What George Zimmerman should have said to Hannity

Paul K. writes:

I watched the interview with George Zimmerman on Hannity last night. I was once again impressed by his dignity and moral seriousness. He finds himself the victim of a political trial and I understand he has to be very careful about how he presents himself publicly. Below is his closing statement. I inserted, in bold, what I wish he could have said (but was wise not to say).

[I] wish that there was something, anything I could have done that wouldn’t have put me in the position where I had to take his life. And I do want to tell everyone, my wife, my family, my parents, my grandmother, the Martins, the city of Stanford, and America that I am sorry that this happened.

But let me be clear: it wasn’t me who made it happen. Trayvon Martin did. I wish I could have gone through life without another man’s blood on my hands, but after Trayvon attacked me without provocation, knocked me to the ground, repeatedly slammed my head against the concrete sidewalk, and reached for the gun he saw on my belt, he gave me no choice but to defend myself. It is understandable that his parents would take his side, but it says something very alarming about our society that others continue to do so, including law enforcement officials.

I hate to think that because of this incident, because of my actions it’s polarized and divided America and I’m truly sorry.

But there was nothing I could do about it. Sure, if I had let myself be another victim, America would have never heard about me, or if it heard, wouldn’t care. But because Trayvon’s parents brought the race hustlers into it, and because the media distorted facts and doctored evidence to meet their racial narrative, and because even the president expressed his identification with my attacker, it is understandable that the case divided America and inflamed racial tensions. That was beyond my control, but the American people should hold those parties accountable.

LA replies:

I disagree that he should not have said these things. I didn’t like it that he said he was “sorry” that it happened. He should have said simply:

“I did not do anything to be sorry for. Trayvon Martin attacked me and was trying to kill me, and I had no choice but to defend myself. Not only that, but I was so hesitant to use deadly force that I didn’t pull out my gun until Trayvon began to reach for it. I should be praised for my restraint. Instead, for having justifiably defended my life from someone who was trying to kill me, I have been charged with murder. What has happened to our country?”

- end of initial entry -

Buck writes:

I stayed home just to watch the interview. I left the house at the halfway point, irritated and puzzled. As always, I can’t tolerate Hannity for more than two minutes. He grates on me quickly. I cannot understand why George Zimmerman and Mark O’Mara agreed to do this interview. It was nothing but a risk. What could they repeat that could possibly help? O’Mara is a mystery. One minute he seems savvy, the next incompetent. Maybe he’s smarter than the prosecution, but that certainly remains to be seen.

Zimmerman appeared to be weaker, rather than stronger. He seemed tentative and unsure of his own words. I have to believe that they was there for a very specific reason; to accomplish something that they both deemed to be very important. It’s beyond what that was.

They gave the prosecuters several days worth of useful court room material. Why?

LA replies:

Buck’s criticisms of Zimmerman make no sense to me. Zimmerman finally had the opportunity to give the country his side of what happened, and he showed himself to be the decent human being that he is, and the victim of an ideological prosecution that he is.

Buck writes:

Zimmerman repeated what all who are interested already know, what we already heard him say during the police interview at the scene and at the bond hearing. I’ve made the case that Zimmerman is a decent man. Saying more than he needs to say, and saying it in public is useless to his case. He can only screw it up. It’s Zimmerman’s case, in the court room, that he must be concerned with. If the reason that he wanted to be interviewed on Hannity had something to do with a problem that the defense sees with “he was running” versus “he was skipping away” then that is very inside legal stuff that I don’t undersand. I still don’t see that as a good reason to be saying anything more in public, unless it is crucial. Zimmerman can say nothing that can help him in court, and anything that he does say must help him in court. He needs to stay quiet. Getting the public—the small number who watch Hannity and who are probably already supportive of Zimmerman—on his side can’t help him one bit. Zimmerman discussing the case in public only gives the prosecution more ammunition to use against him in court. They now have him on the record making conflicting, contradictory statements about which they can hammer him on cross examination and even force him testify. He’s the defendant and he is protected by the rules of evidence. He can not be forced to take the stand unless he says something contradictory in public. They can now play the Hannity video in court and grill him on it. That’s why defendents are always kept quiet; nothing that they say can help them in court, it can only hurt them. There was nothing, not one thing that Zimmerman could have said on Hannity that could help his case in the court room. He’s not fighting public opinion any more, he lost that battle. He’s been charged with murder 2. He has to defend himself in court by refuting the prosecutions evidence. He can’t hand them something to use against himself. It no longer matters what the country thinks, it’s a jury of twelve in the court room that must be convinced. He gave the prosecution a gift. That makes no sense to me. But, I’m no lawyer.

My guess still is that they will try to convince the jury that Zimmerman is guilty under Florida law of Aggravated Stalking. If they do, it’s over for him. None of the other evidence, or his decency will matter. They will seal their Murder Two conviction. Most of the jurers will probably already be uncomfortable with Stand Your Ground, which certainly won’t help.

Alexis Zarkox writes:

George Zimmerman should have said nothing to Hannity. He should never have agreed to any interview at all as there is no upside for him. If this case makes it to a jury, he can always give testimony then. Now the prosecution knows a lot about what he will say and can prepare for it. You can be sure the prosecutor will seize on even the smallest inconsistency between this interview. and any other statements or facts in evidence. Zimmerman should never have made any statements to the police at all right from the beginning. The smart thing for him to have done was to clam up, and ask for counsel. The less material the state has, the more difficult time it has proving your guilt. He was also foolish for taking a lie detector test. The results of such tests are opinion dominated. Not only that, but such tests can be reinterpreted at any time in the future. Never, ever, take a lie detector test. O’Mara should have never permitted this interview. Perhaps Zimmerman was better off in jail. Unless O’Mara has no control over Zimmerman, he’s just been revealed as an incompetent. Already the prosecution has declared this interview as evidence. Evidently realizing his mistake, Zimmerman has backed out of an interview with Barbara Walters.

There can be no doubt the current judge is biased against Zimmerman. We now have defamatory statements from this new witness number 9. All these statements are inadmissible at trial, and yet the judge refused to block their release. They only serve to contaminate a future jury pool. This judge is a disgrace and should be removed from the case.

Finally, again, I urge VFR readers never, ever to talk to the police where there is any possibility you could become a defendant. You need not take my word for it. Watch this video by James Duane, a former defense lawyer. It does not matter if you are innocent. It does not matter if you are telling the truth. Shut up. Zimmerman seems not to understand this wise advice, and he might pay dearly for his ignorance.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

At your recommendation on your blog, I watched the George Zimmerman interview last night. I never watch Fox, so I would have certainly missed it.

You wrote in your posting:

Zimmerman finally had the opportunity to give the country his side of what happened, and he showed himself to be the decent human being that he is, and the victim of an ideological prosecution.

That is what I thought at the end of the interview. He looked strong and sure, and that he had nothing to apologize for.

Which is why, like you, I was a little disappointed at his apology.

But then I thought that perhaps it is his way of showing his decency. He does feel terrible about the death. He knows that this caused a dynamic within America. He seems to be apologizing in general—he put everyone in that apology basket—to show his sorrow. But, he also made it clear that he was defending himself, and I think he would do the same if the situation arose again.

In in the end, the sincerity of his apology, at the horror that ensued, made me think that he really is a decent person.

The problem, though, is that he gave liberals and liberal/conservatives (and blacks) what they wanted: That a neighborhood watch who kills in self-defense (and also to protect the community, because he was also acting on the community’s behalf) apologize for killing a black man. Never mind that this black man was a potential threat to the community. The sacredness of blacks cannot be touched.

So, I agree, he should have been, in the end, unapologetic about his actions. Clear language from him would have helped those questioning the massive racial propaganda that is going on. Perhaps as he thinks more about this, and as he sees the situation not getting any better (he is getting death threats for black groups, after all!), he might realize that there is some kind of civil war going on, and the party that is being attacked is not even fighting back. He actually belongs to that non-fighting party, although he did make a start.

Hannon writes:

What struck me in this portion of the interview (from the link you provided) is that Hannity is a sub-moronic personality when it comes to interviews. [LA replies: Agreed.] He let Zimmerman completely avoid answering at least three of his questions over just eight minutes. The first was his question about “time to reflect” about what had happened. Zimmerman basically says “no” and then proceeds to tell us about all the time he had to think in solitary confinement. Apparently this thinking came to nothing. The second was Hannity’s question about why Zimmerman felt he needed to carry a gun on his person, which Zimmerman avoided answering completely. It’s not as if these were evasions, it was that Hannity handled the process so poorly.

Worse still was the way this interview was portrayed on a local talk radio station in Los Angeles by two radio personalities (there it is again—where does one apply to become a “personality”?), “John and Ken.” These guys are dynamite when it comes to railing against Democrats and civic liberal nonsense but on certain social issues they are worse than useless. John and Ken were completely unserious about this interview and indeed the entire case. They pounced on Zimmerman for a string of “no regret” comments and were laughing maniacally over his “God’s plan” statement. These statements caused them to label Zimmerman a raving lunatic and that judgment was about all they had to say. I don’t think it ever entered their faux conservative brains that the important issue is whether Zimmerman legitimately defended his life out of mortal fear from a dangerous attacker.

Black Run America indeed.

Ed H. writes:

What else Zimmerman could have said:

“When a teenage black male is allowed to listen to gangsta rap, when his parents do nothing to correct an infatuation with drugs, guns, whores, stealing, and in-your- face aggression, no one in the black community including his parents has any right to be surprised when the young black male goes out into the world and acts on those impulses, nor can you be surprised when such behavior ends in arrest, jail, or death. You allow this to happen. They are your children.”

Buck writes:

After I sent my comment, I read this in an ABC report posted at Drudge:

Granting the interview will likely haunt Zimmerman, veteran legal analyst and defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh told ABC News. “He has impeached himself publicly, this is going to be a huge problem for him … and the prosecutors must be extremely pleased … He was making inconsistent statements that they can use in a trial against him.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 19, 2012 05:42 PM | Send