Posted on 04/17/2012 10:02:57 AM PDT by JoanVarga
Since April 11th, the MSM has known at least as much as George Zimmerman's former lawyer told them about the facts of the case. Those facts were woefully out of line with the Narrative. So the MSM just let us wonder about the strange moment and didn't find much else very interesting. Except that it was.
That's why you didn't see this.
It's part of the entire 45 minutes' presser. All you or I got to see was a somewhat strange assembly listening to some lawyers throwing their client under the bus, or publicly wondering whether they had been thrown under the bus. Either way, it's too bad, because that eight minutes should be no mystery to anyone who has followed the facts of the case, sans media filtering.
But it's more than that. The man calls out the race-mongers in no uncertain terms:
...we've had some people come to town who are only relevant in an area of racial strife. . . who, frankly, have a business model based on driving division in racial communities. . .
And he calls out one of Martin's attorneys as well:
. . .actually had an attorney for the Martin family who, as far as we know actually went to law school, get on the air and say, "They need to just go ahead and arrest him and let him prove his innocence in a court of law." Really? In the United States? I don't think so!
Note that he's a former police officer and legal police adviser. He absolutely has to school the young pups about law, offense, and how facts work toward truth. He really throws down. After watching it from the 28 minute mark forward, I almost think he resigned just so he could smack the press around. He really goes after them and especially after the feely-meely questions from the women. Full of goodness. No wonder the press doesn't like this guy.
Watch the whole thing from about 28 minutes on. It's a completely impolitic rant. Satisfying. Or just click link above for the short version of the facts of the case. Either way, I found it worth the time:
Full 45 minute press conference here.
Get the popcorn and enjoy!
Thanks, Scoutmaster. I especially liked his schooling on the idea of offensive speech not being an indication of physical aggression. (If it were, the folks in my nabe would all be locked up.)
me too
1. Broken nose, concussion, abrasions on back of head.
2. Gun shot wound. No other wounds
SO which was the first aggressor?
Case closed.
Agreed. I was looking forward to seeing this guy in action.
This retired detective Sergeant, with 30 years of service, stands with Zimmerman.
This is a racist and politically driven lynching of an innocent man that took the only reasonable option available to him, while he was suffering grievous bodily harm and only when he recognized that he was about to die.
He only had one other option.... accept his own death. I would bet that Zimmerman did NOT want to kill this punk, he simply wanted to stop the threat..... and live.
If I were in the same situation, the bad guy better hope that in the ‘split seconds’ that I have to make a decision, that I figure out an alternative.... or he is likely going to die.
He should have kept this attorney.
Who was the camera dude in the red/brownish t-shirt and who in the audience was he filming?
Yes, I realized that now, and should have before commenting...This is what I get for trying to perform other tasks while reading this article at the same time.
Now that’s vigorous representation: “There is NO evidence, whatsoever, from the time that the earth cooled, to right this minute, that George Zimmerman is a racist...”
Made me snorfle! *puts drink down*
It’s well worth watching the entire presser, but it is especially instructional from about the 25 minute mark onward.
bttt
Very interesting.
Because, "shut up," they explained. "It's about OUR narrative, not justice!"
Thank you for posting this. It does my heart good to hear this man speak.You provided a good service posting.
Thanks for the bump!
I’ve listened to the short clip three times now. It’s just refreshing to hear a man speak to the monolithic media in a way that cannot be misunderstood.
At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, merely so people will know what they may expect if they make the argument about Martin being the aggressor. Remember, this is only a test of the FR Broadcasting System.
"Yeah? But what if Zimmerman pointed his gun at Martin first? That's assault with a deadly weapon! HE was the first aggressor!"
End of test.
Note that saying Zimmerman had the handgun drawn is not only jumping to conclusions, but it's contrary to what we've been told is Zimmerman's story - that part of the wrestling on the ground including wrestling for a holstered handgun.
I'm a little concerned with how narrow Uhrig's definition of 'aggressor' is, but he's the one who knows Florida law. He said 'physical.' Don't know what he would say if Zimmerman did, in fact, point a handgun first. As I understand common law and as I read Florida common law and statutes, that would be little 'a' assault (a common law tort), and quite likely capital 'A' criminal Assault (Florida Statutes 784.011), and double caps criminal Aggravated Assault (Florida Statutes 784.021). Assuming, of course, something not in evidence (and we're told contradicted by Zimmerman): Zimmerman pointing a handgun first, without provocation and legal defense to do so.
The youngster’s don’t understand the concept of “devil’s advocate” anymore.
However, an unarmed teen facing a man with a drawn handgun is not likely to pummel him in the face and sit on top of him, providing a handy target. Plus, he would need both hands to slam Zimm’s head into the sidewalk, meaning he was not wrestling for a gun. He didn’t know there was a gun at that point.
No, thank you for posting this video.
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.