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 ...
How do you know he DIDN’T do what the dispatcher said? When he was Todd to stop following, he said “ok”
You ask a childish question and I answered it then you come up with something that has nothing to do with the discussion. If you do not like the governors position write him a letter. But he is correct.
“The ALTERCATION started FIVE minutes before the shooting, when the kids phone went dead. You are trying to say that what happened before the on the ground shooting has nothing to do with the shooting. If you do not mind me saying so, that is as silly as hell.”
***********************************************************
Up thread you suggested another poster use a dictionary. I’d suggest YOU use one.
The following is from a middle school dictionary:
ALTERCATION—”a noisy heated angry dispute”.
So from what source document are you deriving the existence of this 5 minute long noisy, heated angry dispute? Or is that another one of your fairy tales you’re trying (unsuccessfully) to spread here?
The law said nothing about following someone being ‘starting a fight’. IAC, interpreting this law is a matter for the legal system, not public opinion.
All sorts of humans kill all sorts of other humans. When they do it is not my fault. If some white person kills a black person or it is the other way around it is not the fault of all the other people that happen to have the same skin color.
This “story” is about two people. And two people only. The rest of us are not responsible for their actions. I certainly am not. And honestly I don’t care about these two people. I really don’t. The only thing I find mildly interesting is that the “story” is being spun such that it is being used to help get someone re-elected. Someone who has destroyed race relations in this country.
You make a good point. From the perspective of the attacker. Can you determine the intent of the attack as the victim in those cases? Can you as the intended victim afford to say that an attack is not intended to be deadly? I can’t answer for you or anyone else but myself. My answer is no, I cannot sanely make that determination while being attacked.
That’s what people seem to forget. It’s not the intent of the attacker, it’s the perception of the victim. If Mr. Zimmerman felt that his life was in immediate danger, and I believe he felt that way, then he was completely justified in using lethal force to defend himself.
I couldn’t care less if the idiot attacking him intended on killing him or not. If he didn’t have that intent, he should have not engaged in the attack in the first place.
I agree with your assessment on blame. Zimmerman should not be blamed.
The law said nothing about following someone being ‘starting a fight’. IAC, interpreting this law is a matter for the legal system, not public opinion.
It will, unfortunately, and its coming (also unfortunately).
Well I'm sorry but I heard the 9-11 call myself several times and he was told to stop following the boy because the police were on the way. That is fact.
I think you just proved my point.
If you were confronted by Trayvon Martin, how would you know that?
Be specific.
You had no point, all you wish to do is start a personal fight.
Many years ago, I pulled into a 7/11 at a beach city in So Cal. Had my wife in front, my little girl in a car seat in the back. Went in, made my purchase, then came out to my car. I opened the door, sat in the seat, when suddenly the back door opened and a young Hispanic male opened the back door and jumped into my car.
Adrenaline hit me. I jumped out of the car and started screaming at the guy. As I ran around to pull him out, he got out and started running. I chased him a half of block, and he headed into a dark alley... I continued to pursue him. He stopped about fifty feet away in the alley, turned around, and grabbed put his hand in his pocket... staring at me. I stopped, stared back... then common sense came back to me. I slowly walked back to the parking lot.
OK... so I was smart enough to make a scene and chase him away from my family... but in retrospect, stupid to continue the pursuit. Thank God I refrained from running down the alley... the hunter would have become the hunted.
What legal right would I have had if I pursued him, and one of us had gotten hurt or killed? Would my action to continue the pursuit have been justified, even after the threat from his action to my family was removed? Would he be able to claim a threat from my actions and his response would justify self defense?
In the Zimmerman case, Zimmerman was a wanna-be cop, overzealous and always suspicious. Over 40 previous 911 calls. Perhaps he was justified in his concern about this individual. His 911 call was made, and he was TOLD to not follow... yet he did. And no doubt the kid knew he was being pursued, but not knowing by whom or for what reason. So, at some point, for whatever reason, the hunted became the hunter.
So who is to blame???? Zimmerman should have ceased a pursuit and waited for backup as was instructed.
Should the kid have jumped Zimmerman? No, and maybe he did, maybe he didn’t.
Reverse the situation... you are walking down the street, dressed in business attire, talking on a cell and carrying a bag, and you are pursued by someone dressed in a hoodie for no reason... they follow you, you fear your safety, you hide, and at a chance to jump out and surprise/defend yourself... would you? Or would you stop and ask him why he is following you?
Wait before we render a verdict on this. When is it justified for the hunted to become the hunter?
No, it was meant to draw the reader into thinking about the downside risk, from the point of view of the victim. "Steal a kiss" and "cop a feel" especially, don't justify use of deadly force to stave off.
Taking a beating does justify use of deadly force in reaction. Slam dunk, unless the person administering the beating is like some 5 year old kid (or a physical invalid) who can't cause much damage.
Contrary to your contention that "I cannot sanely make that determination while being attacked," I am pretty sure you could tell the difference between a beatdown by a person who is strong enough to break you, from one where the person is NOT strong enough to break you. If you can't tell the difference, they you run the risk of failing the "reasonably" part of "reasonably apprehended risk of serious injury."
-- If Mr. Zimmerman felt that his life was in immediate danger, and I believe he felt that way, then he was completely justified in using lethal force to defend himself. --
The evidence cuts 100% in his favor. He's on the ground, he's overwhelmed by force so he can't even get up to run away, he's yelling for help for at least 10 seconds, etc.
-- I couldn't care less if the idiot attacking him intended on killing him or not. --
Well, I care in the metaphysical sense, but as a matter of law, his ultimate intention is irrelevant. See too, manslaughter, which is often unintentional death. You are correct, the person at risk gets to make the call - and then will be judged as to whether or not the call was a reasonable one. This case is about as cut and dried as they come.
You continually avoid the logic I am trying to get you to see.
Which of the decisions that I posted, approved of by “public opinion” do you disagree with?
The second question (implied) is: “What is public opinion?”
A) The Supreme Court (Dred Scott) decision
B) The Kelo Decision (The Supreme Court and the local municipal authorities deciding that it is for the “greater good” to take form Susette Kelo and give her property to developers in the hope of increased tax revenues)
C) ObaMao care individual mandate. - The “popular opinion” in 2008 elected Barack Hussein Obama and gave complete control of the government to the Democrats. They promptly enacted ObaMao care, with Tom Harkin stating health care is a right.
"We don't need you to do that" is the same as "was told to stop following the boy"?
I didn't think so. Stick to the "facts".
Man, the author of the law wrote it, he was giving his legal opinion as the author, his statement was, that you cannot pursue someone and then claim stand your ground as a defense. Now look it up, hundreds of elected people agree with him. None of them agree with you.
It would be insane to try killing someone with their bare hands when the other is openly carrying gun. No?
And we know the press always is trust worthy don’t we?
</sarc>
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.