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 ...
He’s a very well spoken young man, therefore the MSM will probably not give him another opportunity to get on TV.
If every American saw this remarkable interview, 80% of them would say it was self-defense.
Miserable scumbags just won't stop with their bulls*** narative.
There is enough pro-thug bias built into this article that I threw up a little reading it. Typical LSM garbage woven throughout.
Just one example of the pro-thug bias:
“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.”
The word “But” to start the second sentence implies that the second sentence will contradict what Zimmerman said. But it doesn’t.
Actually, if it’s true that Martin tried to take the gun, that would mean he saw the gun, which means Zimmerman wasn’t covering it up... at least not very well.
If Zimmerman was following Martin, and Martin was running away (as per Zimmerman’s own words), and then Martin saw the man had a gun tucked into his waist holder... then it’s just as plausible that Martin was acting in self-defense, too, even if he decided to get a jump on the guy with the gun.
With all the noise surrounding this case, the story still hasn’t changed: There were two people - one a teen, the other a 20-something - apparently both suspicious of each other. They may have both believed they were acting in self-defense. But, the reality is, one guy was pursuing the other, who is now deceased. The crux of the issue is: If you pursue someone and then kill him if that person believes you are a danger and reacts in his own defense, are you really acting in self-defense?
Exactly. If Martin had killed Zimmerman, he would have had an iron clad defense under the stand your own ground law. Zimmerman came at him with a gun. Taking his gun away and shooting him with it would have been his legal right.
I wish you guys would do some actual research instead of just spouting your opinions. Listen to the police call in its entirety. Zimmerman lost Trayvon and was walking back to his truck when Trayvon surprised him. Zimmerman had wounds on the back of his head and a broken/bloody nose; this was confirmed by both the police and the medics reports. Now I don’t know what happened after that but neither do you. Why don’t you cool it until the investigation completes.
1. There is a big difference between being followed and being pursued.
2. There is no evidence of a visible gun tucked in a Zimmerman’s pants. The story I read, was that the gun only became visible when Zimmerman’s shirt got pulled up during the struggle and that was the point where Martin tried to take it from him. Only to find out that taking a man’s gun away could be a little more dangerous than beating up a bus driver.
The only problem with your theory is that Zimmerman did not come after Martin with a gun. (Hence no arrest) Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle, when Martin jumped him. The gun was exposed in the struggle and Martin tried to take it. (Probably not to admire the craftsmanship). At that point, Martin was the assailant, and Martin was the one going for a gun.
If Zimmerman wanted a confrontation so badly why didn’t he just pull up alongside Martin in his truck to begin with?
Martin had a right to be there, and Zimmerman had a right to follow and question him. Guilt in this matter comes down to who initiated the physical altercation.
If you have a holster on UNDER your shirt and the shirt wiggles up during a struggle on the ground, so the gun is revealed.....
Madison Gray
@madisonjgray
New York
Journalist. Hustler. Two decades, three continents, no apologies. I deliver news the same way I prefer my Scotch: straight, no chaser.
https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/madisonjgray
Maybe. Or maybe Martin saw the gun beforehand. Otherwise, if he wanted to rob or jump Zimmerman, why run away from him in the first place?
Oh yes, it is highly plausible that a man already running away from someone with a gun, will turn and attack the man with the gun. Right. Yeah that makes all kinds of sense. If you are a suicidal imbecile.
Any honest person paying attention to the evidence has to agree that Zimmerman is a hero who nearly lost his life protecting his neighbors from a criminal.
Look at the pictures of Trayvon at 14. He’s got a nice set of teeth.
Look at the pictures of him at 17.
He cannot have had such poor dental hygiene as to warrant that many gold crowns in such a short period of time, lest of all in the manner in which they are installed.
Further, wouldn’t a dental practitioner need parental consent to do that much dental work on a minor?
The “grill work” would need to be paid for, eh? Who paid for that, and where did the money come from? From the sounds of things Trayvon’s mother didn’t have the cash for such dentistry, would you as a father allow your son to destroy his teeth with that sort of thing and would you pony up the money to do so?
The bottom line is that Trayvon was not going to live to see 25 years old. He would have been killed on the streets by another thug competitor in a year or two at the max.
Why lose any sleep over this kid? He had chosen his path in life and he chose badly. His life just ended a little sooner than the statistics may have suggested.
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.