He keeps showing signs of impulsiveness and the inability to fully appreciate the implications of his ideas. If I didn’t know any better, I would think this has something to do with why Martin is dead.
But seriously. What could be gained by meeting with Martin’s parents? Saying to them anything other than “I’m sorry” would be rude, awkward, and completely unnecessary, but if he apologizes then he’s paving the way to saying something that could later bite him in the ass.
Clear his concious? Be able to tell them face to face what happened without lawyers, judges, detectives, media, etc. interrupting, twisting, cherry-picking, analyzing, spinning, judging every word he says?
To apologize for instigating a confrontation that should have never happened and apologize for it quickly getting out of hand?
Maybe he feels Trayvon’s parents deserve an explanation and fuck everybody else?
All I can figure is that he’s so arrogant that he thinks he can charm his way into good favor. That would fit with my impression of what kind of person he is. But whatever he’s thinking, I just can’t imagine why his lawyer would go along with it.
I would be shocked if it was this.
It would be nice to think this is true. But the circumstances of February 26 don’t provide evidence of a guy who analyzes his actions.
He made a public apology at today’s hearing.
Edited to add: During his 911 call he stated that he thought that Trayvon was in his late teens.
He should have stopped after the first sentence. Now we have to wonder why he thinks Martin’s age matters. And also, if he shot Martin because he was beating him up, what does it matter if he thought he was armed or not? He supposedly was “armed” with his fists.
Well that’s different…great idea!
Yeah, his lawyer’s got his hands full. Guess that explains the long face.
Bingo bingo bingo. Very interesting choice of words, there, Georgie. Didja shoot him cuz you thought maybe he was armed? And then you realized that you needed to come up with something better than that?
Oh man his lawyer must be a wreck trying to keep him under control…
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Oh man his lawyer must be a wreck trying to keep him under control…
[/QUOTE]
He’s probably regretting the decision to take on this case. All his money is probably being spent on antacids right now.
There’s nothing at all inconsistent with insisting that he was legally in fear of death or serious bodily injury while at the same time telling the parents that he is sincerely sorry that things turned out the way they did,that their child is dead, that he wished it never happened, and ask their forgiveness for any mistakes he made about Trayvon’s intentions.
Yes there is. It’s like saying “I’m sorry for hitting you, but you shouldn’t have been in the way of my fist.” You can apologize for what happened without simultaneously trying to defend your actions.
If these were two separate actions, there would be no inconsistency. But there is when you put them together.
I look forward to the day in court when he takes the stand. Should be fun
I’m beginning to think that no competent lawyer would ever let him get on the stand.
I don’t think his lawyer can force him not to go on the witness stand.
But I were his lawyer, I would give him an ultimatum: shut the fuck up or I’m quitting like those other guys did.
Yeah but all he’s really got is his story, unfortunately.
Doesn’t his lawyer have to call him to the stand in order for him to go up there? If he refuses to call him, what can GZ do?
Lets say even that his lawyer misleads him into thinking he’ll put him on the stand. Then one day he goes into his closing arguments. Can GZ stand up in the court and protest that he didn’t get to say his version of the story?
Since the lawyer works for Zimmerman, not the other way around, I’m not seeing how this would happen.
Also, since Zimmerman’s claim of defense almost entirely rests upon his statement, it may be difficult for him to avoid being called on the stand. But I don’t know.
When the prosecution rests its case, Z’s lawyer can choose not to put on Z (or any other witness), and move for directed verdict/argue to the jury that the state hasn’t proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, even without hearing Z’s version of the story.
I know that he has that right, but I can’t begin to imagine how they think the state fails if the defense makes no attempt to defend him. That would be very interesting.