Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin: Mom says God will hold George Zimmerman accountable
Posted on 04/16/2012 11:15:17 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Trayvon Martins mother discusses her faith as a Christian in an interview Tuesday on Anderson. The same program features Mark OMara, the lawyer for George Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder in Trayvons death. OMara says he hasnt discussed the night of the shooting with his client.
Anderson, featuring CNNs Anderson Cooper, airs at 2 p.m. weekdays on WESH-Channel 2. Judge Jeanine Pirro and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin will discuss the case with Cooper.
Sybrina Fulton, Trayvons mom, calls_herself a God-fearing woman who doesnt hate anyone.
I think a lot of people would find it hard not to hate somebody who had shot their son, Anderson Cooper says.
Im probably not like most people, Fulton says. I have a strong faith in God and I know that he sits high and looks low and that even if the justice system doesnt hold George Zimmerman accountable for what hes done, God will.
Cooper asks if she would be OK with Zimmerman getting bail.
I am going to let the justice system takes its course and thats just a regular process so we dont have any objections to it. Thats just a regular process, Fulton says.
OMara tells Cooper that he hasnt heard Zimmermans version of events.
We have discussed a few things but again I have a luxury of maintaining ignorance for another week or so, OMara says. I havent seen the information and I just think its a better conversation if I have all the information as I begin my conversation with my client.
Cooper asks: So when you say you havent seen the information you mean the prosecutor has not given you the facts that she has based on their fact finding?
OMara replies: Correct our rules suggest that I could get discovery beginning 15 days after arraignment....
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.orlandosentinel.com ...
I hate to see this especially of a mother that just lost a son, but she’s starting to become like Cindy Sheehan. The haters are using her to exploit her son’s death for the benefit of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al “Not a Real Reverend” Sharpton. It’s becoming totally disgusting.
Did it ever occur to you that she might have done so to prevent her son's name being used as a marketing gimmick? Of course, I have no way of knowing if that's the case, but I do know that if I had a son whose name started popping up on hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc., I'd think it prudent to do the same thing. Especially if I wanted to prevent it from becoming a circus act.
God will also hold Trayvon’s parents accountable for the job they did raising their feral thug son.
I’m a mother of two sons. I know how I would react were one of my son’s taken from me. And I would NOT have trademarked his name or any name associated with him under ANY circumstances. How cold. How very cold and calculating. The thought sickens me. I perfer to believe my grief would prevent me from acting in such a calculating manner. Perhaps you and Trayvon’s mother have a different view of life and death.
I don’t care what you think of Trayvon’s mom. Period. You think whatever you want. As a mother, as a woman who has raised two incredible boys to adulthood, I know my heart. I know that I would not commercialize my child’s death. Maybe you have a different world view. Go for it, but by God you have no right to disparage mine! If all you can do is insult, go somewhere else. I’ve said all I have to say on the cold and calculated response of one mother to her murdered son. And that Joe is the real crime here!
Would you allow others to commercialize it, or would you take the necessary legal steps to prevent them from doing so?
You’re suggesting that not a month after my child’s murder that I’d be able to come out of my grief and make legal decisions. That’s insane, not just for me but for anybody.
Actually, Trayvon’s mother could have eliminated our conversation . All Jackson, Shaprton or her lawyer needed to do was offer the explanation that you did about safeguarding her dead child’s name. I’m stymied as to why this wasn’t and to this day hasn’t been done, especially when thir side is courting public sympathy.
Okay, you get the last word. I hope you treat me with the same degree of respect I’ve shown you. But really I’m done with this conversation. This is too emotional a subject, and I’d much rather focus on what’s happy in the world and get away from hate and all that goes with it.
Again, I don't know that's the case here, and yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that if her motives were driven to profit from her son's death, that is truly odious. Since you prefer to focus on what's happy in the world, why is it so hard to (until proven otherwise) extend her the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that her seeking a trademark was to protect her son's memory? If it proves to be otherwise, then I'll be right next to you in despising this lady, but for right now, I would argue that I'm the one wanting to cling to the belief in the best in people, by not ruling out that she sought the trademark with a plausible, honorable intent. Unless you have information that she's actually cashed in, or intends to cash in on her trademark, it's you who are merely assuming the worst.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.