Ohio Group Raises $12K To Buy Zimmerman Guns

[onehandle]

Source: AP

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — An Ohio firearms group has raised more than $12,000 to be spent on guns or a security system for George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida. But the money could end up being used to pay for Zimmerman’s defense costs and fees.

The $12,150.37 check that the group wrote to Zimmerman is the result of a fundraising effort that was launched because the group believes Zimmerman’s gun rights are being violated by the U.S. Department of Justice. The department has taken all the evidence from the trial, including the gun that killed Martin, as part of a civil rights investigation.

Zimmerman was acquitted earlier this month of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the 2012 shooting of Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., near Orlando. Zimmerman, 29, told police he shot Martin, 17, after the black teenager physically attacked him; Martin’s family and supporters say Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, racially profiled Martin as a potential criminal and wrongly followed him.

The verdict sparked protests and calls for federal officials to charge Zimmerman with violating Martin’s civil rights. Zimmerman’s brother and one of his attorneys have said he receives threats and is concerned about his safety.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ohio-group-raises-12k-to-buy-zimmerman-guns.php

---

Alternative Headline: Gun Nuts Buy Guns For Escaped Racist Child Murderer.

[jtuck004]

1. Enjoy prison asshole. n/t

[pipoman]

47. What's he going to prison for doing?

[jtuck004]

49. He is in one of his own making. I think, (hope, anyway) that he gets the upgrade to

a real one one day.

But he is through walking around free, without wondering when something is coming for him, his family, anyone that is around him. His friends think so little of him that they feel it necessary to manufacture scenes to make him look like a human being, as in the car crash fakery.

That would be a little bit of hell on earth for most people, I think. And he is most deserving of it.

[Turbineguy]

2. That's nice.

Maybe he can shoot some people of different skin colors just to show he's not a racist?

[Skittles]

3. hilarious he has to be protected from.......people like him

f*** him all ways to hell

[raging moderate]

4. And how about a set of EYEGLASSES, too?

I saw pictures of Trayvon Martin, up to a few weeks before, and right after. That was a KID! In clothes worn by many average teens, every day! Also, as a speech pathologist, let me tell you, I hear an adolescent male voice in that scream. Complete with high-pitch frequencies from thin young vocal folds and pitch breaks from a rapidly growing larynx! Every now and then, I still remember it. I have worked with kids, and I love them. Specifically, there are several black kids I personally know right now and love. Every day, I wake up and think, what on Earth are black teenagers supposed to do? What are their parents supposed to do?

[mbperrin]

7. Just a sense of decency would be great.

I know, I'm dreaming.

[SunSeeker]

12. Totally agree. I still can't believe people think that was Z's scream on the tape.

The first time I heard it I remember thinking, wow, that is clearly a teen's voice--and exactly the sort of scream you would expect from someone staring at the barrel of a gun. I thought it was conclusive evidence of Z's murder of Trayvon.

And then when I heard the lame story Z gave about his head being pounded into the sidewalk, I thought Z was done. There is no way you could say much, let alone belt out a scream, while your neck was whipping back and forth as your head was supposedly getting pounded into the ground. I was shocked when people bought Z's story and believed it was Z's voice on the tape.

I think Z got the bonk on the nose from the recoil of the gun because he was holding it too close to his own face. And that would explain why there was none of Z's DNA on Trayvon's hands.

[TRoN33]

5. No way!

[mbperrin]

6. Mmm, if money is raised for "security" and is spent on lawyers instead,

isn't that some kinda fraud?

I mean, his wife already perjured herself about a half million in gun nut money in PayPal, so I'm not surprised.

[Iliyah]

8. We do live in a free society

so march on . . with that amount Z can buy tons of bullets as well.

[onehandle]

9. Free to murder black kids. That's for sure. nt

[1monster]

10. I hope they are planning to house him in Ohio, too. We don't need him in Florida... especially

with even more guns!

[coeur_de_lion]

30. Yes please! I hear Ohio is so nice this time of year.

And if the people will buy him guns he'll love it there.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Gun Humpers stick together, no matter how stupid the cause.

n/t

[Blue_Tires]

45. +1

[OldRedneck]

13. A fool and his money are soon parted.

And a bunch of fools and their money are parted just as quickly.

[niyad]

14. I would be willing to bet that group has never raised a dime for some real charity--a soup kitchen,

something. but they can come up with 12k for zimmy.

beyond disgusting.

[perdita9]

18. Agreed!

[Autumn]

15. Nice! Maybe the fucker can splurge on a tank if they get enough donors.

That will make him a BIG man.

[Generic Other]

16. Trayvon's parents will recover them in court

Imagine what these folks could have done raising that much money for an actual worthwhile cause.

[branford]

20. Unfortunately, civil recovery is unlikely.

Florida law provides for civil immunity in the event of self-defense under its Stand Your Ground statute. Although a hearing would be required to gain immunity, in light of the criminal verdict, I would imagine a hearing would be little more than an administrative formality. Mark O'Mara even referred to the immunity in his post-trial comments. To add further insult to injury, if the Martin family sues and loses due to immunity, they would be required under Florida law to pay for Zimmerman's legal fees incurred at the hearing, as well as any expenses incurred on appeal if a trial court denied immunity.

In the very unlikely event that Zimmerman does not have immunity, as a long-time commercial litigator in NYC, I would assume that his attorneys have made Zimmerman proof against any future judgment. He had no real assets before the trial, and is probably effectively now bankrupt. His attorneys, advisors and experts at trial also have priority or secured liens against any future income he might earn. Further, any income received from book deals and similar matters can be held in certain trusts, paid to his family, invested in exempt investments, etc. in order to protect the assets and avoid creditors. If the Martins pursue Zimmerman in civil court, at best, they would achieve a pyrrhic victory. At worst, they could actually have to pay money to Zimmerman.

As to the group that raised money to buy Zimmerman a new gun, they are not the first and unlikely to be the last. They are attention seekers that should simply be ignored.

[Generic Other]

21. Justice turns a blind eye

Sad. Welcome to DU, Branford. Thanks for sharing your insights!

[branford]

23. Thanks for the welcome!

I've been a long-time reader at DU, but the recent Zimmerman case and the implications of the Detroit bankruptcy encouraged me to register.

Despite the difficulties in bringing a civil case against Zimmerman and the apparent lack of evidence for a federal civil rights indictment, I believe that justice, if it is warranted, will prevail. Whether or not it is justified, George Zimmerman is unlikely to ever live a normal life. Apart from the threats against his life, which I strongly denounce as pure vigilantism, Zimmerman will forever be an object of ridicule and scorn and a social leper. If your only "friends" are your attorney, admitted racists whom you claim to abhor and militia-types whom you never met and want to use you for their own political ends, your life is already over.

[Generic Other]

24. Maybe he'll shoot himself with the donated guns

It seems like poetic justice!

[Kennah]

28. I'm rooting for an OJ ending--reduced to thieving and jailed

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 06:02 AM - Edit history (1)

[Gin]

40. Good......may he have to look over his shoulder for a long, long time...he will pay in some way,

Some how. IMHO

[calimary]

31. Welcome to DU, branford!

Glad you're here. Unfortunately, you're probably correct about this.

Guess we'll have to hope for karma to have the last word. Certainly seems to have worked out that way for O.J.

And I hope the reaction to the verdict only builds and builds - to the point where those ridiculous Stand Your Ground laws are dismantled one by one. They're a menace to society! They authorize the "shoot first, ask questions later (or never)" mentality, and give it nice comfy cover. An absolute DISGRACE.

[branford]

33. Changing Stand Your Ground Laws might prove very difficult.

First, Stand Your Ground (SYG), in one form or another, is the prevailing legal framework in most jurisdictions. It is an expansion of the generally popular and accepted "Castle Doctrine" that eliminated the duty to retreat from one's residence before employing lethal force (subject to other usual self-defense standards such as reasonableness, etc.). In many areas prior to the Zimmerman case, and certainly not just conservative states, the trend was to liberalize self-defense statutes with the prevailing notion that a duty to retreat in the face of violence or threats is cowardly or unreasonable. I personally do not see this significantly changing due to one case, no matter how troubling, particularly in "law and order" conservative or purple states. For instance, the new royal baby in England now gets more coverage on many channels than the continuing racial injustice protests.

Second, even states that do not have a SYG statutes are nevertheless SYG jurisdictions by way of common law (judicial interpretation of statutes and state and federal constitutional requirements). I believe that California is a SYG state even though it has a liberal judiciary and no written SYG statute. Similarly, SYG is also the rule in all federal matters and jurisdictions due to federal common law. If Eric Holder prosecutes Zimmerman for a criminal civil rights violation, even if it could be definitively proven that he targeted Trayvon due to race, Zimmerman could still prevail under a self-defense theory not much different than in Florida. In states and jurisdictions that interpret their constitutions under a SYG framework, changing a statute would be insufficient to eliminate SYG. It would require a completely new (and very unlikely) re-evaluation of many decades of common law.

Third, the duty to retreat in non-SYG jurisdiction is often illusory. There are often various exceptions to the duty and one only has to retreat when absolutely certain that they would incur no risk of injury. As a legal matter, this is an extremely difficult burden. As a practical matter at trial, except in very unusual circumstances, juries often ignore the requirement or it is not applicable. Can you imagine the outcry if a potential rape victim had to explain at trial, or worse prove, why she didn't try hard enough to escape her large, yet unarmed attacker, before using lethal force to defend herself. Another more concrete example is the case of Bernie Goetz in my hometown of NYC. Even with a determined prosecutor, diverse jury in Manhattan and sympathetic press coverage, he was only found guilty of possessing an illegal handgun. Prosecutors like to win cases and have a great deal of charging discretion. This is precisely why controversial self-defense cases often never see a courtroom (as was the case with the original Zimmerman prosecutor) or the State only makes a token attempt before a grand jury, and then blames them when they fail to issue an indictment.

Fourth, never forget the proposition that bad cases make bad law. Minorities are often both the victims and perpetrators of crime and both are also often treated poorly by the judicial system. Regardless of your feelings about Zimmerman (and I largely agree), shifting the burdens of proof, giving prosecutors even more discretion and generally making life even more difficult for defendants, will ultimately harm the minority defendants we seek to protect. We do not want to make life harder for the Trayvon Martins of the world in a quest to punish the George Zimmermans.

I would never discourage anyone from peacefully pursuing their political goals. However, I personally believe that the most productive and realistic approach to curbing the inappropriate application of self-defense laws, regardless of SYG, is to mandate by statute proper police training and procedures, including collection of evidence, medical examination and tests for alcohol and drug use, interrogation procedures, etc. If the police could face civil penalty for failing to follow such procedures, the rate of careless or negligent investigations would precipitously drop, and improper self-defense claims dealt with more effectively. Recall that Trayvon's hands were not bagged to preserve DNA evidence and Zimmerman was not tested for illegal or impairing substances. I also believe that such standardized procedures would face far less opposition in conservative states than the attempted elimination of SYG.

Another avenue to explore is the contentious gun rights issue. Regardless of my personal opinions, the Supreme Court has guaranteed that for the foreseeable future that handguns will be legal and accessible. Even Illinois is now a shall issue, concealed carry state. State mandated classroom and range training in self-defense laws and techniques as a prerequisite to gun ownership is likely constitutional and may prevent some avoidable tragedies.

Edit: Sorry about the long post. I was working on a legal brief earlier this afternoon, and my legal and persuasive juices were flowing. Also, thanks for the welcome.

[pipoman]

48. Couldn't agree more..

exactly the take I have had. I have found a few who can relate and understand a post like this as facts and not my political agenda.

I have commented on this case repeatedly simply stating the legal realities of this case with complete disregard for my opinions on any of the matters..there are just a vocal group who can't fathom the way our justice system works and under what limitations..or the implication of many more innocent people by changing laws to accommodate future convictions of people whose criminal cases similar to Zim.

Nice to have someone who sounds like a Democratic civil libertarian on board..

[branford]

50. The law protects even those whom we despise . . .

My understanding of law and culture is often different from visceral emotional response. The death of Travyon Martin was no doubt a tragedy. I, of course, fully understand how many people could be angered and saddened by the death of an innocent child.

A tragedy, however, in not always a crime, no less one that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Zimmerman may very well be a cold-blooded murderer. Only Zimmerman and Trayvon truly know what happened in those crucial few, legally relevant, moments before Zimmerman shot Trayvon. I certainly do not know what happened after watching the trial. The evidence to prove murder (or any lesser charge) was apparently unavailable. The prosecution also poorly handled what little evidence and few witnesses they could find. Most importantly, the prosecution's own witnesses and evidence often supported Zimmerman's self-defense theory. The not-guilty verdict should have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the judicial system.

It saddens me greatly that many equate understanding a not guilty verdict with a belief in Zimmerman's moral innocence or supporting racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals are generally those individuals who often, against the tide of public opinion, seek to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial and rights are interpreted most broadly. It is nothing less than hypocrisy to change or ignore these classically liberal viewpoints because one doesn't like the defendant or if the victim is particularly sympathetic. My faith and support in the Bill of Rights and other legal protections guaranteed to individuals will never change because a potential defendant's views or ostensible actions are worthy of public approbation. Nor will I ever seek to change the laws to diminish those individual rights. To do otherwise would perpetuate, not eliminate, racial injustice. If the law or facts can be ignored to satisfy a baying mob in a very rare matter like the Zimmerman case, future juries will be implicitly justified in using egregious racial stereotypes, not individualized facts and law, to convict poor, innocent, generally inner city, minority defendants. No liberal should ever countenance such an outcome.

My analysis of the effort to repeal SYG laws are but one aspect of the law of unintended consequences and raging against the tide. In fact, I personally believe that the Attorney General raised the issue of SYG as a political diversion to distract the public's attention and ameliorate its response when the DOJ ultimately fails to charge Zimmerman with any criminal civil rights violation.

[pipoman]

51. Yep..

I sense a criminal defense team worker here? I have worked on many criminal defense teams.

The liberal interpretation of civil rights/liberties is inherently a Democratic principal...I am surprised by the number of people who propose things which would result in diminished rights for everyone. How many don't celebrate that we have a system based on a belief that some guilty must necessarily go free to reduce the number of innocent people wrongly punished..is troubling..so Democratic..it has always been conservatives/repubs who were the 'law and order' party believing that it's fine if some innocent are jailed so long as no guilty go free..

The Scales of Justice and all that..

[branford]

52. Civil rights and liberties are not inconsistent with law and order

Generally, people, even attorneys, are not so binary or cartoonish (well, except for some empty suits in Congress or talking heads on television. . .) that they either "support" murderers or seek to hang them from a lamp post at their earliest opportunity. One can support strict policing, long custodial sentences and even the death penalty, while consistently also supporting broad civil rights, the presumption of innocence, due process and comprehensive appeals, rehabilitation and elimination of racial disparities in the judicial system.

Most individuals, liberal or conservative, simply want to live, work and raise their children in safe communities. Good and honest people can disagree about matters like capital punishment, drug legalization and private prisons, but most support our system of laws and protections. Crime is an inevitable part of civilization that must be dealt with in a just, firm and compassionate manner. It's sad that many people see the system through the lens of rare and sensational trials like Zimmerman, OJ, Michael Jackson, etc. Luckily, murder and rape are not the rule, and most individuals are convicted of more minor crimes that most would agree should not result in a life in prison, with the convict ultimately re-entering society. We all have a stake in the system.

I do not condemn people for reacting to the Zimmerman trial. An innocent boy unnecessarily lost his life. However, the optimist in me believes that time heals most wounds, and that with hindsight reason will prevail and people will understand that the system worked, even though they did not agree with verdict.

When discussing celebrity or notorious trials, particularly when an unlikeable defendant is acquitted, I always remind people that you can never predict the trials and tribulations in your life, and if you found yourself on the wrong end of criminal charge, you certainly would want a fair and diligent jury and all the protects that our system can provide.

Lastly, to satisfy your curiosity, I'm a commercial litigator in and around NYC, and been in practice nearly 16 years. Except for some clinical work in law school, I have never practiced criminal law. Although I respect and admire many attorneys in the field, both friends and colleagues who are prosecutors and defense counsel, criminal practice was never my ambition. Practice areas such as criminal law and family law are difficult emotionally, have unique expectations and risks, and a high burnout rate. In my cases, the worst that generally occurs is that my client loses some money (which, of course, rarely happens ) My interest in civil rights is both academic and political, tempered by my own knowledge of the law. I claim no unique or special insights.

[perdita9]

17. Keeping weapons in the hands of unstable people

The NRA like groups are sowing the seeds of their own destruction

[liberal N proud]

19. Oh the things people will donate to.

There are so many needs in the nation and world and people have money to give to a group who buys guns for a person of questionable character.

It's a sick, sick world

[Kolesar]

22. It's a publicity stunt by those dumbasses to recruit more members...eom

[valerief]

25. I much prefer your headline! nt

[davidpdx]

26. Giving money so this psychopath can buy guns

is a real bad idea. He's going to snap and kill again.

[tblue]

27. They want him to do it again.

Gun people are insane and a danger to society. I'm done mincing words.

[24601]

39. "Gun people" isn't a term that lends itself to a universally-accepted definition. To clarify your

post, would you provide some level of fidelity so we will know precisely who you are stating are insane. For example, are you including the following?

1. Senator Feinstein who previously carried a concealed weapon?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273989-feinstein-doesnt-have-concealed-carry-permit-anymore

2. President Obama who took up shooting at Camp David"
[he said in an interview that he did it “all the time” at the presidential retreat....]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/obamas-skeet-shooting-comments-draw-fire.html?_r=0

3. The late Washington D.C. journalist Carl Rowen who "gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot an unarmed teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was on his property illegally."

"Rowan was charged for firing a gun that he did not legally own. Rowan was arrested and tried. During the trial, he argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family. He also said the pistol he used was exempt from the District's handgun prohibition law because it belonged to his older son, a former FBI agent. He was called out for hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate. In a 1981 column, he advocated "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail—period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan

4. Senator Chuck Schumer who has a concealed carry permit.

http://www.theurbangrind.net/?p=6099

5. Sworn Police Officers, FBI Special Agents, Secret Service Agents, military personnel, etc.

6. Sean Penn, Bill Richardson, Ben Affleck.

http://www.nndb.com/event/349/000172830/

Or I did you mean they are insane only if they have guns/gun permits - but also that their political views differ from yours?

[tblue]

41. You.

Didn't know I was gonna get homework. You obviously have way more time than I do to type up responses in the Internet. Sorry. You are wasting your time trying to get me to play your games. I hate guns. If you are a gun person, I was taking about you. I got a ballgame up watch. Bye!

[24601]

42. Thanks for clarifying that watching a game had a higher priority. It is inaccurate to infer I asked

you to mince words. To the contrary, my purpose was to request you do the opposite.

No that you'd end up on a jury, but if you really meant it, the defense attorney would love you if no one with a gun could be found sane.

What is a gun person? I'll try to make it easier so the homework is limited to a binary answer with no short answer or essay required. As you see, some are direct involvement while others may be considered enablers.

Is a gun person....

Anyone who owns a gun?
Anyone who carries a gun?
Anyone who has, within the past five years, fired a gun?
Anyone who fired a gun 40 years ago in basic training?
Anyone who lives in a house protected by anyone who carries a gun?
Anyone who works in a building protected by anyone who carries a gun?
Anyone who has a union pension plan that has stock in any company that employs an armed guard?
Anyone who has an account in a bank or credit union that has a security officer that caries a gun?
Anyone who has a bodyguard who carries a gun?
Anyone who has appeared in a film playing a character who carries a gun?
Anyone who has seen a film with a gun in it?
Anyone who attends classes on a campus that has a security officer who carries a gun?
Anyone who voted for a politician who has ever fired a gun?
Anyone who has taken a picture of, or drawn, a gun?
Anyone who has written or typed the word "gun"?

Than again, maybe it would be easier to define "not a gun person".

[Kennah]

29. There is a bright side to this

All this dancing on the grave of Trayvon Martin is going to turn the American people. I won't be surprised to see legal backlash in the form of legal reform vis-a-vis SYG and use of force.

[1Greensix]

32. Brilliant idea

I think ponying up $12K for guns to give Zimmerman is a brilliant idea, and PUBLICIZE it. Now, Every black male in American has a reason to shoot Zimmerman on sight and be able to claim it as self-defense, since the Law has given him permission to kill blacks without recourse. They will shoot first because they KNOW he has $12K worth of guns and he kills innocent blacks without reason, or consequence. Just self-defense. Because in Florida you only have to think someone is a danger to you. Stand your ground. Let's see if it works for a black man shooting Zimmerman. I were black living in that town I would have shot him already.

[heaven05]

36. No

in that town, state or states with this SYG law, IT WOULD NOT WORK THE SAME WAY FOR A BLACK PERSON FEARING FOR THEIR LIFE. Look at the way TM's dead body was treated. Laid in a morgue, no 'authority' made ANY attempt to find guardians. So it's easy to say a black life is worth less than white lives under this law. A white kid WOULD NOT have lain in a morgue without a search for guardian(s) by 'authorities'.

[joshcryer]

34. Rec for Alt Headline.

[heaven05]

35. what

did I tell you!!! That the racist, men, women and children, rightwing 47% romney voters would embrace this pigfuck with a passion.

[Ruby the Liberal]

37. I hope the IRS is on top of all of these "donations". nt

[JohnnyRingo]

38. Stop it Ohio...

I live here and you're embarassing me.

If Zim still carries after all the trouble he's seen in the past year, maybe he really did hit his head hard. I know he feels threatened, but how many times can he roll the self defence dice with a jury and walk out of a courtroom?

Zimmerman should find out where Bernhard Goetz lives, grow a beard, and quietly move in next door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Goetz

[Sunlei]

43. NRA group with a PAC and member insurance when you kill someone.

So flush with cash they can buy a racial profiler, murderer- more guns.

ref- Buckeye Firearms Association

Defending Your Firearm Rights The most comprehensive protection for armed self defense in America!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/

[shenmue]

44. Meanwhile, there are homeless people.

Food, medicine, anyone think of better uses for this money?

[LanternWaste]

46. And people wonder why I both distrust and ridicule humpers.

And people wonder why I both distrust and ridicule humpers.