Zimmerman: Killing Trayvon Martin ‘God’s Will’

George Zimmerman recently did a video interview with his defense lawyer and offered up one of the most inane rationalizations imaginable, as well as demonstrating that he doesn’t know what words mean. Get a load of this bullshit attempt at self-justification:

“I feel that now is the perfect time to speak my mind without fear of retaliation by the president, the attorney general, the federal government etc.,” Zimmerman explained. “Initially I was extremely alleviated (ED: I don’t think he has any idea what that word actually means). Quickly that turned into realization that the Department of Justice finding that there was no basis to pursue [federal] charges was just the beginning of a journey — my personal journey — to correct the wrongs that the federal government did. To ensure that it never happens to any innocent American ever again.”

The former neighborhood watchman insisted that he had a “clean conscience” after he was found to be not guilty.

“I believe God has his plans, and for me to second-guess them would be hypocritical, almost blasphemous,” he said when asked if the encounter that ended Martin’s life would have turned out differently…

Zimmerman concluded by saying that it was “up to God” if he would ever be the person again that he was when he killed Martin.

“It’s up to God and I put it all in his hands and I do have faith that whatever he has planned out for me is what’s best for me. So whatever he’s determined whatever he has planned out for me I am along for the ride and I just hope to be strong enough to see his will be done.”

This conversation is brought to you by the words “fuck” and “you.”

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • theguy

    “Quickly that turned into realization that the Department of Justice finding that there was no basis to pursue [federal] charges”

    I haven’t followed this story as closely as I perhaps should have, but I don’t believe there was any reason to drop federal charges, even if he was found innocent. And I think that initial innocent verdict was merely on insufficient evidence, not that Zimmerman didn’t actually kill an unarmed person.

    “was just the beginning of a journey — my personal journey — to correct the wrongs that the federal government did”

    Bullshit, you son of a bitch.

    “To ensure that it never happens to any innocent American ever again.”

    That would involve taking your gun away, you soulless life-sucking bastard.

    “when asked if the encounter that ended Martin’s life would have turned out differently…”

    Zimmerman could have chosen not to chase Martin down to begin with, then everything would have turned out differently.

  • http://www.aquaticape.org anthrosciguy

    The guy’s on a quest to show he’s a real sweetheart.

  • caseloweraz

    If George Zimmerman had been alleviated, he would stay alleviated. Maybe he meant “abbreviated”? 😉

    I’ll say to Zimmerman what I once said to Dick Cheney (not to his face): Zimmerman — we deserve your silence.

  • roggg

    Sounds to me like a guy plagued with guilt trying to alleviate his guilty conscience by convincing himself it was a higher power and not personal choice that made him a murderer.

  • dugglebogey

    It seems like god’s plans for him lately have been for him to beat the shit out of whatever unfortunate woman happens to be nearby.

  • teawithbertrand

    Presumably, if murdering an unarmed teenager was just part of god’s will, then surely every other shitty thing Zimmerman has ever done was, too. How nice for him. Does he still identify with the party of “personal responsibility”?

  • http://quodlibet-sarah.blogspot.com/ Quodlibet

    “To ensure that it never happens to any innocent American ever again.”

    Spoken as if he’s some sort of victim.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    He’d make a great NRA spokesthing.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    I wonder when that little polyp turns malignant, or a truck is bearing down on him, if it’ll also be god’s will?

    He complained about Obama… Wasn’t Obama god’s will? Wai u no liv gawd, Zimmy?!??

  • Larry

    Got rationalization much, you syphilitic piece of shit?

  • Larry

    Marcus@8

    NRA spokesthingthug

    FTFY

  • a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    It occurs to me that Xtians really believe in far more than a divine trinity. Not only must one have God the father, son and holy spirit, but what would they do without God the scapegoat? You can pin any crime you commit on God, because, being almighty and omniscient, he could have stopped you if he wanted. Therefore…

    And that, folks, is why I’m an atheist!

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    I read that yesterday, and the man who stalked and eventually killed a young black man because he thought he looked suspicious had the fucking nerve to say “Let’s not rush to judgement.”

  • colnago80

    Re theguy @ #1

    Actually, the authorities botched the entire affair from the get go. The police officer who was in charge of the crime scene, after conferring with the other officers there and listening to Zimmerman’s story advised the DA that Zimmerman should be arrested and charged with manslaughter. The DA rejected that advice and, after the pressure built up, a special prosecutor was appointed who proceeded to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Had the DA taken the officer’s advice and charged Zimmerman with manslaughter, there would not have been anywhere near the publicity and the evidence would would have been sufficient to sustain such a charge.

    IMHO, The 2nd degree murder charge was an attempt by the prosecutor to force a plea bargain and avoid a trial. It was quite clear from a preponderance of the evidence that the fatal shot was fired during a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin, which the former was getting the worst of. IMHO, Zimmerman was clearly guilty of manslaughter because it was his gun that fired the fatal shot and he was the one who pulled the trigger.

  • a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    Larry, calling George Zimmerman a syphilitic piece of shit is to slander both feces and syphilis.

  • http://thebronzeblog.wordpress.com/ Bronze Dog

    An abdication of responsibility for his actions that doubles as a way to minimize the injustice of the world. We’re not supposed to feel bad when injustice happens (especially when the speaker in the perpetrator) because it’s all for a nebulous greater good. Don’t bother pausing, reflecting, or advocating we do something about injustice, it’s all cool.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    This guy thinks it’s “blasphemous” to imagine past events being handled differently? What a sick pathetic piece of work.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #17

    My reading of Zimmerman is that he has greatly deteriorated mentally since his affair with Martin.

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    Does anyone think that if the situation was reversed, and Zimmerman had been killed, that a “stand your ground” defense would have worked for Martin?

  • zmidponk

    theguy #1:

    I haven’t followed this story as closely as I perhaps should have, but I don’t believe there was any reason to drop federal charges, even if he was found innocent. And I think that initial innocent verdict was merely on insufficient evidence, not that Zimmerman didn’t actually kill an unarmed person.

    This is why I kinda like the ‘not proven’ verdict that is sometimes used, especially in Scottish courts. Essentially, this is where the jury has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the facts of their case, but they aren’t really convinced the accused is actually innocent. It’s sometimes known as the ‘not guilty, and don’t do it again’ verdict.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360322113 aaronbaker

    It’s true what that very smart person said: “Awful people don’t know they’re awful.”

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Spoken as if he’s some sort of victim.

    As if? I don’t think he could be any more clear about declaring himself the victim. He explicitly says he’s a victim of the federal government (whose decision not to prosecute was just the beginning of his victimhood) and is personally being victimized by the president and attorney general, whom he fantasizes are out to retaliate against him. And, purely for altruistic reasons of course, he seeks to prevent the feds from ever wronging someone like that again (I would suggest not killing people as a good way to keep the law off your back in such cases).

    The inversion of the victim and the aggressor is standard issue right-wing discourse when it’s needed to put the privileged and “those people” in their proper places. And in Zimmerman’s case, it’s absolute shamelessness and refusal to accept any degree of responsibility for what he did. I’m guessing he’ll declare his candidacy for president any day now.

  • se habla espol

    It’s sometimes known as the ‘not guilty, and don’t do it again’ verdict.

    This is not a joke. Decades ago, I was forecritter of a jury that came to such a verdict. Unfortunately, the verdict form didn’t have this as one of the options, so we had to abbreviate it.

  • tfkreference

    Please correct me if I’m wrong. I believe that in the US the verdict is “not guilty,” rather than “innocent.” The point of the trial is to prove the defendant’s guilt, not for the defense to prove innocence.

  • felidae

    It’s up to God and I put it all in his hands and I do have faith that whatever he has planned out for me

    I’ll bet he believes that God will grant him success in his future hunting expeditions!

  • Michael Heath

    theguy wrote:

    I think that initial innocent verdict was merely on insufficient evidence, not that Zimmerman didn’t actually kill an unarmed person.

    I listened to an interview of one of the jurors who voted not guilty. She claimed to represent the conclusions of herself and at least one other juror.

    The problem wasn’t a lack of evidence, there was convincing evidence that Mr. Zimmerman negligently murdered Mr. Martin. Instead there was a lot unconscious racist thinking to rationalize away inconvenient facts. This juror, and perhaps one other, instead imagined that Mr. Martin didn’t have to tempt his stalker George Zimmerman into killing him. That Martin could have avoided Zimmerman. There was no compelling evidence of these imaginings; but’s that’s OK because Trayvon Martin was a black person. [/snark]

  • dan4

    @4: How is Zimmerman a “murderer?” Martin attacked him (NOT the other way around) and was beating the shit out him. Zimmerman did the only thing he could do to save his life.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Yeah, he did what he had to do to save his life, AFTER going out of his way (against police advice) to start a confrontation with his victim, on public land where both of them had an equal right to be. And yes, it was Zimmerman who went out of his way to start that unnecessary fight — Martin was just walking home from a shopping trip.

  • comfychair

    @27: How do you manage to end up on the absolute wrong side of everything? I would have thought you’d get at least one issue right just by accident by now, but no.

  • comfychair

    If you are robbing a bank and someone tackles you, do you, the bank robber, then have the right to use deadly force in self defense?

  • dan4

    @30: Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything equivalent to robbing a bank when Martin assaulted him.

  • lofgren

    Stalking seems comparable to robbing a bank to me. Certainly if Zimmerman had cause to feel that his life was being threatened, Martin did as well. I suppose the only difference is that Zimmerman had the forethought to be armed.

    I really want to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, both because there are some unanswerable questions about that night and because I would prefer to live in a world where a narcissistic man child can’t strap on a gun and go out and stalk and kill an innocent kid without any legal repercussions whatsoever.

    But then he has to go and open his fucking mouth.

  • demonhauntedworld

    Snopes says: False.

    http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/zimmermanquote.asp

    Raw Story should have done more fact-checking on this one.

  • demonhauntedworld

    Whoops, sorry. I was too quick on the trigger there. Seems like the Snopes story debunks a very similar story.

  • Anri

    dan4 @ 31:

    Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything equivalent to robbing a bank when Martin assaulted him.

    Whereas, given that Martin was clearly guilty of Walking down The Street While Black, being pursued, harassed, and eventually shot is just to be expected.

    After all, if god is telling you to kill black people, what can you do?

    Right dan4?

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    dan4 @31: excuse me, moron, but it was Zimmerman who first confronted and began harassing Martin, on public land (not Zimmerman’s or anyone else’s private property), when Martin was committing absolutely no crime or threatening action of any sort. This is a well-documented and uncontested fact, and your willful ignorance of it strongly implies you’re either a racist git or a mindless Zimmerman fanboy who can’t bear to admit he chose the wrong side.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360322113 aaronbaker

    The only evidence we have that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman’s (to put it mildly) self-serving statements to that effect, so I think we can regard his statements with some skepticism though not discount them completely.

    Notice that I said “statement,” not testimony. Though he was happy to unburden himself to a bunch of reporters, Zimmerman never said anything under oath to the group that mattered most here, his jury. His lawyers didn’t put him on the stand either because what he would have said was perjured, or, if it was true, wouldn’t have helped him. All the more reason to regard his allegations with considerable doubt.

    Let me add two other points:

    1) Even if Trayvon Martin struck first, it appears to me that he could have appealed to a principle of reasonable self-defense and stand your ground, inasmuch as he was being stalked at night. Remember that Zimmerman admitted to the stalking.

    2) Even if the kid hit first, Zimmerman, an ostensible adult, armed with a gun, stalked a teenage boy who was a) minding his own business and b) was where he had every right to be. Then Zimmerman shot this boy to death. Even if there’s enough doubt to deny the name “murderer” to Zimmerman, he remains a thoroughly vicious human being, who should be shunned by decent people everwhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360322113 aaronbaker

    A pedantic legal detail or two, to make my argument clearer. An attorney CANNOT put on the stand a witness who they have reason to believe will perjure themselves.

    We all love the Fifth Amendment, but I’ve never met another lawyer who didn’t agree its principal beneficiaries are guilty people. When defense attorneys don’t put their client on the stand, doing so creates a plausible inference of guilt–so much so that prosecutors are strictly forbidden to draw that inference in front of a jury. Remember that in the American legal system, you CAN be compelled by a court to testify to most things UNLESS they’re likely to incriminate you.

    Are there situations where you would not put an innocent person on the stand? I think so. If something about your clilent was likely to inflame the prejudices of the jury, that would be a good reason. If the client were so mentally impaired and/or inarticulate that a clever prosecutor might tie them up in incriminating-sounding knots, that would be another good reason. Does Zimmerman seem to fit either example?

  • DaveL

    I feel that now is the perfect time to speak my mind

    Boy, you really aren’t that bright, are you?

  • caseloweraz

    Per the video from the Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman did the interview with his divorce lawyer, not his defense lawyer.

  • caseloweraz

    tfkreference: Please correct me if I’m wrong. I believe that in the US the verdict is “not guilty,” rather than “innocent.” The point of the trial is to prove the defendant’s guilt, not for the defense to prove innocence.

    You are correct. The verb “to acquit” means exactly the same thing in this context: to find a defendant not guilty.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    The part that choked me up was when he invoked Anne Frank.

    Because obviously being labeled a pariah by civilized society for stalking and killing an unarmed black teenager is just like being gassed to death by Nazis.

  • colnago80

    Re aaronbaker @ #37

    Most criminal defense lawyers don’t put their client on the witness stand for the very good reason that a good prosecutor can make an inexperienced witness look bad, regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty of the crime charged. As F. Lee Bailey said in one of his books, when a client tells him that he is innocent, Bailey will respond that that’s nice but factual innocence is not a defense to a charge unless the client can prove his innocence (e.g. has an iron clad alibi). In the case of Zimmerman, there was no need to put him on the witness stand because the evidence supporting the charge of second degree murder was poor. Remember, the job of the jury is to determine whether the state proved that his actions rose to the level of second degree murder. This the state failed to do. Had they charged manslaughter, as the police officer in charge of the crime scene recommended, they might well have gotten a guilty verdict.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    @38:

    Just to play devil’s advocate, as I understand things the state’s case was quite weak in that they simply didn’t have the evidence they needed to meet a rather high burden of proof. So if you’re the defense attorney, why bother putting Zimmerman on the stand? If you know the state can’t prove that your client wasn’t acting in self-defense, then putting him on the stand can only do harm. Best not to mess with a winning hand.

    I’m guessing that defense attorneys must have some saying to the effect that if the prosecution’s case is weak, keep things short and simple. If their case is strong, confuse the jury with lots of bullshit.

  • DaveL

    @44,

    I followed the entire trial, and while I’m no lawyer, it seems to me it wasn’t just that the prosecution’s case was weak, the actual presentation looked like a comedy of errors. Witness after witness for the prosecution acted like they were testifying for the defense. The prosecutor introduced a video of Zimmerman’s police interview, which effectively allowed him to give his side of the story without the threat of cross-examination. He then asked the police officer on the stand whether he seemed credible, and the officer responded that he did (I can’t help but wonder if he was asking a question he didn’t know the answer to). The prosecution basically failed to put on any substantial rebuttal case, and by closing arguments it sounded like they were arguing reasonable doubt.

  • comfychair

    I think I finally see it from dan4’s perspective. It goes something like this…

    The gangsta thug race hustler, Trayvon, could have made the wise decision that night to stay at home in his tarpaper shack where his so-called ‘family’ was squatting. But he didn’t. The only logical reason for the gangsta thug Trayvon to have gone out trolling for a victim that night was that he obviously intended to martyr hisself for no other reason than to make that nice young Zimmerman boy look bad. A form of asymmetrical warfare, if you will, not much different than when all those terrorists in Gitmo committed suicide.

    Isn’t that pretty much the version as told over in dan’s up-is-down world?

  • colnago80

    Re DaveL @ #45

    Sounds like the prosecutor is from the Marcia Clark school of prosecutors.