Posted on 03/25/2012 12:30:48 PM PDT by Steelfish
Witness: Zimmerman 'Never ... Tried To Help' Trayvon Martin
By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and news services
A woman who says she and her roommate witnessed the final moments of Trayvon Martin's life told Dateline NBC that George Zimmerman had "his hands pressed on his back" and "never turned him over or tried to help him."
Zimmerman's lawyer, when shown part of the interview being aired Sunday night on Dateline, emphasized that his client would be claiming self-defense.
"I think there were efforts made to render aid to Trayvon," Craig Sonner told NBC's TODAY show.
Mary Cutcher told Dateline that she and her roommate both saw Zimmerman "straddling the body, basically a foot on both sides of Trayvon's body, and his hands pressed on his back."
Cutcher added that Zimmerman told her and her roommate to call the police. "Zimmerman never turned him over or tried to help him or CPR or anything," Cutcher said.
Sonner also reiterated what he had said in recent days, that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and a gash to the back of his head.
A friend of Zimmerman's who appeared on TODAY with Sonner added that Zimmerman, 28, was distraught over the teen's death.
"Right after the shooting he couldn't stop crying," said Joe Oliver, who is African American and a former TV reporetr and anchor in Orlando.
Zimmerman has not been charged in the Feb. 26 shooting that has ignited racial tensions and raised questions about the Sanford police's handling of the case. Martin was black, and Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Hispanic.
In a separate interview Sunday, Oliver said that "I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of color.''
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.msnbc.msn.com ...
Thanks for the heads-up. Sadly, he isn’t alone....I’m not sure what is happening here. We’re accepting M-S-N-B-FREAKING-C as a source here now????
Hank
“Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the face, while Zimmerman as screaming for help. Are you telling me that Zimmerman should just have relaxed and taken the beating?”
I have heard everything BUT : )
Another posted a Miami Herald article, that was so hopelessly slanted against Zimmerman, as to be laughable.
You are correct. As you said, you quoted a chunk of my link back at me. I mentioned the entire chapter and I missed that portion as have several commentators.
I also owe org.whodat an apology. What I said about statutory interpretation is completely correct; a legislator's intent cannot be used to interpret an unambiguous law. In this case, as you pointed out, Section 776.041 is clear and unambiguous. The author of the statute did include the language about provocation in that part of the chapter. If Zimmerman provoked the use of force by Martin, then he could not have used deadly force unless he had exhausted every means to escape the danger other than the use of deadly force. That's a factual issue.
I can't tell you, once Martin used force, whether Zimmerman exhausted every means to escape danger from Martin other than the use of deadly force. Are you certain enough about the facts to state that as a matter of law, one way or the other? I'm not. I don't know, blow by blow, what happened once force was used by Martin.
I do know that the statute contains provocation language (I was wrong and the author of the legislation was right), but it's not absolute, as you see from the language of Section 776.041. There are still circumstances under which one who provokes an incident can use deadly force. I'm specifically not saying Zimmerman was or wasn't authorized to do so. I won't make that judgment unless and until I'm more certain about the facts. My guess is that Zimmerman probably wasn't authorized to do so, but that's supported only by supposition at this point.
The facts. Here is the fact, a kid was armed with a snack and a coke walking down the side walk. In the united states that is not illegal and is no ones business. That is the fact.
Thanks, Tas. One was a home invasion deal...in 1976!!
There’s quite a few people that are getting their talking points right from CNN or MSNBC. It’s not hard to spot.
And neither you or I KNOW a damned thing about Zimmerman other than what the MSM and the race-hustlers have told us.
But we DO know this, don't we: If Jackson and Sharpton are on one side, it's a VERY VERY good bet we should be on the other?
We also know this little rat was expelled, though oddly enough no one in the MSM seems to have much interest in why.
But you keep on running with the lynch mob. It's so easy, after all. The left will call you "reasonable," so it's all worth it!
Excuse me while I vomit.
Hank
Maybe you should read post 343.
No agenda there , eh?
On another thread, someone was quoting Mother Jones : )
“Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the face, while Zimmerman as screaming for help. Are you telling me that Zimmerman should just have relaxed and taken the beating?”
I have heard everything BUT : )
Another posted a Miami Herald article, that was so hopelessly slanted against Zimmerman, as to be laughable.
That is a true nightmare.
They go from thread to thread repeating the same thing. They argue based on speculation (prove this didn’t happen!), and use overblown rhetoric (”stalking” etc.).
I've stayed out of this particular controversy up until now, since, based on quite a bit of associated knowledge, I can generally say that most shootings do not involve a "good guy" and a "bad guy"... usually they both are shady to some degree. But that's not what caught my eye in your post.
You are asserting that you cannot start a fight and claim self-defense (as an attack on Zimmerman, I assume... it will be interesting to see what you will say if it is established that Martin jumped Zimmerman). But there is a corollary: you cannot continue a fight beyond reasonable means either.
True story: a friend of mine in high school had a bully who was threatening him in the school. It was because the bully thought that my friend was hitting on the bully's girlfriend (the truth was that the girl spent more time on her back than a luge driver... and was hitting on my friend... along with every other male in the school. But that's neither here nor there).
After school one day, the bully followed my friend out of school and across the street to a McDonalds. In the parking lot, the bully attempted to start a fight. My friend turn around and walked away, at which point the bully jumped on his back from behind. After about a minute of struggling, my friend managed to get the bully far enough around his body so that he could lunge forward and slam the guy's head into a nearby parked car. This stunned the bully, so my friend repeated the maneuver about five more times, leaving pronounced dents in the car and the bully dazed on the pavement.
When the police arrived, my friend told his story to the police. BOTH were arrested and charged with assault. Why was my friend charged? According to the statutes in the state of VA, my friend could respond defensively to the attack up to the point where he was able to disengage and was not under direct assault (after the first head slam). The fact that he continued to slam the bully's head AFTER he got the upper hand was now an assault!
So, assume that Zimmerman walked up to Martin, called him the "N" word, spit in his face, and grabbed him by the testicles. Martin would have had every right to lash out in self defense UNTIL HE COULD DISENGAGE (since the stand-your-ground law does not apply here, according to the law's author). However, sitting on top of Zimmerman and pummeling him (as witnesses describe and as physical evidence supports) immediately transforms Martin from the victim to the aggressor (in the eyes of the law), at which point Zimmerman, even if he initiated the conflict, could then act in his OWN self defense (once again ignoring stand-your-ground, since it doesn't apply).
If Martin was alive today, he could (and probably would) be charged with assault, since his aggressive actions at the end of the fight went beyond what was necessary to protect himself. Just like you can't chase a guy down the street and shoot him, you can't sit on a guy and pummel him after you have the upper hand. That's the law (whether right or wrong).
I know the law well enough to be certain of its application, given a supposed fact pattern.
If Zimmerman is retreating, has broken off searching for Trayvon, then Zimmerman is not in the act of closing distance between himself and Martin. He's not looking for any sort of confrontation - not a verbal one, not a physical one.
There was a physical altercation. I find the available evidence to have Martin the aggressor. The 911 call has Zimmerman screaming for help, so it seems he doesn't have the option of escape.
The question at that point isn't whether or not Zimmerman exhausted means of escape. The justification of use of deadly force depends on reasonably apprehending serious injury or death. Being beaten with fists by a person who has overwhelmed you with physical force EASILY meets that threshold.
-- If Zimmerman provoked the use of force by Martin, then he could not have used deadly force unless he had exhausted every means to escape the danger other than the use of deadly force. --
A number of posters have the impression that following a person is adequate provocation, under the law, to justify use of physical force. It's not. All the indicators point away from Zimmerman provoking or initiating force.
If Martin was afraid, and had eluded Zimmerman, then Martin's best action is to get in the house where he is staying - all the while avoiding Zimmerman. And if Zimmerman comes into view, all Martin has to do is state "I'm staying at xxx with my dad.", or even a less cordial, "buzz off, bitch. What I'm doing here is none of your business." I don't see Zimmerman, who is armed, risking a physical altercation at his own initiative. He'd be the aggressor, lost the right of self defense, if things get bad he'd end up on a manslaughter charge. His CCW training taught him that.
” Maybe you should read post 343.”
OK, I read it. Pretty thoughtful, I might add. However, if it turns out that Zimmerman was attacked from behind, and the kid was on top of him, and beating him fiercely, Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, period! They might slap a lesser manslaughter charge on him, but I doubt it.
I also see no evidence that Zimmerman wanted to manhandle, or shoot anybody, unless you think a big guy beating the crap out of you is no reason to finally, pull out your gun and shoot.
I think your right./s
I see this scenario. Zimmerman calls 911 because of a suspicious person in the neighborhood which has had numerous house invasions/ burglaries in the last 18 months. no information until 911 call with voice identified as Zimmerman screaming for help. Zimmerman in described as having a broken nose, grass stains on the back of his shirt and lacerations on the back of his head. One witness says that Hoodie person is on top Zimmerman beating him. Hoodie is dead.
Why don’t we wait for the final police and autopsy report to see angle of bullet, injuries to Hoodie, knuckles of Zimmerman.
FYI to date:
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html
You know the cops are on the way.
Do you try to run away?
Do you try and fight back?
Or do you try to cover up and take the punches?
Do you really think you are going to be dead from your injuries by the time police arrive?
Oh your wondering why it all went so wrong? and your head and nose hurts so you pull your gun and shoot the guy you confronted?
You NOW think playing the victim and hope it will all go away just as easy as the young life you took away?
It will all go away just as easy as the son you took away from his mother and father?
You now know that they perceive you as being an armed man going out of his way to follow a stranger and whether or not you were aware of the potential for confrontations you must be held accountable for the outcome.
Now it is YOU they want. Anything else will make RodneyKing look like a picnic and it WE THE PEOPLE don't want to give them their Reichstag Fire moment that we cannot afford at this time.
Ridiculous. Support this statement.
I missed the 'provocation' exception in the Florida Stand Your Ground act when I first posted from it. Cboldt picked up on it from the full Chapter 776 I linked and quoted the provocation exception.
There is one, but it's not absolute. Florida Statute 776.041(2) says the Stand Your Ground justification isn't available to a person who:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
I'm specifically not opining as to whether Zimmerman met either or both of those exceptions, because I haven't seen the police report (and it may well include conflicting statements) or heard from all of the witnesses, or Zimmerman, and we'll never hear from Martin. I'm simply pointing out that there is a provocation exception in the Florida Stand Your Ground law, and I appreciate Cboldt drawing my attention to it.
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.