Skip to comments.Witness: Zimmerman 'Never ... Tried To Help' Trayvon Martin
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 ...
Ummmm, an “act deadly force” justified or unjustified, has nothing at all to do with the US Constitution, as felonies are determined by state and local law.
An unconstitutional “act of deadly force” would describe the FBI accidently raiding your house and shooting you without a warrant.
Individuals, almost by definition, don’t do “unconstituional” things, the government does. Individuals do however do unlawful things. Whether that describes Trayvon or Zimmerman, is, constitutionally....up to the courts, not Jesse Jackson, CNN, Obama, or the Black Panthers to pre-judge.
That’s what’s so terrifying about this whole thing—no one really knows what happened yet, and Zimmerman REALLY needs to be considered “innocent until proven guilty”...constitutionally.
It’s inexcusable that folks are picking sides here...all because the color of their skin.
I saw this earlier on another thread caww. Thanks. Spread it around.
About Zimmerman ‘taking a stand’ - I thought he was flat on his back getting his face rearranged when he decided to end it. It’s not like he could have walked away from it then or started singing Kumbayah, now could he?
I swear if I were Zimmerman, I’d figure out a way to flee the country.
I trust the US legal system so little, and issues of race in particular, that there will be no way he will get a fair trial... (and he may well get murdered in any event).
GO TO ARGENTINA MAN!
Black on Hispanic - Hispanic on Black
Democrat on Democrat for sure.
Not bad advice, quite frankly..
And I bet we will soon see the photos of his face after being attacked in such a viscious manner.
The only thing this guy should have been armed with is his cell phone, eyes, ears and pepper spray. Oh and common sense. No wonder he never made the cut. He's lucky he made it to 28.
Make the armies of thugs looking to ice Zimmerman do some serious work for their $10K. Could make for some entertaining MSM news broadcasts if they aren't too committed to covering up for their new masters, the NBPP.
It’s not BS. The very hypothetical scenario you give illustrates a case of the use of deadly force, and in which case deadly force may be used. For example, the cops can’t use deadly force to bring down an unarmed fleeing felon.
The use of deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack violates the due process clause of the constitution.
This is nothing to do with the due process clause. George Zimmerman is not a state actor. He does not represent a governmental body, so the due process clause does not apply.
So by your logic, the victim is lucky to have made it to 17?
Self defense, of course. And there's no law against following if one is not harassing. Don't try to cheat anybody out of them, ok?
Self defense, of course. And there's no law against following if one is not harassing. Don't try to cheat anybody out of them, ok?
OMG you are insane. Wow. LOL.
You said: “The use of deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack violates the due process clause of the constitution.”
Try sticking to your own statement and not switching topics. And, yes, a person, cops included, is justified in shooting a fleeing felon in certain circumstances. You should get to know the law before you continue to say stupid things about the law.
Laws don't give rights.
They restrict them.
Amazing, this guy is.
org.whodat already has his verdict of ‘guilty as hell’ in against Zimmerman. He just can’t get anybody to agree with his case becasue it is all based on racial double standards and special preferences that he would never apply to himself.
Self defense is not following someone and messing with them, dang. If he had stayed in his car and played with his gun until a real cop got there, which was a waste of the cops time, he, zimmerman, would not be looking at jail and someone wasting his rear.
I think I’ve just seen THE most moronic post on Free Republic EVER. LOLOL.
This Oliver guy is about to be subjected to the same treatment as Clarence Thomas.
If you have 5-10 witnesses describing a situation, you'll have 5-10 different stories, interpretations, and recollections over events that often happen in a blink of an eye. Sometimes those are mistaken after talking to other people. Mary and John could both be telling what they think is the truth.
I’m gonna fess up front that I’m female so I don’t get accused of sexism.
It appears as an observer and occasional poster that it’s females largely that are coming down on the side of Martin.
I think the cute kiddie pics of him stirred up something maternal.
My alternate theory is the Mars vs Venus thing.
some are proposing the law of the jungle - You look at me funny - I’ll kill you.
Or die trying, I guess.
What law gives him the right to violate the kids civil rights. And you do not know anyone left anywhere. And the girl friend of the kid heard zimmerman before the phone went dead. And keep your childish personal insults to yourself.
Yes they can.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.-- A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
What Zimmerman did in his car is none of your damn business...and what you play with in your car is none of HIS damn business...and NEITHER of which has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING relating to being jumped/mugged/pinned and screaming/pummeled from behind...nowhere to go. WOW. You’re not very bright, are you?
Murder? I wouldn't go that far. It would be awfully tough to prove the mens rea in that situation. Certainly not 1st degree. 2nd degree could be argued, but I think there's certainly reasonable doubt for that.
I'm speculating, but based on the limited information I've seen (nobody here knows all the facts) if there is going to be a case, it would be for manslaughter.
That make any sense to you?
Now if Zimmerman had pistol whipped Martin or threatened him or shoved him or punched him, that would a different story. But that is not what I’m getting.
I will admit, after doing a bit more looking, I can’t say for certain of that is him. I’ve been told it is, and isn’t. If not, my mistake, if that’s the case.
You are of course correct. Plus - killing someone at short range - emotional on top of physical trauma.
It is the “blood on the back of the head” that seals the confusion. AFTER a shot like that - the tendency is to go on autopilot - fight or flight. I could fight like that - but I could’t do algebra. Probably - fighting is about all I could do like that. It triggers a very specific feeling. A much reduced instruction set running in the brain. It’s been a while since I’ve had one fo those - but I bet there is an adrenaline/endorphine event that occurs. COMPLETELY different from a frontal lobe impact.
The cops would know this - same as you.
There is one aspect you leave off - the confusion of both guys. (It really is just a “two dumb guy” event.) - Martin probably assumed he was being followed by some Hispanic hard case. Zimmerman THOUGHT he was dealing with a career criminal.
NO; Not unless the cops are themselves in danger of life or in danger of serious physical injury.
See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
There’s a lot of things that Zimmerman could of done wrong that might have justified Martin retaliating physically - problem is that there is no available evidence that Zimmerman did any of them.
Tas, you are correct....most are female, and all of those cute little pictures of Martin(before he became a thug) were just too much for them.
That's not what your [blockquote] citation says, it's not what the case itself says, and your citation also undercuts your assertion that the police may not use deadly force against an unarmed felon.
Your credibility is being damaged by your carelessness.
Actually, it does matter how it began. Individuals have the right to defend themselves from assaults and batteries. There does not have to be contact made for there to be an assault or battery (Criminal definitions, not torts). People also aren't 'defenseless' on the ground, although a lot of people do not have good ground defense techniques.
Now, if some guy is following me around, I'm going to try and first avoid it. Martin did that, based on both Zimmerman's call and Martin's girlfriend's call. That's a smart policy. Zimmerman got out of his car and looked for Martin, for whatever reason. (avoiding the speculation). I find that piss poor judgment at best. What we don't know is how Zimmerman or Martin acted between this time and the shooting.
IF (speculation) Zimmerman was closing into close contact range (you can speak from a distance), I'm going to, based on known action, assume that he has bad intentions and not wait for him to throw the first punch, and I'm going to stop the threat by knocking him out (so he can no longer fight) and going home.
Soooo...if I think you or ANYONE is following me for a minute or two...from a distance...and no words are spoken/exchanged PERIOD...
...then you have broken the LAW and VIOLATED my CIVIL RIGHTS. Should we arrest you now? Maybe put a bounty on your head?
I'll bet that you are just too emotionally invested to honestly admit that none of these laws deprive Zimmerman of the right to self defense, but you know that you cannot come right out and say so because that makes you look too bad, so you try to change the subject and say that I don't understand these laws.
I do understand that none of these laws deprive Zimmerman of the right of self defense, and until you come right out and say that Zimmerman in some way has given up his right to self defense under these laws then you don't have a chance of even starting to make your point, whatever exactly that is.
What “stuff” am I “making up”? Be specific.
Did she speak at anytime under oath? If not, there's no perjury. There's good cross-examination material, but not perjury.
Do you even have any conception of what ‘reasonable doubt’ or ‘lack of evidence’ means?
“Who’s job, zimmerman was unemployed according to the news paper and had been for a long time.”
That is a flat out lie.
Two sources have confirmed to the Orlando Sentinel that Zimmerman is, or until recently was, an employee at the Maitland office of Digital Risk, LLC, a mortgage risk-management firm.
The sources one is a former employee, the other currently works for the firm, which also has offices in Jacksonville, New York, Dallas and Denver spoke to the Sentinel on condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to speak to the media.
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.