Thursday August 28, 2014
Jump to content
I think you can guess how I feel about any man who raises his hand to a woman or a kid, but I am frankly confused about the case where someone was charged with "a dangerous crime against children: aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument."
What I read about that case was this:
"When the woman opened the door and told Zimmer to leave, he forced his way into the entryway, according to prosecutors. The teen appeared with the pan to defend the woman and his mother from Zimmer, prosecutors said."
"However, Zimmer got a hold of the pan and hit the teen, then kicked him when he fell to the ground."
“'The attack on the child was the most brutal,” said the county attorney’s office. 'When the child came to defend Zimmer’s ex-girlfriend by swinging a frying pan at Zimmer, Zimmer grabbed the frying pan and hit the boy so hard that he fell to the ground.'"
What I see here is aggravated assault all right, aggravated assault by a teen against a man who had no choice but to defend himself. True, the man should not have been where he was. True, for all I know he is the biggest jerk on the planet. True, he carried his defense beyond what it had to be. But!!
HE was attacked! Didn't he have a right to defend himself? Was he just supposed to stand there and let some kid beat him over the head with a frying pan?
They are talking about "10 to 24 years in prison."
Does that make you wonder?
What would have happened if no one had picked up a frying pan and tried to brain someone with it?
Since the man did not stop the woman (his wife) from dialing 911, what would the outcome would have been if the kid had not started a fight?
Two days of testimony, 17 minutes of jury deliberation, and someone is facing 10 to 24 years? Who was actually at fault here? Not for being somewhere he didn't belong, but for getting and using a weapon and turning an argument into something physical?
Once he took the frying pan from the kid, he was no longer "required to defend himself" from that weapon. He then used the very "weapon" he took from the kid, and then proceded to assualt the now unarmed kid with it and then proceeded to kick the kid after he had fallen to the floor. 10 to 24 sounds about right to me.
The man forced his way into the house. He was trespassing and threatening the women.
The teenager was trying to protect his mother and the other woman. He did not go out side to hit the man with the pan.
Both of you make good points, ones that I considered very carefully, but I have a BS meter where lawyers are concerned and the minute I read the prosecutor's statements it went off.
Watch how she used words to manipulate the truth. Read this again:
“When the child came to defend Zimmer’s ex-girlfriend by swinging a frying pan at Zimmer, Zimmer grabbed the frying pan and hit the boy so hard that he fell to the ground."
Child: A 14 year old teenager is not a child; he is a teenager.
Ex-girlfriend: The couple was in the process of breaking up. The woman had not yet moved out. Saying ex-girlfriend is an exaggeration, used to stir up images of angry fights.
Swinging a frying pan at Zimmer: The biggest piece of BS in the sentence. The pan just swung? It never connected? By what miracle did that occur? Swinging frying pans do not stop in midair, make a right angle turn and hit the Governor of Texas. They have to be stopped by contact with something. Also, it is not unreasonable to ask which way Zimmer was looking at that moment, and exactly where on his body the pan made contact? His head? Could be? It had to land somewhere. Why isn't it stated?
Zimmer grabbed the frying pan:Mmakes it sound like it was easy. Was it? Was there no struggle for the weapon? How big is this kid anyway?
And hit the boy: Again the use of a term--boy--suggesting a young age. We don't know how big the kid was, but I'd like to know. If he's a small "boy" it's not likely he's going to attack a full grown man.
Hit the boy so hard he fell to the ground: Is it unreasonable to assume that was exactly why Zimmer hit him? To disable him to that he could not strike again? What would your goal be if someone had just hit you with a frying pan? Mine would be to disable him.
There were other statements that used emotionally words to cloud the issue. (Next post.)
Is this inflammatory?
“Zimmer continued to strike and kick the boy while the boy was cradled on the ground and while the boy’s mother used her whole body to shield her son."
Check that words "cradled."
Consider the words "the boy’s mother used her whole body to shield her son."
Where's the evidence that actually happened? i didn't read it, did you?
And here's something I didn't post because I thought it was too inflammatory:
"Zimmer’s attorney, Michael Bernays, claimed the teen had instigated the whole ordeal, texting Zimmer to get him riled up."
That puts the teenager in quite a different light, doesn't it? The woman who was leaving Zimmer wasn't his mother. As far as I can see she was no relation at all. Just his mother's friend. It looks like some dumb-adze kid got himself in over his head. And why aren't we told what the actual text message said? Don't tell me they don't now.
Listen, I hate (a word I almost never use) anyone who swings at a woman. And what Zimmer might get for doing that, If he indeed did it (no such testimony was quoted) would be well deserved, but if someone belts me over the head with a frying pan he better hope I have time to recover my senses before I come back at him.
Seriously. Go re-read that article. Don't you suspect there's a little more to this than the prosecutor wants us to see? What I see is smoke and mirrors and the usual gullible jury.
One last thing that really troubled me.
Doesn't putting people away for 10 years for hitting someone, but for only 7 years when they kill someone seem just a wee bit off the mark? And 24 years? The guy isn't even being charged with ATTEMPTED homicide.
Sorry. BS meter going off all over the place.
Some 14 yr. old boys are very small and others aren't. I still say the man was trespassing when he forced his way into the house. It wasn't for a good reason. The child was trying to protect the women. The man should have had sense enough to leave. So there !
My neighbor tried to come into my house. We had not spoken since the day my husband went into the hospital and never came home again. Over two years.
I did not want to talk to him. Told him so and he grabbed my door. Thank God for security screens and mine is always locked.
I slammed my door and called the police. You do what you have to do.
"Told him so and he grabbed my door."
Things like that make me wonder if people have any common sense at all.
Think of all the bad things that could have come out of what he did, and then ask yourself where he got the idea that he had any right--and right at all--to force someone to talk to him on her own property. Sometimes it seems that people lose all sense of reality when they get angry. Then there's the usual escalation. From bad tto worse. An instant of thought would immediately tell someone what he was getting himself into.
What is it about people that makes them so unable to think at a moment like that?
I don't know what his problem was and really don't care. As I said we had not spoken in over two years. I don't bother him, my dog doesn't bark, I don't have loud parties or any company that had bothered him or parked in front of his house.
Maybe he forgot his mental health pill that day.
If I didn't have so much "stuff" to move I would buy a different house and move.
The way I figure it, if someone wants to talk to someone he should call. It's quicker, easier, and non controntational. You can pitch your voice in a way that sounds friendly. You can ask if someone has a minute. You can do all kinds of things that work to avoid conflict. But showing up on someone's doorstep with a frown on your face? (Which I don't doubt the guy had when he showed up at your door.) How is that likely to get anything accomplished? It usually means that someone is mad about something.
What do people expect when they show up looking like that?
What do they think they are going to accomplish?
Better still, I know what they think they are going to accomplish: They're going to get to yell at someone, or at least to bitch about something.
You know what I do not understand (and I am very sincere about that word "not")?
In this case, as in so many others, how does love change to hate? You meet someone and care enough about them to want to be with them as man and wife, sharing and caring, two against the world. How can that change to hate?
How? How? How?
Never have understood it.
Were you talking to me about the word "not" or something else?
You lost me again.
Tom; I think that the change may well be an outgrowth of retaliation for pain and also an outgrowth of poor self-image. To the first: a common reaction to pain is to strike outward, don't you think? To the second: a person with a poor image of the value of him/herself is likely to react to negativity by believing the negative input , which causes psychological pain. The pain (part 1) turns to hostility and striking outward. I do think that there are other people who react because they are "controllers" who will fight back when their control is challenged. The topics mentioned above are obviously related and intertwined. Just my take on things....
No, Pat. I guess I wasn't very clear. I have an excuse though. I've been so doggoned sick I haven't had a clear thought in a week.
What I said was that I really meant the word "not" in "You know what I do not understand...?"
I was talking about the fact that I do NOT understand how love "changes" to hate.
Thanks. I may have gotten part of what you said; not sure.
When it comes to psychology I think I am a non-starter.
I had a collison with psych early. One of the first books I ever bought was a Modern Library Giant edition of five of Freud's books, one of which was the "Psychopathology of Everyday Life." Quite an eye-opener for a 15 year old. (That was okay because the introduction written by A. A. Brill [whoever he was] was quite an eye closer.)
And for some largely inexplicable reason I have taken far too many psychology courses in my day, enough to have a degree in the field, but not enough to actually teach me anything. Don't ask me how I have managed to stay so psychologically untutored. I did my best to screw up an innocent and untutored mind; just couldn't bring it off. :-)
I have never managed to understand certain fundamental things, such as how love--it is really is love--can ever change. To me, love is an absolute. Absolutes don't change. It seems to me that if the attraction between two people changes it was not, in the first place, love; it was something else.
Ah-h-h-h! It's all semantics anyway, isn't it? When it comes to human emotions we're dealing with a bowl of jello; there's nothing solid. Love somebody today? Hate her tomorrow? Fine. Your therapist will put a note in your chart saying you are reexamining your definition of a non-technical term.
Que sera, sera.
Buy an Entenmann's New York Crumb Cake, pig out on streusel, and find a new girlfriend.
If you are talking about what I said, "not speaking to him for over two years", I was talking about the neighbor not my husband.
No, Pat. I wasn't speaking about what you said. I've always admired the things you did for Roni. In fact I've often wondered how you managed to do them so well. So I understood who you were talking about when you said you hadn't talked to "him" for over two years.
That makes it even more unwise for him to have come rapping on your door and to have insisted that you talk. And it was even more unwise for him to try to bull his way in. The minute you do something like that you are no longer a neighbor; you're an intruder.
I wonder if he understands how lucky he was that you had the door locked. Had that door opened, and had he stepped through it, he would have been afoul of the law, and the police who showed up would have been interested in just two things: Arresting him, and charging him. Police officers have no patience with people who try to force themselves into someone's house; they know how often it leads to violence, and all too often to some poor cop getting in the way of a bullet. You read about it all the time. I'm willing to bet that most cops worry about domestic violence calls. I know I would.
I never understand human emotions, not in some people anyway. They seem to have only two modes, happy and mad as hell, and they switch from one to the other for no good reason.
That's why I say that whatever happens to the perp in this case, he earned his arrest by pushing his way in. The rest of it? I worry sometimes about what happens during a trial, but the truth is you wouldn't be in that court being tried if you hadn't done something stupid in the first place.
Posting comments requires a free account