Posted on 04/01/2012 5:18:58 PM PDT by marktwain
Robert Zimmerman Jr. is steadfast in his defense of his brother George, insisting that he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin to death in self-defense only because the teenager attacked him and attempted to take his gun, putting Zimmerman in mortal danger. “That’s called ‘saving your life,’” Robert Zimmerman Jr. said.
He appeared Thursday on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight denying that Zimmerman pulled a gun from its holster and fired, instead saying that “he stopped someone from disarming him and shooting him, he didn’t pull out a gun and shoot him. George showed tremendous restraint.”
(MORE: George Zimmerman’s Gun: A Popular Choice for Concealed Carry)
But according to an initial police report, Zimmerman told officers arriving at the scene of the Sanford, Fla., incident that he shot Trayvon Martin. Police reported that they found Trayvon lying face down on the ground and could not revive him. Zimmerman’s father, Robert Sr., told Orlando’s WOFL-TV in a silhouetted interview that the teen attacked his son, threatening to kill him. “At some point,” Robert Sr. said, “George pulled his pistol and did what he did.” His information was based on his own conversations with his son and others, he said.
Zimmerman has claimed that Trayvon pummeled him, broke his nose and smashed his head against the ground, causing severe injuries. But a police surveillance video obtained Wednesday by ABC News, showed Zimmerman handcuffed in police custody and apparently without any of the injuries that would be consistent with a life-or-death struggle. But his brother insists that he actually was hurt and was treated at the scene.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsfeed.time.com ...
Here we go again. What strawman? What comparison of apples and oranges?
To be more clear, by “initiated the confrontation”, I mean Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by chasing Martin.
Apples.
The scenario you described: "The other side of the story is that Zimmerman, by pursuing Martin, initiated the confrontation. Martin could’ve been standing his ground with physical force."
Oranges.
What strawman?
"This case is not as cut-and-dry as either side seems to believe it is."
That strawman. I never said anything was cut and dried. Inventing a fiction and challenging someone to argue against it is called a "strawman."
That would never fly in a court of law as justification for throwing a punch much less shooting someone. No cop would buy that either.
To be more clear, by “initiated the confrontation”, I mean Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by chasing Martin.
Incredibly flawed logic.
Bizarrely flawed logic.
Would the “misrepresentation” you are referring to be when some freeper (was it you?) didn’t know the difference between “straddling” and “standing”? If you’ll click on the this video you’ll hear witnesses Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora Lamilla describe “straddling” as kneeling.
Immediately after the shooting they went outside and observed Zimmerman kneeling on/over Martin who was lying face down in the grass. Zimmerman’s legs were straddled on either side of Martin’s body and his hands were pressed on Martin’s back. Got it?
I'm concerned that you have selective memory issues. Perhaps you should seek medical treatment.
This is the thread where the Viking Kitties were summoned.
The kid presented his information in post #55. The first reply was in post#70. That freeper also pinged the Admin Moderator with a “snif?”.
He was called a troll in post#77, which was also the first summons for the Viking Kitties.
The Kitties were also referenced to in posts #101 and #128.
There were also several IBTZ’s and lots of mocking and insults hurled at the kid.
BTW, the kid’s information was correct!
All those who attacked the kid, owe him a big apology!
And just now on Fox35 it was reported that not only were the Chief of Police and the State Attorney at the police station that rainy Sunday night but Zimmerman’s daddy was there too. This stinks to high heaven!
Bahahaha! How pathetic!
FORTUNATELY for you I reported your post 163, and it was removed.
UNFORTUNATELY for you I had copied your post and pasted it downthread!
Your post #163
“At least three witnesses have reported that Martin was on the bottom, under Zimmerman, face down when he was shot.”
Two of the witnesses you are talking about are Martha Cutcher and Selma Mora Lamilla, and they of course said NO SUCH THING! You were called on it repeatedly, obfuscated wildly downthread, and continue to obfuscate!
No, that is not an example of comparing apples and oranges.
And, no, that’s not an example of a strawman, either.
Also, you are reacting to something I never even said: I never said that you said the case was cut and dried.
ROTFLOL Okey dokey!
There is a sequence of events.
A B C D E F
To say that because a person initiated event A he therefore initiated event F is flawed.
An author of Stand Your Ground even says Zimmerman lost his claim to defense when he started the pursuit: This is just one link to the story, but there are many others quoting the authors of SYG.
-SNIP-
It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law. "The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."
Zimmerman has never claimed Stand Your Ground as a defense. His lawyer has already said any defense will not involve Stand Your Ground. You watch too much NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC.
The Stand Your Ground law was never relevant to this case.
There is no proof what he did.
last I checked if you can’t see someone you can’t follow them. Zimmerman did state he lost track. At that point the pursuit, IF it existed, was over.
remember there are people who will sacrifice an innocent man, on any issue, to protect there agendas, from any side.
At the point that statement was made there was only speculation.
BTW there is no you must let the poop be beaten out of you law. That is like telling a rape victim sit back and think of england.
It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law. "The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."
Note that he doesn't say, "Zimmerman can't claim self-defense under SYG, but he can claim self-defense." He doesn't say Zimmerman can claim self-defense at all. He gives his opinion straight-out: the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin disqualifies him from claiming self-defense. Period. He doesn't add anything else. Now, that's his opinion; a court of law could reach a different decision. (And, yes, I know what Zimmerman's lawyer said.)
As I posted somewhere above, I was in a similar situation a few years ago. We do not have Stand Your Ground in my state. Road rage incident: two drivers blocked in my vehicle, and one got out of his; I got out of my vehicle thinking we'd argue; instead, the guy threatened me. The police told me that my argument for self-defense would never hold water in court because I exited my vehicle. The person threatening me could've claimed self-defense, too, and it would've been his word against mine in a court of law.
Then he's an idiot.
Right, there’s no proof either way. That’s why calling for a more in-depth investigation is more than reasonable.
investigation perhaps. Arrest no.
also there is no such thing as a a perfect CSI case. that is only on TV. you never, ever ever get to the complete truth.
Zimmerman is under no obligation to speak.
Everything he has said to relatives and family has been consistent.
The actual witnesses seem to corroborate zimmerman.
the 911 tapes do not contradict any of the stories reported leading up to the death.
We don’t have any security shop video of the buying of tea and candy. we do not have what the police actually found or where the residue was. we don’t have the bullet trajectory.
Sadly, there is no longer any possibility of a fair trial with the burden of proof on the prosecution. At this point all we have is a mob.
where does it say you can’t follow someone on a public street from a distance?
answer: nowhere.
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.