Though mainstream media rushed to paint killer George Zimmerman, 29, as a “hero” after allegedly rescuing the Gerstle family from an overturned SUV on a Florida highway, the family does not want to be affiliated with the man guilty of killing unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
As previously reported by NewsOne, Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of the Gerstle family of four: Dana, 41; Mark, 52; and their two children, Sadie and Matthew, when their blue Ford SUV rolled over on a highway in Seminole County, Fla., 5 days after he was found “not guilty” of second-degree murder.
Zimmerman’s defense attorney, Mark O’ Mara, smugly made the news rounds to discuss how the convenient rescue was “quintessential George,” when according to police records, a young female cousin, and the cavalier slaying of Trayvon Martin, “quintessential George” is a violent, sexual predator accustomed to not being held accountable for his actions.
The Gerstle family was scheduled to hold a press conference Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. but decided against it.
Confirmed: Family helped by George #Zimmerman cancels news conference. O'Mara spokesman: "They don't want to be associated with George."—
bob kealing (@bobkealing) July 24, 2013
O’Mara commented on the “sad” cancellation to reporters:
“I think what happened with them today was they were very worried, and I think were advised by some family and friends, that they really should not get involved with anything having to do with George Zimmerman,” defense attorney Mark O’Mara told reporters.
“And that’s really sad that they can’t even say that George did something good for them because people out there believe he is still so toxic,” he added.
Speaking on the convenient timing of the accident, O’Mara brushed off speculation that the accident was somehow staged to paint Zimmerman in a more favorable light:
“I will acknowledge it was awfully coincidental for five days after the verdict but it was not set up or staged,” said O’Mara. “Really, do you think we would have set up a family of four on the side destroying an SUV for this?”
Actually, yes. I know you didn’t, but do I think you’re capable?
Does it make sense?
But neither does following an unarmed Black child because he’s “suspicious,” shooting him at close range through the heart because you’re losing a fight, then criminalizing and placing him on trial from the grave, with a predominantly White jury ultimately deciding that the “suspicious,” “violent,” dead Black child caused his own death.
If I had to place money on which one makes more sense, I’d go with staging the accident.