Posted on 03/28/2012 8:14:15 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
TAMPA - The father of 28-year-old George Zimmerman spoke out Wednesday night. In an exclusive interview with FOX 35's Valerie Boey, Robert Zimmerman says he and his family have gotten thousands of death threats.
He asked that his face not be shown as he explained what happened the night his son shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
Robert Zimmerman says George Zimmerman was going to the store when he saw someone he did not recognize as living in the community.
"Because there have been a lot of break-ins in the area, he thought that was suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk. That he'd be walking by the town homes," Zimmerman said.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxtampabay.com ...
Hearsay would be if George Zimmerman’s dad testified his son told him that Martin threatened his life. It’s second hand information. (snarkytart)
Yes, that is what is on this video link, It may be true, but what you heard is hearsay, and is judicially inadmissible.
George Zimmerman testifying that he heard the threatening words directly from Martin is not hearsay. (snarkytart)
We did not hear what George told his father. We only heard his father describe the gist of what he says his son told him. It was not a verbatim report of what his son said. We do not yet know what George will say under oath. This video post was all hearsay.
If this case were to go to trial,Robert Zimmerman’s testimony about Trayvon threatening George will go a long way in making the case for self defense. (Uncle Slayton)
Robert Zimmerman cannot give testimony about what George heard. Only George can give that testimony.
Actually it sounds to me like someone saying “these kids”. And definitely not in an angry manner either.
1) Why would the officer at the scene "make up" a story about a bloody nose and head?
2) The report says Zimmerman DID receive medical attention at the scene.
3)The surveillance tape is very grainy. NOBODY can tell whether Zimmerman's nose was broken.
I’ve had a broken nose twice, it hurts but no one could see it was broken. A broken nose doesn’t show, I mean it doesn’t necessarilly change shape or lean over...and anyone who makes a public statement needs to read the police report first.
However, keep in mind, how else are they going to create race riots unless they lie like rugs?
If paramedics cleaned him up, there would be no massive blood anywhere unless he needed stitches.
The EMTs cleaned him up. The ABC story does nothing but stoke the lynch mob, and here you are helping. Hmmm.
The 90 year old war veteran husband was beaten and his jaw broken. He was shot in the face numerous times with a BB gun and sent to the hospital in critical condition.
The 85 year old partially blind wife was RAPED and then BEATEN TO DEATH.
Can you just imagine the pain, the humiliation, the horror that dear old lady experienced being gang raped by that pack of feral animals?
(the autopsy states she was raped. Don’t think all of these animals didn’t all participate)
And can you imagine the pain, the horror of that dear old husband having to witness this?
There’s a lot more involved here than a home invasion and robbery.
WHERE ARE THE CHARGES OF A RACIAL HATE CRIME??
90 year old husband’s jaw broken and shot in face with a BB gun numerous times?
85 wife year old semi blind wife RAPED and BEATEN to death??
Why does it take a foreign press to enlighten America as to this henious crime?
Where is the outrage?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117695/Brutal-home-invasion-Oklahoma-couple-ends-65-year-romance-meeting-blind-date.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/20/article-2117695-1240BB4D000005DC-466_634x394.jpg
Horsepucky! I watched your ABC footage that claimed he was shaved bald headed (he wasn’t), and there was no blood (after the EMTs had cleaned and patched him up)! Are you really that dumb, or is it something else?
JC
And further, at about 0:50s into the ABC clip, you can see one of the cops look closely at the back of GZ’s head. Why would he do that if there weren’t some damage there?
Well done. Can you imagine what the narrative would be like had this happened before the Internet? If all we had were the Big 3 to get us information?
ABC article found yesterday compares phone record with gF to time on 911 calls. She heard the conversation between T and Z. Said T asked “why are you following me” Z answered with a question “why are you in the neighborhood” and then she heard skuffle before she lost connection.
101ORD makes a great point. The dissemination of information used to be the nearly sole province of "Big Media".
Freeper conservatism_is_compassion has contributed some great commentary over the years on this subject, the bottom line being that there has NEVER been objective media, it is a myth.
The individual elements of the media would figure out what the message was, package the information into a format that would convey that message most effectively, and distribute it. It wasn't a monolithic enterprise where they were all faxing the talking points to each other, but when they all share pretty much the same world view, that didn't have to happen. The message would be uniform enough.
Uniform enough, then when they would begin reading, watching and listening to each other, they would plagiarize words and phrases to the point where it sounds like an echo chamber. Rush Limbaugh does an interesting exercise where he takes sound bites from various news outlets and makes a collage, and the effect is both hilarious and sobering at the same time. Of particular note was the media's use of the word "gravitas" to describe George W. Bush. While I (and many others) understood the meaning of the word, it is both a word rarely used in conversation and heard and read even less in the media. However, once it was used, it began to bounce around to the point it was ricocheting all over the place, the effect like putting dye in tanks of fluid to see if they are leaking into each other and finding out the leaks are pervasive and saturating because all the tanks are the same color in a short period of time.
For me, a real turning point was when I saw the documentary narrated by Charlton Heston:
Vietnam War - The Impact of Media
It wasn't that I didn't know this, I just hadn't paid much attention or focused on it. But it crystallized for me for good when I saw this. (If you haven't seen this, I suggest you watch...everything you have seen in the media regarding our military since 2003 makes complete sense.
In particular, the video discusses the treatment of the Tet Offensive by the media in 1968. It is shameful, yet fascinating, like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
But we were a captive audience. And many people, no, MOST people trusted the media. They TRUSTED people like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather to tell us the truth, and assumed they did so. It was only with the passage of time that we could look dispassionately on that time, and realize just what took place.
The Internet has changed all that. Personally, I have not read a newspaper, read a magazine (such as Time or Newsweek) or watched a full news broadcast in nearly a decade. I consider myself far better informed than the majority of people I know.
But that comes with a price. With that freedom of not being beholden to Big Media comes responsibility...the responsibility of having to vet information myself and not depend on someone else (such as ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc.) to do it for me. And this is sometimes not only difficult to do, it is occasionally impossible to do, and I am left with having to make a best guess. And not being infallible, I make mistakes in judgement.
This is where a site like Free Republic becomes invaluable. Here, there can be generally open discussion about an issue. Many different people can view the available evidence and with a multitude of perspectives (some useful and some not so useful) an issue can be attacked piecemeal and broken down, much like a bunch of people with hammers and chisels working on a gigantic boulder.
I have found that on FR, any opinion or theory, no matter how crackpot or politically incorrect, can be promoted by a poster. However, I have also found that if you have a point of view, it is not going to be simply accepted as another valid theory, but can and WILL be deconstructed by participants. It is done with experience, humor, anger, insight, ignorance, bias, prejudice and wisdom. What results is, if not a good handle on an issue, is a wider perspective on that issue.
We saw that with the Dan Rather issue.
And I think we are doing that now with the Trayvon Martin shooting. We have all been into dozens of threads on this, and have seen the gamut of opinions and wide disagreement on everything from the general philosophy of the situation down to the minute details such as the condition of the weapon after it fired.
It is both critically useful and maddeningly frustrating to approach the issues this way, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Thank God for this forum.
Yes to both. ABC has confirmed time and they were discussing him being followed. She heard the conversation and the beginning of the struggle.
The way the MSM is playing this story requires a conspiracy between Zimmerman, the cops, and the EMTs to cover for a murder. Of course logic does not matter with the MSM. They want blood. They want death. They want riots. Nothing would boost their pathetic ratings more than having Zimmerman hung from a tree by a vigilante mob. Then some bleached blond airhead anchor could do a live shot sanctimoniously tisk-tisking about the right-wing racist hatred in the country.
Check out the tape at rlmore1 post
It is clear to me that they are subscribing to the old saw about a lie traveling around the world before the truth gets its pants on.
Trayvon Martin is dead....... e pluribus unium
Why all the hubbub?
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.