was a (presumed) Gay bashing…
    *Speaking ebonics

  2. “…any private buyer who is interested in such an item. I wonder, who would want such a gun?

    It seems odd to me that it is not the sale/purchase of crime-related memorabilia that rankles, but the motives of those involved in the transaction.

    1. I’m afraid that I wasn’t clear. No, I’m very bothered by either selling or buying. I’m always curious as to motivation, though, in this case, I might not want to know.

  3. Karen S,

    You’re welcome. (I just left the same notice for you under the TSA post before reading your comment here.)

    I appreciate you making the effort to set the record straight. It matters for a variety of reasons.

    The decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was correct on the law and the facts, and readily explained with a straightforward set of law, policy, precedent, and facts. Yet the grounds for OIF have been obscured in the public discourse by a prevailing yet demonstrably false narrative.

    I encourage you to continue countering the false narrative of the Iraq intervention wherever you encounter it, and I hope you do so vigorously using the explanation and primary source authorities that I provided.

  4. Eric:

    Thank you for the information. As much as I disliked having to drag my eyeballs back to the post with Po’s tirades that I was a murderer in a past life (???), I do appreciate the links.

    Thank you for calling it to my attention, because I sure wasn’t returning to that post for any other reason.

  5. I don’t consider him a hero.
    He acted in self defense and was/is very flawed.
    Trayvon was even more flawed, and was part of the thug culture. He died like many such young men do.

    I disagree with his sale of the gun, but point out the outrage is selective, given that the Smithsonian had expressed interest in buying the Martin hoodie.

    1. Outrage is always selective, I’ve noticed. I’m not outraged about the Smithsonian’s interest in the hoodie, as I don’t know that I find them to be equivalent. If the Smithsonian had expressed interest in acquiring the gun of a cop killer, then I might be appalled (I’m not sure what I feel is ‘outrage’, but perhaps it is, as I’ve commented on this thread three times now). Of course, for all I know, they do have such an item and I don’t know it. Granted, this sale is also not to the Smithsonian but to any private buyer who is interested in such an item. I wonder, who would want such a gun?

    1. Mr. Fleming, it is very important to you that we see this case in the way you do. You could argue I’m ignorant until the cows come home, and honestly, you are probably correct. My issue with Zimmerman’s current actions is his deciding to auction a gun that killed a young man. Not only was he never contrite, he never seemed to understand that he took a life. He thinks he is a hero, as you apparently do. I do not.

  6. I’m not sure that re-litigating the case is really all that helpful. Whether Zimmerman was justified or not is now past the point of relevance to me. What has always bothered me about Zimmerman is the apparent pride he took in killing a young man who was walking around with armed Skittles in his pockets. And I can think of no other private citizen who has the gall to so publicly put such a controversial weapon for auction in this manner. He knows, courts, and desires the controversy. He is despicable.

    And yes, I would be just as appalled if a the killer of a cop put the gun he used up for auction.

  7. Bigfatmike, bettykath, and Isaac have very inventive takes on the evidence they created in their heads, leading to equally fanciful conclusions and an armchair quarterback conviction.

    It’s pretty to think so, isn’t it?

  8. Zimmerman is a pathological liar. He said he and Shelly were doing their regular Sunday routine of mentoring a couple of African American kids and he was on his way to the grocery store. Fact: he and Shelly had a huge fight and she left the house and went to her dad’s. He went grocery shopping with no money or credit card? The clubhouse surveillance videos show him going up and down the street in front of the clubhouse, stopping briefly at the clubhouse and looking in, then going by the mail boxes and up the street, making a u-turn and parking – where he claimed that Trayvon circled his truck in a threatening manner which the timeline doesn’t support. He also said in his original statement that Trayvon jumped from the bushes and assaulted him, but there are no bushes so he changed his story. Just a few things that the prosecution omitted from the trial. There was a witness that can be heard on the 911 call, Jeremy, who said that Zimmerman was “going to kill him”. There was no head bashing on the concrete. Zimmerman went hunting that night and bagged his quarry.

  9. “Martin did not seek out Zimmerman.” Yes, yes he did. Literally. Have you still not read the 911 transcript? He’d run off. Was out of sight. Completely gone. Some guy called the cops on him so he came back, beat him up, and smashed his head into the concrete.

    In what kind of society is this OK? Anytime anyone smashes your head with a rock, or into the curb, he’s either trying to kill you or make you a vegetable.

    Since we don’t have video of the attack, what we do have is the 911 call, where George is calmly talking to the 911 operator. George is older and overweigh, Trayvon is young and fit. George was not out of breath. He had this long conversation with 911. How is it possible that this could have occurred if he was running flat out, in order to catch the more athletic Trayvon?

    Why would anyone assume George had a pistol out and in his hand, if he was waiting for the cops to arrive?

    How could George have retreated? If Trayvon jumped him, started waling on him, and was fitter and faster? I can outrun pretty much no one. Why would you assume that the older, overweight guy could have escaped from the younger, fitter guy? That’s not physically possible.

    There is NO EVIDENCE that George Zimmerman did not keep his distance – that he was right on top of Trayvon when he was on the phone with 911. And you know what, you don’t have the right to punch anyone who watches you.

    In order for George Zimmerman to have been found guilty, they would have had to prove that he chased Trayvon down, grabbed him, got in a fist fight with him, and then shot him.

    We have a calm 911 call where he clearly wasn’t running, was expecting the cops to come any minute, and he had a lengthy conversation. So how is it possible to prove he was running flat out and tackled Trayvon?

  10. isaac:

    “Manslaughter is the charge for when someone creates a situation intentionally or through negligence and regardless of the actual issues, such as Zimmerman defending himself, some one gets killed.”

    So, just to be clear, if I call in a suspicious person in my neighborhood, and I trail far behind him, while on the phone with police given this description and location, and I completely lose sight of him, that creates a situation where some one could get killed, and it would be my fault?

    Would a better outcome have been getting a traumatic brain injury and living out your life in assisted living? Why did Trayvon have the right to beat George Zimmerman, and if he kept going possibly give him permanent brain damage, and George Zimmerman should have just taken it?

    Please explain, based on the 911 call, how George Zimmerman “stalked” Trayvon Martin. He was trailing far behind, told the 911 operator Trayvon ran off, and then had this long conversation with the operator while he waited for the police.

    In what galaxy is that considered “stalking”, which would entail that George Zimmerman considered Trayvon his prey, and was trying to catch him and harm him? Trayvon was gone. He was out of sight. Why did he come back and get in a fight with George Zimmerman, a stranger? Well, you can look at the pics and postings of his Facebook page and get an idea.

  11. KC

    Trayvon did’t create the situation. He was walking home from the store. Zimmerman created the situation by stalking him. Zimmerman had a reputation for instability equal to or greater than that of Martin’s. Martin was a punk in attitude and age. Zimmerman was a wannabe cop armed with a 45 and supposedly and adult. The bottom line here, that any fool off the street should be able to see, is that regardless of personalities, and Zimmerman has since shown himself to be somewhat unhinged and dangerous, one man stalked another. Perhaps Martin was standing his ground in confronting the person that he noticed stalking him. Perhaps Martin felt that his rights were being offended. Perhaps Martin was just responding to his own demons. Martin did not seek out Zimmerman. Zimmerman sought out Martin. Martin used his fists. Zimmerman used a gun that without which he would have stayed in the car. The simple math of it all, backed up by law, is manslaughter. The only reason Zimmerman got off is that the idiot Angela Corey charged him with murder, which was unprovable. Once the jury decided that it was not murder they couldn’t say OK then what about manslaughter. A conviction has to follow an appropriate and consistent set of charges, not a grab bag of ‘OK how about this?’ Zimmerman is a poster child for the need to regulate that ‘right’ to bear arms. Zimmerman being allowed to carry a weapon around is an example of this nation’s insanity regarding guns. Unfortunately there is no shortage of idiots that would defend his right to carry an arm. It is simply stupid. It could only happen in America and it is absolutely nothing to be proud of. The founding fathers would puke. If idiots are to be allowed to wander around armed to the teeth they should wear signs indicating that they are armed. That way those who respect human life, intelligence, common sense, etc could keep a wide berth. Perhaps they could congregate and wax each other. That, unfortunately is too much to ask given the present state of mental affairs in this country.

  12. Liberaltarian: While the evidence showed that Zimmerman was following Martin, it was Martin who initiated the face-to-face confrontation.

  13. Bigfatmike,

    There was no retreat available.
    Martin jumped Zimmerman and had him on the ground, beating him MMA style, just like in Trayvon’s school fight club videos.

    If Martin had retreated it is a pretty good bet he’d be dead today anyway, from an OD, some other botched robbery, killed in jail, or by cops.

    You can’t seriously be arguing that poor neighborhoods shouldn’t be allowed to do surveillance.

    1. “There was no retreat available.
      Martin jumped Zimmerman and had him on the ground, beating him MMA style, just like in Trayvon’s school fight club videos”

      We don’t know who jumped who do we? Perhaps someone can check the transcript. But none of the neighbors saw the initiation of the fight – right? So the claim that Martin jumped Zimmerman is pure conjecture – right?

      Besides, I have seen a few fights – real street fights, not entertainment on TV. I don’t think I have ever seen a situation where retreat was impossible.

      Maybe, just maybe Zimmerman could not retreat – but not very likely. The real question is whether there would have been pursuit.

      You have to ask yourself does it makes sense that Martin, or anyone, would advance on a retreating Zimmerman with a 9MM pistol in his hand. Martin expressed concern about Zimmerman in his phone conversation. Wouldn’t Martin take the retreat of Zimmerman as a chance to try to escape?

      We just do not know the answers to the hypotheticals.

      But you did get one thing right: “You can’t seriously be arguing that poor neighborhoods shouldn’t be allowed to do surveillance.”

      You are right. I never argued that any neighborhood, poor or other wise, should be prevented from doing surveillance.

      And I do agree with that particular neighborhood – neighborhood watch should not be armed. That was the policy of that neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watch should not be armed – remember? And neighborhood watch should keep their distance – acting as the eyes and ears of the police – not wannabe cops trying to find and excuse to intervene.

Comments are closed.