The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

I never claimed that GZ was a model citizen. But you were claiming such for TM.

Trayvon Martin was a barely 17 year old high school junior,
who wasn't creating any problems in his community, or having run-ins with the police.
But I never claimed he was an angel, he wasn't perfect. Few 16 year olds are.

But why does the victim of an unnecessary homicide have to be an angel?

It was Zimmerman's behavior that brought about a needless and avoidable encounter
with Martin--he was the one who went after Martin, Martin wasn't bothering him at all.

And, while Zimmerman's past documented aggressive behaviors
indicate something about him, and how he deals with others,
nothing about Trayvon Martin's past behaviors, which Zimmerman
knew nothing about, explains why Zimmerman racially profiled him
and began stalking him.

And I am concerned about how George Zimmerman, with all his guns,
might act in the future. And I see that as the only reason to continue
to talk about this case at all--the trial, and that legal case, ended 5 months ago.

Let me repeat what I said before...

Trayvon Martin was on his way back to the residence he was staying at,
looking forward to watching a basketball game on TV, when George Zimmerman,
with impaired judgment,

decided he was "a suspect",
and with even poorer judgment, and impulse control, began stalking the kid in the dark..

If George Zimmerman had remained in his car,

or, probably, if he had even identified himself,
there would have been no confrontation, and no one would have gotten hurt...

Zimmerman brought about the entire encounter...
and he caused a needless, avoidable, tragic death.

And since Zimmerman chalks it all up, not to his behavior, and poor judgment,

but rather to "God's plan," it's entirely possible,
given his lack of insight, that he will act that recklessly again,
and he'll cause another needless death.

And he has had repeated run-ins with the police since his acquittal.

It's only a matter of time until his next one...

CNN Art Critic Calls Zimmerman Painting ‘Psychotic,’ Compares Him with Manson and Gacy
by Tommy Christopher
December 18th, 2013

Neighborhood watchman-turned-painter George Zimmerman is headed for a big payday, but instead of being the toast of the art world, he’s getting roasted over his initial effort, a flag-themed homage to Picasso, stock photography, and concrete poetry. On CNN’s New Day Wednesday morning, host Chris Cuomo tapped the expertise of New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz, who blasted Zimmerman’s effort, and was beside himself at the thought that the “travesty” puts Zimmerman in the price range of artists like Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, and Roy Lichtenstein.

Bidding on Zimmerman’s painting now stands at $110,100.00 on eBay, despite the revelation that the piece, entitled “America,” is a derivation of an arguably superior work: “American Flag” by Shutterstock.

Zimmerman’s painting is a multi-layered homage/commentary on 20th century art. He cleverly inverts the artistic conceit of Warhol’s “Campbell’s Soup Cans,” instead taking a meaningful symbol of American culture and turning it into a cheap object of commerce. Zimmerman also pays subtle homage to Picasso’s Blue Period, which was inspired by the suicide of his friend Carlos Casagemas. It might also be a dig at the paltry selection at his local Michael’s craft store. Finally, Zimmerman’s placement of the words “one nation” physically beneath the word “God” is a clear reference to the grade-school pictograms of Salvador Dali, particularly his famous “Man Overboard.”

Cuomo brought Saltz in to explain “How can someone like this, assuming you believe the worst about George Zimmerman, how could someone ever want art from someone like this?”

“Mass murderers have made art, and people have tried to buy it, have bought it, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy,” Saltz noted, adding that “In my humble opinion, this person got away with a crime and in that sense, that is the only reason that anybody would want to buy anything that he made.”

“What have we seen in terms of why, what is the fascination?” Cuomo asked. “What is the desire to buy the artwork of someone who’s been connected to, or convicted for, a horrible crime?”

That’s when Saltz delivered his blistering critique, telling Cuomo that Zimmerman’s painting is “a travesty, a placard, a poster, something you might see in protest,” but also opining that “It’s a bit of confession to me.”

“It’s talking about liberty, justice for all,” Saltz continued, marking up the painting with a telestrator. “Well, you know, it’s almost like none of this ever happened. And then also, you have this is his funny little — he’s almost trying to be a cause. And the cause is that I think he is is a travesty of justice, a crime. It’s insipid, it’s not — there’s no thought in it. It’s needing to be the center of attention. I think it’s a bit psychotic.”

Saltz also noted the similarities to the Shutterstock photo, and added that Zimmerman “Just needs attention. It’s just the beginning. This guy is, I think, a kind of person heading for a fall.”

Asked where the current bidding places Zimmerman in the price hierarchy of the art world, a clearly crestfallen Saltz replied “I almost can’t stand that we have great artists, Picasso, Warhol, Lichtenstein, what Zimmerman made, he’s not an artist. To me, what he made was a simpleton, quasi-psychotic painting, in my opinion.”

He also told Cuomo that these bidders are “buying the idea that George Zimmerman, a person that, in my opinion, got away with a crime, is worthy of supporting. In my opinion, he should not even be allowed to make the money sold for this painting.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-art-critic-calls-zimmerman-painting-psychotic-compares-him-with-manson-and-gacy/

Saltz: Attacked by the Left and Right for Discussing George Zimmerman’s Painting
By Jerry Saltz

Yesterday evening, CNN asked me to appear on their morning show, New Day, with co-anchor Chris Cuomo to discuss the above painting of an American flag made by George Zimmerman, who was recently acquitted of murder charges in the death of Trayvon Martin. His painting — an inert posterlike image of a blue American flag with words from the pledge of allegiance set on top — was being auctioned off on eBay (where it was attracting bids over $100,000). The whole thing seemed to be a desecration of Trayvon Martin's memory.

At 10:30 p.m. last night, I posted on Facebook and Twitter that I would be appearing on CNN the next morning to talk about the painting. As many Americans did, I disagreed with the verdict in the trial and the stand-your-ground law on which it was based. In those posts, I wrote that I intended to "say that murderers should not be allowed to profit from their acts. And more ..."


Almost instantaneously, I was attacked by progressives from the art world arguing that I should ignore Zimmerman — since "Silence is a weapon." Funny, I thought that in the art world people believe that Silence = Death. But hundreds of similar comments followed, like: You should refuse; Don't do it; Why encourage him with more publicity?; The only thing as repugnant as Zimmerman is that CNN or anyone else would continue to validate his celebrity status by giving him more press; Why would you do it if they weren't paying you money?; Don't feed the beast; I can't believe you would do it; Don't do it; Saltz is a cockroach bottom-feeder; Please have the strength to say no.


Usually I’d laugh at this kind of rule-making. But instead I had a flash of recognition. This sort of knee-jerk reaction has become familiar to me lately, especially online. More and more in the art world are becoming moralistic, telling artists and critics what they should and shouldn't write, do, or make art about. Never mind the intellectual hypocrisy of this: Those who violate the clublike code are made out to be wrong, immoral, corrupt. Some progressives are more conservative and self-righteous than those on the right.

This morning I went to CNN and was interviewed about the painting for about five minutes. I think I got to a number of my points, in every case using the term “in my opinion.” I was able to say that in my opinion, George Zimmerman is a murderer, a psychotic, that his was a travesty of justice. But I stalled, repeated myself, and am sorry I wasn't better. An article following my appearance was partially titled, "Art Critic (Jerry Saltz) Calls George Zimmerman Painting ‘Psychotic,’ Compares Him with Manson and Gacy." So some points got through. I was home by 8:15 a.m.

Evidentially, the right wing wakes up earlier than the left wing. I checked my e-mails, Twitter, and Facebook, and as I read my messages I grew cold with fear. They were inundated with hate. Sickening glimpses onto the American night.

Here are only some of the messages and tweets sent to me within 25 minutes of the CNN segment.


"nigger lover."


"Hey asshole, you can't compare convicted serial killers with a guy who was found not guilty. Please kill yourself."


"Your agenda is pretty obvious...gay."


"**** you Jew asshole."


"No Saltz, you're a *criminal*"


"On Good Day, you were less an art critic than an Al Sharpton wannabe. You embarrassed yourself."


"You*re piece of ****."


"Faggot."


"**** you Saltz."


"I love the way Saltz thinks he can decide what is art and what isn't."


"Zimmerman's art is "simplistic?" Warhol painted a ******* soup can."


"Stay in NY Salz with all those other fairies and niggers"


"You call Zimmerman "psychotic." You're the psycho asshole."


"nigger lover."


If I was caught in this crossfire, I'm glad I was there. And would do it again in an instant. Silence = Death.

http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/george-zimmerman-painting-jerry-saltz.html?mid=googlenews

God, do these Zimmerman "supporters" spew forth bigotry and hatred. Just as they do in this thread. Zimmerman attracts the real slime in support of him.

Any art form is subjective to the artist and the person who perceives it; there's nothing right or wrong about it. It's like music; it's personal subjectivity.

We all know you're not a good lawyer, but the Geneva Convention regulations allows for any prisoner to have legal representation.

Quote:

PART III – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF PROTECTED PERSONS
8. Notice of trial of protected persons to be served on protecting power, etc.
(1) The court before which:
(a) a protected prisoner of war is brought up for trial for an offence; or
(b) a protected internee is brought up for trial for an offence for which that court has power to
sentence him or her to imprisonment for a term of two years or more;
shall not proceed with the trial until it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a notice containing the
particulars mentioned in sub-section (2), so far as they are known to the prosecutor, has been served not
less than 3 weeks previously on the protecting power (if there is a protecting power) and, if the accused is
a protected prisoner of war, on the accused and the prisoners’ representative.
(2) The particulars referred to in subsection (1) are:
(a) the full name, date of birth and description of the accused, including his or her profession
or trade; and where the accused is a protected prisoner of war, the accused’s rank and his
or her army, regimental, personal and serial number;
(b) the accused’s place of detention, internment or residence;
(c) the offence with which the accused is charged; and
(d) the court before which the trial is to take place and the time and place appointed for the
trial.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a document purporting:
(a) to be signed on behalf of the protecting power or by the prisoners’ representative or by the
person accused, as the case may be; and
(b) to be an acknowledgement of the receipt by that power, representative or person on a
specified day of a notice described in the document as a notice under this section;
shall, unless the contrary is shown, be sufficient evidence that the notice required by subsection (1) was
served on that power, representative or person on that day.
(4) A court which adjourns a trial for the purpose of enabling the requirements of this section to be
complied with may, notwithstanding anything in any other law, remand the accused for the period of the
adjournment.7
9. Legal representation of certain persons
(1) The court before which:
(a) any person is brought up for trial for an offence under section 3 or section 4 of this Act; or
(b) a protected prisoner of war is brought up for trial for any offence;
shall not proceed with the trial unless –
(i) the accused is represented by counsel; and
(ii) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a period of not less than 14 days has elapsed since instructions for the representation of the accused at the trial were first given to the counsel;
and, if the court adjourns the trial for the purpose of enabling the requirements of this subsection to be complied with, then, notwithstanding anything in any other law, the court may remand the accused for the
period of the adjournment.

Is the Taliban party to the Geneva Convention ?

So far as I have heard, when the Moslems have been put on trial,
thay WERE granted defensive legal counsel.

Admittedly, I have not been paying close attention
to the adventures of prisoners of war.

you have to put your 2 Cents worth of bull shyt where you're not even part of the discussion.

That's right! For once in your life; but you can't point to any one of my 80,000+ posts that you can challenge. Mr. Green

by logic, common sense, or credible sources.

Of coarse not! That's because I challenge you to find anything that you can find anything that's not supported by logic, common sense, or credible sources.